The depositions of Prop 8 witnesses Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young who may have withdrew out of fear for their own safety reveal today how damaging their statements could have been (and ultimately are) to their case. Watch:

Paul Nathanson a Canadian religious scholar who just happens to be gay (duh!) was also trotted out in Varnum v. Brien which ultimately led to the Iowa Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. In the document Defending Faith, Family and Freedom by the Family Research Council Nathanson is quoted as saying that cultures can only survive and thrive via opposite-sex marriage.

“Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival … every human society has had to promote it actively … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”

Not surprisingly marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher also surfaces in said document.

Nathanson and Young also co-authored  Marriage à la mode: Answering the Advocates of Gay Marriage in 2003 which attempts to dissect and tear down many marriage equality positions. Some of their arguments below.

Argument 7: Children would be no worse off with happily married gay parents than they are with unhappily married straight ones: This comparison is false, because it involves the best of one scenario with the worst of another. A legitimate comparison would compare either the best of both or the worst of both. Once again, we suggest that the best of marriage (providing at least one parent or other adult of each sex) is better than the best of gay marriage (which provides two parents of the same sex and none of the other one).

Argument 15: Anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is homophobic: This argument amounts to verbal terrorism. By “homophobic” is meant prejudice and hostility, although this word actually connotes the neuroticism of a phobia. The implication is that only evil or sick people can possibly disagree with any claim made by gay people. So much for the possibility of rational debate. (Never mind that not even all gay people are in favor of gay marriage.)

Moreover, this is an ad hominem argument. It is easy to trivialize arguments by attacking the personal integrity of those who make them. That way, you need not deal with the argument itself.

It’s a lengthy document but a good source for “verbal terrorists” such as myself in developing counter arguments.

By a slim 5-4 margin the U. S. Supreme Court today blocked cameras from broadcasting the Prop 8 trial.

In an unsigned opinion Wednesday, the court criticized [Judge] Walker for attempting to change the rules “at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials.”

While the court set no time limit in its ruling, any further proceedings at high court likely would come after the trial was over.

The four justices in dissent were Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and John Paul Stevens.

At this time it is still unclear if the trial proceedings will be posted on YouTube as that was not addressed in today’s decision.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights which is leading the challenge against Proposition 8 released the following statement:

“Proposition 8 attacks the core of what our nation stands for — that all of us are entitled to equal protection under the law and equal treatment from the government. A trial on constitutional rights should be accessible to as many people as possible,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “Given the powerful evidence against Prop. 8 presented in court today, we are not surprised the initiative’s defenders sought to keep this trial as private as possible.”

Not surprisingly the ruling broke cleanly along idealogical lines and fear it doesn’t bode well for when the case ultimately reaches the Supreme Court.

While neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions are recognized in the Philippines, a recently introduced bill would further punish anyone attempting to enter into such a union, describing gay marriage as “highly immoral, scandalous and detestable.”

The bill recommends penalties both for the applicants for marriage and the solemnizing officer.

Under the bill, the would-be partners face 15 years imprisonment and a P150,000 fine.

Likewise, anybody caught faking or trying to mis-declare his/her gender in order to secure a marriage license may be meted a 12-year jail term and a P100,000 fine.

If the offender is a public officer or employee, he/she shall be dismissed from government service and banned from re-employment in any public office.

Former Baptist minister turned lawmaker Bienvenido Abante Jr. introduced the bill last December saying that without the measure same sex unions would  “snap the remaining strand of our moral values.”

When serving as chairman of the Human Rights committee back in 2006 Abante rejected a bill prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, calling it a “culture of death” and reverse discrimination against heterosexuals.

Really.

My husband who was born and raised in the Philippines chimes in…

Why am I not surprised about this, especially coming from a very religious country like the Philippines. This is just another example of the power and control organized religion has in poor countries like this one.

It is safe to conclude that Bienvenido Abante, Jr. has the strong backing of the church, so I am not at all surprised with what he is doing right now. It is sad if not laughable to have him as the chairman of the Human Rights committee. Seriously, how can you be the chairman of the Human Rights committee and try to pass a bill that violates the core meaning of your position. Really, can somebody please tell this man what his job is all about?

I believe that it is inhumane to discriminate against another group of people just because of their sexual orientation and I think this is a reaction to what is going on in Western countires like the United States. I hope that the Filipino people, and not only the LGBT pinoys, will wake up and rise up against this reprehensible bill.

“Huwag matakot mga kapatid. Magkaisa tayo laban sa mga masasama.” (Don’t be afraid my brothers and sisters to unite against all that is evil and bad.)

Hollywood producer and director Rob Reiner who worked behind the scenes to finance the Federal court challenge to Proposition 8 is in San Francisco this week for the landmark case. Watch: