| SHARED SACRIFICE THE JOURNAL OF PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT 5 FEBRUARY 2009 |
| TESTIMONY BEFORE THE WYOMING STATE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE "Those who oppose gay marriage in Wyoming are like unto those who trust that they are righteous and despise others." 3 February 2009 J. David Nichols |
The Wyoming DOMA law is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause (U.S. Constitution Article IV
Section 1)
The only exceptions to this are in cases of manifest policy interests one state may have in not enforcing the contracts of
another state.
There are no legitimate public policy reasons to ban gay relationships from legal recognition in the state of Wyoming, or
any other state for that matter. All of the scientifically verifiable assertions about the negative consequences of
homosexuality and gay marriage have been disproven.
1. The American Psychiatric Association does not classify homosexuality as a disorder
2. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not classify homosexuality as a disorder
3. The American Psychological Association does not classify homosexuality as a disorder
4. Lesbians do not suffer a significantly greater incidence of breast cancer
5. Gay couples do not raise gay children at a higher percentage than straight couples
6. Gay people are not more likely to molest their children than heterosexual people
7. Gay marriage does not destroy heterosexual marriage
8. If the children of gay couples suffer more discrimination in the schools, that is a matter of educational policy, not
marital policy.
Supporters of this legislation are the Pharisees in Luke, who believed that they were righteous and set about promptly
condemning others, including a publican, who abased himself before God. The Pharisee was proud of his righteousness
because he wasn’t a sinner, or an adulterer, like others. This is the same faux righteousness that Focus on the Family
brings to Wyoming. There is no truth, objective or verifiable in the scientific and public realms, to their claims. The only
justification they have for their actions is their belief, a private metaphysical belief, that they are righteous, and therefore
can enter into our state, and self-righteously proclaim that their beliefs about religion are superior to ours, that they are
better than us. It is their own personal belief in God that is at stake here.
"The very fact that there are no verifiable policy reasons to ban gay marriage forces proponents of this
legislation to rely on the assertion that it is God’s will that marriage be of the heterosexual variety only.
This is a stark example of using the Lord’s name in vain to support an argument you cannot otherwise
win."
It is their own self-righteous superiority, stemming from their belief that they are righteous, that has led them to violate God’
s third commandment to not take his name in vain. The very fact that there are no verifiable policy reasons to ban gay
marriage forces proponents of this legislation to rely on the assertion that it is God’s will that marriage be of the
heterosexual variety only. This is a stark example of using the Lord’s name in vain to support an argument you cannot
otherwise win. This is exactly why Moses was given the third commandment – to prevent people from using the name God
to justify the actions they perceive to be in accordance with the Lord’s will, in opposition to the beliefs of others.
Jesus specifically singled out those who took their religion into the public square for education in Matthew. Bringing
religion into the public square sullies one’s religious belief. This legislation is just another attempt from the same group
that brought Colorado Amendment 2, a virulently hate-filled piece of legislation that affirmatively sought to strip gay people
of any rights they may have had, in addition to making it against the law for any political entity in the state to extend rights
to the GLBT community. Now they are attempting to bring that same type of hatred here, to Wyoming. One would hope
that they would have learned their lesson then, when the Supreme Court struck down Amendment 2 in its Romer vs. Evans
decision.
This type of hatred is in direct opposition to our Wyoming traditions. Over a century ago, Wyoming stepped to the
forefront of one of the greatest civil rights issues of that time when they finally recognized the inherent rights of women,
thus becoming the Equality State. It has been ten shame-filled and painful years since we witnessed the horrible death of
Matthew Shepard. In those ten years, Wyoming has FAILED to pass a single piece of legislation protecting the rights of
gays or of lesbians in the workplace, in the acquisition of credit, or in housing. Wyoming has FAILED to pass hate crimes
legislation – targeting exactly the type of discriminatory violence that took Matthew’s life. It would be the height of sick
irony, a denial of our rich tradition of equality, and a demonstration of the utter disdain in which this body holds the
Wyoming gay and lesbian community, if the first act our state were to undertake on the issue of GLBT rights was to pass
this hateful piece of legislation.
Because the Wyoming DOMA law is unconstitutional, sullies and belittles religion, and violates our great tradition of
equality, this committee should vote no on HB 17.
J. David Nichols (J.D., Loyola University) is a minister and activist living in Laramie, Wyoming.
Section 1)
The only exceptions to this are in cases of manifest policy interests one state may have in not enforcing the contracts of
another state.
There are no legitimate public policy reasons to ban gay relationships from legal recognition in the state of Wyoming, or
any other state for that matter. All of the scientifically verifiable assertions about the negative consequences of
homosexuality and gay marriage have been disproven.
1. The American Psychiatric Association does not classify homosexuality as a disorder
2. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not classify homosexuality as a disorder
3. The American Psychological Association does not classify homosexuality as a disorder
4. Lesbians do not suffer a significantly greater incidence of breast cancer
5. Gay couples do not raise gay children at a higher percentage than straight couples
6. Gay people are not more likely to molest their children than heterosexual people
7. Gay marriage does not destroy heterosexual marriage
8. If the children of gay couples suffer more discrimination in the schools, that is a matter of educational policy, not
marital policy.
Supporters of this legislation are the Pharisees in Luke, who believed that they were righteous and set about promptly
condemning others, including a publican, who abased himself before God. The Pharisee was proud of his righteousness
because he wasn’t a sinner, or an adulterer, like others. This is the same faux righteousness that Focus on the Family
brings to Wyoming. There is no truth, objective or verifiable in the scientific and public realms, to their claims. The only
justification they have for their actions is their belief, a private metaphysical belief, that they are righteous, and therefore
can enter into our state, and self-righteously proclaim that their beliefs about religion are superior to ours, that they are
better than us. It is their own personal belief in God that is at stake here.
"The very fact that there are no verifiable policy reasons to ban gay marriage forces proponents of this
legislation to rely on the assertion that it is God’s will that marriage be of the heterosexual variety only.
This is a stark example of using the Lord’s name in vain to support an argument you cannot otherwise
win."
It is their own self-righteous superiority, stemming from their belief that they are righteous, that has led them to violate God’
s third commandment to not take his name in vain. The very fact that there are no verifiable policy reasons to ban gay
marriage forces proponents of this legislation to rely on the assertion that it is God’s will that marriage be of the
heterosexual variety only. This is a stark example of using the Lord’s name in vain to support an argument you cannot
otherwise win. This is exactly why Moses was given the third commandment – to prevent people from using the name God
to justify the actions they perceive to be in accordance with the Lord’s will, in opposition to the beliefs of others.
Jesus specifically singled out those who took their religion into the public square for education in Matthew. Bringing
religion into the public square sullies one’s religious belief. This legislation is just another attempt from the same group
that brought Colorado Amendment 2, a virulently hate-filled piece of legislation that affirmatively sought to strip gay people
of any rights they may have had, in addition to making it against the law for any political entity in the state to extend rights
to the GLBT community. Now they are attempting to bring that same type of hatred here, to Wyoming. One would hope
that they would have learned their lesson then, when the Supreme Court struck down Amendment 2 in its Romer vs. Evans
decision.
This type of hatred is in direct opposition to our Wyoming traditions. Over a century ago, Wyoming stepped to the
forefront of one of the greatest civil rights issues of that time when they finally recognized the inherent rights of women,
thus becoming the Equality State. It has been ten shame-filled and painful years since we witnessed the horrible death of
Matthew Shepard. In those ten years, Wyoming has FAILED to pass a single piece of legislation protecting the rights of
gays or of lesbians in the workplace, in the acquisition of credit, or in housing. Wyoming has FAILED to pass hate crimes
legislation – targeting exactly the type of discriminatory violence that took Matthew’s life. It would be the height of sick
irony, a denial of our rich tradition of equality, and a demonstration of the utter disdain in which this body holds the
Wyoming gay and lesbian community, if the first act our state were to undertake on the issue of GLBT rights was to pass
this hateful piece of legislation.
Because the Wyoming DOMA law is unconstitutional, sullies and belittles religion, and violates our great tradition of
equality, this committee should vote no on HB 17.
J. David Nichols (J.D., Loyola University) is a minister and activist living in Laramie, Wyoming.
Wyoming
"After nearly six hours of emotional and philosophical testimony, the House Judiciary Committee voted 5-4 Tuesday to
recommend passage of a 'defense-of-marriage' resolution." -Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, 4 February
recommend passage of a 'defense-of-marriage' resolution." -Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, 4 February
 | |  | |  |