| View unanswered posts | View active topics |
It is currently Tue May 22, 2012 4:54 pm |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
BajaGay.com | Promote Your Page Too
|
Page 1 of 1 |
[ 1 post ] |
| Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
Historians tell of longtime discrimination against gays
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Site Admin  Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:30 am Posts: 656 Location: Rosarito, Baja California, MX 
|
 Historians tell of longtime discrimination against gaysHistorians tell of longtime discrimination against gays at Prop. 8 trial
DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAYS NARRATIVE IS 'IRRELEVANT' By Susan Ferriss - sferriss@sacbee.com SAN FRANCISCO – A congressional report in 1950 supporting firing gays said "one homosexual can pollute an entire office." A popular magazine carried an article about homosexuality that year titled "The New Moral Menace to Our Youth." A historian who testified for the Proposition 8 challenge in federal court Tuesday cited those examples and others as evidence that the November 2008 ballot measure barring gay marriage in California continued a long U.S. history of discrimination against gays. Yale historian George Chauncey, testifying in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, also quoted singer Anita Bryant during a campaign in Dade County, Fla., to repeal a local anti-discrimination ordinance favored by gays: "Some of the stories I could tell you about child recruitment and child abuse by homosexuals would turn your stomach." Andy Pugno, a Folsom attorney and member of the Proposition 8 defense team, told the media following Chauncey's testimony that his narrative of gay oppression in U.S. history was "interesting" but "utterly irrelevant." He said comparing Proposition 8 to violent attacks or harsh examples of past discrimination was "despicable." Gay plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which amended California's Constitution to declare that marriage is only between a man and a woman, saying that it codifies unequal treatment and violates their federal constitutional rights. Although the California Supreme Court had previously ruled in May 2008 that gays had a right to marry – and thousands did – a year later the high court sided with voters' right to change the state constitution. To bolster their federal challenge, gay plaintiffs are trying to build a case that gays merit federal protection in asserting their right to marry by showing that they have long suffered discrimination and damaging stereotypes. Chauncey said he saw "an echo" of that history in Proposition 8 ads, including one prominent TV commercial aired in court that showed a little girl, home from school, telling her mother that she had learned – in the wake of gay marriage rights – that "I can marry a princess." Chauncey said such messages are based on softer versions of historic portrayals of gay people as inherent child molesters and "recruiters" who would turn heterosexual children into homosexuals. Another historian who took the stand, Nancy F. Cott of Harvard, challenged statements made by Proposition 8 defense attorney Charles Cooper's opening statement Monday that procreation is the "central and … defining purpose of marriage." "I would certainly agree it is one of the purposes, but certainly not the central or the defining purpose," Cott said as attorney Theodore Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs' team, questioned her. Cott said marriage has evolved, with barriers to interracial marriage imposed in various states struck down by courts as unconstitutional in the 1960s. Wives' rights were increased through courts and legislators to give them more parity with their husbands' power, she said. "The direction has been away from governance and toward liberty," she said. She said the state has always taken a strong role in the United States in marriage, which it has used as a "governing vehicle" to distribute benefits – she cited Social Security payments – as well as to punish and control people. A law was adopted at one point, Cott said, that stripped women of their U.S. citizenship if they married a foreigner who was ineligible to naturalize, such as a Chinese man at that time. She said it was common for opponents of erasing past barriers in marriage to issue "alarms" of dire consequences that would damage marriage if changes were allowed. When American slaves were freed and allowed to marry – they had been forbidden – they flocked to wed, she said, demonstrating the desire to marry. When interracial barriers to marriage fell, she said, opponents warned that "their own marriages would be devalued," Cott said. Chauncey said he was "struck" by the similarity in language between people who said they voted for Proposition 8 for religious reasons and white Southerners who said they opposed desegregation because it went against "God's will." The Proposition 8 defense hasn't yet called witnesses to the stand and plans to cross-examine Chauncey today. David Thompson, an attorney defending Proposition 8, cross-examined Cott, questioning her broadly on her research on the origins of marriage law and her authority to talk about it. He posed questions about falling birth rates and "assisted reproduction" – medical aid to help a woman become pregnant – that Cott said she couldn't answer. He asked her about her past support for an "Alternative to Marriage Project" that urged respect for people living together or in arrangements other than legal marriage. Cott said she didn't think people should be forced to marry. "The consequences of same-sex marriage are impossible to know. Yes or no?" Thompson asked her. Cott said no one can predict the future. |
| Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:07 pm |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1 |
[ 1 post ] |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
Who is online |
Registered users: Google [Bot] |
| You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum |