Blame it on Churches

Here's an afternoon update on the Proposition 8 trial. This is Associated Press writer Lisa Leff’s report.

Gay men and lesbians are a politically unpopular and relatively powerless force in the United States, even though the public tends to think otherwise, a political scientist testified Wednesday during a historic trial on the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban.

The amount of time the judiciary, legislatures, academia, and media spend on "LGBTQQ" issues is disproportionate. Seems to me, there is a disproportionate amount of power for three percent of the population.

"By any measure, gays and lesbians would have to be understood as a minority faction," [Stanford University professor Gary M.] Segura said.

Of course they are a minority. So are people with naturally red hair. So what? Here's something that should be circulated wide and far:

"People who accept the normativity of heterosexuality have held power essentially forever."

Heterosexual orientation is normal. We're all here because of heterosexual behavior. Unless you're a misanthrope and have no heterosexual desires, heterosexual orientation is a good thing. Heterosexual behavior contributes to society in ways homosexual behavior can't. That's a demonstrable fact. This guy appears to be bemoaning the fact that human beings naturally develop heteronormative cultures. We're supposed to pretend that any given person could be just as likely to have a homosexual orientation as a heterosexual one? Sorry, that just isn't reality.

Segura said Proposition 8 was part of a chain of ballot box defeats for the gay rights movement dating back to the 1970s, including 33 of the 33 measures dealing with marriage.

I see - so if the people clearly vote, over and over again, for something, we are obligated to do the opposite? Government against the people? Maybe, just maybe, it is the losing side that should adapt or accept, rather than the rest of us. That three percent of the population isn't able to muster a majority vote isn't a sign that they don't have more than enough representation.

The rest of the link covers material I already address in this previous entry.

The Los Angeles Times' Maura Dolan has her report on today's testimony here.

[More after the jump.]

Challengers of California's [constitutional amendment] are trying to show at trial today that discrimination against gays and lesbians is rooted in religion and that churches have contributed to anti-gay violence.

It really doesn't matter why someone voted the way they did. But saying "religion" or "churches" have contributed to "anti-gay" violence is ridiculous. Religions and churches come in a wide variety. You might as well blame the sidewalks that brought one person over to another to pick a fight. Most, if not all, of the assailants wore clothes, too, so clearly clothing contributes to such violence. Some churches, as has been widely covered in the media, are advocating marriage neutering. So the point is...?

Are "conservative" churchgoers to be denied their right to vote? Are they to be barred from contributing to campaigns the way, say, labor unions freely donate? Freedom of religion, speech, and voting are specifically enumerated in the Constitution, unlike the "right" to a state marriage license.

As always, they are taking comments on the blog entry, though my recent contributions seem to go unpublished. I highly recommend clicking over and trying to add your comments.

"kristin" wrote January 20, 2010 at 01:41 PM:

If religion is the basis of anti-gay discrimination, then why are homosexuals heavily persecuted in places like China, which has been an officially atheist country for more than 60 years?

Let's not forget that that the California Marriage Amendment was adopted by voters who were turning out in large numbers to vote for Obama, and most of them do not regularly attend churches that denounce homosexual behavior.