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.

I was driving home from work today when I came to a sad but seemingly inevitable conclusion about my country: it’s ugly. While I was listening to Air America I discovered that Maine had voted to take away some of the rights of same-sex couples. Maine had briefly and proudly laid claim to being one of the only states that “allowed” same-sex couples to marry – but no longer. Voters overturned this law by a count of 53-47 percent. 53 percent of the voting public decided that it was perfectly acceptable, that it was ethically, morally, and constitutionally in their power, to take away rights from consenting adults.

Imagine if that same 53 percent had said that blacks should no longer be allowed to do something that white people all too frequently do and actually benefit from. Who, besides the asshole in the white gown and matching hood, could possibly defend such a heinous act? But blacks are actually people now, and gays are the new niggers. We heterosexuals can do whatever the fuck we want to them, whenever we want, especially when it comes to something as legitimate as masquerading our hate and disgust as an exercise in democracy.

Mark Mutty, the executive chairman of the ludicrously-named Stand for Marriage coalition, someone managed to muster the audacity to go before the American people today and proclaim, “We’re not bigots. Honest!” In a press conference after the polling results had been announced, Mutty said, “Let’s be clear. What the people of Maine had to say was that mattered, marriage matters, and it is between a man and a woman.” At this point the neanderthals in attendance began to holler and clap, overcome with joy. Mutty continued, “And this has never been about hating anyone, hating gays, or anything. Anything to that nature whatsoever.”

Who knows what the hell is actually rattling around inside this man’s shallow little mind. It’s perfectly possible that he has somehow convinced himself that he’s not acting out of hate towards a group of people he fears. But whether or not he actually believes this horseshit is largely irrelevant. It’s simply not true. Opposition to equal rights and opportunities for homosexuals and same-sex couples stems entirely from hate, from ignorance and prejudice, from bigotry, authoritarianism and theocracy. It stems from the belief that some groups of people simply aren’t equal to others. As Mutty demonstrated above, his ilk largely sidestep these truths by trying to frame the debate as one concerning the “defense of traditional marriage.” While this, too, is obviously horseshit, what is so striking and alarming about this particular meme is how widely accepted and ingrained it has become in our public discourse.

Jamison Foser, of Media Matters for America, justifiably chides Contessa Brewer of the “liberal” MSNBC for her casual use of the term on live television:

It is telling that the construction “Define marriage traditionally” is a relatively new one. If you go back a decade, you’ll be hard-pressed to find many uses of it (or variations of it) in the media. A Nexis search for “marriage w/5 tradition! w/5 defin!” returns only 317 hits from prior to the past 10 years.

No, the phrase is new — cooked-up by anti-gay activists, because they know “deny gay couples the right to marry” doesn’t poll as well. So why is an MSNBC anchor adopting it?

It’s not like it’s accurate. It wasn’t too long ago, after all, when laws in America defined marriage as the union of one white man and one white woman, or of one black man and one black woman. That was the “traditional” definition of marriage in America, until people saw the light. Now they want you to believe marriage has always been defined the same way, so they can claim tradition is on their side. It isn’t true — but MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer parrots their rhetoric

It wasn’t until 1969 that the United States Supreme Court finally stepped in and ruled that states had no authority to ban interracial marriages. A mere forty years ago, “traditional marriage” involved only people of the same race. Traditional marriage in Afghanistan involves marrying 13-year-old girls to men old enough to be their fathers. Will Mutty and Brewer stand up and defend that particular “tradition?”

Brewer: why don’t you go back and fulfill your traditional duties as a woman and wife. Get on your back, let your husband have his way with you, whenever and however he likes, bear his children, over and over, stay at home and make sure that his dinner is always ready when he gets back from work. Keep your childish, irrational female opinions to yourself. Don’t vote. Don’t own property. Don’t divorce. Don’t drive. Definitely don’t go to school. If you’re lucky, and you have a very liberal husband, maybe he’ll let you get a job as a secretary. Maybe.

America isn’t some shinning example of freedom and human rights. We have become – and maybe we always were – the arrogant, hypocritical blot on the march towards enlightened, humane principles. Shame on Mutty, on Brewer and, most of all, on the majority of Maine.

The good people over at CarnalNation recently wrote about the story of a young Canadian man, Kyle Freeman, who is being sued because he didn’t disclose that he is gay when donating blood. Why? It’s because of arcane laws that ban homosexuals from donating. Tim McElreavy, the Managing Editor of CarnalNation, writes

Between 1998 and 2002, Freeman, who is HIV negative, made 18 blood donations to Canadian Blood Services (CBS), but in doing so, he lied on the donor application. Most blood banks throughout the world have banned donations from homosexual men since the 1980s when AIDS-tainted blood was found in the blood supply. If you are a man who has had sex with another man even just once since 1977, you are ineligible to give blood. Freeman was ineligible but donated anyway, so CBS is suing him.

There is so much to note in this one paragraph that it’s almost impossible to know where best to start. But why not begin with the fact that Freeman chose to donate 18 times, which is 18 times more than this author, and 18 times more than most people. Only 5% of those eligible to donate blood actually do so and not only is Freeman selflessly one of them, he’s a repeat customer. In America the need for blood transfusions increases 9% every single year, and there simply isn’t enough blood to keep up with the demand. That’s why people like Freeman are so vital. Simply put, they save lives. At least 1 in 4 Americans will need a transfusion at some point in their lives. Givelife.org estimates that every two seconds, someone in the United States needs blood. More than 38,000 donations are needed every single day.

And yet Freeman, and every other gay person, as well as anyone who has ever had sex with a gay or bisexual person, is told ‘No.’ These arcane laws were created when HIV/AIDS first began to spread and there was no test for the disease. The pandemic was also considered to be the exclusive problem of the gay community. The original name given to the disease was not HIV but GRID, an acronym for Gay-Related Immunodeficiency Disease. Thus all gay people, and anyone “tainted” by having even once had sex with them, were expurgated from donation rolls.

But this isn’t 1980. We now have the means to test for HIV/AIDS. In fact, according to the University Medical Center at Princeton, “In addition to blood typing, each unit [of blood] is rigorously tested for hepatitis, syphilis, HTLV, and the presence of HIV,” as well as a number of other diseases. There is no logical reason to ban people like Kyle Freeman from helping save the lives of others. It’s bad enough when gays are demonized in the press in order to score cheap political points. But to institutionalize this prejudice and bigotry in such a way that it actually compromises the health and safety of innocent people? That’s simply heinous.

I recently wrote about Rep. Jerrold Nadler introducing the Respect for Marriage Act, which will afford same-sex couples the same rights and opportunities as heterosexual couples. Nadler’s bill already has 94 co-sponsors and public support for the bill continues to grow.
Take this quasi-confessional from Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat who helped vote DOMA into law:

On July 12, 1996, I cast the worst vote of my political career. Having served in public office since 1973, that says something. While I’ve made other mistakes, this was different: it was a deliberate vote that I knew to be poor public policy and was against my values. I’ve been a strong champion of civil rights and protections based on sexual orientation since I chaired the first legislative hearing on anti-discrimination legislation in 1973. Even worse, this vote was cast after careful consideration.
[…]
I long ago recognized and acknowledged the mistake I made, and I have spent time understanding the problems in my thinking and analysis. It has resulted in frank and important conversations with many gay and lesbian friends, and if anything it has strengthened my commitment to the cause of banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and has made me a better lawmaker.
[…]
I will work to make sure that my colleagues who once, for whatever reason, joined me in supporting this ill-advised measure take this opportunity to correct their record and eliminate an injustice.

The worst vote of his 36 year political career. It’s not a coincidence that his acknowledgement is eerily reminiscent of the one made by Senator Byrd, who has publically stated his regret over opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Civil rights for one group of people are no more important than they are for other groups, no matter how vilified and marginalized the group might be. I noted here, when discussing the idiocy of Carrie Prejean, that opposition to same-sex marriage is fundamentally no different than opposing Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruling that declared it unconstitutional to deny the right of marriage to interracial couples. One of the so-called legitimate arguments against interracial marriage common at the time? It was unnatural. God forbid it. Sound familiar? It’s also no different than claiming that suffrage should again be denied women because they are inherently less deserving of the right to vote, due to their irrationality and lesser intellect.

Consider what DOMA does:

Since its passage in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act has discriminated against LGBT Americans by excluding federal benefits from same-sex partners who have been legally married in states that recognize their marriage. As a result, married LGBT couples are not provided equal treatment under the law. Specifically, they are prevented from filing joint tax returns; receiving spousal, parental or surviving spouse benefits under social security; taking unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured partner; or receiving the same retirement benefits as heterosexual couples. Since 1996, eight states and the District of Columbia have granted same-sex couples equal access to state programs, but those couples remain excluded from the same rights under federal law.

There are a total of 1,338 Federal benefits that are being denied to a whole class of American citizens. This is why not only eventually overturning DOMA is so important, but also coming out in public and taking the ethical, moral, and principled stance against a bigoted, unconstitutional law. This is also why we need to make sure that we put people capable and willing to do this into a position of influence.

Alexi Giannoulias is a candidate for US Senate in Illinois, hoping to replace the seat once held by President Obama. Joseph Erbentraut writes , “Giannoulias surprised voters last week when he announced an extensive LGBT rights platform that included everything from his support for legalizing marriage for gays and lesbians to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Here is what the candidate had to say to EDGE:

“I believe that all Americans should have the same freedoms and share the same responsibilities, including the freedom to marry and the responsibilities that come with it,” Giannoulias told EDGE. “Allowing committed gay and lesbian couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is the fair and right thing to do. It’s about equality, individual liberties and protections, which reflect the fundamental values that this country was founded on.”

“This is something I believe in,” Giannoulias said. “These aren’t special rights, they are equal rights. Loving, same-sex couples deserve to be treated no differently in the eyes of the law than opposite-sex couples. It’s not fair to deny some long-term, committed couples and their families the protections that others enjoy.”

You know when you live in a troubled and disturbed world when such obviously correct, ethical, constitutional position “surprises” people, and earns one admiration. Imagine congratulating a politician for coming out in public and announcing that it’s wrong to beat women, or that it’s completely offensive to fire someone from their job because they’re black. Yet that is, fundamentally, the world, and the country, that we find ourselves in. The only realization more depressing than that, is this: polling shows that Giannoulias trails the Republican candidate, and we all know what the Republican’s position is on these issues.

You can find out more about Giannoulias and ways to support him, by visiting his website.

Watch this roughly nine minute clip from The Rachel Maddow Show, then I want to comment on two of the speakers, Rep. Chris Smith and a model whose name I can barely stand to type, Carrie Prejean.

Let’s start with Smith and this rather amazing quote: “The culture of death promoted by Barack Obama, by his Secretary of State, by his cabinet, by Sebelius, by the subcabinet, and by appointees by czars, is outrageous and unconscionable.”

Whatever decency Smith may show in his other legislative efforts and speeches he has made is overshadowed by the dogmatic, irrational, unsupported, and utterly asinine statement that he made in his speech. Smith accuses everyone politically related to Obama of supporting and actively striving to create a culture of death. His only “rationale” for this ludicrous drivel? – the fact that the Executive hasn’t sought to overturn the law of the land and outlaw abortion across the country.

Think about that. Because liberals, who are constantly accused of being “activists” who want to subvert the Constitution, increase the power of the federal government, and impose their will on the people, refuse to overturn a law that has been upheld by courts all across the nation, including the Republican dominated Supreme Court, and supported by the majority of citizens, they are guilty of forcing death onto people. They’re not respecting an equal branch of government (the judicial). They’re not respecting the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution. They’re not respecting the rights of women, who make up the majority of the American population.

By the way, how many times did Bush and his GOP Congress introduce constitutional amendments to overturn Roe? What quotes from Bush can Smith provide in which the former President demands that the Republican controlled Congress amend the Constitution to make it illegal in all fifty states to provide abortion services? . . . Why do I hear crickets?

According to Smith, however, whose blind idiocy is eclipsed only by his incoherent religious zealotry, liberals are the ones promoting mass murder.

Yet Smith supported the invasion of Iraq, voting to authorize an illegal war of aggression. This war has claimed the lives of anywhere from 100,000 to 1.2 million Iraqi civilians. Why didn’t he mention this at that so-called values conference of his? Because he doesn’t care. Mass murder is just fine as long as it’s profitable and instigated by a Republican. It’s especially okay as long as the majority of the victims are brown people who talk funny and worship the same god in a different way.

Smith also opposes embryonic stem cell research. This research has the potential, if left unmolested by theocratic assholes like Smith, to cure or treat cancer, heart damage, haematopoiesis, neural and behavioral birth defects (might be useful for all those babies he wants to force women to have, despite their, you know, neural and behavioral birth defects), Crohn’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, diabetes and, especially useful for all those soldiers he decided to send off to war, brain damage, spinal cord injury, deafness, blindness, and wound healing. He’s against developing these treatments and cures in the quickest and most efficient way. In 2006 he voted to uphold Bush’s veto of a bill to aid the scientific development of embryonic research.

Then there is this gem by the 22-year-old model, in which she starts by patting herself on the back for essentially lacking the common sense to not say something so incredibly bigoted on national television, and then proceeds to highlight how her education at the evangelical San Diego Christian College has completely warped her sense of reality, let alone the actual meanings of words:

“A young woman who had the courage and the bravery that not many people have […] And I am disgusted at the way some people can be so intolerant [applause]. It disgusts me.”

Saying that you think a certain group of consenting adults should be deprived of the same rights and opportunities afforded to, for instance, her, is neither brave nor courageous. It’s fucking idiotic and ugly. Would it have been brave if she stood up on national television, looked into the camera, and told an audience of tens of millions of people that blacks shouldn’t be allowed to marry whites, just like in the good ol’ days? Would it have been courageous if she had told all the young girls watching that women really aren’t smart and rational enough to have the right to vote? Of course not. And those two scenarios are no different, ethically or morally, from what she did. The only reason that my two hypothetical examples seem so hyperbolic is because we’ve largely evolved past that past bigotry and hate. We haven’t when it comes to same-sex marriage. It’s still okay to say faggot. It’s still okay to fire somebody from their job in several states because they love men rather than women.

Then for her to go on and decry the public’s treatment of her, to complain about how intolerant people are and how much it disgusts her is ludicrous. She doesn’t mean any of this. Like Smith, she’s perfectly fine with intolerance, as long as it’s the kind that her Bible condones, as long as it’s the intolerance that she herself practices. And to call the small public backlash that she has experienced ‘intolerant’ is misleading in the extreme. Technically, you can call opposition to racism, rape, sexual harassment as intolerance of those things. But a more accurate term would be humane. Just. Moral. When you go on air, Ms. Prejean, time and time again, and regurgitate your hate and prejudice, you do not deserve “tolerance” as you understand it. You deserve rebuke. You deserve shame.