Skip to comments.Prop. 8 trial witnesses make ‘troubling’ attack on religion (“chief obstacle”) and Catholic teaching
Posted on 01/22/2010 5:31:25 AM PST by GonzoII
Prop. 8 trial witnesses make troubling attack on religion and Catholic teaching
Stanford University professor Gary Segura.
.- Court witnesses arguing against Californias Proposition 8 have described religious beliefs of those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman as biased and a chief obstacle to homosexuals political progress. The comments were part of a troubling attack on religion, Proposition 8 defenders say.
Proposition 8, the successful 2008 California ballot issue that restored to state law the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a wife, is being challenged in federal court by opponents who claim it is unconstitutional.
On Wednesday one plaintiff witness was Gary Segura, a Stanford University political science professor who specializes in the political power of minorities, including homosexuals.
Segura said that religion is the chief obstacle for gays and lesbians political progress.
It's difficult to think of a more powerful social entity in American society than the church, he commented, according to a transcript of the trial.
Segura noted that America is a very churchgoing nation and religion provides an opportunity for people to meet together on a weekly basis. In his view, religious groups are arrayed against the interests of gays and lesbians.
He said that the biblical condemnation of homosexuality and the teaching that gays are morally inferior affects a huge percentage of the public. This makes the political ground very hostile to gay interests.
Asked to explain his understanding of an earlier witness, Dr. Young, he said Young freely admits that religious hostility to homosexuals is an important role in creating a social climate that's conducive to hateful acts, to opposition to their interest in the public sphere, and to prejudice and discrimination.
Andrew Pugno, general counsel for Prop. 8 backer ProtectMarriage.com, responded to Seguras testimony in a Wednesday statement.
He said Segura offered a serious and troubling line of attack against people of faith.
Today, religion has taken the stage, front and center, in the battle over the constitutionality of Prop. 8 and is being portrayed as an illegitimate basis for supporting traditional marriage. Religious bigotry surely found expression in todays presentation by the plaintiffs, he charged.
To suggest that the people of California cannot consider their own political, moral and religious views when casting their vote on Prop. 8 is preposterous, Pugno continued, adding that many issues are presented to voters that involve moral questions.
The plaintiffs put the role of religion clearly in their cross hairs and are likely to fire away at the legitimacy of religious and moral views, as well as the votes and voices of those who hold them.
On Thursday the Prop. 8 defense team asked Segura about assaults and death threats against supporters of the measure.
According to the Washington Post, Segura said that organized violence or broad disorderly behavior certainly has a negative impact on the homosexual rights movement. In his view, such behavior is "a cry for help or expression of frustration or maybe the ultimate expression of powerlessness."
Other opponents of Prop. 8 have attacked Christian sexual ethics during the trial.
On Jan. 13, San Francisco city attorney Therese Stewart asked Yale history professor George Chauncey to read official doctrinal statements from the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic Church. According to Jordan Lorence, senior council for the Prop. 8 defender Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the statements generally restated what the Bible says about the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.
Professor Chauncey said those doctrinal statements reflect historic bias against those who engage in homosexual behavior, Lorence continued in a report at the ADF website. Its not hard to figure out what is so frightening about an attempt in federal court to attack and delegitimize the views of the two largest Christian denominations in America.
Lorence claimed that the testimony was further proof that the trial is about much more than the personal relationships and feelings of those in same-sex relationships.
It is about imposing a different and intolerant morality on America and eradicating opposing ideas, he charged.
I hope and pray this homosexual agenda backfires in America just like Obama Care.
I will ping this out today. I’m kind of back on the job!
Since when are homosexuals a minority? Are you kidding me? Mentally disturbed maybe, but NOT a minority.
I thought you retired or something. ;0)
I’m proud to be part of their problem.
The times are quickly coming where people of faith are going to have to make “Thomas More” type decisions as the state devolves toward secular tyranny.
So marriage is a rite of the church and religion....and suddenly a lunatic group wants to attack the church for having standards for accessing this rite...
The world is so upside-down.
Marriage is a religious institution given to humanity by God. God defines who is married and who is not. We make a grave mistake when we have a tax system that exempts married people because we then must give government the power to decide who is married and who is not for purposes of taxation. We give government God-like powers, which we must revoke.
This is a wonderful feature of the Fair Tax: it gets government out of the marriage business.
Whatever people want to do in their private lives is their private business, but when they decide to join together, it is not marriage. If we want to recognize these affiliations in matters of law relating to taxes, inheritance and power of attorney (for directing health car for example), that is another matter entirely.
However, presently law allows two people to address many of these issues right now. So what do gays really want when they insist on being allowed to “marry”? They really want two things: to degrade and destroy the God-ordained institution of marriage and they want to use the State to make their way of living legitimate such as by having it taught uncritically in public school and in other situations.
Sorry gays: God clearly states his opinion about homosexuality in His word. Because of this you cannot gain the one thing you want from the public more than anything else: their approval of your immoral acts.
Geez this morning I read about Amhurst welcoming the terrorists and now another professor who fears religion is keeping his sexual habits from flourishing.
What are they teaching in colleges these days, that these freaks are the role models for America’s youth is more than frightening.
We need to empty the garbage at America;s places of supposed higher education.
A small smattering of freaks teaching is probably good so the youth can be entertained and exposed to it, but it appears the freaks have taken over.
I think that Segura used the incorrect term. It is not religion that is the chief obstacle, it is science, natural law, history of human survival, and statistics.
Homosexuals cannot reproduce; therefore they want to mock marriage. The criminally insane covet what they cannot have.
Homosexuals bring sexually transmitted disease. Homosexuals constitute a high percentage of pedophiles. Homosexuals as a group have a shorter life span and bring significantly increased risk of vile diseases to populations where they live. AIDS is a behavioral disease than can be eliminated by a change in behavior, unlike TB.
Natural law, ten thousand years of evolution have evolved into defensive measures by societies to protect families from the risks brought forth by the homosexual community.
Homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity, and are contrary to natural law. Many men and women do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. Unjust discrimination must be avoided. Basically they are called to chastity. Islam controls risk by simply removing homosexuals from society.
Laws that encourage homosexual "marriage" simply fail to protect the population from unnecessary risk of disease and emotional and physical damage.
Got swine flu, that took 8 weeks to get over, then computer went weird, that took weeks.
So I’m ready, willing and able to pingify.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Compare this to the article wagglebee pinged out today, about the church in Calgary losing its charity status due to bigoted moral views [sic] that affect political issues.
It is crystal clear that the homosexual agenda (and other leftist agendas, of which it is part and parcel) want to put all religious believers into a type of Gulag where we can have no influence on public life whatsoever.
If anyone still thinks the homosexual agenda is about two homosexuals living in a house with a white picket fence and wedding rings, they are lying to themselves. Leftists and especially those pushing the homosexual agenda want to destroy freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association. And then there's hate thought - which veers into re-education camps, removal of children from homes of believers in God so they won't be tainted by the hateful thoughts and speech, etc.
They will not stop of their own accord. There is no point at which they will say "We won, now we'll sit back."
Pugno should introduce the “Folsom Street Fair” video into evidence.
WARNING. Seriously bad stuff.
The slips of these drama queens are finally showing.
Sunshine - a powerful bleaching and disinfecting agent.
Something I’ve been thinking about lately:
If we take the word “religion” to be mean a belief system and world view determined by said belief system*, there are two religions in the world. Everyone, regardless of label, falls into one category or another**.
1. Those who not only believe in God, but accept and try to follow the rules set out in the scriptures of the world; which are, in the main, largely in agreement over the basic rules of morality, behavior and values for human society. For instance, prohibitions of sex before and outside of marriage, against homosexual acts, against murder, theft, false witness, blasphemy, and so on. And finer concepts as avoiding lust, greed, anger, envy, covetousness, and so on.
Another aspect of this meaning of religion is the world view that this mortal world is not our eternal home, but a sort of testing ground; with the real home in the eternal Kingdom of God, and that true happiness can be found only in relationship with the Supreme Godhead.
2. The other world view and belief system is based on atheism, hedonism and moral relativity - which is based on hypocrisy, since what it really means is that only their view point is valid.
This world view is not just espoused by outright atheists*** but many who claim to believe in “God” - but the “God” they supposedly worship does not have the actual qualities of God. For instance, various denominations who allow homosexuals to be priests and ministers, consider abortion perfectly okay, and so on. Up to the Metropolitan Community “Church” that is focused solely on homosexuality, or Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church which is merely a racist and marxist political group using sort of Christian sounding slogans occasionally.
Religion #2 views this world as all in all, and seeks to find perfection in this world; perfection in their eyes meaning the most enjoyment possible (in their view) before the worms take over. “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die”. There is no God in control (other than a superficial label pinned on), you make your own rules, each sees his own desires and whims as the guiding light in life, or the whims of others who have similar values and world view.
The really bad news is that Religion #2 is completely intolerant of any of the viewpoints, morality or world view of religion #1 having any sway in public life. They pretend that there is “neutral ground” for public life, and that Religion #1 should not have influence over public policy, in supposed deference to “secularism” or “neutrality”.
But, the problem is that there are only two world views, or two religions. If theists cannot influence public life, than atheism and hedonism are the standard. There can only be one standard, there is no neutral ground.
* Of course, there are other meanings of the word “religion” but leaving that for another day.
** I am also leaving Islam aside for now as that is a whole ‘nother category in a sense. Or a subset.
*** An interesting point is that there atheists who are content to live in a world peopled by group #1 with the morals and values of group #1. Such atheists are another subset. :-)
I remember a saying from “Catholic Answers” (I think that was the publication, can’t be sure)Loosely quoted:
“The problem with tolerance is that TRUTH will suffer at some point.”
We as a country have been SO TOLERANT of behaviours against our moral fiber that TRUTH is suffering. It’s that whole “reduction of what is acceptable” that is hurting us as a nation.
The followers of “Religion #2” are completely intolerant, tyrannical and fanatic to a degree that many of those in “Religion #1” do not yet understand. Hopefully more are waking up.
The followers of “Religion #2” cannot tolerate truth, morality, absolutes (other than the ones they themselves make up), purity, or indeed, anyone who does not bow down to Them.
That’s they way they are and I’ve had vivid and painful personal experiences.
Surprisingly, I disagree with very little of what the political “science” “professor” had to say. What I disagree with is how what he said is inimical to society.