Prop. 8 used stereotypes, witness says

SAN FRANCISCO — A Yale professor testifying in a case challenging California's same-sex marriage ban said Tuesday that the 2008 campaign to pass Proposition 8 played on stereotypes historically used to portray "homosexuals as perverts who prey on young children, out to entice straight people into sick behavior."

George Chauncey, a historian who specializes in the subject of 20th century gay life, was the second expert witness to appear for two couples unable to marry because of the state's voter-approved gay marriage ban. Their lawsuit has led to the first federal trial to decide the constitutionality of laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

After viewing several television commercials produced by Proposition 8's sponsors, Chauncey said images and language suggesting the ballot initiative was needed to "protect children" were reminiscent of earlier efforts to "demonize" gays, ranging from police raids on gay bars during the 1950s to campaigns to rid public schools of gay teachers in the 1970s.

"You have a pretty strong echo of this idea that simple exposure to gay people and their relationships is somehow going to lead a whole generation of young kids to become gay," Chauncey said. "The underlying message here is something about the undesirability of homosexuals, that we don't want our children to become this way."

Chauncey's views were introduced to help persuade Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is hearing the case without a jury, that the California measure unlawfully discriminates against gays because it was based on an underlying hatred or moral disapproval and serves no legitimate public aim.

Court concluded with a lawyer for Proposition 8's backers just beginning to cross-examine Chauncey, who is scheduled to resume his testimony today.

Earlier Tuesday, another history professor, Nancy Cott of Harvard University, presented a centuries-old history lesson on government regulation of marriage, even touching on President Bill Clinton's indiscretions to argue that the institution has evolved dramatically over time.

In her second day of testimony, Cott disputed a statement by a defense lawyer that states have a compelling interest to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples for the sake of procreation.

Cott said marriage also serves an economic purpose — one that was especially pronounced when it was assumed that men and women performed different jobs in their partnership.

But as traditional gender roles and the purposes of marriage have changed, the reasons to bar same-sex couples from marrying have gone away, she said.