Professor in Prop. 8 trial testifies that marriage has been historically restricted in U.S. [updated]

In her ongoing testimony in a San Francisco federal courtroom, a Harvard history professor said that throughout American history, government has restricted marriage on racial grounds and limited the rights of women within marriage.

Efforts to remove those restrictions and limitations were met with huge controversy, said professor Nancy Cott, who has written a book about the history of marriage in the United States. The removal of those restrictions did not weaken marriage and may even have strengthened it, she said.

Cott was called to the stand by lawyers for two same-sex couples who want to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that reinstated a marriage ban for gay and lesbian couples.

During the second day of the high-stakes trial, lawyers elicited testimony from Cott to contradict claims by proponents of Proposition 8. The lawsuit by the same-sex couples contends that Proposition 8, passed by 52.3% of California voters, violated federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Cott also testified today that gender roles traditionally assigned to marriage no longer make sense and are no longer supported by laws. Cott said divorce has not increased in Massachusetts during the five years same-sex couples could marry, "and if anything the divorce rate has been down."

She testified that a ban on same-sex marriage deprives society a significant source of stability.

[Updated at 10:23 a.m.: Attorneys for Proposition 8's proponents pored over past statements Cott has made in interviews and tried to portray her as an activist during cross-examination. David H.Thompson, one of the campaign's lawyers, said that racial restrictions on marriage in the U.S. were never as "uniform" or widespread as the ban on same-sex marriage.]

[Updated at 10:49 a.m.: "The consequences of same sex marriage is an impossible quesrion to answer, yes or no?" Thompson asked Cott. "No one predicts the future," the Harvard professor admitted.
Thompson also got Cott to admit that same-sex marriage would be "arguably a highly distinctive turning point" in the history of marriage laws.]

[Updated at 10:57 a.m.: Thompson, reading from an article Cott wrote, asked whether Jesus Christ and his apostles taught monogamy. "I know very little about Jesus Christ," Cott replied.]

-- Maura Dolan at the federal courthouse in San Francisco

More breaking news in L.A. Now:

L.A. County considers automated wildfire detection system

High surf, possible flooding expected along Southern California coast

Swastika found carved into Calabasas High School student’s car

Greuel calls for greater scrutiny of neighborhood councils' spending

Comments

[busytimmy]

The book of Genesis is a creation myth and cannot be used in such a way in a secular and pluralistic society! Why don't you also select all the wonderful Bible verses that were used to deny women the right to vote, own property, work etc.
Or the ones that were used for centuries to condone slavery? The bible has too often been used by the dominant culture as a tool of oppression. Stop.

[Lila]

Liz, i don't care what your god says, i don't believe in fairy tales...
Did Jesus teach hatred?
The worst kind of people in the world are religious... All the most horrible things happened between religious people.
The good thing is that the rest of the world are much smarter than america and they recognize same sex unions, which are based on love between two human beings, not dogs and men. Only a retard think that a man can marry a dog if you give the same rights.
KEEP YOUR BIBLE TO YOURSELVES!!!!

[bob j]

The 1972 Gay Rights Platform tells all about their agenda.
State Agenda #3. repeal of all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons and LAWS PROHIBITING PROSTITUTION, both male and female.
#7 Repeal of all laws governing the AGE OF SEXUAL CONSENT.
#8 Repeal of all legislative provisins that restrict the sex or NUMBER OF PERSONS entering into a marriage unit and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohibit regardless of sex or NUMBERS .
This is what the gay element wants and stands for. Morality is a thing of the past. Educators to instruct 2nd graders that gay life style is now acceptable dispite parents objections based on religious grounds. This is indoctrination.
Hitler did the same thing with his youth program. Fredom of religion does not exist even though it is stated in the very first sentance of the constitution

[Sara]

Lizwetzel, if you want to marry your dog, apply for a marriage license. When it's denied, YOU sue the State and your question can be addressed then. It's not relevant to the discussion of allowing a consenting adult to marry the consenting adult of his or her choice.

Daniel, are you arguing for or against gay marriage? If against, it's your side claiming the lack of a restriction will weaken marriage. Those of us in favor of gay marriage do not see how allowing consenting adults to marry each other can weaken the marriage of others. My heterosexual marriage didn't suddenly get stronger when Prop. 8 was passed nor was it weekended with the City of San Francisco began allowing homosexuals to marry. No outside force (not even people marrying dogs) can weeken my marriage. My husband and I are the only people responsible for the strength of our marriage.

able baker, clear heads will eventually prevail and allow gay marriage, regardless of the outcome of this trial. It's only a matter of time. The majority of the younger generation in this country is not opposed to gay marriage. Hopefully, loving couples don't have to wait for bigots to die off in order for their committed life-long relationships to receive the respect they deserve.

Liz, definitions in Websters change as usage changes, not the other way around. Webster's is not the law. Either is the bible. You cannot force others to live by your religious values or your interpretation of the bible, which, as translated, probably differs significantly from the original. Nobody is trying to force your church to marry homosexuals or recognize their marriages. The church and state are separate.

[Heather]

So many sad and ignorant people...The bible has been written over and over by human beings. God is very real, and he lives in the hearts that allow him to..if you accept him and believe that he is your Savior and live as a good human being as intended, that is who goes to Heaven. The people that are against same sex marriage should judge their own life and quit worrying about what other people choose to do!

[busytimmy]

Why are comments in support of equality being censored? Allow posts from all sides.

[Han]

i believe the civil rights of blood relatives to wed are also being broken. What's next after that? animals? statues? artwork?

[Mando]

There is no logical reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. This is a civil and human rights issue. Tradition and religion are not excuses. If your argument is procreation, look at China for an example of government getting involved in regulating procreation.

The effort to deny gays the right to marry one day will be seen as another example of the ugly history of discrimination in this country.

[Bob]

Lizwetzel, your post is ignorant and offensive.

[Zach]

The comments here really stretch the imagination. 'If a woman can marry another woman, why can't a woman marry a dog?" What fantastical world to Prop-8 supporters live in where dogs are capable of signing their consent to legal documents? And worrying about how dictionaries will handle gay marriage? What do they imagine, editors from Webster's leaping out their windows because they can't cope with the idea of a changing definition?

I'm tired of seeing these same smoke and mirrors thrown up in the face of facts by Prop-8 supporters. An expert on marriage history speaks a few very basic historical facts, and people are off on talk of bestiality and Biblical law. My question is, when those arguments get their turn, will you all retreat back to the argument defeated here, that marriage is permanent and unchanging?

[Ray Ortiz]

Here's what was explained to me:

Initially, the gay marriage advocates claimed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. When applying the legal framework to that notion, as for employment discrimination cases, it would be discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation if straight people were allowed to marry someone of the same gender and gay people were not allowed. Anyone, straight or gay, cannot be married to an individual of the same gender, therefore, there seems to be no discrimination here.

Abandoning the discrimination angle, the new code word is "equality", and the latest approach is to liken the definition of marriage to racism, etc. This is somewhat confusing though, because gay people always had the same right to marriage that straight people have. Wanting for the laws to allow same-sex marriage seems to be the real issue, not equality.

Changing the laws to allow same-sex marriage is not an equality issue, in my humble opinion, nor does it render "equality".

[KD]

Liz - this passage could also be interpreted as advocating incest. I'm amused that you would use say the bible prohibits same sex marriage while quoting the same bible that in several passages, includes incestuous relationships.

[Adam]

Wow, thanks Liz. I guess since the Bible says something makes it true. Did you know that Eve came from Adam's rib? So isn't that like masturbation when they would "lie with each other?" Doesn't the Bible forbid that?
Do you eat meat on Fridays? I hope not...

[Dboy]

There is no reason to justify that the will of the people as reflected in their vote should be overwritten on this issue.
The fact that so many sore losers have chosen to go down the route of fear tactics to push their agenda makes the average normal person all the more determined to make sure that their voice and their opinion count.

The Sunday after the vote on prop 8, I happened to go for a hike in Orange County. I could see that the losers were out in force that day out in front of Saddle Back Church. I have never seen a group of people who call themselves Americans impose their opinions so heavily upon fellow Americans as I witnessed on that day. Truly, a sad day for the U.S.; when one minority group resorts to guerrilla tactics to impose their views upon everyone else. Go away.

The Youtube incident is a blatant attempt at witness intimidation and undermines justice and fairness. Gays already successfully got one witness to resign from the case after sending death threats to him and anyone to who wishes to stick up for the will of the majority; brilliant application of justice and fairness.

It is infinitely important to understand that the witness who withdrew from the case as a direct result of death threats from these gay militants is Chinese.

It reminds us that 90% of the people in this world feel that gay marriage is thoroughly wrong.

In addition, for 1 million years, since the beginning of humanity, gay marriage has never been allowed anywhere until very recently. Is there a reason for this? Yes. And as we know, those who forget history will be condemned to repeat it.

There is a slim group of out there’s in liberal western Europe and San Francisco, but the rest of the world wants nothing to do with gay marriage. This puts us in isolation and direct conflict with the rest of the world. Why do the Mulsims hate us? Why do the Muslims in Iran call the U.S. the great Satin? Great sinners, immorals,etc. I see no greater fuel to this fire than the in your face liberalism enforced by our buddies in San Francisco.

How does liberal Harvard Professor, Nancy Cott, argue that, “same-sex marriage deprives society a significant source of stability”. I feel it is the other way, the same-sex marriage gives Osama and his followers plenty of ammunition, plenty of opportunity to tell the people of other countries, see the U.S.? They are not like the rest of us. They have gone weird.

Are the gays deprived of a basic human right that straight people are allowed?

Isn’t this the same argument we hear everyday from men that want to marry underage children, men want to marry multiple women, men that want to marry their sheep, and common criminals?

Has the word criminal now become obsolete because everyone, no matter how digressed they happen to be, get to enjoy a new abundance of basic human rights in a new age of fluffy idealism?

Has the, all so wealthy, U.S. become so spoiled and useless that we no longer have real issues to worry about anymore? Is this our chance to send the message to the world that all Americans have to worry about anymore is the semantics of whether gay couples are called a partnership or a marriage – a high class issue of hair splitting that other countries do not have time for.

This is a good opportunity to show to the world, that while other countries have real problems, we have liberal whiners.

Special.

[BlackMalelaw]

From the liturgical Church (es) and we who are in it:

To us, marriage is one of the seven sacraments (sacred things) instituted by God, to give grace.

Historically. Throughout most cultures, it is a union between a man and woman.

While the un-churched don’t have to buy into that rubric, they must understand the millions of us throughout the world who adamantly share that belief.

Lastly, if memory serves, “Civil Rights” is a concept decidedly Western European- American (notwithstanding the Rights of Man and Magna Carta).
I shudder to think what happens to those Gay folks who say they are married and run smack up against Sharia? law (or other foreign) jurisdictions' dictates.
Our gay friends and compatriots can have civil unions, corporations, unincorporated associations, joint ventures, joint enterprises, and all other manner of such entities. BUT IT AIN'T GONNA BE MARRIAGE!

Respectfully Submitted

[BeautyQueen]

@Mike Dale: Please learn the proper use of "who" and "whom" before posting. Your ignorant use of whom throughout your comment distracts from its point. I couldn't focus on the thoughts you were trying to convey. All I kept reading was "whom" used incorrectly, over and over and over again.... Ugh.

[Heather]

dboy, your long winded message is pure ignorance...I sure hope your Son Or Daughter dont come to you one day and tell you that they are gay!

[Damn shame]

I hope it pass I want more then one wife

[Joe Public]

Why don't we stop using the term man and woman. From my perspective that is discriminatory. As a man, I feel discriminated against because man has only 3 characters and woman has five. I am a person is better which has 6 characters.

Why don't we just change all of the definitions of sex, family, etc. so that we can give equals rights to martians.

we have to use the term "same-sex" in order to define the relationship... ohh the injustice of it all!!

The injustice of this whole issue is the amount of our tax dollars being spent!

However, the thought of me having to explain to my 5 year old why two boy sailors can get married and play flippy-flop is not ok with me - Ever! Even movies have ratings and from my perspective this whole mess requires an "R" or "NC17" rating. Unfortunately, this mess has become rampant within the California School System and if you look at the Education code it will be taught in the schools and we as parents will not have the right to object to the teaching without removing our children from the schools and placing them in private schools.

This is an infringement on my rights as a parent.

[Ironman Carmichael]

Liz, be honest and tell the whole truth. Here is "marriage" as it appears in Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

Incidentally, Liz, since you evidently believe in "traditional marriage," did you vow as a bride to "serve and obey" your husband?

[JPS]

Why vote if our votes mean nothing?
let me have RON PAUL or McCain president, not Obama,
If they can go against peoples vote then i want to overturn Obama's vote as well

[Prussell]

There are many types of sexual differences and preferences. This is a truly slippery slope. To compare this to Civil Rights is lopsided. The thing here in my opinion is do US citizens have the right to do whatever they want when it come to marriage? If Prop 8 is not upheld then we certainly should see the powerful offshoot Mormons that practice polygamy wanting to also exercise their constitutional right, and since polygamy is more historically and internationally practiced and accepted their lifestyles and rights would have to be upheld. After that what's next? Many people like swinging, there was a recent news story of a man marrying an animal in India for some type of atonement. Should that be legal in the US since we all have basic Civil rights to do what we want. Secrets that will no longer need to be secret.In the end there is always going to be people who want a little more Freedom to be Free to do what they FEEL they need to, but what kind of society will it be?

[Verballistic]

Once gay marriage is legalized, then what comes next? Anyone naive enough to believe it will stop there is not living in the 21st century.

If we allow same-sex couples to marry, how can we then tell threesomes that 3-way "marriages" cannot be permitted? Once those become legal what is to stop the lines from becoming so blurred that we then grant concessions to NAMBLA and then lower the age of marriage to 12?

Once gay marriage is widely legalized and becomes routine, ALL bets are off...

[cam]

WHy is it that most gays, have so much baggage. I was abused by a priest so i'm gay. i was molested by my father, so i'm gay. My mother never loved me, so i'm gay. Every gay person I know has had some sort of traumatic experience in their youth. You are not born gay but turn gay. Gayness is a choice made my circumstances and cultural pressures.

[Zach]

I see more fairy tales today! What's to stop the age of consent from being lowered to 12 if gay marriage is allowed?! Well gee, I don't know, is it legal to marry a 12-year old heterosexually? Of course not, and I'll not even get into the apples-and-oranges difference between homosexuality and pedophilia (linked by no legitimate science).

Preventing gay marriage is going to protect your kids from the issue of homosexuality? How, are kids magically not going to ask about those two men holding hands if they're not married? Sorry, but gays aren't going to go away just because you're not letting them get married, and other peoples' rights don't wait until you're mature enough to talk to your kids about the world. Your rights don't trump theirs.