Prop. 8 opponents seek to show link between religion, anti-gay discrimination [Updated]

Challengers of California's ban on same-sex marriage are trying to show at trial today that discrimination against gays and lesbians is rooted in religion and that churches have contributed to anti-gay violence.

Opponents of Proposition 8 called to the stand Ryan Kendall, who grew up in an evangelical Christian family in Colorado and was forced to submit to Christian therapy as a teenager to change his sexual orientation.

"I was just as gay as when I started, " Kendall testified.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is presiding over the marriage trial, permitted Kendall to testify over objections by Proposition 8's defenders, on the grounds they had argued sexual orientation was changeable.

Kendall, now a resident of Denver, testified tearfully about how his mother abused him after learning of his sexuality from reading his journal. He said he was called slurs and that his glasses were smashed while attending an evangelical school.

The therapy and his parents' reaction to his sexuality led him to contemplate suicide, and at 16 he went to a Colorado social service agency to ask for protection, he testified. His parents' custody was revoked.

Attorneys challenging Proposition 8 also presented videotaped testimony from two experts on religion who had been retained by the measure's defenders. They have since withdrawn from the case.

The experts agreed under questioning that gays and lesbians have experienced discrimination and that some religions have contributed to that discrimination. They also acknowledged that religion has been used to justify discrimination against African Americans and women.

[Updated at 2:09 p.m.: Challengers of the Proposition 8 presented documents this afternoon that the Catholic and Mormon churches were closely tied to the campaign to pass the measure.]

-- Maura Dolan at the San Francisco federal courthouse

Comments

[ILoveCA]

Straight but not narrow: Maybe your trying to take in too much of the big picture. If you try to see too much, you tend to not see it clearly at all.

[Lornaj]

These people are citizens of the USA, and have equal protection under the law.Deny these people their Rights is discrimination under the constitution of the USA.

[Kari Heaberlin]

Kristin: Although China may be officially atheist, all major religions in ancient China have some sort of codex, which have traditionally been interpreted as being against "exclusive" homosexuality when it interferes with continuation of the family lineage. However, none of the major Chinese religions consider homosexual acts to be "sinful;" as long as a man did his duty and sired children, it was his private affair to have other male lovers.

Homophobia was imported to China along with Western science and philosophy during the self-strengthing movement in the 1860's. When Mao came to power 100 years later, the Chinese government thought of homosexuality as a social disgrace or a form of mental illness, which is a far cry from past 1000 years of the Song, Ming, and Qing Dynasty actively engaging in homosexual relationships. Therefore, a case could be made for the influence that western religion had over China's view of homosexuality, without the Chinese participating in the religion itself.

[Kari Heaberlin]

Jeremy: This country was not "founded" on freedom of religion, but on equal representation in parliament. The colonies were created in order to provide a place where religious freedom could be practiced within the realm of the British Empire, but as soon as the Purtians arrived on the Mayflower, they began persecuting everyone who did not practice their religion (Jews, Pagans, Quakers, Natives, etc.) Furthermore, although the people of California were exercising their right to vote on an issue that effects their lives, the same document that gives them that right also guarantees every citizen, including specialized minority groups, such as african-americans, women and the disabled, due process of law and access to their inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the courts decide that homosexuals are a specialized minority, then the voters cannot take away their right to marry because the proposition violates their constitutional rights. This is not a "reverse hate crime," as you put it, but instead a matter of civil rights. The question is, "Do the people of California have the right to take away homosexuals ability to be married under state law?" The answer is . . .

[kristin]

Kari: you overestimate the influence of the West on China. China has successfully resisted many Western ideas, such as freedom of speech, democracy, individual rights, Christianity, etc. It's hard to believe that a single thing such as homophobia was the one of the few things that was successfully imported into China. I've talked with many atheistic Chinese people--long-time American residents, recent immigrants, etc. For the most part, they look upon homosexuality with disdain, though they will tolerate it. And a majority of them don't approve of gay marriage. Even if you read Chinese history, gay relationships have always been looked down upon by most people.

If gay marriage supporters want to make an impact, they need to move beyond this "religion is evil" mantra and address the underlying reasons why gay marriage is not accepted in most of this world. In China, there are different reasons than the US or in Africa. Educating people is the only way to get people to support you. Calling them names or insulting just makes them your enemies.

[Separation_of_Church_and_State]

The debate is not whether religion is right or wrong, nor is the debate what we should or should not believe in. It is a shame these comments have so quickly degenerated into an argument about religion. This is not what the court case is about.

The question is whether that freedom of religion was maintained in the course of the Prop 8 amendment, or whether the Mormon and Catholic churches overstepped their bounds in order to legislate California law -- and then covered up their part in the campaign. The Mormon Church campaigned heavily in California, using both questionable practices and reporting of those practices, including bussing in protesters in great numbers from out of state, intense phone campaigns, and door-to-door canvassing while posing as residents of an area.

The fact that this same organization (the Mormon Church) is infamous for their different views on marriage, and they dedicated their organization to persecuting others for...different views on who to marry -- well, that is shameful.

There are many other factors involved in the Prop 8 case. Namely, the unconstitutional nature of writing explicit discrimination into the California constitution, especially considering there was only a very narrow majority vote. Whether or not the proposition is discriminatory, that is what is up for debate. Those against prop 8 are against it for many reasons. Never have I heard one of those reasons to be that you must accept that gay marriage is right, or you must believe in it. It is simply a question: are you okay with writing explicit text into the California constitution which discriminates against one section (according to oft-quoted studies, about 10 percent) of the population?

In the end, I hope that all involved will be careful in throwing around these insults. It is disheartening to hear so many people railing against love that they do not approve of, whether that love is for Jesus, God, or another human being.

[Kari Heaberlin]

Kristin: I am overestimating the western influence, how? The influence of western philosophy in China, as well as the whole of Asia, has been well documented by Western and Eastern historians alike. In fact, the isolation of the Japanese Empire from 1633 – 1853, a period known as the Sakuko, was in direct response to the overwhelming influence the West had on its religious and cultural identity. This statement is not derived from a conversation with a few people, but instead, is based on research of the historical impact of opening the East up to European trade. Some of the most notable western influences on Chinese culture were the introduction of Catholicism, scientific understanding of disciplines such as astronomy, and classical mathematics. Freedom of speech, popular democracies, and individual rights were ideas that gained popularity during the Enlightenment, which took place in England and France 100 years later.

Furthermore, asking modern Chinese what they think about homosexuality does not provide adequate evidence to invalidate the claim that ancient Chinese culture not only tolerated homosexuality, they welcomed it. As I have stated previously, for more than 1000 years, most emperors, gentry, and the mercantile upper-class considered homosexuality to be a completely natural act and appealing to all men and women. It was only in the last one to two hundred years that the Chinese culture began to shift towards an attitude of "disdain," as you put it, labeling homosexuality as shameful, a social disgrace, and a symptom of mental illness, much like their European counterparts. This is an extreme paradigm shift that took place over a relatively short period of time and coincides with a period of expansive trading with the West. Comparing ancient Chinese literature to modern Chinese opinion only further enumerates this fact of an ideological shift in their culture. Therefore, one can still argue that Chinese homophobia has roots in Western religion, stemming from the initial contact in 16th century with the Jesuits, whose social disapproval of homosexuality was not commonplace in the Chinese society at that time.

[Glam]

Well, Kristin, though Christianity may not be the basis for discrimination against gays in China, that DOES NOT mean that is not the basis of it in this country. I know, because I was Christian once...and it is truly one of the most intolerant groups in the world. They seek to try an make the whole world just like them, so they can save souls...or is it because of guilt and promise if rewards in the afterlife? And is case anyone thinks so, being gay is not a choice, is not a crime and is someones personal business. STOP THE HATE, NO ON PROP 8.

[Prussell]

Marriage between a man and a woman is not a Christian or religious point of view. Historically since ancient times human beings have accepted marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It's not new. The polygamist have a better argument for the re-definition of marriage in America. What is being proposed is the re-defining of marriage as a union between what?, two people? Why two? Why the removel of one certain restriction and not all restrictions. If each group has the right to marry as they will then how far does that go if it is an equal rights issue. Marriage is a human institution and it should not be changed after thousands of years. Thousands of women live with men in non-traditional common law marriages and they are not afforded civil protections that same sex couples are. Those protections are reserved for marriage, but same sex couples ARE afforded special protections to guarantee their civil rights. Marriage should also be afforded the FULL protection of the law, protection to remain as it has been for thousands of years, and the will of the people to maintain it

[kristin]

Kari: The Chinese mastered astronomy and mathematics long before it was introduced by the west. Other scientific disciplines, such as agriculture, metallurgy, and chemistry were mastered long before the West even got into China. What you wrote sounds a lot like the old imperialist justifications for their occupation of China (I'm not talking about gay relationships here). If you tell a Chinese person: "Some of the most notable western influences on Chinese culture were the introduction of Catholicism, scientific understanding of disciplines such as astronomy, and classical mathematics...", I guarantee you that you will hear an extremely strong rebuttal.

At any rate, which scholars have written that homosexuality was accepted in China? I'm curious.

[PadrePete]

"Prop. 8 opponents seek to show link between religion, anti-gay discrimination..."
And SO WHAT? Is this pathetic whining an insight into AIDS demented thinking?
What of you homosexuals? Did you not personally contribute to your sniveling challenge? How about those sympathizer Fortune 500 corporations, why not share about that major flush of cash fueling your depraved and diabolical agenda? (Are you Christians paying attention here to the word BOYCOTT?) Did you receive donations from any atheist organizations? Say, how about financial contributions from your pedo-pet store, NAMBLA associates (National Man Boy Love Association)? How much cash has that dispicable homosexual inclined pedophile group kicked into your fight?
And as far as Mr. Kendall goes, so what! He is merely one failed example; there are obviously others, as well as many, many successes. The field of psychotherapy and behavior modification does not and never has delivered a 100% 'ur' fixed rate.
And thank you @Posted by: kristin, apparently the Chinese view homosexuality as being perverted on purely ATHEISTIC principles.
And not quite @Posted by: LT, the Chinese pursue their agendas in order to shape the society THEY view as an acceptable social order, whether the world agrees or not.
And to answer you @Posted by: Chris, ("Why, oh why, should people living today still be blindly following these ancient texts?")... Simply because Chris, if MOST of those people you so readily deride for following their belief and faith did NOT adhere as best they can to these "ancient texts" and the important moral precepts they impart, like; "...thou shalt not murder..." it highly probable that every one of you "gays" might have already been 'erased' from the face of the entire planet by now.
Maybe you SHOULD thank God for that fact!

[Bruce427]

> @ucl2: the "Bible" is a hodge podge of documents written by lots of people (many anonymous) over a long period of time. <

An often heard mantra from non-believers, but merely personal opinion only -- not fact.

After His resurrection, as Jesus began to reveal Himself to two men on the road to Emmaus. Jesus: “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). “Beginning with Moses,” refers to the books written by Moses, the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deutronomy) and “all of the prophets” means just what it says. Notice also that Jesus “began” with Moses and all the prophets. Implicit in this statement is that Jesus covered other Old Testament books as well (in Luke 24:44, Jesus adds the book of Psalms to the list). By His appeal to these books to reveal Himself as the promised Messiah, Jesus is simultaneously testifying to their factual trustworthiness (and by implication the entire Old Testament). Were this not so, Jesus would be appealing to books He knew were untrustworthy as testimony that He is who He claims to be. Scripture is "just a hodge podge of documents written by lots of people" -- only to those who hate God.

[Charles]

You know, the arguments that quote the bible here are generic in that the vast majority of people do not know history. History during biblical times that partain to this subject. Once opon a time, there was a catagory of people. This was a small group called "natural born eunuchs". These were the ones that served in the palaces of Kings. They were classified as "natural" in that they had no natural heat for the opposite sex. Now the King needed servants but not at the expense of threatening the King's linage. So in this the King had a generalized testing procedure. If the applicant claimed to be in this catagory, he was assigned room and board. With all necessities provided he also was provided two or three beautiful female virgins as company. It was their duty to try to elicit an arousal from the applicant. If though there was no response (inspite of all the efforts of the beautiful female virgins enticements) then the applicant was considered valid as a prospect for this position. Mel Brooks illustrated this in a short comical skit in his movie "History of the World part 1". Now during midevil times the Catholic Church saw the power that the eunuchs had and at the same time determined that they were vile "men" in their sight. At this point, the Church decided to eliminate this long standing catagory of "natural" and forcibly castrated all the remaining known natural eunuchs. As for the ones that were unknown they were driven underground. Now for Biblical law. All these passages had one thing in common. They were laws that applied to fully legal men. It was these real men that had an appitie for hedonism in sexuallity. These were the ones that "EXCHANGED the their natural "masculinity" for the unatural. In this is how it is an abomination to God. There also is a passage in Matthew where the deciples are debating how all should be married (conventional man and woman that is) and Jesus said, "There are some eunuchs that are born thus this way from their mother's womb, there are some made this way by men and there are some this way for the Kingdom of heaven's sake. Let he of whom can understand this understand". In retrospect, just quoting a few passages without this key that has been removed is foolish.

[Frank]

The argument about homosexual rights aren’t about property rights, or religion or psychology, it is far beyond that. It is about bio-anthropology. It is about human survival. If those that practice homosexuality want to remove God from their habits, they can do it. If paid off psychologists want to dream up reasons to say that people can’t help themselves, let them. But if we want to stop the spread of AIDS, and save human from extinction, whether AIDS or not, then we better listen to biology and anthropology. Marriage isn’t only for the couples being married; it is to give back to the world. The only way to give back to the world is to give us another human being. Giving material things will not enhance the world. People enhance the world. Without the management of people, things are no good.
If homosexuals say they can adopt children to participate in human survival, isn’t this contrary to the very character of homosexuality? Aren’t you saying by entering into this lifestyle that you don’t believe in off springs? Lesbian should never take the seed of someone she rejects (a man). A homosexual male should never give his seed to a person that he rejects (female). Why have a boy in your home if you are lesbians. Isn’t it this very gender that you are rejecting? Why have a girl in your home if you are a homosexual male. Isn’t this the very gender that you are rejecting? A male and female that marry, rightly can have the gender of their off spring in the home, because by their union they are contracting to save the human race. People that practice homosexuality put God into the equation when they talk about moral values; Rights! What gives us the rights to violate our uncontrollable human make-up? What gives us the rights to violate the digestive system? You have the rights to marry a woman if you are a man, and you have the rights to marry a man if you are a woman.

[Zach]

No, Frank, the argument isn't beyond simple legal rights unless you've just got a beef with homosexuals and want the government to punish them for you. The government isn't, or at least shouldn't, be a part of moral/philosophical crusade.

The rest of your argument is just moot after that, but flawed in that you've made conclusions on motivations you obviously don't understand. Maybe you should consider, for example, that it's NOT "the very character of homosexuality" to reject human survival and the opposite sex, and that's why they DO create families and raise opposite sex kids just like everyone else.