Without A Clutch

Majority Privilege

2011-03-25T14:29:00.000-07:00

We came across this statement yesterday - it was part of a response from Bioware to complaints from straight male customers about male characters in the new Dragon Age game flirting with them (full response here) - and we both thought it was fantastic:

And if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as “political correctness” if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They’re so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don’t see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what’s everyone’s fuss all about? That’s the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want.

This paragraph is referring specifically male and heterosexual privilege, but it can be easily applied to any majority segment of the population. Majority privilege is something really difficult to see when you’re actually a part of the majority, but that only makes it more important to be aware of. In the US today the White, Male, Heterosexual and Christian demographics enjoy majority status and are very resistant to minorities that challenge their privileged status. I can already hear many of the arguments against this (we’ve both made some of them before), because those in the majority don’t like being told that they have enjoyed undeserved privilege at the expense of others, or that not everything should be catered to their preferences.

This problem naturally persists when one group’s majority status is replaced by another. The former minority had to tolerate being ignored or repressed for so long, that they see it as a matter of course to act in the same manner. Right now atheists are a minority in this country and most atheists that I have talked to have a wonderful view on human equality and a philosophy that “You should be allowed to do whatever you want to, as long as it doesn’t interfere with my ability to do whatever I want to.” If we ever become the majority, we need to be hyper-aware of how we shape society and actually implement our Humanist principles to work for equality for all instead of just making ourselves the new privileged class.

Never stop questioning in search of reason,

Valerie and Mike

Changing the Way We Eat, Part Two

2011-03-18T15:43:00.000-07:00

Part 1 was all about how to eat, changing the way we physically ingest food. Today is a collection of tips and tricks on choosing what to eat. Starting with better ingredients makes all the difference. Again, work on changing things slowly. This list isn’t at all comprehensive, and there’s still a lot of research and debate on what, exactly, is the best to eat, but this is what Mike and I have figured out so far:

The most important step is to choose whole foods (ingredients) - fruits, vegetables, and especially grains - over processed/already prepared foods. It’s a pretty good rule of thumb that the less processed it is the better it is for you.

Cooking your own food is one of the best ways to eat healthier, since you get to control exactly what goes into your meal. As a society, we’ve gotten out of practice using our kitchens, but cooking for yourself doesn’t have to be scary. If you don’t have any cooking experience, search around the internet for “Beginner cooking recipes” or go browse a local bookstore for kid’s cookbooks, which are obviously geared for beginners. Plus, you’ll get fun, bright colored pictures to look at!

Mike and I are doing a lot of cooking at home including cooking in bigger batches in order to have leftovers for lunches and freezing meals and ingredients for nights when we’re feeling lazy. Even when there are leftovers in the fridge, I still sometimes forget a lunch and go buy something from the freezer more than I’d like. It’s a work in progress.

Pay attention to ingredient labels, if you don't recognize it, don't eat it. I feel like I need to take my friend The Chemistry PhD grocery shopping with me, just so I can figure out what half of the ingredients are. Many of them may not be harmful, but since I don’t have any idea, I try to stay away. You’ll be amazed what you find when you start paying attention. Amanda will talk about this more in her guest post coming next week! (So I don’t have to! n_n)

Fiber is really good for you, since it’s very filling and takes the most energy to digest. For vegetables, crunchy is better than mushy (you don't have to eat raw, but you'll get more bang for your buck if it takes a little bit of work for your stomach to digest all those tasty nutrients.)

If you don’t like vegetables - I’ve now found several friends that don’t - there are some good ways to up your vegetable intake without eating just a plate of veggies. In no particular order:

Ripe avocado makes a good spread and mayo substitute.

Guacamole is a great way to get a bunch of tasty veggies, and so is a good salsa (read the label or make your own!). Try to watch the amount of salt that’s included.

Try dishes where veggies are mixed in with meat, like a stir fry.

If you’re brave, try raw veggies dunked in a sauce or dip. It’s not the healthiest in the long run, but if it gets you eating things you wouldn’t otherwise, go for it! You can cut down on the dip once you’ve gotten used to the taste and texture of veggies.

If all else fails, you can literally sneak vegetables in:

Pureed raw zucchini is one of my favorite tricks; it’s tasteless but nutrient rich and makes sauces creamier. It’s great in pasta sauce (even added to a jar of pasta sauce) or a stir fry, and you can often use it in place of half of the oil when baking. You can puree a bunch (just stick chunks of washed raw zucchini, skin on, in the blender and have at it) and freeze it in cubes or small Ziploc bags. Instant nutrition! This works well with other pureed vegetables too.

Make a fruit smoothie and add a carrot. Blend well and you’ll forget it’s there.

We’ve also signed up for a CSA (Whistling Train Farm) so we’ll get a box of fresh, locally grown produce every week from June – January. If we don’t find creative ways to use up everything in the box, we’ll have wasted money. I’m really excited for the challenge. Maybe try buying a new vegetable a week and finding a way to cook with it (AllRecipes!)

Lower your meat intake, and up the vegetables and whole grains.

Try cutting your piece of meat in half and taking bigger servings of side dishes. This will leave you with leftovers for lunch too.

Mike and I are slowly becoming part-time vegetarians by working a lot more vegetarian recipes into our collection. I’ve been really surprised by how tasty and filling some of them are! You don’t even have to like tofu (though we do).

I made Asparagus Chicken and Pecan Pasta the other night and it was super tasty and plenty filling. If you're scratching your head on how this is vegetarian, I cut out the chicken and added snap peas (we had frozen asparagus and snap peas on hand, any veggies would work). I also cut down the cheese to 1/2 c, mostly because I wanted to be able to have more to use on other tasty dishes.

I use allrecipes.com for almost all of my new recipes. It lets you search by what you have in the cupboard and it is popular enough that it has a really strong rating system. There are also always comments about what people changed in order to make it fit with what they had in their pantry. All of the tested recipes (which is most) have a “per serving” breakdown of Calories, Fat, Cholesterol, Sodium, Carbs, Fiber, and Protein. It's pretty easy to find tasty, healthy recipes.

Cut out fast food as much as possible. As tasty as it is in the short term, there are few things that are worse for you than the crap that comes out of fast food joints. This is a really hard one, fast food tastes good, it’s easy and available everywhere you turn. Again, take small steps.

Plan ahead one day/week to bring lunch instead of eating out. Once you get that down, increase it to two, and so on. Eventually, you’ll get to the point that you’re hardly eating fast food at all. Then you can have a fun experience like I did a few days ago! We haven’t eaten fast food more than once or twice in a couple of months now, but I forgot to bring lunch and Burger King had been sounding really good (I have to drive past one daily, often when I’m hungry), so I decided to treat myself. It tasted pretty good, but almost immediately afterwards I felt off. It sat really heavy in my stomach and made me feel gross for the rest of the day. Fast food just isn’t worth it anymore, and this is coming from someone who was just about addicted to Chicken McNuggets only half a year ago.

Now the only fast food we’ll treat ourselves to is Chipotle Mexican Grill. They use whole and smart ingredients (including non-factory farmed meat!) put together in the same way you would at home. If you aren’t going to cook for yourself, your health is worth the few extra dollars to make sure you’re getting good quality prepared food.

I think taking control of your eating is a really big struggle for Americans. I don’t watch TV and I still feel constantly bombarded by advertisements for products and diet fads, and by information from ‘experts’ on the ‘only’ healthy way to eat. Spoilers: it generally involves their product. No wonder we can’t keep it straight. My general rule of thumb is to get back to basic ingredients and make it myself. If I’m not making it myself, I try to pay attention to what’s in it. Eating well doesn’t have to be hard, but it does take awareness and a bit of action.

Changing your diet isn’t about racing the scale. You can lose weight and still be unhealthy about it, but if you start changing how and what you eat you will notice a difference in how you feel, and eventually you should have more energy and less weight.

Never stop questioning,

Valerie

PS. This probably would have fit well in last week’s post, but I forgot it. I’m curious if you all have any suggestions:

One of my biggest struggles is boredom snacking. Right now, for example, I’m stuffed but I have a very strong urge to go and find something to munch on … and Mike just offered me a cookie. Not fair. I know that this is a really important thing to cut back on, it goes right along with eating without distractions and paying attention to when your body says “I’m full!” but besides just not having anything in the apartment to snack on or sheer willpower, I don’t really know how to go about it. Help?

Changing the Way We Eat, Part One

2011-03-11T00:00:00.000-08:00

I’ve been very conscious of my food intake lately, for a number of reasons: Mike and I are trying to create healthy grocery shopping, meal planning, and eating habits. Our group of friends tries to cut out the high fructose corn syrup and other unnatural/unidentifiable ingredients whenever possible. I’ve picked up a couple of really good food blogs, and I just finished reading Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer. (A book review might be in the future, let me know if you’re interested in the comments!) I’ve never been this aware of my food, and it’s an interesting journey. We’re working toward eating tasty food while creating healthy eating habits now that will follow us through adulthood, and lead to a longer life with less painful medical problems. I need to work on exercise and getting enough sleep too, but one thing at a time.

As a disclaimer, I've never been overweight, but I have had incredibly unhealthy diets and experienced the gross feeling and lack of energy that come from eating that way. Someday my metabolism is going to change and I won't be able to eat whatever I want, and it's better to be prepared than blindsided. My diet (as in overall food intake, not made up program to control weight) definitely isn't perfect, but being more aware of what I'm eating is already helping.

We've created an amazingly unhealthy culture in America. We've forgotten where our food comes from, and often we can't even recognize half of the ingredients on the labels anymore. We have an entire diet industry that is counting on failure. If the diet fails, or more specifically, isn't sustainable and the dieter slips off the wagon, they're almost always going to blame themselves for failing and come back and try again; throwing more money at the problem to get it "right this time." The diet industry has exploded into one of the largest in the country since the 1950’s without a strong success rate. The diet industry is growing, but so is the obesity rate. Something isn't working.

We've stopped caring about what goes into our bodies and just started inhaling food like a country of crazed Kirbys. We sit in front of TVs or computers (or even books, in my case) and eat without tasting. We don't pay attention to our bodies, even when it's screaming at us that it's full. We get up from the table with a sickened "Uuugh, I ate too much." It's no wonder that 99% of the people who need the motorized carts at Walmart are grossly obese. No one has taught them how to eat properly. It kills me when I have to help a 300+ pound man confined to a wheelchair get a dozen donuts. For himself. For that day.

This can change, but we have to be willing to listen to someone other than the diet industry - the industry that makes money off of our failures. The industry that doles out emotional abuse to make us feel depressed when we can't follow their unsustainable guidelines (depression encourages overeating) and then waits for us to come back for more to try again because we desperately don't want to be 50, 100, 150 lbs overweight.

I’m not an expert, but I have been hyper aware of mine and others eating habits lately, and I’ve been doing a lot of reading. So, here’s what I’ve figured out:

The weight loss industry wants you to focus on exercise first, diet second. I think you're a lot more likely to fail if you try it this way. Your body just doesn't have the energy until you start feeding it right. Moving around in your day is really important, but if you exercise a bunch without changing how you eat, you're going to make your body sad. Ideally, you'll do both at once, but I know from experience that this doesn't happen often.

Instead, let’s focus on eating right. The biggest block to get over is the idea of diets. Diets. Don't. Work. So, what does? Baby steps. Small attainable and sustainable goals, one or two at a time. You can’t go cold turkey with food like you can cigarettes; you can’t resolve to stop eating, but you can resolve to stop some bad habits. If you're serious about your health, you need to be in it for the long haul, not for the instant gratification of dropping 20 lbs in two weeks. Your body will thank you. So be specific with your goals: instead of saying "I'm going to eat better!" Try "I'm going to choose water over soda once per day." Water is a really important first step (if you don't like it plain, try adding lemon or drinking tea).

Another easy first step to eating healthier is to use a smaller plate when you serve yourself. If you have a huge piece of meat, try cutting it in half and only taking half at a time. Then sit at a table without distractions. If you're eating alone and can't stand the silence, try putting on music or maybe a podcast. You'll take smaller portions, be able to focus on your food and eat slower, take in how delicious it is, and notice when you're full. You will have a more satisfying meal, and you're using portion control (shh, don't tell anyone). You are less likely to go back for seconds if you have to get up, so use the power of laziness! Learn to say "Oh man that was good, but I'm full, and I'll keep the rest for leftovers." (This is still hard for me!)

If you eat out, ask for a box at the beginning and put half of your meal away so you're not tempted to overeat. Eat the rest of it slowly and enjoy the company of whoever you’re eating with or just enjoy people watching.

Eat slow! You aren't a vacuum and it takes time for your body to process food and to let you know when you're full. This is definitely one of the things I struggle with the most, it tastes so good and I want it all now! Ultimately, I end up unsatisfied when I get to the end of the meal. I can hardly remember what it tasted like and all I'm left with is this sickeningly full feeling. When I eat slower, I enjoy myself more and I eat healthier. As an added bonus, I often end up with leftovers.

This post has been all about changing the way we eat by changing how we eat, making small changes like: drinking water over soda, choosing smaller plates for portion control, and eating slower. Personally, I’ve gotten down drinking water and only have soda occasionally when I’m out at a friend’s or sometimes in a restaurant, but I’m still working on starting with smaller portions and I’m still struggling with eating slower. As long as I stay aware of my goals and keep working to achieve them, it’s completely okay to struggle. In Part Two I’ll share more tips about how to change the way we eat by changing what we eat.

Never stop questioning,

Valerie

Guest Post: Magical Thinking

2011-03-04T00:00:00.000-08:00

Faith is viewed dramatically differently by the many different types of nontheists. There’s no one philosophy of thought held by nontheists in a group – we’re a disparate bunch – since we are largely unified merely by lack of belief in a god or gods. Some see faith and religion as not being such a bad thing at all. On message boards and blogs, you will often hear cries for moderation in our discourse, saying that we can all coexist with our many and myriad beliefs, and we should all live and let live. What’s the harm in that?

The harm is in what James Randi calls “magical thinking”. This is a product of faith, as I see it. Magical thinking is, at its most basic, allowing one’s self to accept arguments without any logic, evidence, or reasoning. Religious people accept that their god exists, miracles occurred, and any number of extraordinary things. The more educated theists will put forth arguments born of their faith-based logic, but when these are torn down by competent nontheists, all that is left is faith. “I just know.”

When asked if religion does any harm, therefore, I must emphatically say "yes." Even the most moderate of religions require, by their very definition, magical thinking. It is bad enough to see this in adults who refuse strong evidence which conflicts with their beliefs. I find it more abhorrent still that this magical thinking is then taught to their children. This can only stymie their intellectual growth, by providing logical dead-ends to their questions. Worse, the parents would then go on to glorify that same willful ignorance - faith is a virtue, after all.
A person who cites faith as a reason for believing something is proudly claiming they hold their belief with no supporting evidence asked for or given.

Again and again through history we've seen that sort of magical thinking be harmful. Consider the anti-vaccination movement: A group of people led by a vocal spokesperson, Jenny McCarthy, whose claims are dubious at best. However, they've "seen" it happen, or they know someone who has had it happen to them - their child or their friend's child or their aunt's first cousin twice removed had a friend who definitely caught autism from their MMR shots. A facetious example, to be sure, but this is how the “evidence” is presented. As an example, take one of Jenny McCarthy’s own blog posts. “I know children regress after vaccination because it happened to my own son.”

Prior to this statement, McCarthy quoted the parent of one of the 12 patients in Andrew Wakefield’s original study (more on this in a moment), who makes the other side of this claim.
“To hear that my son's gastrointestinal condition has been extensively refuted, by unqualified and ill-informed individuals who have never laid eyes on him, looking at and mis-interpreting scanty medical notes without the courtesy to ask for our version of our son's early childhood, flies in the face of everything that the medical community and its professional bodies seek to represent.”
This person may have legitimate issues with the studies done that concluded, of course, that there was no link between her child’s gastrointestinal disorder and autism. However, she is attempting to reach a hypothesis from an already defined conclusion, which flies in the face of the scientific method. In other words, she has seen this happen, and “knows” what must have caused it; therefore it must be shoddy science that refutes her particular claim.

The research, the evidence, and the scientific community is overwhelmingly against them. The first one to propose a vaccine-autism link was Andrew Wakefield, and his work was recently (finally!) discredited by prominent UK medical journalist Brian Deer. It was proven that Wakefield accepted upwards of $800,000 from lawyers who wanted him to prove that the vaccine was unsafe. The scientific journal that originally published Wakefield’s work has since retracted it, publically and finally refuting the pseudoscience once and for all.

In response to all this, of course, Jenny McCarthy was not deterred. Here’s a rebuttal to this blog post by “Orac” of Scienceblogs.com, which contains citations, links, and a lot more science than I’m capable of producing.

This is nothing short of willful, deliberate ignorance, despite overwhelming evidence against this vaccination-autism link. The original promoter of the idea has been debunked as a fraud. Not a single shred of evidence has ever turned up in favor of the idea. But still the idea persists, because McCarthy and those who follow her “believe” it to be true. They “know” that their child is afflicted by autism because of vaccines, and it seems like nothing will change their minds.

Children are dying because
people trust her more than
medical professionals

This brings me back to my original point. What’s the harm? They’re welcome to their own crazy ideas, so why get so worked up about it? As of 2008, measles have become endemic in the UK. The reason? Low MMR coverage – the same vaccine that McCarthy and other anti-vax types rail against the hardest. Whether this was caused directly by anti-vax efforts is irrelevant. It shows us that there is a pressing need for vaccinating our children, and it’s not to line pharmaceutical company’s pockets. It’s to maintain immunity as a species to diseases that should have been wiped out. A compendium of other examples from right here in the USA, check out the Jenny McCarthy Body Count website, which catalogues death and hospital reports from the CDC concerning illnesses in people who were never immunized, and more on Jenny McCarthy’s role in the anti-vax movement.

Religion is not the root cause of this sort of willful ignorance that can lead to serious harm. Religion is just a symptom of magical thinking; taking things on faith, or anecdotal evidence, or just “feeling” something to be so. Religion does, however, reinforce that faith is a good thing, to be prized and rewarded.

Instead, I say, question everything. Check your sources and cross your references; be a skeptic. Read up on What’s the Harm to hear sobering stories about the specific dangers of neglecting critical thinking. Only when we all think critically can we surmount the dangers posed by magical thinking.

Living in reality,

Justin

Intro to the Documentary Hypothesis

2011-02-25T00:00:00.000-08:00

Ever wonder how and when the Christian Old Testament / Jewish Bible (divided into the Torah "Law," Neviim "Prophets," and Ketuvim "Writings") were written? There is a large body of scholarly work on the subject, and it's all pretty fascinating. Especially if you like studying history and culture. The first thing I would recommend is this brief introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis. This covers the very basics behind scholarly understanding of the Torah.

Thanks to heterodoxism and his hard work making these abridged lectures a visually interesting jumping off point.

If you enjoy this short playlist and want to delve deeper, OpenYale Courses has this entire lecture series from Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) available online.

I share this because there are two ways to read holy books.

The first way is to assume that you are the intended audience, and to assume that the theology of the authors is the same as what you were taught.

The second is to take a critical approach to the text and to the history and culture of the authors. In the Five Books of Moses alone we have evidence for the four distinct cosmologies/theologies of J, E, D, and P; each so old that modern Judaism and modern Christianity are closer to each other than they are to their ancient source material.

When I studied the Torah in college I entered the class committed to truth and hoping to strengthen my religious faith by delving into Christianity's origins. I saw several students that would rationalize away or simply ignore the historic and archaeological evidence and continue to argue the "truth" of their churches explanation for the text. They couldn't defend their positions, but they wouldn't budge. This bothered me greatly. If my fellow Christians were honestly opening themselves up to the truth of God's word, why did they feel threatened by long documented and well understood facts about the Hebrew history? Interestingly, their faith in their particular church's doctrine led them to disagree with each other almost as often as with the professor.

On the other hand, I understood and accepted my ignorance of the subject and approached the class with an open mind. When I saw that my position didn't match the evidence I accepted that I was wrong. I abandoned the assumptions that I had been taught by volunteer Sunday School teachers with no scholarly background, and accepted the position that was supported by verifiable historic facts. Ironically, this eager commitment that I made to learning the true roots of my religion was also my first step to seeing it as it really is: a human construct that stands in contradiction to the natural world.

"The bible must be seen in a cultural context. It didn't just happen. These stories are retreads. But, tell a Christian that -- No, No!
What makes it doubly sad is that they hardly know the book, much less its origins."
~ Isaac Asimov

In search of reason,

Mike

From Sexual Guilt to Sex Positive

2011-02-18T00:00:00.000-08:00

Note: This post contains information about my sexuality or sex life, if you would rather not know these things about me move along and check for another blog post on another day.

Mike and I took a trip to the three-story Lovers adult store in Tukwila the other day, and had a really great time. The salespeople were all very friendly and helpful, and there wasn’t a hint of awkwardness. They knew their stuff and were sincerely looking to help us enjoy our time shopping. It took me once around the store to relax and be able to talk to Mike about the products we were looking at, but once I did I was really comfortable and appreciated the atmosphere. It got me thinking about how nice it would be if sex wasn’t such a stressful taboo in our society, if we could always relax and talk with others with the same ease that Mike and I could in the store.

Lovers mission statement is “To provide an exciting environment to explore human sexuality and to acknowledge the freedom to do so."

Now, how is that possibly a bad thing?

We once went to a lecture by Dr. Darrell Ray where he talked pretty extensively about The Guilt Cycle, and how it plays such an important role in religion. The Church latches on to sex as a really great way to control their members (no pun intended). They find something that people are naturally programmed to do – in this case masturbating or experimenting as they mature sexually – and tell them that it’s wrong, a very serious sin. When Churchgoer masturbates or experiments with a friend or partner, they feel intense guilt that has been programmed in by the Church. They turn to the Church or prayer, to absolve them of their guilt, which the church will happily do… while reinforcing the idea of how bad this sin is. Churchgoer feels a little bit better, at least until their hormones kick in and they ‘slip up’ again and the cycle repeats. I’ve watched several Christian friends and even a few relatives anguish through this cycle. It’s incredibly powerful.

If you want to control someone, control their sexuality. Sex is one of the most powerful urges that we have, next to eating and sleeping. We become sexually viable in our young teen years, and it’s completely unnatural to abstain from sex until your early 20s. There is a reason that teenagers are so horny, it’s not a choice, its basic biology. It’s generally mentally and physically unhealthy to abstain from sex for so long, especially if you try to eliminate masturbation as well. There may be people out there who can do it, and I’m impressed. By the time I was 18, I was chomping at the bit. Depending on your definition of virgin (mine was vaginal sex) I was a virgin until I got to college, but at that point I was ready to fuck just about anybody. I’m lucky enough that I met my future husband and he didn’t take advantage of that, but let’s back up a bit to get the whole picture.

My own sexual growth and knowledge has been stunted on one side, and accelerated on the other, which has forced me to do some painful growing and balancing in the past few years. Let me explain.

I grew up in a sexually repressive Evangelical Christian church, though thankfully not as repressive as it could have been. Sex was something wonderful and awesome - a perfect gift from God - as long as it was saved for marriage and you only ever had sex with your permanent heterosexual partner. You give up a part of yourself whenever you have sex, a part that you never get back, so don’t you want to be whole for your spouse? If you’re not, all of the other partners that you have will basically be in the bedroom with you every time you have sex. (What a load of bunk.) I got the idea that you didn’t need to work at sex, your wedding night would automatically be amazing since you’d waited patiently for so long. Real life turned out to be just a bit different, but we’ll get to that.

So, from my verbal schooling about sex, I got a good education on what was happening to my body through puberty, the basics on the mechanics of sex, the ‘icky’ knowledge that gay men had sex by sticking it in the butt (I was young and it was said with such disgust), and the idea that sex was perfect when God brought the right man into your life and you ‘became one’ with him. This is the stunted half, there’s so much that I didn’t learn about the way sex really is.

The other half started silently when I was 5ish. I discovered my body and “Hee, that tickles! … Hey, that feels really good!” at nap time and at night. I had my first fantasies, and ‘played doctor’ with the neighbor girl down the street. Young-me was told that pornography was a terrible sin, degrading for women, something that should be avoided at all costs, etc. I was either never told, or could never remember, what pornography actually was. Curiosity eventually won out, and one night when I was home alone, I turned to the internet. I went to Lycos.com (remember that search engine?) and searched for “pornography”. With my heart pounding, and looking paranoid over my shoulder, I was faced with my first “You must be 18 or older to enter” screen and feeling like I was breaking the law, I pushed “ENTER”. I panicked and quickly closed the window. I sat there for a moment, heart racing, sure I was somehow going to get caught. Once I calmed down a bit, I repeated the process and I was hooked. I think I was 12.

I was insatiable for a while, learning and looking at everything I could get my hands on. I found a site full of erotic stories that captured my imagination, AOL chatrooms where I pretended to be twice my age and quickly got frustrated with guys who couldn’t figure out descriptive writing and that ‘I give you an orgasm’ wasn’t exciting (which I still find hilarious). I also had a 30-something guy tell me he was newly married but he loved me and his wife said that it was okay if it was just on the internet. Right. That scared the pants off me, I told him I was 13 and then blocked him, and that killed cybering for me. I learned pretty early on what I liked, what got a rise out of me, and what didn’t do anything. I was increasing my sexual knowledge by leaps and bounds, but I didn’t have anything practical to temper it against, and I wouldn’t dream of talking to anyone about it. This is the accelerated half, and the silence of it all has made my sex life unnecessarily difficult.

As I became sexually active, I found that I had no idea if the things that I read about in porn were the way it actually worked and I also quickly realized that I couldn’t vocalize the things that I wanted, including saying no when things were moving too fast. I had good boundaries in mind, but enforcing them was nearly impossible for me. If I had stumbled into a less amazing guy than my future husband when I first got to college, this could have ended very badly for me. As it was, I got off with only days of stress, guilt, and frustration at myself afterwards. Yeah, there’s still something wrong with that picture.

As our relationship grew, we struggled pretty mightily creating a happy and healthy sex life. Some of it was the fact that being on the pill killed my libido, but I think a lot of it came from my lack of ability to communicate. Some people might be lucky enough to get it right the first time, but from everything that I have heard, read, and experienced: it’s all about communication and practice. If you’re missing the communication, the practice isn’t going to help much either.

So many couples are incredibly self-conscious talking about sex, even though they are actively engaging in it. Why is talking about it more embarrassing than doing it? I still have a problem talking openly about the specifics of sex with my own husband. I get embarrassed and shy and it’s damn frustrating. The unrealistic expectations from the church, mixed with feelings of guilt from my Christian peers and teachers, self-imposed guilt from my parents teachings (Don’t make our mistakes!), and silence through my sexual development have been huge hurdles that I’ve had to face in coming to terms with my sexuality and in working with my husband to create a healthy sex life. I read blogs about parents raising their children in sex-positive environments and I’m jealous. But I can only take what I’ve learned and move on.

I am sex positive, working hard to become vocal about it, and I think the world would be happier if everyone else was too.

Never stop questioning,

Valerie

*****Edit*****

Here's a little bit on the sex positive movement to help clarify things:

"The sex-positive movement does not in general make moral or ethical distinctions between heterosexual or homosexual sex, or masturbation, regarding these choices as matters of personal preference. Some sex-positive positions include acceptance of BDSM and polyamory as well as asexuality, transsexuality, transgenderism, and other forms of gender transgression in general. Most elements of the sex-positive movement advocate comprehensive and accurate sex education as part of its campaign."

"Sex-positivity allows for and in fact celebrates sexual diversity, differing desires and relationships structures, and individual choices based on consent."

Being raised sex-positive would mean that all forms of consenting sex and gender combinations would be viewed as normal and healthy, and would include a well-rounded education about the dangers and benefits of sex, physically and emotionally. I definitely don't advocate all teens running around sleeping with each other, I agree with you that most aren't emotionally ready yet, but we can better prepare our children for how to safely have positive sexual experiences when they're ready.

Guest Post: Is it any wonder

2011-02-11T00:00:00.000-08:00

As some of you are aware, a few months ago there were a number of high profile cases involving gay teens committing suicide. This included Tyler Clementi, a college student that jumped off of the George Washington Bridge after two of his peers humiliated him by videotaping him having sexual relations with another man. This prompted many prominent members of society, including President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and many others to participate in the “It Gets Better” campaign. The idea was to send a message that it is possible to have a happy life while being a member of the LGBT community.

Ultimately, even though I am straight, I had no problem understanding why a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered teen would want to kill themselves. All I had to do is think back to elementary and middle school days. “Gay” was used as a derogatory slur the other kids would call each other. Throughout high school, and even every so often in college, the word “gay” was used as a synonym for stupid. Growing up in the 90s, I thought being gay was something sinister. And to think, I was by no means living in a conservative household or in a conservative part of the country.

High profile religious leaders have blamed gays for terrorist attacks. Many choose to practice selective literalism and hide behind passages in Leviticus to justify their intolerance and sheer hatred for the LGBT community. Gays are currently not able to get married in all but a handful of states, and those marriages are currently not recognized by the federal government. The LGBT community is not covered by the Fair Housing Act, and is not immune from employment discrimination by federal law and 30 states. Is it any wonder that some gay teens can’t picture a happy life for themselves?

What I believe is most telling is not a single prominent Republican produced an “It gets better” public service announcement. I would like to think that we would all be on the same page and believe that it is a bad thing for people to be committing suicide, regardless of who they are. It is important to remember that silence is acceptance, and that we must condemn not only those who perpetrate the hatred, but those who remain silence and allow the hatred to live and fester in our society. Martin Luther King Jr. often remarked that “the ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.” Unfortunately, some have taken it upon themselves to prevent others to share the same rights that heterosexual couples already enjoy; this opposition baffles me. I have yet to hear a single good reason as to why we should not legalize gay marriage, and eliminate any law that actively discriminates against the LGBT community.

For starters, it seems that the attempt to stop gay marriage is futile, and I do not see how it could be stopped from becoming an American institution. Although most point to Biblical scripture as the reason for their opposition, last time I checked we were not a theocracy, but a constitutional republic. The American Constitution clearly defines a separation between church and state. Furthermore, the 5th Amendment prevents any person from being “…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Also, section 1 of the 14th Amendment states “…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It should be noted that the 5th Amendment applies directly to the federal government, whereas, the 14th Amendment applies to the states. In a modern context, that could easily include the right of marriage.

Social conservatives often grumble that allowing gay marriage would be “redefining marriage.” The fact of the matter is, if we hadn’t redefined marriage Catholics would be unable to marry Protestants, Christians would be unable to marry Jews, and blacks would not be able to marry whites. Marriage is something that has been in flux over the years; changing to reflect the social changes of the era.

Another issue people should think about is “Why do you care if two people you don’t even know of the same sex want to marry each other?” How exactly would this affect your personal life? The answer is little to nil. I have to say that it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if same-sex marriage became the law of the land. Some may worry that their church may be forced into recognizing those marriages. This fear is unfounded. The separation of church and state works both ways; other than laws like not killing the parishioners, and abiding to building codes; the state has no business in the affairs of the church.

Some may worry that allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt the sanctity of marriage, since Americans are all about upholding the sanctity of marriage. That is why 1 in 2 marriages end in divorce, according to the Kinsey Institute 50% of men and 26% of women have engaged in extramarital sex at least once, and Britney Spears’ 72-hour just for fun marriage is allowed to happen. I am not saying that marriage should not be respected. What I am arguing is that when so many do not respect the love and commitment that corresponds with marriage; why not allow marriage to a group that does?

History tells us that when ever there is some social change that becomes obvious to the mainstream, there is always a group that will fight it until the very end. I am convinced that the LGBT community deserves full and equal protection under the law. In that sense, 30 years from now when they make the documentary about the gay rights movement and they need a bad guy that fought it every step of the way, that person certainly won’t be me.

Matt

Naive Rationalizations

2011-02-04T00:00:00.000-08:00

When I’m talking to a theist about religion, I am sometimes stunned by arguments I’m presented with that I can only describe as childish. When I say childish arguments, I am not implying that they are either stupid or immature, nor am I calling the person presenting them childish, stupid, or immature. Rather they demonstrate to me that this person, otherwise very intelligent, logical, even skeptical when talking about other topics, has an innocent or even naïve credulity behind their religious superstitions. I’m sure everyone that has been proselytized for one time to another to has heard something similar to the statements below:

“God tells us that he is just.”
“God tells us that he wants none to perish.”
“I know that the Bible is God’s words because it says so.”
“Jesus wouldn’t have claimed to be the Son of God if it wasn’t true.”

The implied argument behind these statements is that decrees or properties attributed to one’s god are not only true; they cannot even be challenged or investigated. I find this idea to be a horrifyingly low standard to set for truth. Where else in life do we take important claims solely on faith, or as I should say, with unquestioning obedience? Foreign leaders? Our own politicians? Our courts? Safety inspectors?

The more power that one can potentially wield over our lives and well-being, the more we expect that they can back up their claims. And if evidence to the contrary arises, then we become even more skeptical. In short, our trust in those who wield power over us is contingent on them demonstrating that they have earned our trust. So why does a god get a free ride? I ask this with all sincerity: shouldn’t an omnipotent being be held to the highest of standards? If it can do anything then proving its own claims should be a trivial exercise for it. We should expect a perfect being to do so clearly and without contradiction or room for error of interpretation. I want to go back to those statements, and explain why – to a non-believer – they sound naïve.

“God tells us that he is just.”

We may not have a perfect grasp of justice, but there is strong consensus amongst humans with modern sensibilities about what constitutes a just punishment. When Yahweh is said to have sent his flood, he did so to kill every man, woman, and child. With only one family left living, this flood would have been the worst genocide in all of human history. Even if every adult was provably an evil and immoral criminal, no one can claim that it was a just punishment to slaughter the millions of infants born to these criminals by no fault of their own. Christians claim their god is perfectly just to imply that it is our fault for not understanding his justice. But a perfectly just god would never have committed such an evil and unjust act as global infanticide.

“God tells us he wants none to perish.”

How one can say this with a straight face when they claim to know their god through the Christian bible is beyond me. As an omnipotent being that created all things, Yahweh could have chosen to not create man as mortals, or to not create a hell. But throughout the Christian bible it is clearly stated that Yahweh intends to stoke the furnaces of hell for all who refuse to glorify his name. Ignorance is no excuse for non-Christians either. The most generous estimates are that one third of the world’s population are self-described Christians. Let’s ignore the contradictory and mutually exclusive theology. Let’s also ignore the fact that many who describe themselves as Christians are not practicing, or only identify as such because of the oppressive social stigma that some societies (much of our own included) puts on someone for not being Christian. This means, at Christianity’s high point in world history, Yahweh will only prevent one-third of the world’s population from perishing. The vast majority of humans that ever have and ever will live shall suffer eternally the fires that Yahweh created for them. Clearly this god doesn’t mind that men and women perish, or he would have created different rules to run eternity.

“I know that the Bible is God’s Word because it says so.”

This is a basic example of circular reasoning and special pleading. Every holy book claims that it is divine revelation, but believers only buy that claim from the book they were raised with. If you are a believer, then ask yourself: Is the Koran the word of God? Is the Book of Mormon? Are the Gnostic Gospels? All of these books make the very same claims to divine origins that are made in the the Old and New Testaments of the Christian bible. Normally only the gullible accept a claim of authority at face value, but it is a universal deception of religions that accepting their unreliable claims at face value is a virtue instead of a vice.

“Jesus wouldn’t have claimed to be the Son of God if it wasn’t true.”

Because clearly no one in history has falsely claimed to be related to a deity. In Roman occupied Palestine alone there were over thirty Jewish prophets who were executed for their claims that they were the messiah. Even John the Baptist was a martyred messiah figure; today a small Middle Eastern church still worships John the Baptist as the Christ. And in our own lifetimes we have seen several cult leaders claim to be a god, or at least one of his or her relatives. Besides any god we were raised to believe by an accident of geography, we dismiss as wild and baseless proclamations any of these other claims that men make about their godhood. Our special preference is simply a naïve impulse that has been reinforced by a lifetime of group-think.

Belief in religions and gods is not a harmless thing. Followers devote time and resources throughout their lives for the purpose of glorifying an entity that (if it’s as perfect as they claim) should have no need to be glorified. In the worst case scenarios we see that this blind obedience to a belief can compel otherwise good people to commit horrible crimes: terrorism, murder, war – in fact the very patriarch of the Abrahamic religions is a hero for his willingness to murder his son in cold blood. This unquestioning acceptance is dangerous. If you believe your god is the most powerful and good being in existence, then you should hold it to a higher standard of proof than anyone else. Your god should be plenty capable of rising to this simple challenge, and you should expect it to do so before devoting your entire existence to it.

In search of reason,

Mike

The King and I

2011-01-09T23:47:00.000-08:00

Mike and I are working to get this blog back on its feet, but in the mean time, go check out Project: The King and I.

Bruce is leading an already-pretty-diverse group of people through the entire Bible in a year, and I'm having a blast reading and commenting along. The year and blog comments have started out strong, with a good mix of theists and non-theists weighing in.

I always said I was going to read through the Bible in a year when I was a Christian (I did make it through most of the Old Testament once), but now I'm finally following through. I'm interested to find all of those hidden stories and tidbits that no one wants to remember are in there.

Never stop questioning,

Valerie

They Pledge Allegiance...

2010-11-21T22:11:00.003-08:00

...to a myth,
About the founding of our nation;
And to their beliefs,
Which are unsupported;
One religion's,
Superstitions;
With theocracy and conformity for all.

The following poem has been passed around the internet for the last decade; it claims to be a new “Pledge of Allegiance.” I’m not sure how this is a pledge to the United States, it is certainly not a pledge to any principles of democracy or plurality. All together it is an example of the cultural fight over Christian Privilege and Christian Supremacy in America.

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
False. Any student can pray in school so long as it is not disruptive, like praying when the teacher is is instructing the class. It is simply prohibited that teachers or faculty can lead students in prayer as part of a school function. As a taxpayer funded institution, this is a simple measure that keeps schools from violating the Establishment Clause.
For this great nation under God
Some Americans agree with that statement, but many do not. Christians have no more claim on this country than any other citizen. Arguing otherwise is equivalent to arguing that non-Christians should be considered second-class citizens.
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
If the class is “reciting” scripture as part of religious instruction, damn right it violates the Bill of Rights. How else would the author have it? Every teacher instructing students on their personal religious beliefs? Does the author want public school teachers who are wasting time in their Math and English classes by instructing students on Baptist doctrines, Catholic doctrines, Muslim doctrines, Mormon doctrines, or Scientologist doctrines. How is that useful for public education, or right for the teachers to do? Or is it that the author would like to force schools to teach all students in the United States his own particular brand of religion? Again, this is a gross demonstration of how many Christians are not fighting for their religious freedoms, but for their Christian Privilege because they don’t like that its legitimacy has been challenged.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
This is simply an untrue and inflammatory remark.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
Why would that be an offense? Is the author arguing that dying your hair is immoral or corrupt? As long as students aren’t dying their hair in class I am baffled at how one would think it hurts students.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
Only if they are disrupting the class. Arguing otherwise is another dishonest attempt to inflame the audience.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
And another lie. The only thing that is prohibited is for the school to sponsor or lead a prayer. Students can pray, aloud, or in silence, to any deities they wish.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
I don’t know any teachers that allow cussing in their class room. And it is simply untrue that cussing in school is protected by any regulations or laws.
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
Outlawed guns? Why does the author feel the need to continuously lie? And such easily disproved lies as well. The Second Amendment still stands, people can still own guns. No one has been trying to change that. Though if he means that they’ve banned guns from schools, then that’s true, but I feel no sympathy for that grievance. And it's an outright lie that the Christian bible has been outlawed from schools.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
No, but this lie might.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
Can’t say that I’ve ever heard of this happening, so first I’d like to demand evidence. Second: So? Like the hair and piercings, I fail to see how this is relevant to argument. Unless, (as implied by the next line) the author wants our public institutions to be used to turn people into social pariahs for not fitting traditional family categories.
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.
Another outright lie. Right and wrong are taught in school all the time. You have history, and literature, and the history of the sciences. All of which are filled with lessons of right and wrong. Does the author really want teachers to teach students to judge on perceived morality of life choices? What if their ideas about moral lifestyle conflict with his own? Of course he doesn’t want them to teach any set of ideas about moral lifestyles, he wants the schools to teach his beliefs. Privilege and Supremacy rearing their ugly heads again

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
The most proven method of reducing the rate of unwanted teen pregnancies is good sex education and access to birth control. If you care about helping teens, then you should be for this.
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
I’m sorry, but is the author making the claim that schools teach witchcraft, etc.? Evidence please. Otherwise, students can study whatever they want outside of class.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
Again not true, the Ten Commandments are taught in schools in the context of their historic place in Western Civilization. It only crosses the line when the teacher tries to preach about them to students. Also, I wonder, which religion’s version of the Ten Commandments does the author want indoctrinated into his children? There are multiple versions in the Old Testament, and different groups enshrine different versions.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
Chaos, really? I hope the author is simply ignorant of the ever increasing stringency of No-Tolerance policies at public schools. Otherwise, he is yet again being purposely dishonest to his audience. Schools are monitored like prisons, and more schools across the country are trying to exert control and disciplinary jurisdiction over their students even when they are not in school. We have the laptop webcams spying on students in their homes, and students being thrown off sports teams for “suggestive” pictures on their Facebook pages that were taken over summer break. Schools are not falling to chaos, they are becoming police states.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Hey wait a minute; I thought the author was upset that guns were banned from schools!
Amen
I would call this a prayer, but really this is a pledge to Christian Supremacy in the form of a poem. It is only disguised as a prayer, and no benevolent god would be pleased by a prayer riddled with so much dishonesty.

I know that as a Christian, it is difficult to see Christian Privilege, the same as it is difficult for me to see white privilege or male privilege. My wife and I didn’t see how pervasive Christian Privilege was until after we found ourselves on the other side, and then we were amazed that we’d missed it before. I’m certain that many who agree with or express the sentiments found in this pledge are not actually bigots, they simply haven’t stepped back to consider how much special treatment has been given to Christians in this country.

If this is the case for you, I understand completely. But I hope that now you’ll take a moment to consider the views of the other 70 million American citizens who are non-Christians (approximately 22%), and stop pushing the idea that you entitled to privileges and recognitions from our government that non-Christians don’t enjoy.

In search of reason,

Mike

FCKH8

2010-10-14T16:06:00.002-07:00

"No Description Needed"

While in some parts of the country LGBT individuals and communities have nearly succeeded in winning the same legal rights that their heterosexual neighbors enjoy, the fight isn't over yet. There are still too many people pushing back, allowing a miasma of homophobic attitudes that lead to bullying and harassment. Ultimately, too many innocent children and teens suffer because of this.

Organizations like Americans for Truth about Homosexuality are part of the problem. They deny it, they say that they want to help these people. But let's look at some of their own words.

It is immoral to “mainstream” homosexuality to children in schools in the guise of teaching tolerance and diversity.

“Bullying” in any form is wrong and must be stopped. But it can be addressed without promoting acceptance of homosexuality.

They actively attack any effort to teach about diversity and tolerance. They consider it an infringement on their rights to have their children told in school that it's okay if a classmate is gay, or - heaven forbid - if they are. They want "Homosexuals are abominations" and "Fags are going to burn in Hell" to be protected religious speech in the classroom. They believe it is a sin, so they should be able to tell the fagot to his face how evil they think he is. Somehow, this is different from bullying.

I also see some very familiar hate rhetoric, re-purposed for this cause: "The liberal media – which is now practically an arm of the homosexual movement." Hello antisemitism, I see your stereotyping tactics have found a new home.

These people are actively demonizing our LGBT friends and neighbors. And any of us who support the right to marry the one you love.

"Many homosexual activists are anti-religious bigots"
"Their aim is to silence all opposition."

They call us the "militant" ones, but when was the last time you saw a bunch of gay rights activists beat up a homophobic Christian who was minding their own business? Or drag them behind a car? Or tie them to a fence to leave them to die? Or hang them? Or bully them everyday until they take their own life? And we're the ones supposedly "driven by hatred."

FCKH8,

Mike

P.S. Support FCKH8 if you want to look good and can spare the cash. Let's make LGBT respect mainstream!

A Response to some YouTube Proselytizing

2010-10-12T10:30:00.010-07:00

One of the nice things about having a Freethinkers blog is that I have a forum to share the irrational rants that are occasionally sent to me. This gem of an email came about from an exchange on YouTube.

First the video itself. It was linked to me by a friend in the atheist community, and until the very end I was convinced it was a satire of Christian beliefs. How ironic that a video that makes Christians gush about how wonderful their faith is, also stands out as an obvious example of the irrationality and disgusting morals of that very same faith. Atheists take note, we don't have to construct any straw-man arguments for those sitting on the fence, one of our best tools is the propaganda that Christians themselves produce.

If you think that I'm kidding about how much Christians were enthralled by this message, take a look for yourself on the comments page.

A few good conversations were already going when I found the video, but there was a statement dripping in dogma and unsupported assertions that caught my attention.

Great Message! it's all about God's Grace to us in the Gospel. None are good -- No not one!! We are made pure through Christ's atoning sacrifice for us.

In some ways delving into comment threads on YouTube is only for those who like to inflict pain on themselves (this is true of any video, even ones that aren't about religion or politics), but it's a guilty pleasure of mine. And sometimes, it's good practice.

I responded by saying: "And whose fault would that be? If you believe your god is perfect, and created us as he wanted us to be, then he is responsible for our flaws and misdeeds. And no matter how evil the worst human in history has been, an eternity of torture is excessive punishment. You have a very strange notion of right and wrong."

A day later I got an email to my YouTube account, and several copies of this message.

If you want to see the response to your comment please check your PM i dont have time to write out what I said in the PM here via comment there simply isn't enough room to write a 500 comment box. So please check that thanks.

I've been pinged with that message at least three times in the past couple of days, so he must really want me to read what he had to say. So I'll read it, and share my thoughts with you as well. I have removed all names and screen names, but otherwise I have left his email exactly as it was sent to me.

In response to your comment

Hello I was going to respond on the comments section but the character limit 500 characters isn't enough for what I wanted to say so I will send this private message to respond to your comment

First of all you have a few misunderstandings of what the Bible believes, and first of all you assume that because God made man, all of our flaws our then directed back to God

Yes, unless our flaws were made by mistake. But you don't believe your god can make mistakes, so he must be responsible for any flaws he designed into his creations.

however this is a misunderstanding,

No, it's a logical conclusion based on the premises of your religion.

simply put in the Bible if you look in Genesis when God made Adam and Eve, God told them to not eat of the tree of Good and Evil, and then gave them the CHOICE to choose God or sin, man choosing sin was not God's fault or misdirection,

The tree is clearly the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (“but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” Genesis 2:17). So the characters in Genesis wouldn't have anymore knowledge of disobedience than an infant does. The myth shows that their god clearly set them up to fail. He could have taught them right from wrong, or not created the the temptation in the first place.

you see God wants to give us the choice to choose Him not robot drones who are forced to choose Him for that would not be a Father- to son type of love relationship

If it's so important that we aren't "robot drones" then why does he become so angry in the Christian bible when his creations don't act like "robot drones."

where if we choose sin it is because out of Free will and choice that we choose God and not something that we are forced to do, if someone else was holding up a gun to someone else and told them to love them that would not be real love as it was out of force,

But that is exactly what your theology requires:

Your god stands behind us and says, “You can love me or not, it is your choice. If you choose not to love me I will shoot you. But don't worry, I won’t shoot you right now, and I probably won’t shoot you tomorrow. I will give you plenty of time to think it over. But I’m not going to tell you how much time you have to choose. I’m just going to follow you around, and when the time comes (I will know when it is but you won’t) if you haven’t decided to love me I will shoot you.” Your god's punishment is even worse than just being murdered. The gunman only takes your life, but the Christian god will have you tortured for eternity.

(EDIT: NonStampCollector has a video on free will that uses a similar analogy. He takes more time to flesh it out that I did. He is also one of my favorite counter-apologetics so I wanted to point out his good work.)

Next of all the next part of the comment you are assuming an eternal hell or place of where an place of hell is injustPslam 77:13 (ESV) Your way, O God, is holy. What god is great like our God?

"My god is holy and great, therefore any punishments he creates can't be unjust, no matter how unjust they might look," is your entire rebuttal? So you believe that I deserve to be tortured, not until I've paid the price for my sins, but eternally. You and your parents as well, and everyone else who has ever lived. That is what is just to do with all of humanity? You can say that a character is just, but that statement must be weighed against the actions attributed to them.

The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. Exodus 4:21

While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-36

"But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die. Ezekiel 18:24

I think it is also important to notice that your god claims to have denied the pharaoh of Egypt his free will. By "hardening his heart" your god ensures the pharaoh cannot choose to do the right thing and let the slaves go. This gives your god an excuse to demonstrate his power by tormenting and slaying his enemies with plagues, when they might have otherwise done as he wished.

Scripture States in Isaiah 59:2 (ESV) but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.

You see Sin is the Veil that separates us from God, whenever we sin God must punish sin because God is holy and we are not as Scripture Declares in several places For example in Jeremiah 17:9 (ESV) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Assuming I accept to your concept of sin (which includes the laughable notion that people should be punished for their thoughts or for having doubts), your god is still responsible for designing us with the capability and desire to sin.

Imagine a world where a loving god actually exists. It gives us free will so that we can choose if we want to worship it or not. But it also makes us incapable of sinning, we become physically ill if we act on the urge to hurt another person either physically or emotionally. It also makes its existence obvious to everyone (instead of a small minority of the population) on a daily and undeniable basis. Everyone believes it exists, no one has conflicting ideas about what it might want or if there are other gods, no one has the urge to do bad things to one another. None of this prevents us from deciding for ourselves if we sleep in, or participate worship every Sunday.

And because our heart is deceitfully wicked and that God is Holy and Just, He cannot tolerate sin and thus must punish those who sin,

Ignoring your barely intelligible sentence structure, your statement is still a non sequitur. Assuming that a) your god cannot tolerate sin, and b) we are sinful and can't help ourselves, your god could still choose to ignore us completely, fix us so our hearts aren't "deceitfully wicked" (I personally have never felt like mine was), or come up with something else entirely. He is supposed to be an omnipotent being, by definition there is nothing he "must" do.

however there is the good News of the Gospel, for Scripture declares a Wonderful Truth for in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

You See you don't have to have to eternally face the eternal consequences of sin, but instead God has sent His Son, Jesus Christ into the world already on the Cross to die a horrible death on a cross, beaten and nailed and whipped, his beard ripped out and body marred so that if we believe in Him we can be forgiven of our sins and be Eternally with God,

Human sacrifice, yet more evidence that your god is an immoral brute. And yet, if Jesus was divine then the crucifixion was just a minor setback on his way to rule all the heavens and earth. These are just a couple of problems with the salvation theology. I've covered them here in a conversation with another apologist. There is also the "merely a messiah" argument, that talks about how any sacrifice by the biblical character is comparatively less heroic than sacrifices made by other prophets in the period.

And even if everything you said was true, your god chose a path to forgiveness that only a minority of humanity can benefit from. In our generation alone, billions of people across the world will live and die without ever being presented with a good reason to give up their religion for yours. Is it their fault that they never become convinced of your gospels? Can your god find fault in the child of a Hindu family for following the religion of its family and ancestors? Apparently so, because when Yahweh unleashes his wrath upon a city or all of humanity, he doesn't even spare the innocent newborns.

You see now there is the Good news of the Gospel, you can be forgiven of your sins there is only one thing to do, repent and believe the Good news of The Gospel and you Will be forgiven,

But that would require me giving up my free will. I cannot just choose to start believing in a holy book that makes no sense to me. It is riddled with inconsistencies, absurdities, and lessons and laws that are morally despicable. I cannot simply ignore these things because it would feel good to be saved, that would be a betrayal of who I am. I do not disbelieve because I have never been exposed to the Christian bible, on the contrary, I only rejected its teachings after years of intensive study.

I hope this answers both your questions and provides a clear understanding of the Gospel and what Jesus did for us,

If you look carefully you will see that the only question I asked was rhetorical, and your email has only demonstrated that you have a very shallow understanding of your own holy book.

please contact me if you have any further comments or questions

I will be sure to link you to this blog post.

That is the kind of mail I get when I venture onto the comment threads of YouTube. At least it gave me a few entertaining prompts for the blog.

I realize that I have been more sarcastic than I usually approve of. When someone takes the time to seriously engage with me I do my best to be patient and polite, and to speak to them respectfully. However, if someone doesn't bother to use decent grammar or proof read what they write, then I get annoyed. If it's too much trouble to make your email easy to understand, then you aren't respecting my time. So now you know when and why I take the gloves off, though I don't think any regulars to this blog need a warning.

I'll be linking this person the blog post, so that if they want to continue the discussion we can have it here. I'm sure that we can all do so in a more respectful and legible manner.

What do you guys think of the video or anything related to it? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

In search of reason,

Mike

UPDATE: ~~Mitch recorded two~~ ~~videos~~ in ~~reply~~ ~~to my post. In most cases I would pick apart such a counter argument and continue the conversation, but in this case I don't think his videos need my help.~~

UPDATE: It seems that Mitch has removed his video responses to this post and deleted all of his comments. Oh well.

The Golden Rule

2010-10-01T11:02:00.000-07:00

The Golden Rule, brought to you by Atheist Cartoons.

Final Thoughts on Proposition 8

2010-09-30T09:30:00.002-07:00

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS
7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION
8. CONCLUSIONS AND REMEDIES

There isn't anything new for us in Judge Walker's Conclusion and Remedies sections, but I found it gratifying to read. My own thoughts on Proposition 8 are below.

CONCLUSION

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

[PAGE 135]

REMEDIES

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings. Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[PAGE 136]

To pass Prop 8, its proponents spent millions fueling homophobia in California. They alluded to threats against many groups. Businessmen were threatened by gay marriage because with its legalization they would not be able to discriminate against gay clients. What they didn't tell you is that regardless of Prop 8, discrimination against gays is as illegal as a business discriminating against any other minority. Churches were threatened, because if Prop 8 wasn't passed then they would be forced to hold services for gay weddings. This was a straight up lie, no church or clergy are required to recognize or officiate any marriage, religion is not a prerequisite for the civil institution of marriage.

The worst was the vague threats that gay marriage supposedly made against children. The implications were that children would turn gay if they were told about gay people in school. Or that it is religious discrimination for schools to have zero tolerance policies about gay bashing. Or that it infringes on a parents rights to have to acknowledge to their children that there are people that they disagree with in the world. But Proposition 8 didn't address any of these so called problems anyway. With the passing of Prop 8, there were still gay individuals in California, still gay couples, still gay parents, still gay teens in the schools. They do not suddenly disappear because you take away their rights.

Proponents tried to argue that Prop 8 was not about homophobia, that it was about defending traditional marriage. That is a lie of course, allowing someone else to marry can never impede your own right to marry. Proposition 8 was really about the notion that homosexuals are inferior. Go onto YouTube and listen to their commercials. These people consider it to be an infringement on their rights when they have to acknowledge the existence of gays and lesbians. Proponents of Prop 8 feel it does them harm to treat homosexuals as equals in public life. That's it.

As far as the wild accusations that Judge Walker should have decided to recuse himself, I have two quick points to make:

It is not a "well known fact" that Judge Walker is openly gay. He has never publicly stated his sexual orientation. And don't you think if this were true the Religious Right would have been shouting from the rooftops from the moment he was selected from the case? No, the accusation came out the day that he ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional.
It shouldn't matter what his sexual orientation is. To paraphrase another commentator of the decision, to say that a gay judge is unqualified to rule on a case concerning gay rights is like saying a black judge is unqualified to rule on a case concerning civil rights, or a female judge is unqualified to rule on a case concerning women's issues. To say that only someone from the majority is impartial enough to rule on a discrimination case against a minority group is ridiculous.

So there it is, a breakdown of the 136 page decision. I hope you found this valuable. As always, I welcome any thoughts or questions pertaining to the subject.

Fighting for equality,

Mike

Equal Protection and Proposition 8

2010-09-28T14:15:00.002-07:00

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS
7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is designed to help progress the American promise of equality through expansion of federal powers. The Federal government has both the power and the responsibility to overturn any State or local laws that infringe on the equal protections of our citizens. Laws that discriminate against certain classes of citizens must only do so in a way that promotes a legitimate and rational interest of the state. Judge Walker reviews each of the arguments of rational basis that proponents of Prop 8 presented, and found that none of them were credible.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

[PAGE 109]

EQUAL PROTECTION

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Equal protection is “a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, 369 (1886).

[PAGE 117]

SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR SEX DISCRIMINATION

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 as violating the Equal Protection Clause because Proposition 8 discriminates both on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation discrimination can take the form of sex discrimination. Here, for example, Perry is prohibited from marrying Stier, a woman, because Perry is a woman. If Perry were a man, Proposition 8 would not prohibit the marriage. Thus, Proposition 8 operates to restrict Perry’s choice of marital partner because of her sex. But Proposition 8 also operates to restrict Perry’s choice of marital partner because of her sexual orientation; her desire to marry another woman arises only because she is a lesbian.

The evidence at trial shows that gays and lesbians experience discrimination based on unfounded stereotypes and prejudices specific to sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians have historically been targeted for discrimination because of their sexual orientation; that discrimination continues to the present.

Proponents argue that Proposition 8 does not target gays and lesbians because its language does not refer to them. In so arguing, proponents seek to mask their own initiative. FF 57. Those who choose to marry someone of the opposite sex —— heterosexuals —— do not have their choice of marital partner restricted by Proposition 8. Those who would choose to marry someone of the same sex —— homosexuals —— have had their right to marry eliminated by an amendment to the state constitution.

[PAGES 119-120]

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court asked the parties to identify a difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals that the government might fairly need to take into account when crafting legislation. Doc #677 at 8. Proponents pointed only to a difference between same-sex couples (who are incapable through sexual intercourse of producing offspring biologically related to both parties) and opposite-sex couples (some of whom are capable through sexual intercourse of producing such offspring). Doc #687 at 32-34. Proponents did not, however, advance any reason why the government may use sexual orientation as a proxy for fertility or why the government may need to take into account fertility when legislating. Consider, by contrast, City of Cleburne v Cleburne Living Center, 473 US 432, 444 (1985) (Legislation singling out a class for differential treatment hinges upon a demonstration of “real and undeniable differences” between the class and others); see also United States v Virginia, 518 US 515, 533 (1996) (“Physical differences between men and women * * * are enduring.”). No evidence at trial illuminated distinctions among lesbians, gay men and heterosexuals amounting to “real and undeniable differences” that the government might need to take into account in legislating.

[PAGES 121-122]

PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT SURVIVE RATIONAL BASIS

Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

[PAGE 123]

PURPORTED INTEREST #1: RESERVING MARRIAGE AS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND EXCLUDING ANY OTHER RELATIONSHIP

Proponents first argue that Proposition 8 is rational because it preserves: (1) “the traditional institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman”; (2) “the traditional social and legal purposes, functions, and structure of marriage”; and (3) “the traditional meaning of marriage as it has always been defined in the English language.” Doc #605 at 12-13. These interests relate to maintaining the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman for its own sake.

Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law. Williams v Illinois, 399 US 235, 239 (1970). The “ancient lineage” of a classification does not make it rational. Heller, 509 US at 327. Rather, the state must have an interest apart from the fact of the tradition itself.

Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.

The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender. See FF 32, 57.

Moreover, the state cannot have an interest in disadvantaging an unpopular minority group simply because the group is unpopular. Moreno, 413 US at 534.

The evidence shows that the state advances nothing when it adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples from marriage. Proponents’ asserted state interests in tradition are nothing more than tautologies and do not amount to rational bases for Proposition 8.

[PAGES 123-125]

PURPORTED INTEREST #2: PROCEEDING WITH CAUTION WHEN IMPLEMENTING SOCIAL CHANGES

Proponents next argue that Proposition 8 is related to state interests in: (1) “[a]cting incrementally and with caution when considering a radical transformation to the fundamental nature of a bedrock social institution”; (2) “[d]ecreasing the probability of weakening the institution of marriage”; (3) “[d]ecreasing the probability of adverse consequences that could result from weakening the institution of marriage”; and (4) “[d]ecreasing the probability of the potential adverse consequences of same-sex marriage.” Doc #605 at 13-14.

Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial sufficient to rebut any claim that marriage for same-sex couples amounts to a sweeping social change. See FF 55. Instead, the evidence shows beyond debate that allowing same-sex couples to marry has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage and that same-sex couples’ marriages would benefit the state. Id. Moreover, the evidence shows that the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or same-sex couples will remain unaffected if the state ceases to enforce Proposition 8. FF 55, 62.

The contrary evidence proponents presented is not credible. Indeed, proponents presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage.

Because the evidence shows same-sex marriage has and will have no adverse effects on society or the institution of marriage, California has no interest in waiting and no practical need to wait to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Proposition 8 is thus not rationally related to proponents’ purported interests in proceeding with caution when implementing social change.

[PAGES 125-126]

PURPORTED INTEREST #3: PROMOTING OPPOSITE-SEX PARENTING OVER SAME-SEX PARENTING

Proponents’ largest group of purported state interests relates to opposite-sex parents. Proponents argue Proposition 8: (1) promotes “stability and responsibility in naturally procreative relationships”; (2) promotes “enduring and stable family structures for the responsible raising and care of children by their biological parents”; (3) increases “the probability that natural procreation will occur within stable, enduring, and supporting family structures”; (4) promotes “the natural and mutually beneficial bond between parents and their biological children”; (5) increases “the probability that each child will be raised by both of his or her biological parents”; (6) increases “the probability that each child will be raised by both a father and a mother”; and (7) increases “the probability that each child will have a legally recognized father and mother.” Doc #605 at 13-14.

The evidence supports two points which together show Proposition 8 does not advance any of the identified interests: (1) same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality, FF 69-73, and (2) Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring biologically related to both parents, FF 43, 46, 51.

...the evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes. FF 70. Moreover, Proposition 8 has nothing to do with children, as Proposition 8 simply prevents same-sex couples from marrying. FF 57. Same-sex couples can have (or adopt) and raise children. When they do, they are treated identically to opposite-sex parents under California law. FF 49. Even if California had an interest in preferring opposite-sex parents to same-sex parents —— and the evidence plainly shows that California does not —— Proposition 8 is not rationally related to that interest, because Proposition 8 does not affect who can or should become a parent under California law. FF 49, 57.

To the extent California has an interest in encouraging sexual activity to occur within marriage (a debatable proposition in light of Lawrence, 539 US at 571) the evidence shows Proposition 8 to be detrimental to that interest. Because of Proposition 8, same-sex couples are not permitted to engage in sexual activity within marriage. FF 53. Domestic partnerships, in which sexual activity is apparently expected, are separate from marriage and thus codify California’s encouragement of non-marital sexual activity. Cal Fam Code §§ 297-299.6. To the extent proponents seek to encourage a norm that sexual activity occur within marriage to ensure that reproduction occur within stable households, Proposition 8 discourages that norm because it requires some sexual activity and child-bearing and child-rearing to occur outside marriage.

Proponents argue Proposition 8 advances a state interest in encouraging the formation of stable households. Instead, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 undermines that state interest, because same-sex households have become less stable by the passage of Proposition 8. The inability to marry denies same-sex couples the benefits, including stability, attendant to marriage. FF 50. Proponents failed to put forth any credible evidence that married opposite-sex households are made more stable through Proposition 8. FF 55. The only rational conclusion in light of the evidence is that Proposition 8 makes it less likely that California children will be raised in stable households. See FF 50, 56.

None of the interests put forth by proponents relating to parents and children is advanced by Proposition 8; instead, the evidence shows Proposition 8 disadvantages families and their children.

[PAGES 127-129]

PURPORTED INTEREST #4: PROTECTING THE FREEDOM OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES

Proponents next argue that Proposition 8 protects the First Amendment freedom of those who disagree with allowing marriage for couples of the same sex. Proponents argue that Proposition 8: (1) preserves “the prerogative and responsibility of parents to provide for the ethical and moral development and education of their own children”; and (2) accommodates “the First Amendment rights of individuals and institutions that oppose same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds.” Doc #605 at 14.

These purported interests fail as a matter of law. Proposition 8 does not affect any First Amendment right or responsibility of parents to educate their children. See In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 451-452. Californians are prevented from distinguishing between same-sex partners and opposite-sex spouses in public accommodations, as California antidiscrimination law requires identical treatment for same-sex unions and opposite-sex marriages. Koebke v Bernardo Heights Country Club, 115 P3d 1212, 1217-1218 (Cal 2005). The evidence shows that Proposition 8 does nothing other than eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. See FF 57, 62. Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex. FF 62.

To the extent proponents argue that one of the rights of those morally opposed to same-sex unions is the right to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, as explained presently those individuals’ moral views are an insufficient basis upon which to enact a legislative classification.

[PAGES 129-130]

PURPORTED INTEREST #5: TREATING SAME-SEX COUPLES DIFFERENTLY FROM OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES

Proponents argue that Proposition 8 advances a state interest in treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples by: (1) “[u]sing different names for different things”; (2) “[m]aintaining the flexibility to separately address the needs of different types of relationships”; (3) “[e]nsuring that California marriages are recognized in other jurisdictions”; and (4) “[c]onforming California’s definition of marriage to federal law.” Doc #605 at 14.

Here, proponents assume a premise that the evidence thoroughly rebutted: rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same. FF 47-50. The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.

[PAGE 130]

A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. See Romer, 517 US at 633; Moreno, 413 US at 534; Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 (1984) (“[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.”).

The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.” Id (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 US 833, 850, (1992)). “[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 US at 582 (O'Connor, J, concurring). Tradition alone cannot support legislation. See Williams, 399 US at 239; Romer, 517 US at 635; Lawrence, 539 US at 579.

The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples. FF 79-80. The campaign relied heavily on negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians and focused on protecting children from inchoate threats vaguely associated with gays and lesbians. FF 79-80; See PX0016 Video, Have You Thought About It? (video of a young girl asking whether the viewer has considered the consequences to her of Proposition 8 but not explaining what those consequences might be).

At trial, proponents’ counsel attempted through cross-examination to show that the campaign wanted to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school. See PX0390A Video, Ron Prentice Addressing Supporters of Proposition 8, Excerpt; Tr 132:25-133:3 (proponents’ counsel to Katami: “But the fact is that what the Yes on 8 campaign was pointing at, is that kids would be taught about same-sex relationships in first and second grade; isn’t that a fact, that that’s what they were referring to?”). The evidence shows, however, that Proposition 8 played on a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual. FF 79; PX0099 Video, It’s Already Happened (mother’s expression of horror upon realizing her daughter now knows she can marry a princess).

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[PAGES 132-135]

With the millions of dollars that the anti-gay Christian lobby has put into fighting the rights of homosexuals you would think that they could present an argument that, if not sufficient, would at least sound credible at first glance. But as Judge Walker pointed out, the state interests that Prop 8 was supposed to help are either not part of Proposition 8, or are directly harmed by its implementation.

The judge's conclusion and my own final thoughts with the next post.

7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION
8. CONCLUSIONS AND REMEDIES

Fighting for equality,

Mike

Vicarious Redemption

2010-09-25T08:32:00.000-07:00

Val and I haven't been blogging in a few weeks because of a move, but now that we are (mostly) settled we shall try to pick up the pace again. And I will finish the last bits of the Prop 8 decision this week /facepalm.

For today, I'll share with you an excellent argument from Christopher Hitchens.

"The concept of vicarious redemption is the most repulsive. The one that none of his followers troubles to deny....The idea that by throwing your sins onto somebody else, onto a scapegoat, you can have them abolished. That is a disgusting and immoral doctrine. You can not relieve people of their responsibility. The moral rot of Christianity is exposed in its central doctrine." -September 7, 2010 Debate: Does Atheism Poison Everything?

As you may know, Hitchens is currently battling cancer. He seems to still be doing well, if weakened from it. Still speaking publicly, while being realistic about his chances.

I'm at a loss of how to express myself, "best wishes for recovery" doesn't seem to sufficiently say what I feel. That's one trouble with being a Christian-raised atheist, the language that I have for conveying certain ideas or feelings is still steeped in religion.

I hope that Christopher Hitchens recovers from his cancer. And if he doesn't, I hope that he continues to enjoy the time that he has left, and feels he has contributed up to the end to the debate that he enjoys so much.

In search of reason,

Mike

This is (one of the reasons) Why I Won't Be Quiet.

2010-09-03T12:54:00.012-07:00

This article from the Washington Examiner showed up on my Facebook news feed the other day. I'm not sure why it was posted, or why I went to read it. But I did, and it angered me enough to leave a comment.

The "Opinion Article" is basically just a summary of the longer article linked from another newspaper, but check out this part:

The Paine Foundation is part of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, a tiny nonprofit (annual income: $14,000) seeking to purge religion from private life.

I've spent a lot of time in the past year investigating and interacting with nontheist groups. Everyone that I've met has been friendly and accepting, and while they may not agree with religion, they'll fight harder for everyone's right to practice it than anyone else I know. Not one group that I've seen is fighting to purge religion from private life. We tend to be the strongest supporters of "Do what you want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's ability to do what they want." David's statement is a hateful stereotype based entirely in ignorance, and I was compelled to tell him so.

My comment:

Okay, you generally did a good job summarizing The Morning Call article, but you got one thing very, very wrong. The Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia has no interest in "seeking to purge religion from private life." Their mission statement is on every page of their website and impossible to miss. But, since you obviously did, let me quote it here for you: "The Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia (FSGP) was founded in 1993 by Margaret Downey. Today, FSGP's community outreach efforts have changed the hearts and minds of many citizens who never met or talked to an atheist. FSGP sponsors activities, events and speakers to educate the public about the nontheist life stance. FSGP's efforts to keep religion out of government and government out of religion ensure Constitutional protection for theist and nontheist citizens alike."

Did you notice that last part? It's important. Please think before you go spouting off hateful stereotypes.

When Mike and I first dove into the world of non-theism, I was torn between being excited about all of these new ideas and wanting to just be quiet about it and not upset anyone. We could just keep pretending to be Christian, after all we'd already been doing it for a while and a 'bad' Christian is better than an atheist. Our families wouldn't have to know or be upset. It was difficult to make the decision to tell our families, knowing that it would drive an uncomfortable wedge between us and them that would likely never completely go away. We chose to go ahead for two reasons:

1. We wanted to be true to ourselves, and we love our families enough that we didn't want to spend the rest of our lives lying to them.

2. There is a lot of hate for atheists in this country. Statements like the one above are common. Senators can call atheists "anti-American" and presidents can say that we shouldn't be citizens. News stations and newspapers can twist a message of hope and acceptance from atheists for atheists into one of hate (here, here, and here). There are so many more examples out there, but I won't take all of your time. All of these things are talking about me, my husband, and many of my close friends, who are all some of the most accepting, tolerant, and moral people I know. How would you feel? Would you stay silent in the face of such undeserved criticism? I won't.

Never stop questioning,

Valerie

Due Process and Proposition 8

2010-08-31T10:17:00.002-07:00

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS

Two more posts and then we will get to the verdict (not that you don't already know) and my concluding thoughts on the matter of same-sex marriage and the campaign for Proposition 8.

The Plaintiffs challenged Prop 8 on the grounds that it violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protections Clause. Either charge, being true, is enough to force a responsible judge to rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Judge Walker found both charges to be true, and examined each in detail in his Conclusions of Law section. I'll look at Due Process in this post, and Equal Protections in the next one.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

[PAGE 109]

DUE PROCESS

The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. See Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719-720 (1997). When legislation burdens the exercise of a right deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny. Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374, 388 (1978).

[PAGES 109-110]

THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER

The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978) (“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (“Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”).

The parties do not dispute that the right to marry is fundamental.

The state respects an individual’s choice to build a family with another and protects the relationship because it is so central a part of an individual’s life. See Bowers v Hardwick, 478 US 186, 204-205 (1986) (Blackmun, J, dissenting).

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse. FF 21. “[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.” Lawrence, 539 US at 567. The Supreme Court recognizes that, wholly apart from procreation, choice and privacy play a pivotal role in the marital relationship. See Griswold, 381 US at 485-486.

Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre. FF 23-25. When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. 388 US at 12. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry. Id.

The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.

The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

[PAGES 110-114]

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA’S OBLIGATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY

Having determined that plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause, the court must consider whether the availability of Registered Domestic Partnerships fulfills California’s due process obligation to same-sex couples. The evidence shows that domestic partnerships were created as an alternative to marriage that distinguish same-sex from opposite-sex couples. FF 53-54; In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d 384, 434 (Cal 2008) (One of the “core elements of th[e] fundamental right [to marry] is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships.”); id at 402, 434, 445 (By “reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership,” the state communicates the “official view that [same-sex couples’] committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.”). Proponents do not dispute the “significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc #159-2 at 6.

The evidence at trial shows that domestic partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriages. FF 53-54. A domestic partnership is not a marriage; while domestic partnerships offer same-sex couples almost all of the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, the evidence shows that the withholding of the designation “marriage” significantly disadvantages plaintiffs. FF 52-54. The record reflects that marriage is a culturally superior status compared to a domestic partnership. FF 52. California does not meet its due process obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to same-sex couples.

[PAGES 114-116]

PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING) REASON

That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638 (1943). Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Carey v Population Services International, 431 US 678, 686 (1977).

The minimal evidentiary presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.

Accordingly, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[PAGE 116-117]

To answer Max's earlier question it appears as if Judge Walker makes no distinction between the ability to have a marriage and the state's responsibility to recognize it. He states that "Domestic partnerships do not satisfy California's obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry." I read this as saying that what is a right to an individual is also in turn an obligation of the state. We lose the right to property if the state ceases to protect our property from seizure; similarly if the state does not recognize the marriage of a couple how can one say that they still have the right to do so?

I think I'll leave it at that for my own thoughts in this post, there is already plenty from Judge Walker's arguments. Any thoughts on Prop 8 and the Due Process Clause? Anything that isn't clear? I'd be happy to discuss it more with everyone.

6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS
7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION
8. CONCLUSIONS AND REMEDIES

Fighting for equality,

Mike

What Do We Do With Crazy Ideas? The Anti-Vax Movement

2010-08-30T08:06:00.005-07:00

The Anti-Vax movement.

It's one of those crazy, unfounded, ideas that makes me very angry, even more than normal, because I was taken in by it for a while. I heard it in passing, and the idea of "Oh yeah, we really do pump our kids full of so much stuff so early" stuck. Over time it evolved to "Huh, maybe there's some credibility to this, so many injections so young can't be healthy for them. I don't have kids yet, but I'll look carefully into which vaccines I'll allow." It might have progressed further, but Mike brought it up at one point, I voiced my opinion, and he (nicely) ridiculed me out of it. Since then I've done my research, and I'm much more hesitant to accept an idea just because it sounds plausible.

Here's Penn and Teller's take on it (NSFW language):

The Anti-Vax movement brings up a difficult question for which I can see two answers:

1. We combat the crazy idea early, with the outcome of debunking it or giving it credibility where it would otherwise have none.

2. We ignore the crazy idea, and allow it to fall off the radar unnoticed or, in the case of the Anti-Vax movement, gain a large foothold.

Which do you think works better? Is there a third option that I've missed?

Never stop questioning,

Valerie

Atheists Bashing on the National Stage

2010-08-25T11:51:00.000-07:00

A brief break from Prop 8 for something that jumped to my attention. A republican candidate for congress, Michael Stopa, told The Sun Chronicle that he thinks atheists are anti-American.

Michael Stopa... said he is convinced Obama is an atheist...

Stopa, a Harvard University physicist, said he has no proof for his claim, but says Obama has the radical anti-American views of an atheist.

"I have no specific evidence, but I think he's sympathetic to anybody who is opposed to America and American values," Stopa said.

Can you imagine if a politician said something similar about another minority? "Obama has the radical anti-American views of a Jew/Hispanic/etc." Say something similar to another group and the media would be all over it after a single news cycle. He would be held accountable for his bigoted remarks, and his party would be trying to distance themselves from his campaign.

If you have deconverted from Christianity or another religion, or if you were raised without attending church or temple, Michael Stopa believes that you are not a true American. If you have close friends or relatives who are not religious, Michael Stopa is accusing them of being opposed to American values.

I went to Michael Stopa's campaign site and left him a brief message.

Contrary to your claims in the Sun Chronicle, atheists are not "opposed to America and American values." I am a proud American and I cherish the civil liberties and religious liberty that my country guarantees. I suggest that you apologize for this hateful and ignorant remark.

If you are not religious or are friendly to those who are, I hope that you will also send him a message. And please, spread the word to everyone you know, especially if you happen to known anyone in Massachusetts. Maybe we can let people Mike Stopa and others know that it is not okay to shout "unamerican" at the 16% of our country that isn't religious.

In search of reason,

Mike

Findings of Fact for Proposition 8 Part III

2010-08-24T19:33:00.002-07:00

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST

The final section discussing the facts of the case. In this section of the Proposition 8 decision, Judge Walker is exploring whether or not there is any legitimate secular or government interests that are addressed by Prop 8. Why is this important? Because we are a constitutional republic, not a theocracy. Laws that are passed solely to enforce private moral or religious views, and in doing so infringe upon the rights of other citizens, are unconstitutional.

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8
ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT
ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST

57. Under Proposition 8, whether a couple can obtain a marriage license and enter into marriage depends on the genders of the two parties relative to one another. A man is permitted to marry a woman but not another man. A woman is permitted to marry a man but not another woman. Proposition 8 bars state and county officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It has no other legal effect.

58. 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.

[PAGE 85]

59. Proposition 8 requires California to treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples.

60. Proposition 8 reserves the most socially valued form of relationship (marriage) for opposite-sex couples.

[PAGE 86]

61. Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to codify distinct and unique roles for men and women in marriage.*
[*Previously in the decision we saw how the facts show that these "distinct and unique" gender roles are outdated, and have no other legal recognition or enforcement outside of the Prop 8 amendment.]

[PAGE 87]

62. Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples.

[PAGE 89]

63. Proposition 8 eliminates the right to marry for gays and lesbians but does not affect any other substantive right under the California Constitution. Strauss, 207 P3d at 102 (“Proposition 8 does not eliminate the substantial substantive [constitutional] protections afforded to same-sex couples[.]”) (emphasis in original).

64. Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments.

[PAGE 90]

65. CCSF would benefit economically if Proposition 8 were not in effect.

66. 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. Domestic partnership reduces but does not eliminate these costs.

[PAGE 91]

67. Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.

[PAGE 93]

68. 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.

69. The factors that affect whether a child is well-adjusted are: (1) the quality of a child’s relationship with his or her parents; (2) the quality of the relationship between a child’s parents or significant adults in the child’s life; and (3) the availability of economic and social resources. Tr 1010:13-1011:13 (Lamb).

70. The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.

71. 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. Tr 1014:25-1015:19; 1038:23-1040:17 (Lamb).

[PAGES 94-95]

72. The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes. Tr 1040:22-1042:10 (Lamb).

73. Studies comparing outcomes for children raised by married opposite-sex parents to children raised by single or divorced parents do not inform conclusions about outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents in stable, long-term relationships. Tr 1187:13-1189:6 (Lamb).

74. Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of discrimination.

[PAGE 96]

75. Public and private discrimination against gays and lesbians occurs in California and in the United States.

[PAGE 97]

76. Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes.
[The case against these stereotypes takes nearly four pages of facts revealed during the trial.]

[PAGE 98]

77. Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
[The judge takes an additional three pages citing evidence given during the trial to support this.]

[PAGE 101]

78. Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians.
[Nearly three pages of evidence supports this fact as well.]

[PAGE 103]

79. The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child.
[Four pages of evidence]

[PAGE 80]

80. The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.

[PAGE 108]

Proponents of Proposition 8 failed to demonstrate any government interest for denying civil rights to same-sex couples. The amendment did nothing to protect the rights of Christians or the safety of children, because the only thing it would have protected is a Christian's ability to discriminate against gays and lesbians, and possibly forestall explaining homosexuality to their kids. Bigotry and denial are the only religious "rights" that Prop 8 is protecting.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs clearly showed how Prop 8 works against several legitimate government and social interests. It also legitimizes government and public discrimination of gays and lesbians by enshrining false stereotypes as legal justifications. These charges alone would be enough to overturn most laws targeting minorities, and coupled with the lack of legitimate state interest, Prop 8 is clearly in violation of our constitution. In the next post I'll review Judge Walker's explanation for why this is.

5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS
7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION
8. CONCLUSIONS AND REMEDIES

Fighting for equality,

Mike

Findings of Fact for Proposition 8 Part II

2010-08-20T09:49:00.003-07:00

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS

More on the Findings of Fact from Proposition 8 today, I'll just jump right into it. You might notice that there are very few finding enumerated per page, there is a great number of supporting pieces of evidence for most of the facts in this section. If you want the full text of the decision to see the supporting evidence, click here.

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS

42. Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human history. The concept of an identity based on object desire; that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex (homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late nineteenth century.

43. Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of sexual, affectional or romantic desires for and attractions to men, women or both sexes. An individual’s sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior or attraction. The vast majority of people are consistent in self-identification, behavior and attraction throughout their adult lives.

44. 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.

[PAGES 71-72]

45. Proponents’ campaign for Proposition 8 assumed voters understood the existence of homosexuals as individuals distinct from heterosexuals.

[PAGE 73]

46. 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.

[PAGE 74]

47. California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.

[PAGE 76]

48. 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 form 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.

[PAGE 77]

49. California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology. Approximately eighteen percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children.

[PAGE 78]

50. Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive.

51. Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.

[PAGE 79]

52. 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.

[PAGE 80]

53. Domestic partners are not married under California law. California domestic partnerships may not be recognized in other states and are not recognized by the federal government.

[PAGE 81]

54. 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.

[PAGE 82]

55. 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.

[PAGE 83]

56. The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry.

[PAGE 84]

California law does not make distinctions between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples in any area beyond the question of marriage. They can have families and raise children, but they must do so without the same rights and recognitions that opposite couples enjoy. So if you want greater social and family stability, allow them to marry.

Unfortunately there are some that either recognize this weakness in their argument, or are even more bigoted than the Alliance Defense Fund (the proponents of Prop 8). Some Christians are complaining that the anti-gay movement in California being too "soft" by only focusing on marriage.

The YouTube channel iloveJesus420 is compiling a large selection of anti-gay rights activists at work. These people thing homosexuality is by dirty by definition, and should be illegal. Would they advocate removing the children of gay parents from their homes and putting them in the foster system? Would they advocate prosecuting homosexuality with jail time? I hope not, but when confronted on the street with these questions they just say they defer to "god's word" or that they will "pray you see the evil of your ways," and walk away.

That's all they have folks. No arguments, no evidence. Just a moral compass calibrated on an old book's sense of cleanliness, and prayers.

4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS
7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION
8. CONCLUSIONS AND REMEDIES

Fighting for equality,

Mike

Findings of Fact for Proposition 8 Part I

2010-08-18T06:43:00.005-07:00

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX

From what I understand about the law (granted much of this I've only learned within the past couple of weeks, so please correct me if I am wrong) the most significant part of the Proposition 8 decision was the Findings of Fact section. Judge Walker enumerated 80 facts about the case that led to his ruling. The following section, Judge Walker's Conclusions of Law, will only hold as much weight with the Appeals Court as they want it too. The can essentially start from scratch in their interpretation the law if they wish.

The Findings of Fact will carry a lot of weight however. ~~Unless evidence is given that one of the Facts of the case is incorrect, they must be used to weigh in on the appeals decision.~~ Judge Walker took great care in listing and supporting many facts of the case that help to show the State has neither the interest, nor the authority, to discriminate against same sex couples.

EDIT: "appellate courts are required to review only the evidence in the court record and to give great deference to Judge Vaughn Walker's findings of fact. He was there, after all, presiding over the trial, and the appellate judges weren't." Tip of the hate to Lisa Bloom at CNN for giving a better explanation of why the Findings of Fact are significant.

There are three sections of Findings of Fact that are relevant (the fourth is non essential to discussions of law, like who the plaintiffs and defendants are). Each section is asking a specific question about the evidence, and how it does or doesn't support Proposition 8. I'll deal with "Whether any evidence supports California's refusal to recognize marriage between two people because of their sex" today, and address the other two later in the week.

Nearly all of the facts listed had sub-points to them, so I've included page numbers in case you are unsure what one is, or why the evidence points to that fact. Full text of Judge Walker's decision can be found here. As usual, emphasis is added.

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO
RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX

19. 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.

20. A person may not marry unless he or she has the legal capacity to consent to marriage.

21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.

[PAGE 60]

22. When California became a state in 1850, marriage was understood to require a husband and a wife. See Cal Const, Art XI § 14 (1849); In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 407.

23. The states have always required the parties to give their free consent to a marriage. Because slaves were considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained. Tr 202:2-203:12 (Cott).

24. Many states, including California, had laws restricting the race of marital partners so that whites and non-whites could not marry each other.

[PAGE 61]

25. 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. An individual’s exercise of his or her right to marry no longer depends on his or her race nor on the race of his or her chosen partner.*

26. Under coverture, a woman’s legal and economic identity was subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage. The husband was the legal head of household. Coverture is no longer part of the marital bargain.*

[*Both of these are examples of how marriage has been redefined as a legal institution since our nation's founding]

[PAGE 62]

27. Marriage between a man and a woman was traditionally organized based on presumptions of a division of labor along gender lines. Men were seen as suited for certain types of work and women for others. Women were seen as suited to raise children and men were seen as suited to provide for the family.

[PAGE 63]

28. The development of no-fault divorce laws made it simpler for spouses to end marriages and allowed spouses to define their own roles within a marriage.

[PAGE 64]

29. In 1971, California amended Cal Civ Code § 4101, which had previously set the age of consent to marriage at twenty-one years for males and eighteen years for females, to read “[a]ny unmarried person of the age of 18 years or upwards, and not otherwise disqualified, is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.” Cal Civ Code § 4101 (1971); In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 408.

30. In the 1970s, several same-sex couples sought marriage licenses in California, relying on the amended language in Cal Civ Code § 4101. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 409. In response, the legislature in 1977 amended the marriage statute, former Cal Civ Code § 4100, to read “[m]arriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman * * *.” Id. That provision became Cal Fam Code § 300. The legislative history of the enactment supports a conclusion that unique roles of a man and a woman in marriage motivated legislators to enact the amendment. See In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 409.

[PAGE 65]

31. In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that certain provisions of the Family Code violated the California Constitution to the extent the statutes reserve the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 452. The language “between a man and a woman” was stricken from section 300, and section 308.5 (Proposition 22) was stricken in its entirety. Id at 453.

32. California has eliminated marital obligations based on the gender of the spouse. Regardless of their sex or gender, marital partners share the same obligations to one another and to their dependents. As a result of Proposition 8, California nevertheless requires that a marriage consist of one man and one woman.

33. Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality.

[PAGE 66]

34. Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents. Tr 187:11-16; 188:16- 189:2; 201:9-14 (Cott).

35. The state has many purposes in licensing and fostering marriage. Some of the state’s purposes benefit the persons married while some benefit the state:*

[*Judge Walker lists the many benefits, feel free to check Page 67 if you're curious]

[PAGE 67]

36. 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.

37. Marriage creates economic support obligations between consenting adults and for their dependents.

[PAGE 68]

38. Marriage benefits both spouses by promoting physical and psychological health. Married individuals are less likely to engage in behaviors detrimental to health, like smoking or drinking heavily. Married individuals live longer on average than unmarried individuals.

[PAGE 69]

39. Material benefits, legal protections and social support resulting from marriage can increase wealth and improve psychological well-being for married spouses.

40. The long-term nature of marriage allows spouses to specialize their labor and encourages spouses to increase household efficiency by dividing labor to increase productivity.

[PAGE 70]

41. The tangible and intangible benefits of marriage flow to a married couple’s children.

[PAGE 71]

From this I gather that it is beneficial for the state to allow as many consenting adults to marry as possible, because it promotes health and economic stability for both spouses and their children.

Previous definitions of marriage are based on antiquated assumptions that genders are biological (rather than social constructs as anthropologists would argue) and therefore gender roles are in no way malleable. I can only assume that proponents of Prop 8 would be equally opposed to households where the father is the primary caretaker and the mother is the primary provider because of the reversal of traditional gender roles.

More significantly, while proponents want to stress the interest of children in passing Prop 8, by denying marriage to same-sex couples they are actually denying a more stable home life for the children of those couples.

Comments are welcome as always, especially for the next few posts because there is so much here and I can only bring up a small amount for a blog post.

3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS
7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION
8. CONCLUSIONS AND REMEDIES

Fighting for equality,

Mike

Proponents' Defense of Proposition 8

2010-08-16T10:15:00.006-07:00

The LDS Church spent tens of
millions of dollars campaigning
for Proposition 8, and organized
the majority of volunteers.

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8

Today I continue with the second part of Judge Walker's Opinion, with the case and witness testimony of the proponents of Proposition 8. Judge Walker takes note of the fact that the ballot proposal and campaign to pass Proposition 8 was justified on very different grounds than the case that proponents of Prop 8 used in court. This is significant because, as the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs note, much of the support for Prop 8 was built around discrimination and inaccurate stereotypes of gay and lesbian couples. Some sections made bold for emphasis, all-caps emphasis is from original.

PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8

The ballot argument submitted to the voters summarizes proponents’ arguments in favor of Proposition 8 during the 2008 campaign. The argument states:

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. * * * Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle. * * * It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage. * * * While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father. * * * If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme Court] is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our own kids that gay marriage is ok. * * * [W]hile gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

The key premises on which Proposition 8 was presented to the voters thus appear to be the following:

Denial of marriage to same-sex couples preserves marriage;

Denial of marriage to same-sex couples allows gays and lesbians to live privately without requiring others, including (perhaps especially) children, to recognize or acknowledge the existence of same-sex couples;

Denial of marriage to same-sex couples protects children;

The ideal child-rearing environment requires one male parent and one female parent;

Marriage is different in nature depending on the sex of the spouses, and an opposite-sex couple’s marriage is superior to a same-sex couple’s marriage; and

Same-sex couples’ marriages redefine opposite-sex couples’ marriages.

[PAGES 6-7]

Pay particular attention to numbers 2 and 3.

2. Proponents would "allow gays and lesbians to live privately" so long as no one is "required" to "recognize or acknowledge [their] existence." What right does a person have to prevent another human being from doing something on the sole basis that they don't want to have to acknowledge their existence? It is your right as a parent to teach your children that homosexual marriages are wrong, that non-Catholic weddings are not real, that arranged marriages are immoral, or that divorce should be forbidden. But you do not have a right to force others to believe as you do, to force others to refrain from actions that cause you no harm just because you don't like them, or to take away their rights as a way to express your "free speech."

3. Protect children from what exactly? In what way does allowing gay couples to marry endanger children? See what plaintiff Paul Katami had to say to this during his testimony.

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 part of that category.”)

[Page 26]

In order to get people to vote for it Proposition 8 was vaguely worded to appeal to emotion and private moralities. When Prop 8 went to court, proponents changed their arguments to claim that the the State had an interest in banning same-sex marriages. Here is how Judge Walker explained it.

A state’s interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose. See Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558, 571 (2003); see also Everson v Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 US 1, 15 (1947). Perhaps recognizing that Proposition 8 must advance a secular purpose to be constitutional, proponents abandoned previous arguments from the campaign that had asserted the moral superiority of opposite-sex couples. Instead, in this litigation, proponents asserted that Proposition 8:

Maintains California’s definition of marriage as excluding same-sex couples;

Affirms the will of California citizens to exclude same-sex couples from marriage;

Promotes stability in relationships between a man and a woman because they naturally (and at times unintentionally) produce children; and

Promotes “statistically optimal” child-rearing households; that is, households in which children are raised by a man and a woman married to each other.

[PAGE 8]

Most of the witnesses that were supposed to be called by the proponents to back these assertions and the constitutionality of the "will of the citizens" to choose to exclude a group from a right, did not actually testify. The testimony presented and the cross examinations didn't go well for the proponents either.

CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS
PROPONENTS’ WITNESSES

Proponents elected not to call the majority of their designated witnesses to testify at trial and 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.

...they “were extremely concerned about their personal safety, and did not want to appear with any recording of any sort, whatsoever.” Tr 1094:21-23.

...proponents failed to make any effort to call their witnesses after the potential for public broadcast in the case had been eliminated.

[Proponent Witness Testimony Used By The Plaintiffs]

Plaintiffs entered into evidence the deposition testimony of two of proponents’ withdrawn witnesses, as their testimony supported plaintiffs’ claims.

[Katherine] Young has been a professor of religious studies at McGill University since 1978. PX2335 Young CV... 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. PX2545 (dep tr); PX2544 (video of same). Young also explained that several cultures around the world and across centuries have had variations of marital relationships for same-sex couples. Id.

Nathanson has a PhD in religious studies from McGill University and is a researcher at McGill’s Faculty for Religious Studies. PX2334 Nathanson CV... 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. PX2547 (dep tr); PX2546 (video of same).

[Expert Witnesses]

1. David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, testified on marriage, fatherhood and family structure. Plaintiffs objected to Blankenhorn’s qualification as an expert. For the reasons explained hereafter, Blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents’ factual assertions.

2. Kenneth P Miller, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, testified as an expert in American and California politics. Plaintiffs objected that Miller lacked sufficient expertise specific to gays and lesbians. Miller’s testimony sought to rebut only a limited aspect of plaintiffs’ equal protection claim relating to political power.

[PAGES 35-38]

The evaluation of the weight that Blankenhorn and Miller's opinions should have on the decision (PAGES 38-54) is very enlightening. Blankenhorn is completely disqualified as an expert. He showed no sign of applying proper academic rigor before coming to his conclusions, and in his testimony he referred to George "Rent Boy" Rekkers as the source to his belief that homosexuality can be "cured."

Miller, though a credible expert of American politics and the process of initiative like Prop 8, had no qualifications "as an expert in the areas of discrimination against gays and lesbians and gay and lesbian political power. (PAGE 49)" He admits he has not studied any of the literature on that subject. Miller also agreed in previous writings and during cross examination to arguments of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs questioned Miller on his earlier scholarship criticizing the California initiative process because initiatives eschew compromise and foster polarization, undermine the authority and flexibility of representative government and violate norms of openness, accountability, competence and fairness. Tr 2544:10-2547:7. In 2001 Miller wrote that he was especially concerned that initiative constitutional amendments undermine representative democracy. Tr 2546:14-2548:15.

Miller agreed that a principle of political science holds that it is undesirable for a religious majority to impose its religious views on a minority. Tr 2692:16-2693:7.

[PAGES 51-52]

So the defense for Proposition 8 failed to call most of their witnesses, did not have anyone involved in passing it take the stand, and two of their expert witness testimonies from deposition ended up being used against them. One "expert" proponents did have was ruled to be completely unreliable, and the other both admitted ignorance to gay and lesbian issues and conceded to plaintiff arguments.

The next post will have the first section of Findings of Fact, those which answer the question "Whether any evidence supports California's refusal to recognize marriage between two people because of their sex."

2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS
7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION
8. CONCLUSIONS AND REMEDIES

Fighting for equality,

Mike

Plaintiffs' Case Against Proposition 8

2010-08-16T09:18:00.007-07:00

Judge Vaughn R. Walker

Judge Walker's Opinion is a whopping 136 pages long, and I know there won't be many people that want to take the time to read such a long legal document. So for this series of posts I will try to condense the most important aspects of the ruling, and where I feel particularly strong, voice my own thoughts on the issues. For the most part I will only be explaining the context of each section, Judge Walker's opinion in totality does an excellent job of revealing how Prop 8 has no justification other than religious bigotry.

This post and the next will be summaries of the cases and witness testimony for the plaintiffs and proponents of Proposition 8. Following that will be the meat of the opinion, the huge list of Findings of Fact outlined by Judge Walker, divided into three categories. Finally I'll summarize the Conclusions of Law that explain on what legal grounds Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs for this case were two same-sex couples, denied the right to marry because of Prop 8. Domestic partnerships are legal in California, but they are not federally recognized, nor do they carry the same cultural significance.

Emphasis added in all following sections.

PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8

The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Plaintiffs contend that the freedom to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause and that Proposition 8 violates this fundamental right because:

It prevents each plaintiff from marrying the person of his or her choice;

The choice of a marriage partner is sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment from the state’s unwarranted usurpation of that choice; and

California’s provision of a domestic partnership —— a status giving same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage without providing marriage —— does not afford plaintiffs an adequate substitute for marriage and, by disabling plaintiffs from marrying the person of their choice, invidiously discriminates, without justification, against plaintiffs and others who seek to marry a person of the same sex.

The Equal Protection Clause provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. According to plaintiffs, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it:

Discriminates against gay men and lesbians by denying them a right to marry the person of their choice whereas heterosexual men and women may do so freely; and

Disadvantages a suspect class in preventing only gay men and lesbians, not heterosexuals, from marrying.

[PAGE 5]

It's a very simple argument, the citizens of California do not have the ability to vote for discrimination of a minority. The Fourteenth Amendment asserts that states shall not deny any federally recognized rights on the grounds of "states rights." Californians can no more vote to ban gay marriage than they can vote to reinstitute slavery.

Following are short pieces of testimony from the plaintiffs themselves. They explain what their relationships mean to them, and why they want to be able to share in the institution of marriage.

CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESSES

[Plaintiffs]

1. 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.”)

2. Paul Katami, a plaintiff, 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.”)

3. Kristin Perry, a plaintiff, testified about her relationship with Stier. (Tr 139:16-17; 140:13-14: Stier is “maybe the sparkliest person I ever met. * * * [T]he happiest I feel is in my relationship with [Stier.]”) Perry described why she wishes to marry. (Tr 141:22-142:1: “I want to have a stable and secure relationship with her that then we can include our children in. And I want the discrimination we are feeling with Proposition 8 to end and for a more positive, joyful part of our lives to * * * begin.”)

4. Sandra Stier, a plaintiff, testified about her relationship with Perry, with whom she raises their four children. (Tr 167:3-5: “I have fallen in love one time and it’s with [Perry].”). Stier explained why she wants to marry Perry despite their domestic partnership. (Tr 171:8-13: “[T]here is certainly nothing about domestic partnership as an institution —— not even as an institution, but as a legal agreement that indicates the love and commitment that are inherent in marriage, and [domestic partnership] doesn’t have anything to do for us with the nature of our relationship and the type of enduring relationship we want it to be.”)

[PAGES 25 - 27]

Four lay witnesses were called as well, but there was nothing that really jumped out at me from their testimony. Instead I'll give more space to the nine expert witnesses called by the plaintiffs. Credentials for each witness are listed in the full text, pages 28-35.

[Expert Witnesses]

1. Nancy Cott, a historian, testified as an expert in the history of marriage in the Untied States. Cott testified that marriage has always been a secular institution in the United States, that regulation of marriage eased the state’s burden to govern an amorphous populace and that marriage in the United States has undergone a series of transformations since the country was founded.

2. George Chauncey, a historian, was qualified to offer testimony on social history, especially as it relates to gays and lesbians. Chauncey testified about the widespread private and public discrimination faced by gays and lesbians in the twentieth century and the ways in which the Proposition 8 campaign echoed that discrimination and relied on stereotypes against gays and lesbians that had developed in the twentieth century.

3. Lee Badgett, an economist, testified as an expert on demographic information concerning gays and lesbians, same-sex couples and children raised by gays and lesbians, the effects of the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage and the effect of permitting same-sex couples to marry on heterosexual society and the institution of marriage. Badgett offered four opinions: (1) Proposition 8 has inflicted substantial economic harm on same-sex couples and their children; (2) allowing same-sex couples to marry would not have any adverse effect on the institution of marriage or on opposite-sex couples; (3) same-sex couples are very similar to opposite-sex couples in most economic and demographic respects; and (4) Proposition 8 has imposed economic losses on the State of California and on California counties and municipalities. Tr 1330:9-1331:5.

4. Edmund A Egan, the chief economist in the San Francisco Controller’s Office, testified for CCSF as an expert in urban and regional economic policy. Egan conducted an economic study of the prohibition of same-sex marriage on San Francisco’s economy and concluded that the prohibition negatively affects San Francisco’s economy in many ways.* Tr 683:19-684:19.

[* The benefits of marriage give couples and families greater economic stability and safety. Denial of marriage to any demographic hurts them economically, which lowers the economic health of the community as a whole.]

5. Letitia Anne Peplau, a psychologist, was qualified as an expert on couple relationships within the field of psychology. Peplau offered four opinions: (1) for adults who choose to enter marriage, that marriage is often associated with many important benefits; (2) research has shown remarkable similarities between same-sex and opposite-sex couples; (3) if same-sex couples are permitted to marry, they will likely experience the same benefits from marriage as opposite-sex couples; and (4) permitting same-sex marriage will not harm opposite-sex marriage. Tr 574:6-19.

6. Ilan Meyer, a social epidemiologist, testified as an expert in public health with a focus on social psychology and psychiatric epidemiology. Meyer offered three opinions: (1) gays and lesbians experience stigma, and Proposition 8 is an example of stigma; (2) social stressors affect gays and lesbians; and (3) social stressors negatively affect the mental health of gays and lesbians. Tr 817:10-19.

7. Gregory Herek, a psychologist, testified as an expert in social psychology with a focus on sexual orientation and stigma. Herek offered opinions concerning: (1) the nature of sexual orientation and how sexual orientation is understood in the fields of psychology and psychiatry;* (2) the amenability of sexual orientation to change through intervention;* and (3) the nature of stigma and prejudice as they relate to sexual orientation and Proposition 8. Tr 2023:8-14.

[* Sexual orientation in a part of identity, not a choice; attempts to "correct" it cause more psychological harm than good.]

8. Michael Lamb, a psychologist, testified as an expert on the developmental psychology of children, including the developmental psychology of children raised by gay and lesbian parents. Lamb offered two opinions: (1) children raised by gays and lesbians are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents; and (2) children of gay and lesbian parents would benefit if their parents were able to marry. Tr 1009:23-1010:4.

9. Gary Segura, a political scientist, testified as an expert on the political power or powerlessness of minority groups in the United States, and of gays and lesbians in particular. Segura offered three opinions: (1) gays and lesbians do not possess a meaningful degree of political power; (2) gays and lesbians possess less power than groups granted judicial protection; and (3) the conclusions drawn by proponents’ expert Miller are troubling and unpersuasive.* Tr 1535:3-18.

[*Miller is one of two expert witnesses for proponents of Prop 8. His conclusions will be explained in the following post.]

[PAGES 28-35]

All expert witnesses for the plaintiffs were found to be credible, and their testimony makes up large portions of the Findings of Fact (I'll explain the importance of Findings of Fact in a later post).

More is coming, and I will make sure to properly link posts to one another as they come up on the site.

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS
7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION
8. CONCLUSIONS AND REMEDIES

Fighting for equality,

Mike