Marriage historian testifies in Prop. 8 trial in San Francisco

A Harvard history professor testified in San Francisco federal court today that procreation has never been the central purpose of marriage in the United States.

Professor Nancy Cott, who has written a book about the history of marriage in the United States, noted that George Washington, the father of the nation, was sterile. Procreation was one of the purposes of marriage but not "the central or defining purpose," Cott testifed. The larger purpose was to create stable households, 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.

Unlike other marriage challenges, the suit is being decided in a full-blown, fact-finding trial intended to explore historical, psychological and religious meanings of marriage, the nature of sexual orientation and the history of discrimination against gays.

Previous challenges have focused primarily on legal issues.

After weeks of testimony, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker is expected to issue a written ruling that lawyers on both sides predict will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cott began her testimony Monday, saying that marriage has differed throughout the ages and in different cultures. She said African Americans were initially denied U.S. citizenship on the grounds that they could not marry Caucasians. Marriage, she testified, was a liberty right.

-- Maura Dolan at the federal courthouse in San Francisco

Comments

[Larry]

Poor Stephanie. Still doesn't understand the separation of church and state.

[Athena]

How do you know God's intent, Stephanie? And last time I looked, there was a separation of church and state in this country. You have NOTHING but religion to justify this abhorrent discrimination against a group of people.

[Nate]

"Marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's God's intent and that should be final."

Well, prove it!!!

[Venus Patrol DRC]

Wedding refers neither to male nor female sexual sphere, but relates just to itself as "value" regardless the entanglement employed, in terms of F-F, M-M, F-M or M-F. That is a matter of fact to whom it needs to handily apply... moyooo

[Michael D]

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14):

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

I believe this is the same god about whom Stephanie said: "That's God's intent and that should be final." Stephanie better hope no believers in her god conquer her town.

Seriously, though, religion has no place in this discussion. Remember that thing called the Constitution? And if we are going to follow the supposed dictates of some imagined god, can't we pick one who isn't so violent, jealous, misogynistic, and contradictory?

[B. Thompson]

Government... ON ALL LEVELS should retain a separation between church and state!If you want to bring religion into the mix... God's intention was to love thyself and to love thy neighbor. Stop the Hypo-christianity!!!

[Matt]

Found this posted on another site under an article about Uganda's proposed death penalty for homosexuals. The anonymous writer of this post should be given a Pulitzer for so deftly destroying the argument that the Bible should decide these sorts of issues:

"To all of you who do believe that Leviticus is the only and final word on "God's view on homosexuality" . . .

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you on this forum, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding all of us that God's word is eternal and unchanging."

[Dave]

I am just stoked that now this opens the door for people to have marriages between multiple people. If your bi, why not have a husband and a wife. Or better yet, two of each. Love is love. Don't judge me, accept me for who I am.

[Karlito]

Stephanie - Do you really know God's intent? The bible is composed of human beings' interpretation. Humans are fallible and prone to think and write to their own biases, just as it's your bias that you think you know what God wants. If God really intended for all human beings to procreate, how is it possible that homosexuals have attraction for each other? If God was really against this, God would've purged this from people's desires.

[Karlito]

Stephanie - Do you really know God's intent? The bible is composed of human beings' interpretation. Humans are fallible and prone to think and write to their own biases, just as it's your bias that you think you know what God wants. If God really intended for all human beings to procreate, how is it possible that homosexuals have attraction for each other? If God was really against this, God would've purged this from people's desires.

[J. Satoy]

"The fear of homosexuals as child molesters or recruiters continues to play a role in debates over gay rights..."
Thank you Mr. Chauncey you could not make that statement any clearer or truer. This is a lesson my friends and I learned in our youth in the 50's and 60's.
We were young as 10-11 years old and routinely hitch-hiked rides to movies or shopping malls. These filthy predators were everywhere plying the roads to pick up kids like ourselves. Nearly without exception, the seats of their vehicles were covered with nudist and old style porno magazines. The conversations always quickly turned to 'have you kids ever had sex yet...etc., etc.' topic.
We learned to defend ourselves very well early on. One or more of us would always sit behind the pervert driver with a belt at the ready. The first sign of the creep making a move on whoever was in the front seat, the belt went around his neck and he got the dirt beat out of him.
On my life, this is a true experience. Homosexuals are simply too dangerous to fully legitimize in any manner. They are by nature, mentally ill, sexually consumed and predatory without regard to the harm caused.
A chosen behavior, not any behavior deserves to be classed as a civil right. Think about that. Where will society draw the line on classes demanding "equal protection" to marry animals, to be a thief, to have sex with children (as the homosexual group NAMBLA already demands) or to be a serial murderer?
In order for a healthy society to survive and explore the greatest potential there must be limits upon the affect certain behaviors impede or encourage this potential. Homosexuality is simply a mental illness predicated upon an uncontrolled drive for self-gratification and self-abuse (self hate, poor self-esteem).
Even your Dr. Dean Hamer, one of the worlds preeminent DNA "gay gene" researcher, AND HIMSELF A GAY MAN stated when asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied: "Absolutely not."
Homosexuality is not supported by the same argument and civil protections that protects those of color and is therefore unqualified for the same standing.

[jim]

you got the lingo down for sure, Dave!

[Jon]

J. Satoy, God doesn't like it when you lie.

[Zach]

J. Satoy, I think anyone can see that contrary to your argument, most homosexuals are not running around preying on children, and no expert or study links the two. Homosexuality is about a mature adult attraction to a member of the same sex. Child molestation is about a fixation on children, often independent of one's sexual orientation. NAMBLA is a tired old bogeyman; one can find a perverse and dangerous subgroup within any group of people if they want to do so.

[J. Satoy]

Responding to @Jon and Zach.
First Jon; your, my or whoever’s God knows 100% that the experience(s) I related are completely true and your desperate speculation cannot change or revise that fact. I didn't mention two friends post high school who for every appearance was normal guys. They dated regularly, one got engaged. In both situations they frequently visited NYC to party, fell into the wrong places, got drugged and raped by homosexuals (not the same time or place) and we witnessed firsthand the effects of the shame and guilt. They gradually took on the mannerisms; lispy, limp wrist behavior and eventually disappeared into the lifestyle.
Second, Zack; you may be correct, and you might not. But the facts too often we see and read about with tragic regularity stun the sensibilities of decency. I am referring to the same types that I and my youthful friends encountered alleging that is but one continuing legacy. I also include in this mix of homosexual aggression on the young the priests, youth workers, and other trusted types that abuse their authority and trust and break into the news with all too excessive regularity. I suggest from my experience that the shame and guilt and depreciation of self esteem post homosexual rape or unwanted encounter is but one tool of recruitment.
And how dare you try to pose NAMBLA as "...a tired old bogeyman...” one quick search of the internet will prove to anyone how current and active these homosexual predator/recruiters are.

[J. Satoy]

Responding to @Jon and Zach.
First Jon; your, my or whoever’s God knows 100% that the experience(s) I related are completely true and your desperate speculation cannot change or revise that fact. I didn't mention two friends post high school who for every appearance was normal guys. They dated regularly, one got engaged. In both situations they frequently visited NYC to party, fell into the wrong places, got drugged and raped by homosexuals (not the same time or place) and we witnessed firsthand the effects of the shame and guilt. They gradually took on the mannerisms; lispy, limp wrist behavior and eventually disappeared into the lifestyle.
Second, Zack; you may be correct, and you might not. But the facts too often we see and read about with tragic regularity stun the sensibilities of decency. I am referring to the same types that I and my youthful friends encountered alleging that is but one continuing legacy. I also include in this mix of homosexual aggression on the young the priests, youth workers, and other trusted types that abuse their authority and trust and break into the news with all too excessive regularity. I suggest from my experience that the shame and guilt and depreciation of self esteem post homosexual rape or unwanted encounter is but one tool of recruitment.
And how dare you try to pose NAMBLA as "...a tired old bogeyman...” one quick search of the internet will prove to anyone how current and active these homosexual predator/recruiters are.

[Verballistic]

The 1972 Gay Rights Platform has specific items calling for repealing all laws which set a minimum age of consent for sexual relationships AND abolishing limits on the number of people entering into a marriage relationship.

So the spin doctors in this forum who are saying such extreme behavior is merely a "figment of our imaginations" are CLEARLY WRONG!!

[Zach]

As I said elsewhere, Veballistic, what some activists said almost 40 years ago is hardly credible as being an opinion at the forefront of any group's thought. I can find extremists with dumb ideas amongst any minority, doesn't mean we take rights from that minority as a result.

J.Satoy, it's not a matter of my opinion being right or wrong. The distinctions are published, look up the work of experts on sexual predation and read for yourself, I'd say they have a little more knowledge and credibility than anyone with an opinion and anecdotal evidence. Now, I "dare" to call NAMBLA a bogeyman like I dare to call the KKK a bogeyman - still active, but hardly influential or representative of the demographic group at the core of its membership. In fact, I see estimates showing the Klan has about 5-10 times greater membership than NAMBLA today, does that mean we have to regard white people as a clear and present danger?

I'd say that'd be ridiculous, how about you?

[Dave Minnich]

"If it is wrong for our government to block two people of different religions, nationalities, ages or races from getting married, it is also wrong for our government to block two adults of the same gender. "

Nonsense. The definition of marriage is silent on race, religion, age, or nationality. However, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Gay people have always been able to marry a member of the opposite gender, just like everyone else, and they are not required to procreate or even have sex, just like everyone else. There is no discrimination here. If same-sex couples want equal government benefits as married couples, then we can offer civil unions, without the illogical corruption of language.

In the end, trying to deem same-sex couples as being "married" is 1984-type statist brainwashing, similar to where Winston Smith was forced to accept that 2+2 could equal 5 if the state said so. Once we allow unelected lifetime judges the ability to define words as they see fit, all of our rights will be in jeopardy.

[Verballistic]

Response to Zach:

Perhaps you could provide some quotes of subsequent denunciations of the Gay Rights Platform by today's gay rights activists...I havent been able to find any!!

This would indicate that today's version of the gay rights agenda is merely being watered down or "mainstreamed", in order to make it more palatable to those voters who dont have strong beliefs either way on the issue and have still not decided whether to vote for or against gay marriage!!

[Zach]

No, Verballistic, I don't have any quotes to provide, but then why would any exist? No one talks about that missive anymore except anti-gay folks with nothing more current. Your own argument questions its relevancy - that the mainstreaming of the gay rights movements has worn away those rough sections of the platform you mention. Only fringe groups can be found today championing them, and in this day and age there's a fringe group to champion anything.

[Kevin]

Wow, who cares - really? This has nothing to do with God, government or politics. This has to do with the fact that we live in a DEMOCRACY. Whereas the majority can VOTE on rules and regulations. Last I checked this proposition was CHOSEN by the voters of California. Don't like it? Then try again next year.

Reality is there are other ways to make it so gay couples can enjoy the same privileges as a married couple by changing other aspects of the law. Perhaps we should change the definition and rights of couples engaged in a "civil union" with each other. Would this not satisfy everyone? No - because the gays are not after simply "rights" they are after the spotlight and they want the affirmation from the rest of the world that it is OK to be gay.

Sorry - no dice. I have nothing against gays, and in fact have some gay friends. That is a personal choice they made to live their life in that manner, however they cannot convince me that it is "natural" to be gay. Simply - no species would ever survive if being homosexuality was natural.

[Verballistic]

Great points Kevin and one of my big concerns recently has been the excessive use of the pseudo-scientific term "homophobia", whereby those opposed to gay marriage are stereotyped as having an actual "psychological disorder". They have even expanded the concept to include "transphobia" as an "irrational fear of transgender" people AKA transsexuals (those who have sex change operations) and this represents a disturbing trend.

In Canada, where gay marriage has been legalized, the province of Quebec has actually gone so far as launch an official anti-homophobia policy. What happens when individuals who oppose gay marriage are singled out and overruled or politically neutralized?

Will those suffering from "homophobia" have their rights respected too, or will they be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness, as punishment for all the years of "homophobic oppression"? Potentially a VERY sticky situation, which only highlights the painful fact that we will be opening up a "whole new can of worms" that could eventually lead society to places it really shouldnt go.

The gay rights movement loves to compare itself to the Black Civil Rights movement, but the "homophobia" issue highlights one of many areas in which the two movements are TOTALLY DISSIMILAR. Despite the twisted, sociopathic nature of much racial bigotry, one cannot imagine civil rights pioneers like Martin Luther King having to dream up pseudo-scientific concepts like "afrophobia" as the gay rights movement continually does when they try to paint those opposing their agenda as suffering from psychological "disorders" such as "homophobia" or "transphobia".

[Zach]

Ironically, Verballistic, in the wake of Prop 8 what you say IS a concern. You see, contrary to what Kevin asserts, the US is NOT a democracy, we're a federal constitutional republic. We elect (ideally) more knowledgable and experienced people to represent us, and everyone is bound by the principles enshrined in the federal Constitution. This ensures consistancy and gives our principles strength.

One such principle is equal protection under the law, guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Prop 8 now abridges that guarantee for marital law as it pertains to homosexuals. If we've now determined that we can start making exceptions to core constitutional principles, the 1st amendment could certainly be abridged by popular vote or legislation when it comes to speech some find "hateful." In only seeing the tree of gay marriage, Prop-8 supporters have really opened the forest of our freedoms for logging. Which one do you think 52% will decide to remove next?

Incidentally, Kevin, it doesn't make sense to say no species could survive if homosexuality was natural. That'd only be true if 100% of the species were gay, which is pointless to consider when about 5-10% of humans are. Since gay mating has been noted in many species, the animals seem to be doing just fine, anyway.