Proposition 8 Trial: More Comments About Friday

Plus, letters to the Los Angeles Times. First, I'll pull from Lisa Leff's Associated Press report.

"Most heterosexual men and women, if they were asked the question and thought about it, would report similarly that they don't feel they made a choice to be heterosexual," Herek said.

There's a difference, of course. Heterosexual behavior is how we all got here. Homosexual orientation does not have a similar or equivalent contributory status to the human race.

Again, though, how do we know that any given person's status a homosexual is no more their choice than someone who claims he didn’t choose to be in debt, although if you look at his financial history and education, it becomes clear exactly how this person got into debt through their own choices? The same goes for any number of behavior patterns or places in life, whether morally questionable or not – substance abuse habit, gambling habit, porn habit, education level, job, etc. A woman doesn't choose to be battered the first time. It is a different story when it is the tenth time with the same man (though that in no way excuses battery).

"If two men were to walk down the street holding hands in many places, that would elicit a great deal of negative reaction, and that is an example of the stigma that everyone knows lesbians and gay men experience because they are gay," he said.

What if they walked down the street without holding hands, and nobody knew they were lovers? Unlike a person’s skin color, nobody would know. So any hostile actions on the part of someone else, as wrong as they may be, would be based on behavior – not the person's mere existence. Herek cites other people being disgusted by the homosexual behavior of someone else. But isn't being disgusted a feeling? And why is someone's feeling of disgust any less valid than someone else's feeling of attraction?

Herek acknowledged that was true, but added: "Most people display consistency in their attractions and behaviors. We do see some examples where some people express attraction but do not have the sexual behavior."

As he admits, behavior is different from attraction. We are not regulating feelings. We shouldn't even try. But we do not have to affirm all behaviors as though they are the same.

Under Nielson's questioning, Herek readily acknowledged that scientists do not know if people are born gay or straight, become that way as a result of their early experiences, or some combination of circumstances.

Ouch. That has to sting.

Again, the California Marriage Amendment deals with state licenses. It does not restrict behavior, as not having the license doesn't preclude anyone from behaving as they choose.

I'm throwing in a look at some letters to the Los Angeles Times. Click to continue.

[Tidbits from the letters are after the jump.]

Rudi Logan of West Hollywood takes enjoyment in the thought of marriage amendment supporters being harassed. It seems he wants people to experience what he claims to have experienced. So homosexual behavior is now being equated to participation in the political process to maintain something that has served society well.

Vladimir Bogorad of Van Nuys calls out Courage Campaign Chairman Rick Jacobs for calling marriage defense radical.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "radical" as "tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions or institutions."

So who is radical here: those who seek to change a tradition that is thousands of years old, or those who want to preserve it?

Rabbi Zach Shapiro of Los Angeles wrote:

Same-gender marriage should be made legal simply because it's the moral and ethical thing to do.

Where do you get that? Certainly not from the Torah, Rabbi. Same-sex pairing is legal - they also can form domestic partnerships if they choose. Or not. Either way, they can share a life. There is no social, moral, practical, or legal obligation to change marriage licensing. Kelly McClanahan of Yucaipa, California wrote:

Why should gays and lesbians be singled out?

They aren't. They are simply the only ones mounting and loud, organized, and widely publicized attack. There are various restrictions or marriage licensing beyond the bride+groom requirement.

How can we look at any marriage and determine its worth from outside the union?

The state can determine whether any given pairing unites both basic elements of society. And that is exactly what California does. A marriage license does not imply that the state knows these people are in love or have compatible personalities.

I thank and applaud The Times for being bold enough to state what is missed in this debate too often: the premise that it is absolutely none of our business what a marriage consists of between the two parties involved.

When someone applies for a state marriage license, it does become our business, because those licenses are issued on our behalf.