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.

Iowa officials have confirmed that Iowa State Senator Matt McCoy received a death threat by telephone on Monday. Iowa’s first and only gay lawmaker, McCoy has been a vocal supporter of the Iowa Supreme Court’s recent ruling on gay marriage, and the threat comes in the midst of protests for and against marriage equality at the state capital.

From the Des Moines Register:

Security was heavy at the Capitol again Monday as supporters of traditional marriage rallied outside the building, then came inside to lobby lawmakers. They want lawmakers to take steps against an April 3 Iowa Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa.

Below is a message from Senator McCoy after the gay marriage ruling…

Governor Chet Culver has issued a statement regarding the Iowa Supreme Courts’ ruling legalizing gay marriage. Full release below:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 7, 2009

GOVERNOR CULVER ISSUES STATEMENT
ON SUPREME COURT’S DECISION

DES MOINES – Governor Chet Culver today issued the following statement after reviewing the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v. Brien:

“I have carefully reviewed the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous decision on civil marriage and discussed it with the Attorney General.

“Let me begin by saying that I recognize that the issue of same-gender civil marriage is one that evokes strongly held beliefs and strong emotions both for and against. These beliefs and feelings need to be respected. I hope that the views of those on all sides will be treated respectfully and will not be subjected to name-calling or fear-mongering, but instead will lead to rational discussion.

“At the outset, I want to emphasize that the question before the Iowa Supreme Court was one of civil marriage only – a state-recognized legal status constituting a civil contract. Civil marriage always has been, and will continue to be, separate from religious marriage that takes place in churches and places of worship.

“As I have stated before, I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a tenet of my personal faith. The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision has, in fact, reaffirmed that churches across Iowa will continue to have the right to recognize the sanctity of religious marriage in accordance with their own traditions and church doctrines. The Supreme Court’s decision does not require that churches recognize marriages between persons of the same gender or officiate over such unions. The Court does not have, nor should any court ever have, that kind of power over our religious lives. Our churches and places of worship are free to decide for themselves, as they were before, who may enter the sacred covenant of marriage. As the Supreme Court’s decision states, ‘The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past.’

“Yet, the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a unanimous decision, has clearly stated that the Constitution of our state, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all Iowans, requires the State of Iowa to recognize the civil marriage contract of two people of the same gender. The Court also concluded that the denial of this right constitutes discrimination. Therefore, after careful consideration and a thorough reading of the Court’s decision, I am reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory.

“As Governor, I must respect the authority of the Iowa Supreme Court, and have a duty to uphold the Constitution of the State of Iowa. I also fully respect the right of all Iowans to live under the full protection of Iowa’s Constitution.

“I urge Iowans who hold beliefs on all sides of this issue to exhibit respect and good will. Our state faces many serious challenges. We are in the midst of a serious economic recession. Tens of thousands of our fellow Iowans are without work. We have suffered the worst natural disasters and most difficult recovery our state has ever faced. We must join together and redouble our efforts to work toward solutions that will help Iowans in this time of uncertainty. That is where, I believe, my focus and energies should lie.

“Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are all Iowans, all neighbors, united in the promise and faith of a brighter future for our state. Let us all work together toward that common goal.”

While Governor Culver continues to oppose gay marriage, it is  heartening to see the governor ask fellow Iowan’s to respect the decision move forward together in a sense of unity, despite their differences.

Worthy advice in times such as these.

This of course is just a small smattering…

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action

“Here we go again. While citing the specter of ‘equal protection,’ the Iowa Supreme Court today has unanimously joined a leftist gaggle of ideologically driven judges in California, Massachusetts and Connecticut, creating, from thin air, a phantom ‘right’ to the ridiculous, oxymoronic and postmodern ‘gay’ marriage counterfeit… The U.S. Supreme Court long ago rejected the untenable notion that ‘equal protection’ requires two biologically incompatible persons to be permitted to ‘marry.’ Marriage, of course, by its very spiritual, historical and biological nature, requires binary compatibility. It is no more discriminatory to disallow two men from marrying each other, than it is to prohibit a man from marrying his house plant.”

Douglas Napier, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund

“The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled and overwhelmingly supported by Iowans … There was simply no legitimate reason for the court to redefine marriage.”

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the ruling took his breath away.

“The justices brazenly asserted that their role was not only to redefine marriage, but also to legislate whatever new social agenda they favored, ‘free from the influences’ of a society resistant to such change,” he said. “Such an admission is breathtaking in its arrogance and scope.”

Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action

“We need to remember that the marriage-amendment movement has been many times more successful than the same-sex ‘marriage’ movement,” he said. “We urge Iowans to contact their legislators and urge them to move quickly to pass a constitutional amendment protecting marriage … We hope the Legislature will heed the powerful swell of statewide support for an amendment and reclaim from the High Court its rightful place as the state’s policy-making body.”

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America

“Marriage is a civilizing institution that brings a man and a woman – two fundamentally different yet complementary people – together in an unparalleled bond that provides children with the benefits of the two sexes, male and female. The Iowa justices in reality regress in their attempt to impose ‘progress’ by destroying the concept of marriage in a naked, self-serving power grab. Claiming that they have a ‘keen and respectful’ understanding of the Constitution doesn’t make it so, anymore than claiming marriage can be complete without one or the other sex.”

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

“If this ruling is permitted to stand without challenge, it will result in the persecution of Christians and anyone else who criticizes homosexual conduct. This ruling will mean that schools will be forced to teach that homosexual marriage is normal – and parents who object will face ridicule and possible criminal penalties against them. This ruling will be used to force pastors to conduct same-sex ceremonies or face penalties.”

Chuck Hurley, Iowa Family Policy Center

Pardon me while I hunt down my extremely small violin.