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.

Bellow is an interview of Howard Zinn conducted by Bill Moyers on his PBS program, Bill Moyers Journal. Zinn is a social activist, historian, and award-winning author. One of my favorite quotes of his is, “I’m worried that students will take their obedient place in society and look to become successful cogs in the wheel – let the wheel spin them around as it wants without taking a look at what they’re doing. I’m concerned that students not become passive acceptors of the official doctrine that’s handed down to them from the White House, the media, textbooks, teachers and preachers.”

Chris Hedges recently wrote a piece entitled, “Liberals are Useless.” I certainly have issues with Hedges and believe that he is prone to some pretty irrational thinking (see, for example, this debate with Sam Harris), but this article describes the deterioration of the so-called Left very well. Below are some excerpts from his article :

They [liberals] talk about peace and do nothing to challenge our permanent war economy. They claim to support the working class, and vote for candidates that glibly defend the North American Free Trade Agreement. They insist they believe in welfare, the right to organize, universal health care and a host of other socially progressive causes, and will not risk stepping out of the mainstream to fight for them.
. . .
Anyone who says he or she cares about the working class in this country should have walked out on the Democratic Party in 1994 with the passage of NAFTA. And it has only been downhill since. If welfare reform, the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, which gutted the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act—designed to prevent the kind of banking crisis we are now undergoing—and the craven decision by the Democratic Congress to continue to fund and expand our imperial wars were not enough to make you revolt, how about the refusal to restore habeas corpus, end torture in our offshore penal colonies, abolish George W. Bush’s secrecy laws or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American citizens? The imperial projects and the corporate state have not altered under Obama. The state kills as ruthlessly and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury as rapaciously to enrich the corporate elite. It, too, bows before the conservative Israel lobby, refuses to enact serious environmental or health care reform, regulate Wall Street, end our relationship with private mercenary contractors or stop handing obscene sums of money, some $1 trillion a year, to the military and arms industry.

This is a relatively well-reasoned argument, yes? Hedges makes a series of claims (e.g., liberals support anti-working class agendas and capitulate to Wall Street) and supports them with specific evidence. Apparently such intellectually honest argumentation has riled the feathers of one notable blogger, Blue Texan over at Firedoglake. In a classic example of a red herring, Blue Texan ignores all of the substantive points that Hedges makes and instead singles out and argues against a small point that has little to nothing to do with Hedges overall argument. Near the beginning of Hedge’s article, he writes that he voted for Nader and would have considered voting for Cynthia McKinney, two individuals whose progressive bona fides are far more established and legitimate than Obama’s. In response, Blue Texan writes

The notion that voting for Ralph Nader or an even more ridiculous figure like Cynthia McKinney is an effective strategy to move the country in a more progressive direction was thoroughly discredited by the 2000 election. The idea that Gore and Bush were pretty much the same was a common meme in lefty circles, and it turned out to be deeply misguided, to say the least.
Does Hedges really believe the country would look no different today if the Supreme Court hadn’t appointed Bush in 2000? Because I think he’s wrong.

Similarly, does anyone think John McCain would have overturned the Bush policy on stem cells, acknowledged the seriousness of climate change, spent a huge amount of political capital trying to reform health care, reversed Bush’s policies on labor, on the environment, or endangered species? Does anyone think John McCain would’ve nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court or signed the stimulus bill?

This is not to suggest that Obama’s unwillingness to confront the Pentagon and Wall Street haven’t been a disappointment. They have.

Just don’t tell me that a vote for Nader in ‘08, which was a vote for Palin, was the way to get a more progressive country.

Where does one begin? I’ll largely ignore the fact that the writer apparently thinks that Nader and McKinney are “ridiculous figures” – despite offering no rational for the ad hominem – and focus instead on the straw man he sets up when he writes, “Does Hedges really believe the country would look no different today if the Supreme Court hadn’t appointed Bush in 2000?” Does Hedges ever make that claim? No. Hedges is arguing that liberals preach one thing, but support something that is diametrically opposed to their supposed values. The fact that Obama isn’t as bad as McCain or that Gore wouldn’t have been as bad as Bush has no bearing on what Hedges wrote. Yes, it is likely that the country is better served with Obama as President rather than McCain. It is also likely that the country would be better served if a genuine liberal was President rather than Obama.

Now let’s look at some of the “accomplishments” that Blue Texan ascribes to Obama, as if these examples also disprove Hedges’ thesis.

‘Obama has acknowledged the seriousness of climate change.’ Wow! He doesn’t claim that the vast majority of the world’s scientists are wrong. That’s so amazing!. . . What has Obama done about it? Nothing significant.

‘Obama has spent political capital trying to reform health care.’ Right, because neither Nader nor McKinney would have tried this. And let’s not forget that the so-called reform that has been crafted under Obama’s leadership and the Democratic control of Congress is largely a corrupt, watered down bill that doesn’t do nearly enough to help the citizens of this country. Is it better than nothing? Yes. But it’s also a cash-cow for private insurance companies at the expense of Americans. It makes it arguably impossible for women to receive abortions. See my posts here , here , and here for more information on why this “reform” is nothing to be proud of.

Blue Texan points to Obama reversing some of Bush’s policies on the environment, labor, and endangered species. These are all fair points; however, it still isn’t clear how this refutes anything that Hedges writes. Is the barometer for what is and is not progressive and liberal simply not being as horrible as one of the worst presidents in the history of this country? If so, then I think that Blue Texan just proved Hedges right.

In fact, Blue Texan appears to represent the very condition that Glenn Greenwald wrote about earlier today. In his “My Friend the President” post, Greenwald argues that

What’s most striking about these valiant defenses of Obama is how utterly devoid they are of any substantive points and how, instead, suffuse with weird, even inappropriate, emotional attachments they are. These objections are grounded almost exclusively in (a) a deep-seated conviction that President Obama is a good and just man who means well; (b) their own rather intense upset at seeing him criticized; and (c) a spitting ad hominem fury of the type long directed by Bush followers at any critics of their leader, and generally typical of authoritarian attacks on out-groups critics.

Liberalism, and by this I mean the liberalism that is represented by the Democratic party, President Obama, and a wide range of pundits and writers, deserves Hedges scorn, disillusionment, and much more. Deriding those who shun Democrats in favor of voting for someone, who both in speech and in action, more accurately reflects his political values, Hedges is doing what any good citizen should: honestly expressing his vote. If enough “liberals” were to do this, it’s reasonable to assume that genuine progressives would find themselves in power, and the Democratic establishment would realize that they can no longer get away with being Republican-lite. But I guess this is just “ridiculous” and we should all be grateful that slightly less shitty politicians are in power. Yay democracy.

Chris Mooney is co-author of the 2009 book Unscientific America: How Scientific Literacy Threatens Our Future. Below is an excerpt from the first chapter, followed by the first in a series of clips featuring a discussion with Mooney. To watch the entire lecture, click on the “Watch Full Program” icon in the bottom right corner of the video.

“The United States features a massive infrastructure for science, supported by well over $100 billion annually in federal funding and sporting a vast network of government laboratories and agencies, the finest universities in the world, and innovative corporations that conduct extensive research. Thanks to such investments, Americans built the bomb, reached the moon, decoded the genome, and created the Internet. And yet today this country is also home to a populace that, to an alarming extent, ignores scientific advances or outright rejects scientific principles. A distressingly large number of Americans refuse to accept either the fact or the theory of evolution, the scientifically undisputed explanation of the origin of our species and the diversity of life on Earth. An influential sector of the populace is in dangerous retreat from the standard use of childhood vaccinations, one of medicine’s greatest and most successful advances […] The nation itself has become politically divided over the nature of reality, such that college-educated Democrats are now more than twice as likely as college-educated Republicans to believe that global warming is real and is caused by human activities. Meanwhile, the United States stands on the verge of falling behind other nations such as India and China in the race to lead the world in scientific endeavor in the twenty-first century.”

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.