Everyone packed into U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s courtroom in San Francisco on Jan. 11 knew they were watching history.

On one side of the court sat lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies, partisan foes in Bush v. Gore. Now the straight pair pledged to prove that same-sex couples deserved the fundamental right to marry. For them, the meaning of the U.S. Constitution is at stake.

On the other side sat Republican attorney Charles Cooper and a handful of supporting lawyers. It was what some might consider a strange sight. After the passage of Proposition 8 in California, the loss of same-sex marriage in Maine, New York and New Jersey and the gloating by ProtectMarriage affiliates such as the National Organization for Marriage, the anti-gay forces looked weak. In fact, throughout the trial, they portrayed themselves as David fighting Goliath.

Retired philosophy professor Linda Hirshman, reporting for The Daily Beast web site, pronounced the matchup a modern day Scopes trial.

“In the confrontation between an irrefutable religious standard and a worldly empirical survey, the challenge to California’s prohibition on gay marriage reveals a fissure that runs throughout American history: Are we modern or are we medieval?” Hirshman wrote. “Do Americans live together in a social contract for our material well-being, or are we following ancient traditions of how to live, because tradition is a better teacher than reason? This issue does not surface often in the United States, but it did most powerfully almost 90 years ago in Scopes vs. the State of Tennessee, the ‘monkey trial.’ And it did so again this week.”

The Scopes trial pitted the teaching of secular science and intellectual freedom against traditional Bible-based Christian fundamentalism. It’s a clash as old as St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologiae” and as fresh as the 2005 debate over whether creationism should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in the Kansas public school system.

For Prop 8 supporters, the trial is now posited as if freedom of religion itself is at stake. In a Jan. 26 column, “Putting Religion on Trial?”, NOM president Maggie Gallagher wrote that Olson and Boies are trying to invalidate the religious beliefs of millions of voters who hold that homosexuality is a sin and marriage is a sacrament between one man and one woman.

“The stakes are high. And the argument they will be asking the Supreme Court to endorse is this: Only bigotry, hatred and unreason explains why anyone cares about the idea that to make a marriage you need a husband and a wife — religious views of marriage are just anti-gay bigotry,” Gallagher wrote.

Anti-bigotry is one of the central elements to proving the case that lesbians and gays have historically been subjected to discrimination and deserve equal protection and due process under the U.S. Constitution. Walker, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if the plaintiffs proved that gays are a “discrete” minority, possess an “immutable” characteristic and are powerless to protect themselves in the political process.

“We said on the first day of [the] trial we would prove three things,” Boies said at a news conference after the evidentiary trial testimony ended Jan. 26. “Marriage is a fundamental right; that depriving gays and lesbians the right to marry hurts them and hurts their children; and there was no reason, no societal benefit, in not allowing them to get married.”

Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry, said the arguments were compelling.

“Our side powerfully showed that California’s selective stripping away of the fundamental freedom to marry from a vulnerable minority lacked any legitimate reason, and harms families while helping no one,” he said. “Fourteen years and tens of millions of dollars after our Hawaii case, the anti-gay opponents had literally nothing new to put forward to defend the discriminatory denial of marriage.”

Olson and Boies entered reams of documents into evidence and put 17 witnesses on the stand. The plaintiffs spoke movingly about their loved ones and a slew of expert witnesses contributed a wealth of knowledge to the evidentiary record.

In some cases, the testimony was almost ironic. For instance, in his opening statement, Cooper said “the purpose of the institution of marriage, the central purpose, is to promote procreation and to channel narrowly procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable enduring unions. … [Marriage] is a pro-child societal institution.”

But Harvard University professor Nancy Cott noted that, “There has never been a requirement that a couple produce children in order to have a valid marriage. … And known sterility or barrenness in a woman has never been a reason not to allow a marriage. In fact, it’s a surprise to many people to learn that George Washington, who is often called the father of our country, was sterile.”

ProtectMarriage only called two of their five witnesses to the stand. So Olson and Boies introduced the depositions of the dropped witnesses into evidence, which appeared to bolster the plaintiffs’ case.

New Yorker contributor Margaret Talbot wrote that Boies’ cross-examination technique “was a little like watching your cat play with his food before he eats it.”

Indeed, Boies seemed to make mincemeat of official Prop 8 proponent Hak-Shing William Tam, who was called as a hostile witness. Tam stood by claims that gays were 12 times more likely to molest children, “based on the different literature that I have read.”

ProtectMarriage called California’s Claremont McKenna College political science professor Kenneth Miller, whose credibility as an expert on gay political power was mightily challenged by Boies on cross examination. Boies also read from a book Miller co-authored that ballot initiatives or “direct democracy can actually be less democratic than representative democracy.”

ProtectMarriage’s second witness, David Blankenhorn, was so combative, the judge reprimanded his demeanor. Boies had Blankenhorn, author of “The Future of Marriage,” go down a list of “possible positive consequences” of same-sex marriage and mark the statements with which he personally agreed.

Among the many positive statement with which Blankenhorn agreed were, “gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children,” and “same-sex marriage would likely contribute to more stability and to longer-lasting relationships for committed same-sex couples.”

Chad Griffin, chair of the board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, said he was thrilled that the trial put “those who attempt to provide justification for discrimination” under oath for the first time.

“I think they found in a court of law, it’s quite different from on a political campaign where you can say anything and get away with it,” Griffin said. “In a court of law, you’re under oath and you actually have to tell the truth — and you have to answer to those truths under oath. And I think that proved difficult for the defendant-interveners in this case.”

Immigrant congregations are indispensable to the integration of newcomers. However, they can also import prejudice and breed hatred.

While studying community-based organizations founded by and for immigrant groups, I learned how crucial these non-profits are to incorporating newcomers into the American mainstream. Congregations such as churches and mosques are especially helpful for individuals and families that have just arrived. As I wrote in a report for the Urban Institute:

Congregations are often the first and main points of contact for newcomers. They provide a ready-made community with shared religion, language, culture, and norms. Religious community leaders are often keenly aware of newcomers’ needs. They often provide direct services or educate individuals and families about how and where to find help. In this safe environment, immigrants learn from their compatriots about American life and ease into it.

Unfortunately, some of these congregations also import religious beliefs and cultural traditions that clash with the secular and pluralist character of America. This conflict was on display last week during the federal Proposition 8 trial in San Francisco. The plaintiffs presented videotapes of Hak-Shing Tam, a 55-year-old immigrant from Hong Kong and one of the main progenitors of the referendum that ended same-sex marriage in California.

The New York Times reported that Tam is one of the most respected and heeded leaders of the “burgeoning world of evangelical Chinese Christianity in the Bay Area.” The proponents of marriage equality chose Tam to prove their central argument that Proposition 8 came out of hate for a minority. Ironically, the prejudice and bigotry of one minority — fundamentalist Christian Chinese — targeted another minority: lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

An example of this prejudice can be drawn from a 2008 Chinese-language essay that Tam distributed online, which includes this passage:

In a macro environment in which homosexuality is gradually accepted as being normal, child molesting by gays is gradually being viewed as normal in academia. Children who were subjected to sexual abuse only know to socialize with other men through sex. When they grow up, they would do the same to other children by molesting children of the same sex. Therefore, gay people grow in numbers even as most of them do not have children of their own.

In a Chinese-language letter that Tam disseminated among Chinese Christian churches in the Bay Area, he warned of a “gay agenda” and some inevitable legalization of prostitution and pedophilia if Prop 8 failed. All of Tam’s assertions are patently false and designed to incite discrimination and action against the LGBT community.

In a follow-up article, the Times reporter muses:

It was fascinating to realize that same-sex marriage, and the successful campaign to ban it was really the first political issue to galvanize this community. It has been rapidly — and quietly — growing for two decades but only recently tried its hand at political action.

The Bay Area’s Chinese Christians are overwhelmingly evangelical, especially in the South Bay, although there is smattering of main-line Protestants and Catholics as well in San Francisco. Evangelical Chinese Christians were one of the region’s most vocal and well-organized groups supporting Proposition 8, the ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, which voters approved in 2008.

It is safe to say that most of these Evangelical Chinese agree with Tam’s warped sense of reality because of their religious belief system, cultural traditions and general conservative bent.

This is not to say that all faithful immigrants are like Tam and his coreligionists. Neither am I advocating for newcomers to leave their religions, cultures and traditions at the border. After all, this is a nation of immigrants and they should always be welcome along with the energy, determination, talent, optimism and hope they bring into their adopted country.

However, people who choose to come to the United States also should be willing to live in a society that embraces many different kinds of people who do not necessarily share the same beliefs, customs and traditions. Newcomers need to respect and at the very least tolerate others just as they should be respected and at the very least tolerated. Immigrants have to learn and imbibe the American ideals of freedom and equality.

Ours is a liberal democracy, not a theocracy.

You can follow Erwin on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon

The landmark civil rights trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which challenges the constitutional validity of California’s Proposition 8, begins today.

It will not decide once and for all whether same-sex couples can wed; experts are anticipating that the verdict will be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the next few weeks will be an opportunity for Chief Judge Vaughn Walker to collect the building blocks — a detailed factual record — upon which the U.S. Supreme Court could ultimately decide whether we have the same right to marriage as opposite-sex couples.

This record will include documents, testimonies and other materials from both sides from which the judge will issue his ruling. A lot of evidence about the Yes on 8 campaign will be presented, among them depositions from key players. But some of these individuals are protesting the process, including an original sponsor of Prop 8, Hak-Shing William Tam.

Tam voluntarily chose to be an official litigant, a defendant-intervenor, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. He was and is an ardent and tireless opponent of same-sex marriage, saying that “I dedicated the majority of my working hours between January 2008 and November 2008 toward qualifying Proposition 8 for the ballot and campaigning for its enactment.” During this period, Tam wrote a letter to his church prophesying the apocalyptic results if lesbians and gays were given the same rights as straight people.

”One by one, other states would fall into Satan’s hands,” he wrote. ”Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals.”

On Jan. 8, he said that he wants out, expressing concern for his and his family’s safety. Through his lawyers, Tam argued that “in the past I have received threats on my life, had my property vandalized and am recognized on the streets due to my association with Proposition 8 … now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase.”

But as Box Turtle Bulletin notes:

… his concerns about being recognized didn’t seem to have dissuaded Bill Tam from giving interviews and making videos and participating in debates during the campaign. And the worrisome issues didn’t give him enough concern to keep him from petitioning the court in May 2009 to be added as a defendant. And Tam provides no instances since May in which anyone recognizing him has been anything other than “friendly”. He hasn’t even removed from availability the DVD he has called “FAQ: Same-Sex Marriage & Homosexuality” which explains the “Possible Cause of Same Sex Attraction and the Healing” …

He also complained that the case has become more burdensome and intrusive than he had anticipated. This is the probably the more honest reason why he no longer wants to be bothered with it. In his motion to withdraw, he admits:

A second reason that I want to withdraw as a Defendant-Intervenor is that I do not like the burden of complying with discovery requests. I do not like people questioning me on my private personal beliefs. I do not like people questioning me regarding fourteen year old articles I wrote in the Chinese language to my constituents. I don’t like people focusing on a few articles I posted on my website regarding homosexuality and disregarding the 50 or 60 other articles I posted regarding family values subjects. I do not like the exposure of my history to people who are antagonistic to me. In short, I do not like the burden of discovery and the privacy intrusion associated with being a Defendant-Intervernor.

What did he expect? That those who believe in equity and justice would allow the continued oppression of a minority? That rational and fair-minded people would not stand up against him and his ilk and shed light on their superstitious and unfounded beliefs? That freedom loving Americans would not fight their lack of respect for the constitutional separation of church and state? And while I do not condone any damage to his property, much less physical harm to Tam and his family, why is he surprised by the anger and lashing out? Did he expect us to forever remain acquiescent, take the abuse and be satisfied at the margins?

Tam and others like him, who feel no compunction whatsoever in institutionalizing their bigotry and hatred, seem oblivious to the fact that he generated all the trouble and inconvenience he is whining about. He chose his brand of religion. He chose to exercise his rights. He chose to express his opinion. He chose to perpetuate exclusion and discrimination. Choices have consequences.

While he was supposedly harassed for choices only he made, we are harassed, bullied, mocked, threatened, beaten, raped and murdered simply because we happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. None of us choose to be who we are. If there is any choice to be made, it is to live openly and with integrity, a right and freedom enshrined in this nation’s constitution. And we take responsibility for our choice even if for many it means separation from family, friends and society.

So, Tam, stop bellyaching and take responsibility for your choice.

You can follow Erwin on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon