Witness in Prop. 8 trial cites wide support for gays and lesbians

A political scientist testified at a federal trial today that gays and lesbians enjoy wide support from the Democratic party, unions and many corporations, as do other minorities, including African Americans.

Professor Kenneth P. Miller, who teaches political science at Claremont McKenna College, was the first witness called by defenders of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in the state.

Miller testified that the Democratic Party in California was on record in support of the repeal of Proposition 8. He also testified that the California Teachers Assn. contributed $1.3 million to defeat the marriage ban and that leading industries in Silicon Valley also participated in efforts to defeat Proposition 8.

Miller's testimony portrayed California's approval of initiatives to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples as exceptions to the state's traditional support for gay and lesbian causes. He testified that three past ballot initiatives opposed by gays and lesbians, including one that would have subjected those who were infected with HIV to quarantine, have failed overwhelmingly.

During cross-examination, David Boies, an attorney for the challengers, got Miller to admit that the entities that support gay rights also support rights for other minorities.

Boies asked Miller for examples of official discrimination against gays. Miller mentioned the federal law banning openly gay people in the military.

Under further questioning, Miller cited a federal law that defines marriage as an opposite-sex relationship and California's marriage ban that was enacted as Proposition 8.

"Looking at the institution of marriage, the state does treat heterosexual couples differently than same-sex couples," Miller said.

Miller took the stand after challengers of Proposition 8 rested their case. They introduced videos produced by supporters of Proposition 8 warning that same-sex marriage could lead to incest and other social ills.

The official Proposition 8 paid for satellite transmission of the videos to churches in California.

A woman, speaking in one of the simulcasts, warned that same-sex marriage would lead to incest and polygamy.

"Then pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry 6-, 7-, 8-year-olds," she predicted. "The man from Massachusetts who petitioned to marry his horse after [gay] marriage was instituted in Massachusetts. He'd have to be allowed to do so. Mothers and sons, sisters and brothers, any, any combination would have to be allowed."

One video showed an African American expressing irritation with comparisons of bias against gays to discrimination against African Americans, noting that people were comparing "my skin to their sin." Photographs of gay men kissing each other at their weddings also were shown.

-- Maura Dolan at the San Francisco federal courthouse

Comments

[Colin]

@Archangel
Well, you've managed come full circle with all the same fallacies and falsehoods as everybody else.
Rather than say my piece over again, you can just read my previous post.
Instead of wasting time on your attempt to demonize homosexuality - all based on mere opinion, I will take up your claim about the etymology of homosexuality.
1. It only takes even a limited amount of experience with people who are gay to understand that their "homosexual" identity is not in any way based on a conscious choice - any more than YOUR sexuality is. YOUR sexuality is only something you have "vaguely felt to be true" is it not? Who are you to say it is not so for others? Keep in mind, this in no way defends someone's right to commit illegal acts - so spare us all the ridiculous pedophilia and murder associations.
2. It doesn't matter anyway. People choose all kinds of acceptable identities, least of which being their Religion! Last time I checked, freedom of conscience and association were still regarded as natural rights, and inseparable from the individual. You certainly have the right to believe homosexuality wrong, but in a free democracy you do not have the authority to deny to one group the very same thing that you would afford to another. Or, were you born hating gay people? Is it then your right to deny them equal treatment and status? Prove It!
3. The burden of proof in this case is on YOUR shoulders. The only thing that must be shown to be "conclusively true beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not why people are gay, but how people like you lose any rights, or suffer any grievances, as a result of the recognition of equality for gays in the eyes of the law. YOU have to prove that.
Hint: Its not easy to justify discrimination against adults who want to participate in the same legal, consensual associations as others. And its even harder to do so in a court of law, which is evidenced by the fumbling testimonies of the prop 8 experts. What's easy is gathering up millions of dollars through a church initiative based on handed-down fear and ignorance, and distributing so-called "evidence" that can't stand up in court, to hundreds of thousands of voters in order to bypass justice for a minority that you just happen to disagree with. That makes good sense for the business of discrimination and fear, too.
- Make no mistake, gay rights are not on trial here.....Proposition 8 is.