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.

From an AP story earlier today:

Evangelical pastor Rick Warren’s plea for donations to fill a $900,000 deficit at his Southern California megachurch brought in $2.4 million, Warren announced to cheers during a sermon at the church on Saturday.

Warren said the amount raised after the appeal was posted online Wednesday included only money parishioners brought in person to Saddleback Church by New Year’s Eve. More was arriving by hand and by mail, he said.

“This is pretty amazing,” said Warren, who made the announcement by bringing out 24 volunteers each holding a sign for $100,000. “I don’t think any church has gotten a cash offering like that off a letter.”

Rick Warren is a disgusting human being, one who preaches extreme hate and intolerance while simulatenously taking advantage of thousands of people by preaching about fairy tales and the “wisdom” of backward, ignorant people from 2,000 years ago. Imagine going into a hospital for a much-needed surgery and your doctor pulling out the writings of Hippocrates for reference on how to best perform the procedure. Sure, Hippocrates was inventive and intelligent relative to how little everyone else knew and understood at the time. Today, however, even children know more about medicine. Here are some of the jewels of wisdom spouted by this fat bastard:

“Every obstacle is an opportunity. Every problem has potential. Every crisis is an opportunity for ministry.”

“”Now let me say this really clearly: We support Proposition 8. And if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues, I come out very clear.”

This particularly vile line of preaching comes with video:

Here is an interview with the religious-friendly BeliefNet:

“WARREN: The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that [some partnership rights] as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion – this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews – historically, marriage is a man and a woman.”

This absurd, despicable thinking helps explain this :

“We shall not tolerate this aspect at all,” Dr Warren said.

Warren was speaking in support of Ugandan Anglicans who intend to boycott the forthcoming Lambeth Conference, and this harsh rejection of tolerance for gays and lesbians may have serious consequences in a country where homosexuals face harrassment and and the threat of imprisonment.

Warren’s comment is of a piece with his support for Martin Ssempa, the Ugandan evangelist who has been a keynote speaker at a Warren conference, and who has received US global AIDS prevention funds. As I wrote in August, Ssempa wants to ensure that homosexuality remains illegal and that gays and lesbians are identified in the public mind as sexual abusers. Ssempa calls for media censorship against opposing views and the dismissal of dissenting academics, and last summer he organised a rally with the theme “A Call for Action on Behalf of the Victims of Homosexuality”, at which he railed against “molestation and sodomy.”

He doesn’t believe in evolution; he compared those who thought that a husband should be allowed to let a comatose wife (whose brain had literally turned to mush) die and the husband’s supporters to Nazis; he thinks that the government should take away the right of a women to decide for herself what medical procedures she needs to have – having compared anything other than a complete anti-choice stance to a holocaust. There’s also this excerpted passage about Warren the tax-evader:

The California megachurch minister and opponent of gay marriage who will deliver the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration had his income tax returns audited in 1996. When the IRS tried to collect the taxes it claimed he owed, Warren went to court. Congress then passed a law granting Warren’s tax deduction, pre-empting the US Court of Appeals from even taking up the case against him. The votes in the House and Senate were unanimous.

The IRS permits members of the clergy to claim exemptions for their housing. At the time of Warren’s audit the amount claimed had to be “reasonable”–it shouldn’t exceed the fair market value for the rental of the home. That 1996 audit concluded that Warren was deducting more than that–the IRS said he owed it $55,300. Warren challenged the IRS in tax court, arguing that his housing exemption should be unlimited.

The facts were simple: in 1993 Warren deducted $77,663, his entire Saddleback Church salary that year, as a housing expense–and paid no taxes at all on that salary. In addition, he claimed a deduction for his mortgage expenses–even though they had been covered by the salary. He made similar claims in subsequent tax returns.

Warren spent four years defending his housing deduction in tax court

And as a preemptive counter to those who can’t get enough of this self-serving, ludicrous figure, don’t bother citing some of the “good” things he has done. I’m not arguing that he is evil incarnate, only that he is a bigoted, destructive, hateful, delusional charlatan who preys on other people’s emotional, intellectual, and psychological shortcomings and manipulates, takes advantage of, and exploits them in order to aggregate additional power, wealth, and fame – fundamentally no different than Kenneth Hagin, Rodney Howard-Browne, Ron Hubbard, David Koresh, Jim Jones, etc. He is a malignancy masquerading as a cure.

It only seems appropriate to end one one more quote by the good reverend, arguably his most intellectually dishonest and telling quote I’ve been able to find:

“We serve God by serving others. The world defines greatness in terms of power, possessions, prestige, and position. If you can demand service from others, you’ve arrived. In our self-serving culture with its me-first mentality, acting like a servant is not a popular concept.”

And Rick Warren has plenty of servants.

Below you’ll find a speech by Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist who, because he is logically consistent, is also an atheist. He is the director of the Hayden Planetarium, and he was appointed by President Bush in 2001 and 2004 to commissions on the Future of the US Aerospace Industry and the Implementation of the United States Space Exploration Policy, respectively.

The speech, which is split into two separate segments, was given in 2006 at the Beyond Belief conference. Tyson addresses the role that religion plays in not only obfuscating the truth but in completely retarding the progress of humanity and its understanding of the universe:

“Some of our greatest minds have done just this.” Imagine if Newton didn’t have the lazy construct that is god to fall back on. Imagine if he didn’t have the option of solving a problem by invoking the grand magician. Where could we be? Historians, philosophers, and scientists sometimes speculate how much more advanced we would be as a people if it weren’t for such destructive acts and periods as the burning of the great library in Alexandria and the Dark Ages. The better question is this: How much more advanced would we be, how much more enlightened, if religion were never allowed to infect society ab ovo?

Pharmacists are allowed to refuse to fulfill prescriptions for birth control pills because it offends their sexist, arcane belief system. Stem cell research was significantly held back after President Bush “prayed” on it and came to the belief that this scientific pursuit would offend his god. Members of the ultra-secretive religious group, The Family, stripped away funding for legal medical procedures in the House health care reform bill because their pastor, priest, etc. told them that a few cells are more important than a woman’s health and rights.

Religion and faith, by their very nature, look backwards. They are restrictive, regressive, and stagnant. Science, inquiry, and critical thought are a means of looking forward, a means of discovering new possibilities and truths, of coming to a better, more honest, and more useful understanding of reality. And religion, especially in America, does everything it can to molest these goals. We are not better off for it and we never will be. To the contrary, religion has only made life dramatically worse.

Lawrence Krauss, an award-winning physicist and best-selling author, recently gave an impressive talk at the Atheist Alliance International 2009 convention. His Hiding in the Mirror dealt with the possibility of multiple dimensions (beyond space and time) and parallel universes. In the video below, Dr. Krauss addresses, amongst several fascinating subjects, how the universe could have come into existence out of “nothing.” Enjoy:

Nota bene: Religious folk may prefer to plug their ears or, as can usually be expected, ignore the video altogether and continue reveling in their steaming ignorance, akin to a pig rolling blissfully in its own feces.