The Historian

This is just too precious for words. The plaintiff's in the San Francisco "Prop. 8 case" have an expert witness - a Yale historian who is an expert in 20th century gay life. As usual with experts, the Plaintiffs are getting their money's worth: Historian: Prop. 8 Played On Anti-Gay Fears

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 pray on young children, out to entice straight people into sick behavior.

After viewing several television commercials produced by Proposition 8's sponsors, (Dr. George) 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."

Yes, the "hate" was thick as pea-soup back in 2008. I hope whoever does the cross examination will ask Chauncey why it was that a majority of Californians were able to simultaneously vote in favor of Barack Obama (not hate) and in favor of Prop. 8 (hate).

Chauncey was actually the second expert called to the stand by the Plaintiffs. The first was Nancy Cott, who was there to hold forth on the history of marriage:

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.

Ugh. Not Clinton-Lewinsky again. What that had to do with redefining marriage for the New Millennium I will never know. That sort of furtive coupling has been par for the course since the dawn of man. They give out Harvard professorships for this insight?