When Proposition 8 was fought at the ballot box in California to deny the newly-minted right to marry for gay and lesbian couples, those leading the charge were mainly religious. The Mormon Church gave more than $180,000 in efforts to repeal the new marriage law. That was peanuts though compared to the nearly $730,000 in cash and services provided by Colorado-based Focus on the Family and the $1.275 million given by the Catholic Church group the Knights of Columbus.
The religious argument against marriage equality for gays and lesbians may have won the round at the ballot box, but in the San Francisco courtroom where the legal battle to overturn Prop. 8 wraps up its first week, religion has been largely absent. Religious arguments don’t hold a lot of legal water, so anti-marriage equality proponents are forced to use their secular arguments, and reading reports from the courtroom (since the U.S. Supreme Court nixed video coverage of the trial), they’re leaking fairly badly as well.
Without being able to argue that God ordained one man and one woman for life (never mind all that Old Testament polygamy) and so we cannot deviate from that pattern, those opposed to same-gender marriage are instead focusing on issues like parenting, economic impact, discrimination, and child rearing.
In their opening arguments, defense attorneys laid out their case:
Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for the Proposition 8 defense (…) is hitting the main points in the defense: that the voters have spoken on the issue, and gay couples in California enjoy strong legal protections under domestic partnership laws. (…) Cooper finished his opening statement, defending the need for society to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and limit it to heterosexual couples for its procreative purposes. He told the judge that marriage must be “pro-child,” and that would be at risk if same-sex couples were allowed to marry. Cooper insisted that the courts should stay out of the issue and allow the voters to decide whether they want to allow same-sex marriage, but the judge questioned that thesis. “There are certainly lots of issues taken out of the body politic. Why isn't this one of them?” the judge asked at one point.
Throughout the week, the plaintiff’s lawyers have taken a whack at each of those issues, and more. Harvard University historian Nancy Cott was the first to dismiss the idea that marriage should be reserved for procreation.
Her task to start the second day of trial is to knock down one of the central arguments of gay marriage foes: that the state has a compelling interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples because of the procreative purpose of marriage.Asked by plaintiff’s attorney Theodore Boutrous whether procreation is a central purpose of marriage, Cott scoffed, nothing that President George Washington, “the father of our country,” was sterile by the time of a later marriage.
“Procreative ability has never been a qualification for marriage,” she testified.
It was on her cross examination by Prop. 8 attorney David Thompson that Jesus made an appearance:
Thompson is challenging one of Cott’s ideas that modern marriage laws are shaped now by civil law and social developments; the defense attorney is pushing hard on the anti-gay marriage thesis that heterosexual marriage is tied to history and religion restricting unions to men and women. He repeatedly suggested in his questions that marriage laws are tied to Christianity. At one point, asking Cott about monogamy being the result of the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, the professor got a little impatient. “I know very little about Jesus Christ and his apostles,” Cott shot back at Thompson.
Certainly, Cott should not need to know about Jesus and his apostles to make the case that marriage should be open to same-gender couples. While marriage between a man and woman has been tradition, so has the idea that women are the property of men. Much of the “tradition” of marriage has changed over the course of history. Opening up marriage to same-gender couples certainly won’t destroy marriage, and according to UCLA professor Letitia Peplau, it won't affect heterosexual marriages:
Peplau… noted that even if gay marriage is allowed, only about 2 percent of all marriages in the nation would be same-sex. “I think it would have no impact on the stability of heterosexual couples,” Peplau testified.
The defense was really grasping for religious straws, however, during cross examination of George Chauncey, a Yale University expert on the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians. Chauncey laid out “how gays and lesbians have been discriminated against and demonized through much of the first half of the 20th century.”
(They were) the target of criminal enforcement by local police whenever they gathered. “They had to hide the fact they were gay,” he testified, describing sweeps of bars where gays and lesbians were found. Chauncey then moved forward in history, through banning gays from the military at the outset of World War II and up through employment discrimination in more modern times. (…) (He testified) about the public campaigns “demonizing” gays and lesbians for decades, from newspaper accounts in the 1930s to Anita Bryant’s famous campaign against homosexuality during the 1970s.
Prop. 8 attorney Thompson tried to show that gays and lesbians don’t have it as bad as they say they do, pointing to a growing tolerance of homosexuality in society. Laughably, his examples were the popularity of the TV show Will & Grace and the movies Brokeback Mountain and Philadelphia. It got even more absurd when Thompson tried to argue that religious groups were even becoming more accepting and tolerant:
Chauncey has pointed out that the religious groups he (Thompson) cited—MCC, Unitarians, etc.—are not the majority of Christian groups.Chauncey: “There’s a growing debate [in religions], but most religious groups are not with us.”
Thompson: “Most evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage, but isn’t it true that demonization of homosexuals has become less accepted?” Now, they’re showing some video footage of Pastor Rick Warren—who said that everyone should be accepted and show “common grace to each other” but we shouldn’t be “redefining marriage.”
As the week wrapped up, the discussion turned back to children as the plaintiffs sought to show that gays and lesbians, while not “pro-creative” themselves, do often have children through previous marriages, adoption, or artificial insemination procedures, and they make for good parents.
It is pretty clear why the plaintiffs have Cambridge professor Michael Lamb on the stand as an expert. He quickly got to the opinions he’ll outline on gay parenting, saying there is “substantial evidence” that children raised by same-sex couples “are just as likely to be as well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.” The testimony is designed to undercut one of the fundamental arguments against same-sex marriage: that it undermines traditional heterosexual marriage and its role in child-rearing. Indeed, there already has been ample evidence in the trial that the Prop. 8 campaign warned voters that gay marriage was an outright threat to children generally.
The only thing Prop. 8 attorneys had to try to discredit Lamb was to reveal his membership in the ACLU, NOW, the NAACP, and his tendency to contribute money to PBS.
For all the religious wrangling before last November’s vote on Prop. 8, the religious examples put forth in the courtroom so far have fallen flat—touting the unmarried Jesus as a model for monogamy and the toleration of gays and lesbians by liberal churches. Instead, the trial so far has shown that far from causing the downfall of civilization and further secularization of our nation, allowing marriage equality for gays and lesbians will help our society economically and socially, result in less discrimination, and perhaps bring more well-adjusted children into the world. Why, in God’s name, would anyone oppose that?
Tags: charles cooper, gay marriage, lgbt, michael lamb, mormons, nancy cott, prop 8, proposition 8
Candace, Why can't we settle for half, so to speak, and call it 'civil union' instead. It's clear that they take such grave umbrage at the use of the word 'marriage'. The rights granted if won would still be the same. At the same time, a great number in the masses would be mollified.
PS. Thank you and God bless you in your work.
Well, personally I have been refused the opportunity to visit and treat my father-in-law after open heart surgery by the nurse due to the lack of marriage. I had an hour to do my healing touch, as I promised him I would and the nurse tried to stop me due to lack of legality and her religious opinion even though the family had included me in the family list so I could drop in and treat. Luckily I was able to "pull rank" and ask that the attending Doctor inform me, and I got to treat and leave before this. With healing touch and other alternatives he had a much reduced ICU and accelerated healing that even this nurse acknowledged, but not to me as I was not worthy of family even though Mom and Dad lived with us and we cared for them for years by this time. Another issue that marriage would have solved was the relations with my ex-husband who responded to the Southern Baptist Convention decrees each summer to take the lead of their wives and tried to treat me and instill in my son the idea that I must follow his lead. As an ex-wife this is mute however, re-marriage to my now Canadian recognized wife has revolutionized my son's understanding of my own independent personhood and the validity of my union with my wife of 19 years,son is 22 years. Civil union does not hold water when you stand in front of the 50% who hold religious opinions that do not see your humanity and equal spirit and soul. These are the times when we are most vulnerable and rely on the humanity of all. How would you like to take a 50/50 coin toss in an emergency and see if the person values you as human or values their religious opinion of you more?
OneOfTheWatchers, I would respectfully inform you that you are mistaken. civil unions do not grant the same rights as marraige. Neither on the state nor federal level. Please, do not take my word for it, look into it for yourself. You will be very surprised.
Guys and gals, this something I did not know! Forgive my ignorance. I will indeed have to look this up. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.
Hey "Oneof ..." thanks for your reply.
Others have already offered you good explanations of why a "separate but equal" institution of civil unions would still be unacceptable. I agree with them. When one separates out "civil union" and "marriage" it creates separate classes of union, whether they are legally equal or not.
For instance, religious folks who oppose marriage equality for gays and lesbians say that marriage is a religious institution - a sacrament reserved for one man and one woman. If that's true, why aren't they insisting that atheists who want to "marry" - or non-Christians who want to "marry" - be forced to have a "civil union" instead? If marriage is a religious sacrament, then only those who recognize it as such should get one.
Separating "marriage" and "civil union" could lead to such a ridiculous distinction in marriage.
I realize people are getting hung up on the term and that is causing much of the conflict, but being able to say you are "married" and not "unionized" or whatever, has a lot of social power. Marriage is recognized as a commitment in a totally different way than a "civil union." Words really do have power, and for our community, it's important that we're included in the word "marriage."
When my partner and I got married in Canada last year, it was a powerful, and empowering, experience. To be able to stand at the counter in a government office and have a clerk prepare your papers as a matter of routine - like it's no big deal - was really a big deal. No protest, no "you can't do that" - just, "pay your fee and sign here." It made us feel like real, first-class, fully recognized citizens - even if we weren't Canadian citizens. That's what equality feels like and we can't settle for anything less than that.
Candace, Thank you for the clarification.
Sometimes I am so very frightened for the future when it concerns all homosexuals. As I explained my living conditions in your last article, I myself, wage a personal daily battle with the fearful bigots. It scares me a great deal.
On the other hand, it infuriates me to no end, when I hear the words of so-called devout Christians, and the hatred and bogotry that they espouse. To me that is the complete antithesis to the tenets of Christ's teachings.
As I search my soul, I find that my fear is outweighed by what I believe to be right.
I choose to fight!
May the peace of God be with us all. And may He grant us the wisdom and strength to overcome the bigotry, ignorance, fear and hatred.
I appreciate "OneOfTheWatchers" desire to be find a win-win, but I for one cannot get past the "separate but equal" thing. Most of us were raised in a culture - overtly or not - which repeatly emphasized (still does actually) what a huge deal marriage is to the community. When you get married, there are kudos galore; it's akin to getting pregnant, and beyond the public congratulations of something much harder, like graduating. So basically we grow up being taught that marriage is THE thing, that we'll find that "right boy" or "right girl" someday, and we'll get the rings and the fancy outfits and the cake and the dancing and the toasts and gifts and the weeping mothers and proud fathers. Then we figure out we're gay, and we slowly understand that no, we don't get that. We have to settle for civil unions. Goodie.
See, I'm not willing to sacrifice our equality to mollify anyone. I don't necessarily want a big wedding with all the trimmings, unless I find that "right guy" someday who DOES want it. With or without the trimmings, I DO want it to be called a marriage.
Peace.
Point well taken. I pray God that you DO find the 'right guy' someday. I'll be quite honest.....I would be green with envy. I don't think I'll ever be that lucky, esp. in the white bread myopia I'm domiciled at the current moment.
Allow me to pose this...
Now that I've been blessed to find people via this post that I can relate to. I'd like to tell you a little story, and what I had said at the time. I would greatly appreciate yours and Candace's thoughts as to my statement.
I was living with friends who had 3 teenage boys. It was a very accepting arrangement at the time. I couldn't afford an apt on my own, so I rented a room and bath from them, and became part of their family.
On my day off, I would usually prepare a nice dinner, something new all the time. As we were gathering, and setting the table, my friends' second son came outta the blue and asked me what I had thought about "Gay Marriage'. His mother immediately scolded him, "How dare you ask such a question! That's a very sensitive topic." I allayed her by saying, "Don't yell at the boy for wanting to know. I'm not in the least offended by it." I mused for a minute or two, then this, "I don't believe that we as a species are spiritually mature enough to accept such a social change." His father(who was born and raised muslim), without missing a beat, responded, "EXACTLY!"
I would so greatly appreciate your thoughts, both yours and Candace's, as to my philosophy. I have to go to work now and won't be able to see your responces till this evening. Until then, I anxiously wait.
God bless you both.
Well, I don't have high expectations of finding the right guy, but one never knows I guess!
There's an idea that I'm sure isn't new, but I learned it from a tape series by Stuart Wilde: we can choose to evolve with the crowd, or we can evolve on our own. I believe that in some cases, it is easy to assume that the good of the whole is more important than that of the individual when it really isn't. My thought: individuals are what make up the whole, and a legal recognition of same-sex marriage would affect each individual differently. I still do not see much risk of any individual being affected negatively, barring very strange unique circumstances on which I couldn't begin to guess.
In some ways, the society wasn't mature enough to handle the civil rights movement, but it was still the right thing to do.
Okay, that response was scattered, but I think maybe it goes somewhere!
No, you're fine. I followed everything.
I like your thoughts on the matter. Very insightful.
Peace
Very well-written piece, Candace. Well, indeed.
To be able to stand at the counter in a government office and have a clerk prepare your papers as a matter of routine - like it's no big deal - was really a big deal. No protest, no "you can't do that" - just, "pay your fee and sign here." It made us feel like real, first-class, fully recognized citizens - even if we weren't Canadian citizens. That's what equality feels like and we can't settle for anything less than that.
----
Ed Hardy UGG Boots tiffany jewellery
When you get married, there are kudos galore; it's akin to getting pregnant, and beyond the public congratulations of something much harder, like graduating. So basically we grow up being taught that marriage is THE thing, that we'll find that "right boy" or "right girl" someday, and we'll get the rings and the fancy outfits and the cake and the dancing and the toasts and gifts and the weeping mothers and proud fathers.
----
Ed Hardy UGG Boots tiffany jewellery
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.