Posted on July 13, 2010 | by Michael
Foust
SAN FRANCISCO (BP)--It likely is a very rare event when
the Southern Baptist and Roman Catholic official
statements on marriage are read aloud in a federal
courtroom, as happened earlier this year during the trial
of California Prop 8.
It's probably also unusual for a key witness to declare
that "religion is the chief obstacle for gay and lesbian
political progress," as was said.
But the Prop 8 trial was anything but usual; in reading
the transcripts from the 12 days of testimony in January,
religion was a major theme, with traditional Christian
beliefs on "gay marriage" often cast as bigoted and
tantamount to racism.
As both sides wait for a decision that could come any day
and that could have major implications for state marriage
laws from coast to coast, conservative leaders are warning
that what took place in the trial is only a preview of how
supporters of "gay marriage" will cast conservative
Christians if Prop 8 is overturned and "gay marriage" is
legalized nationwide. Those leaders say backers of "gay
marriage" will try to marginalize Christians by comparing
them to the 1950s and '60s opponents of civil rights.
After Prop 8 passed by a margin of 52-48 percent in 2008
and defined marriage as between one man and one woman,
supporters of "gay marriage" filed suit in federal court
last year.
Religion was a major theme on five of the 12 days of
testimony.
"They were trying to show that religions during the Prop 8
campaign were pandering to prejudicial stereotypes to
motivate the voters," Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the
Alliance Defense Fund, told Baptist Press. ADF attorneys
have worked to uphold Prop 8, and Lorence attended the
trial. "That feeds the fires that those who take an
orthodox Christian view on the definition of marriage are
the equivalent of Ku Klux Klan bigots that need to be
driven to the margins of our society."
For instance:
-- On the third day of the trial, San Francisco city
attorney Therese Stewart asked Yale University history
professor George Chauncey to read portions of Southern
Baptist resolutions on "gay marriage" from 2003 and 2008,
as well as a Vatican document on the subject from 2003.
After asking Chauncey to assume that such religious
beliefs are sincerely held, Stewart asked, "During the
battles over segregation and interracial marriage, did
people hold sincere religious beliefs that were rooted in
prejudice?" Chauncey answered "yes" and then continued,
"Many people in the South deeply believed that interracial
marriage was against God's will. I don't question their
sincerity. I believe, though, that that reflects the
larger system of prejudices that had shaped their
understanding of the world."
-- On the trial's seventh day, Stanford University
political science professor Gary Segura, a witness for the
plaintiffs, said he thought that "religion is the chief
obstacle for gay and lesbian political progress, and it's
the chief obstacle for a couple of reasons." Among those
reasons, he said, "Biblical condemnation of homosexuality
... on a regular basis to a huge percentage of the public
makes the political ground, the political opportunity
structure very hostile to gay interests."
Attorneys trying to overturn Prop 8 also tried to place
the blame on religious groups for its passage:
-- On the seventh day of testimony, Theodore J. Boutrous,
an attorney for the plaintiffs, asked Segura if he could
think of an example "where two churches of the scope and
size and power" of the Catholics and Mormons "had banded
together and arrayed themself against a particular
minority group in society." Segura said from his
experience it was "unprecedented."
-- Plaintiff attorney David Boies asked a series of
leading questions to a defense witness on Day 11, such as,
"The reason [Prop 8] passed was because of religion,
correct?" The witness said he disagreed but Boies later
tried it a different way, casting "gay marriage" in a
sympathetic light and asking, "Do you believe that it is
generally accepted that it is not appropriate for a
majority religion or majority religion coalition to impose
their views on a minority?"
The case, known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger, is being
watched closely because 28 other states have
constitutional amendments that define marriage as between
one man and one woman. Additionally, most states that
don't have amendments have statues defining marriage in
the traditional sense. If the case makes it to the U.S.
Supreme Court, all those amendments and laws are in
jeopardy.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics
& Religious Liberty Commission, responded to the
denomination's courtroom references, telling the SBC
annual meeting in June that the SBC's beliefs are not the
product of centuries of hatred and prejudice but rather
"the product of centuries of people of God being faithful
to God's Word and God's definition of His institution,
holy matrimony."
Lorence, the Alliance Defense Fund attorney, said
religious liberty is already taking a hit across the
country in cases involving laws protecting homosexuality.
He mentioned a New Mexico case in which, last year, a
state judge ruled that a husband-and wife-owned
photography company violated state anti-discrimination
laws when they refused to take pictures of a lesbian
commitment ceremony. He also pointed to a New Jersey case
in which a Methodist-owned beachfront property lost part
of its tax-exempt status because its leaders denied use of
the property to a lesbian couple for a commitment
ceremony. States with "gay marriage" also have seen
controversies over what is taught in public schools.
Legalization of "gay marriage" nationwide, Lorence said,
only will make matters far worse.
"We are not going to have a wonderful pluralistic nirvana
of diversity," he said. "We are going to have something
harsh that's similar to a regime ... that imposes
punishments on those who criticize or blaspheme their
doctrines."
The Southern Baptist and Catholic passages read in the
courtroom were anything but controversial when viewed
through the lens of Scripture's teachings on marriage. One
SBC resolution excerpt that was read said, "Any action
giving homosexual unions the legal status of marriage
denies the fundamental immorality of homosexual behavior."
It pointed to Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27 and 1
Corinthians 6:9-11. Another passage read aloud said, "We
call on Southern Baptists not only to stand against
same-sex unions, but to demonstrate our love for those
practicing homosexuality by sharing with them the
forgiving and transforming power of the gospel of Jesus
Christ."
The Vatican document read, in part, "There are absolutely
no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any
way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for
marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual
acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts
'close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not
proceed from a genuine affective and sexual
complementarity.'"
Yet both were based on prejudice, Prop 8 opponents said in
the courtroom.
Maggie Gallagher, who supported Prop 8 and who serves on
the executive committee of the National Organization for
Marriage, asked in a posting at NationalReview.com, "Could
you try any harder to confirm religious people's fears
about where gay marriage is heading?"
--30--
Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press. The
transcripts of the Prop 8 trial in California can be read
at http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/?CID=12012 (in
the right-hand column under "legal docs").
