Two things at the Prop. 8 trial today surprised me.
I did not expect to be able to actually see deposition testimony by Prop. 8 witnesses who would not be testifying in court, but the Olson/Boies team has posted videos, and there is no doubt why the defense did not want these two witnesses on the stand.
It is not because Dr. Kathryn Young and Dr. Paul Nathanson seem
shy or afraid of anything. Instead, they appear to be forthright,
well-informed, and engaged in the questioning.
To be fair, these tapes include only those parts of their
depositions where they do say positive things. But their honest
and unambiguous statements are devastating to the parties that
called them into this case. Yes, homosexuality is just a normal
variant on human sexuality. Yes, reputable studies clearly
conclude there is no reason to predict harm when children are
raised by same-sex couples. Yes, homosexuals, like heterosexuals,
want to marry for reasons of stability and commitment. Yes, single
lesbians and gay men raise fine and healthy children, and marriage
would reinforce that.
The biggest surprise to me is that David Boies does not have to bully or trick them into saying these things on the record. That speaks well of the witnesses, and their view of professional ethics - or at least honesty.
But that's why they had to be hidden from view. Even without seeing the rest of their testimony (which is presumably the reason they were called by the other side, not ours), there is no doubt that they would have helped our case, as much as, and maybe more than our own witnesses.
The other surprise was the Mormon documents. It will come as a shock to no one that the LDS church was the biggest supporter of Prop. 8. But this was news:
With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved.
It's hard to tell from the transcript how exact this wording is, but phrases like "plausible deniability" and "respectable distance," are hard to mistranscribe.
There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with religious believers, their leaders, and even their church organizations taking a vocal and even prominent role in political campaigns; frankly, I couldn't imagine a way to prevent this if anyone seriously thought differently. The tax laws that purport to intrude here are as flatfooted as they are misguided.
But who expects church leaders to separate themselves from their moral authority like this? On what other issue would a church have such anxiety about the public knowing they are engaging in a battle against a specific theological evil? If gay marriage is bad - and that's clearly the position the LDS church took - why on earth would they need "respectable distance" from actions based on their own position? Are they hiring a hit man here?
Yet this is how the LDS, and even some Catholic authorities, approached Prop. 8. As with the deposed witnesses, it is their honest assessment of the situation that is the most damning.
And this is how, win or lose, we win. Every road leads back to the same truth: the imagined problem of homosexuality that survived through so many centuries is now seen by too many people as no problem at all. I can only imagine what a problem that is for the people who seem, for whatever reason, to need it be a problem.
7 Comments for “What Can’t, And Can, Be Denied”
posted by BobN on
Are they hiring a hit man here?
If people had any idea of how sustained the Mormon opposition to gay rights has been for almost three decades and how much MONEY they have put into it, it would set their cause for legitimization back years.
Which, in my opinion, would be a good thing, on many levels.
posted by Jorge on
It means the attempt is for them to engage in politics without appearing to violate the separation between church and state.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Folks, you should have seen how they got away with discrimination against black people and their support of slavery.
Even whatever factions that supported polygamy did so with the need to also support misogyny.
The LDS church is historically a bigoted entity.
Only when they wanted statehood, non taxable benefit only if they didn’t discriminate and so on, did they relinquish all the discrimination they wanted to.
Their last frontier was discriminating against gay lives and hopefully not anymore and never again!
posted by Yeshua Rozen on
Am I your type? Be my friend. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?v=wall&ref=profile&id=100000722254874
Make my dreams cum true!
posted by Mark on
To be fair, the phrases âplausible deniabilityâ and ârespectable distanceâ were words used by the Plaintiff witness to describe the LDS documents and not words used in the LDS documents themselves.
However, the LDS church does have a history of attempting to hide its involvement in anti-marriage equality campaigns. LDS documents recently brought to light from the Hawaii marriage equality fight in the late 90’s contain this quote (among others): âThe ideas are introduced but the Church is not visible.â
For more see: http://mormongate.com/
posted by Mark on
Also, I believe the appearance of a “respectable distance” was preferred since Mormons are not exactly a favored minority. The message would be less effective if people knew who it was coming from. Even the anti-Prop 8 campaign tried to capitalize on this (unsuccessfully) with their airing of a commercial featuring two Mormon missionaries barging into a home to take away rights.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I strongly disagree. Religious leaders or institutions have a right to support what they want, but they don’t have a right to keep their tax-exempt status as they do so.
They want special treatment. They expect the government to be hands-off, including not applying taxation to them as it would secular organizations which are actively involved in political campaigns, yet they still demand the right to be actively involved in such political campaigns.
They shouldn’t get it both ways. And if we’re serious about a separation of church and state, this is one critical way of applying this.
Will these groups care? Hell yes they will. We could be talking about some big money, here. In fact, I believe just such a concern probably played a role in their plausible deniability and respectable distance documents.
Though Mark brought up a good point about the Mormons being concerned about how influential their Prop 8 campaign would be considering their minority and controversial belief systems, but what else, really, do they have to fear other than financial ramifications?
Of course, the problem is, such restrictions haven’t been very effective because they haven’t been properly enforced.
Thus, the Mormon church can bankroll Prop 8, the Roman Catholic Church can bankroll Prop 1, Bishop Harry Jackson in D.C. can declare that âreligious people are going to start going after people’s political careersâ and threaten â[y]ou’re going to see a bloodletting that is going to mark a new style of engagement for people who are against same-sex marriageâ and nothing is done about it…
Ultimately, yes, those who oppose same-sex marriage, particularly those who aim to do so via constitutional amendments, are going to be villains in history just as those who supported segregation and anti-miscegenation have been.
Which brings us back to the Mormon church and their legitimization. I’m sure BobN is correct. Such determined zeal against homosexuality will work against them moving forward. But then they have a habit of being on the wrong side of history.
When was it that they had a new revelation from âGodâ to officially end the church’s racial discrimination of blacks, 1978 or so? You’d almost figure that things like this would be, cosmically-speaking, timeless…