Think Humanely

US District Chief Judge Walker ruled this past Wednesday that Proposition 8 in California, which stripped away the right of marriage from same-sex couples, was blatantly unconstitutional. He specifically pointed to its violation of the Due Process Clause as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which “provides that no state shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.’” He wrote, “Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it denies plaintiffs a fundamental right without a legitimate (much less compelling) reason.”

Below you’ll find numerous excerpts of the 136-page decision, starting first with his comments about the witnesses for both the plaintiffs (thus wanting equal rights for same-sex couples) and then the defendants (those wanting to continue depriving same-sex couples a right enjoyed by everyone else). Then you’ll find excerpts from Judge Walker’s findings of fact. This is his articulation of what information he found to be factual pertaining to the case and the conclusions he has reached. The full decision can be found here, and it is absolutely worth reading in full.

In respect to witnesses for the plaintiffs, he found the following:

Jeffrey Zarrillo […] testified about coming out as a gay man (Tr 77:12-15: “Coming out is a very personal and internal process. *** You have to get to the point where you’re comfortable with yourself, with your own identity and who you are.”) Zarrillo described his nine-year relationship with Katami. (Tr 79:20-21: “He’s the love of my life. I love him probably more than I love myself.”)

Paul Katami […] testified about his reasons for wanting to marry Zarrillo. (Tr 89:1-3: “Being able to call him my husband is so definitive, it changes our relationship.” Tr 90:24-91:2: “I can safely say that if I were married to Jeff, that I know that the struggle that we have validating ourselves to other people would be diminished and potentially eradicated.”) Katami explained why it was difficult for him to tell others about his sexual orientation even though he has been gay for “as long as [he] can remember.” (Tr 91:17-92:2: “I struggled with it quite a bit. Being surrounded by what seemed everything heterosexual ***you tend to try and want to fit into that.”) Katami described how the Proposition 8 campaign messages affected him. (Tr 97:1-11: “[P]rotect the children is a big part of the [Proposition 8] campaign. And when I think of protecting your children, you protect them from people who will perpetrate crimes against them, people who might get them hooked on a drug, a pedophile, or some person that you need protecting from. You don’t protect yourself from an amicable person or a good person. You protect yourself from things that can harm you physically, emotionally. And so insulting, even the insinuation that I would be a part of that category.”)

[…]

Jerry Sanders, the mayor of San Diego and a lay witness, testified regarding how he came to believe that domestic partnerships are discriminatory. (Tr 1273:10-17: One a last-minute decision not to veto a San Diego resolution supporting same-sex marriage: “I was saying that one group of people did not deserve the same dignity and respect, did not deserve the same symbolism about marriage.”)

Ryan Kendall, a lay witness, testified about his experiences as a teenager whose parents placed him in therapy to change his sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. (Tr 1521:20: “I knew I was gay. I knew that could not be changed.”) Kendall described the mental anguish he endured because of his family’s disapproval of his sexual orientation. (Tr 1508:9-10, 1511:2-16: “I remember my mother looking at me and telling me that I was going to burn in hell *** [M]y mother would tell me that she hated me, or that I was disgusting, or that I was repulsive. Once she told me that she wished she had had an abortion instead of a gay son.”)

The Judge then wrote the following about the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs:

Plaintiffs called nine expert witnesses. As the education and experience of each expert show, plaintiffs’ experts were amply qualified to offer opinion testimony on the subjects identified. Moreover, the experts’ demeanor and responsiveness showed their comfort with the subjects of their expertise. For those reasons, the court finds that each of plaintiffs’ proffered experts offered credible opinion testimony on the subjects identified.

Now compare all of the above with the “credibility” of the defendants’ witnesses (as if the mother’s treatment of her son isn’t sufficiently revelatory). First, it should be known that the defendants “elected not to call a majority of their designated witnesses to testify at trial.” They also “called not a single official proponent of Proposition 8 to explain the discrepancies between the arguments in favor of Proposition 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court.” The highly disingenuous reason given for this was that the defendants feared for the safety of their witnesses. The court then ruled that there would be no cameras in the court – that it would essentially be a closed proceeding. The defense still didn’t want to call their “experts” or try to explain these discrepancies. You might be asking yourself, ‘What discrepancies?’ These:

Plaintiffs entered into evidence the deposition testimony of two of proponents’ withdrawn witnesses [Dr. Katherine Young and Dr. Paul Nathanson], as their testimony supported plaintiffs’ claims […] Young testified at her deposition that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and that same-sex couples possess the same desire for love and commitment as opposite-sex couples […] Young also explained that several cultures around the world and across centuries have had variations of marital relationships for same-sex couples. […] Nathanson testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians and that there is no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples.

Defendants did, however, call two witnesses, David Blankenhorn and Kenneth Miller. Blankenhorn founded the perfectly legitimate sounding Institute for American Values, whereas Miller is a “a professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College.”

From Judge Walker:

Plaintiffs challenge Blankenhorn’s qualifications as an expert because none of his relevant publications has been subject to a traditional peer-review process, Tr 2733:2-2735:4, he has no degree in sociology, psychology or anthropology despite the importance of those fields to the subjects of marriage, fatherhood, and family structure, Tr 2735:15-2736:9, and his study of the effects of same-sex marriage involved “read[ing] articles and ha[ving] conversations with people, and tr[ing] to be an informed person about it” […] Plaintiffs argue that Blankenhorn’s conclusion are not based on “objective date or discernible methodology, […] The court now determines that Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.

Judge Walker than decimates – at length – Blankenhorn’s fitness as an expert, and it is very much worth reading. If anyone takes Blankenhorn seriously after reading this, than…wow. Just wow. Miller fared much better (although I suppose that isn’t saying much), but ultimate his testimony was dismissed as well. Walker wrote, “Having considered Miller’s background, experience and testimony, the court concludes that, while Miller has significant experience with politics generally, he is not sufficiently familiar with gay and lesbian politics specifically to offer opinions on gay and lesbian political power.”

The decision then moves into the findings of fact. The following are some excerpts:

Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.

After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained.

Many states, including California, had laws restricting the race of marital partners so that whites and non-whites could not marry each other […] Racial restrictions on an individual’s choice of marriage partner were deemed unconstitutional under the California Constitution in 1948 and under the United States Constitution in 1967.

States and the federal government channel benefits, rights, and responsibilities through marital status. Marital status affects immigration and citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules and social benefit programs.

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’ assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.

Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and from deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.

Approximately eighteen percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children.

Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.

The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.

Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.

The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry.

Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same-sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage.

Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment.

Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships.

Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians.

No reasonable counter-argument can be made to Judge Walker’s findings, which should bode well for same-sex couples as bigots continue appealing this decisions. However, Proposition 8 is antithetical to reason (and the Constutition), as are those who support it, those who feel that gays and lesbians will always be less than.

Imagine a little girl, small for her age – shy, full of self doubt – who finds herself called into her principal’s office. The principal pulls down the blinds in his office. He locks the door. Then he tells the girl, not even a teenager, what she needs to do in order to succeed in school. He runs his hands across her still developing body. Soon the principal takes off his pants and demands that she takes off hers. He rapes her. But not just once. Several times. Over and over and over and over. He never stops. Ever. Not of his own free will. He only stops when he is finally transferred to a different school (where he simply starts again with another student) or becomes so old that he’s no longer capable of the same sexual abuse that he is so accustomed to.

Now try to imagine the type of people it would take to defend the principal in the scenario above. What kind of completely sick, twisted, completely fucked up individuals would support someone who actively rapes children? Try to imagine the people defending the principal by accusing his critics of bigotry. Try to imagine the people actively helping him get away with it so that he can continue to rape girl after girl after girl. Try not to stress yourself too much with what should be an impossible riddle. The answer is sadly predictable: the religious. A more specific answer is, of course, the Catholic Church.

Both the current and past popes (the former Pope is currently up for Sainthood) have intentionally conspired to cover-up the crimes of pedophile priests. Writes Christopher Hitchens

There are two separate but related matters here: First, the individual responsibility of the pope in one instance of this moral nightmare and, second, his more general and institutional responsibility for the wider lawbreaking and for the shame and disgrace that goes with it. The first story is easily told, and it is not denied by anybody. In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked, and forced to suck the penis of his confessor. (Why do we limit ourselves to calling this sort of thing “abuse”?) The offending cleric was transferred from Essen to Munich for “therapy” by a decision of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and assurances were given that he would no longer have children in his care. But it took no time for Ratzinger’s deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, to return him to “pastoral” work, where he soon enough resumed his career of sexual assault.

…

Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church’s own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated “in the most secretive way … restrained by a perpetual silence … and everyone … is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication.” (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)

The Church even accuses those with the “audacity” to point out these crimes of being the equivalent of anti-Semites. Those poor rapists – how evil and prejudiced we all must be to condemn them for torturing children and women. PZ Myers adds the following damning piece of information:

The Stranger has a revealing article on pedophile priests — in particular, it focuses on the native populations of Alaska and Canada, which were used as a nice, obscure dumping ground for the very worst sexual predators the Catholic Church could provide. Small children were raped, entire villages are decimated by mental health trauma and suicides brought on by these monsters, and in one particularly appalling instance, a priest was caught raping a dying woman he was supposed to give the last rites. There’s also an interview with a former priest who was a “cleaner” (yes, he actually calls himself that), brought in to tidy up the messes these evil men brought into a community…before they got shipped off to another community.

The sheer concentration of known sex offenders in these isolated communities begins to look less like an accident than a plan. Their institutional protection looks less like an embarrassed cover-up than aiding and abetting. And the way the church has settled case after case across the country, refusing to let most of them go to trial for a public airing, is starting to look like an admission of guilt.
Here’s the reason why the church covers up for rapist priests.

“Why does the church keep sending these priests, who have come to be such a major liability, back into ministry? ‘It’s all about keeping the stores open, keeping the revenue rolling,’ Wall says. The Alaskan provinces in particular, Wall says, were a source of revenue–not from the Native population living there, but from parishioners in the lower 48 who were encouraged to donate for the Native ministry up north. ‘You could raise thousands to fund a mission that cost very little to run,’ Wall says. ‘The profit margin is huge.’”

In the hypothetical that opens this post, men and women would raise all forms of hell. Parents would lay waste to all those who committed these vile atrocities and those who protected them. But not when it comes to religion in general or the Catholic Church in particular. Organized religion gets a walk. The Pope will never be charged with anything. The majority of these priests will never face any significant punishment, as has always been the case. Children and women will continue to be systematically abused and raped, and it’s all because people respect an institution that is entirely undeserving of it.

Below you’ll find a recent speech given by Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation, as well as co-founder of Project Reason, a non-profit organization “devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society.”

I’ll have more to say about the relationship between science and morality (and religion and morality) in the coming days. In the meantime, enjoy the roughly 22-minute talk.