Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Live Updates from the Court IV: Afternoon Session Begins

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

Paul Katami (one of the plaintiffs) is being cross examined now. The other side is asking if a first and second grader should be taught about sex. He wants to know whether children that young can make judgments about sex education that age.

Paul is saying that he does not know the curriculum of the school system and he is not willing to say what he thinks should or should not be taught. He said that if his child were taught something in school to which he as a parent objected, it would be incumbent upon him to working with his child.

So here we go. They are going to scream that we are going to turn children into homosexuals.

[UPDATE] 2:04Lawyer: Did you feel that ads about kids requiring protection were misleading?

PK: Yes.

Now we’re looking at the ballot guide again. “We should not accept a court decision that may result in public teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will.”

PK says this is missing the point. What angers me is the way it was presented. It was a diversion away from the fact that I have an inalienable right to marry the man I love.

Counsel says but you object to the ads even though they are saying that they are protecting kids from being taught about gay marriage. He’s making the point that the ads did not say that gay couples are bad.

The answer from PK is that it insinuates that gay people are bad and need to be protected. (PK Is doing a good job with a sharp lawyer.) PK says the minute they turn their beliefs into an action that sanctions my rights, that’s a problem.

“The fact is that the ad that we played that has been admitted to evidence specifically says that kids were taught about gay marriage in Massachusetts.”

PK is being asked to say that if there is gay marriage, parents have no redress with their kids. PK says they should talk to their own children. They can say what they think in their home.

Lawyer: Official ballot language says that parents should be able to discuss that with their children?

PK: For me, the language means that parents have responsibility and right to deal with their children as they see fit. But there are other influences, such as if there is a gay married couple in a movie.

Lawyer: You thought that “protect our children” is misleading. Is there nothing kids need to be protected against? (Judge says to rephrase because it’s a little broad.) Fact is you don’t think kids need to protected from same-sex relationships.

PK: True. Kids do not need to be protected from the idea of same sex relationships.

(Pause now while the lawyer gets the transcript of the deposition. He’s trying to prove that parents have the right to determine what kids learn and that if there is same sex marriage kids will learn about that and that’s bad. But that’s a canard. People disagree with what kids learn in society. PK’s right; parents have to raise kids, not constrict society.)

[UPDATE] 2:09 Prop. 8 ad that says that children will be taught about gay marriage was played. It’s the one that ends with Gavin saying, “like it or not.”

Boies redircted, asking if there was anything in Prop. 8 about whether kids would be taught same-sex marriage or sex education in school. PK said no.

Now Olson has Kristen Perry one of the plaintiffs from Northern California up on the stand.

[UPDATE] 2:24 The dulcet-toned Ted Olson is now questioning the highly poised Kristin Perry. She has worked for 25 years for government protecting the interests of children under five. Now they are talking about her personal life.

Ted is asking if she fell in love with Sandy and Sandy with her; both were answered in the affirmative.

Kristin said, “I am a lesbian.” I grew up in Bakersfield. I did date a few boys so that I’d have a date to go to the prom too, or to a party too, but as I got older, I realized that I did not feel the same way my friends did about boys.

Olson: Do you feel you were born with those feelings? Will it change?

Kristin: No. I’m 45 years old. I don’t think so (those feelings will change.) There was laughter. I’m a plantiff because I want to marry Sandy. I really never let myself want marriage until now. Growing up as a lesbian you never let yourself think about marriage because you can’t have it. I think it means that you are honored and respected in your relationship. Everyone can join in supporting your relationship if you are married. I can only observe that as an outsider; I have no firsthand knowledge of it.

Olson asked if it matters that the state sanctions a relationship. Kristin said yes. I want it to happen because I do everything I can to do the best I can for the state, but the state does not let me be happy because of the barrier. We attempted to get married …

In 2003 I proposed to Sandy without knowing that all this about gay marriage would happen in California. I wanted to propose because of how much I love her. We live in a hilly part of Berkeley. I took her for a walk. I sat down on a rock with her, took a ring out and asked if she’d marry me. She said yes, but she said, “how will we do that?” So we had to invent a way to marry. We started figuring out the day, the place, who we’d like to have marry us. As we were in the midst of that, we learned that SF was going to permit same sex marriages. That was February 2004 for us.

Sandy and I were both reading about this in the newspaper. Would we go to SF for the marriage and then go on with our other plans? That’s what we did. We brought all of the boys and my mom and got married in the city hall.

(Olson asks these questions as a gentle father or brother. He makes even me feel comfortable and confident and I’m not there.)

I had an otherworldly feeling as I got married because I thought it would never happen. We went ahead with our other plans as well so that more people could come. We had a party as an afternoon in Berkeley with a small ceremony and then 100 guests joined us on August first 2004.

[UPDATE] 2:34 Perry: A few months later there was the California Court ruled that our marriage was invalid. When you are gay you feel you don’t deserve things, so I was not surprised that the Court ruled. The city of SF sent a form letter with our names at the top. We are sorry to inform you that your marriage is no longer valid. We’d like to return your marriage fee to you or give it to a charity.

Olson: What feelings did that evoke?

Perry” “I’m not good enough.”

O: Sometime, I think May 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that you could marry the person of your choice. How did you feel?

P: “I was elated. After we heard about it, we heard that our friends were talking about getting married. We decided that we could not bring ourselves to do it again right then. We had not recovered from the SF experience. It did not feel like a permanent solution given what was going on outside of the CA Supreme Court. I was aware that (what became Prop. 8) was starting. I remember people reacting against the Supreme Court. “

O: What was it like for you to be a citizen and watch that campaign to overturn the Court?

P: “I’m a California resident. I could see evidence of the camapign. I’d see bumper stickers. I saw ads, one in particular I remember, signs on people’s lawns.”

The ad I remember “struck me as being a sort of education-focused ad” that indicated that you had to protect your children against learning about gay marriage. The ad was creating a sense of fear and worry with me so that I should vote for prop. 8. They reduced relationshis to this “bad thing” so that if you don’t want kids to learn about gay marriage, you have to vote for Prop. 8. I felt it did not relate properly to me and my friends. It messaged to me that I am perhaps a person who does not protect her kids.

Olson: Did you feel that others might need to protect their kdis from you?

Perry: Yes. I felt I was being used and mocked and disparaged for being the way I am.

O: Do you feel other effects of discrimination due to your sexual orientation every day?

K: Every day. As an adolescent, it was a struggle. I was well aware of the comments and jokes that circulated about lesbians and gay people. Once I told people I was a lesbian, I drew questions. I want people to like me, so I go to great length to being likeable so that when people find out I am gay they do not dislike me. For example, if I’m on a plane and there is a seat saved for Sandy, I say it’s for my partner and they say, will you move that? Every day, I have to think about whether or not I want to come out. I make a deicision every day about whether or not to come out every day at work or home or school or soccer.

O: Did coming out take a long time for you?

By the time I was 18 or 19 I could talk to myself about it. You often hear lesbian and gay people say, “once I’ve figured it out, I realize that I’ve been gay forever.”

O: Did you have to explain that to your children? Was that difficult?

Yes, I did, but my children always knew me as their mom so they don’t know the difference.

Now they are talking about her and Sandy being domestic partners since August 2004.

[UPDATE] 2:46 K: We are registered domestic partners due to the advice of an attorney.

O: Is it a property or estate planning transaction?

K: Yes, but I believe it has unique features. It allows us to access each other’s health and other benefits. But the domestic partnership agreement is a legal agreement. It’s not the same thing as a celebration. We don’t remember the day it happened. We don’t invite people over on that anniversary.

O: Court will have to deal with why domestic partnership is different to you than marriage?

K: I don’t have access to the word to describe our relationship. Marriage appears to be really important to people. I’d like to use the word, too. You chose that person over everyone else. You feel that it should stick. You want the public support and inclusion that comes with marriage. If we got married, it would be an enormous relief to our straight friends who feel sorry for us. I can’t stand it. They have a word. They belong to this institution. Sandy and I went to a school football game. I realized they were all married and we’re not.

O: Sounds like your heterosexual friends would not feel threatened by you marrying. They’d feel more comfortable.

K: Yes. They’d feel better because they think we are outside of their institutions and that’s strange.

O: Have you discussed with Sandy the impact of victory in this lawsuit?

K: Yes. Sandy has been married before which I envy. There would be a settling in and deepening of our commitment if we could get through this instead of feeling like it is everybody else’s decision. We went to Alameda County recorder’s office in May having reached the point where we wanted to know if there was a permanent solution to this problem, how Prop. 8 was being enacted. Clerk’s eyes got really big. “I am sorry. There are reasons why I think I can’t do what I want you to do, but I am not comfortable with it. I’ll have to ask my boss.” Her boss came back and read the statute. He was upset. He said he was very sorry he could not issue the license and hoped that he’d be able to and that we’d come back then.

Sandy and I really like our life where we live in our house with our kids and see our friends. We don’t want any change; we just want our life to get better and better. It makes me really happy if we get this so that other people could. But mostly we just want to be happy in our house.

O: Do you think if court gave right to marry it would have an impact on the other discrimination you feel?

(Objection was overruled.)

K: If marriage were legal, I would not be treated the way I was. There is something so humiliating about not being able to marry. I try not to take every bit of discriminatory attacks against me personally. If kids growing up in Bakersfield could grow up without knowing what this discrimination feels like, their lives would be on a higher arc.

No questions from the other side.

NOTE: I just stared a brand new thread featuring the testimony from Kristin’s partner Sandy. Updates will keep coming there.

Tags: ,

70 Comments

  • 1. Sven Arvid Tadhg  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Well at least we know that this judge isn't crazy enough to fall for this kind of a defense.

  • 2. Chris  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:21 am

    This line of questioning is a red herring. How is shielding children from a concept that a portion of the State finds morally wrong a rational basis for marriage discrimination. Its not like children will not be exposed to same-sex marriage in school as other states address the issue and court cases like this one are on the front page of the papers. In fact, the argument in itself is evidence the motive behind Prop 8 is pure prejudice.

  • 3. Janice Adams  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:21 am

    What is it about gay marriage that kids need protection from. Is what goes on in any marital bed a subject for first and second graders? What kind of stupid logic is this? I think these people in opposition are more afraid that if children learn about gay marriage they may accept it as adults.

  • 4. CJ  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:23 am

    Is there anyway we could get a little "Who's who" reference widget in the right-hand column of this page for those of us not so familiar with the case? Just a name and title/role for each of the major people in this case would be quite helpful (at least for someone as forgetful as myself).

    Just a suggestion.

  • 5. Steffi  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:23 am

    children are taught a lot of stuff one might not like in school. if you were a racist and would believe hat marriage between blacks and whites is not right you wouldn't be allowed to object against it being taught at school either, would you?
    you can teach your kids your believes but you mustn't teach them unconstitutional things. you mustn't allow to teach intolerance at school!

  • 6. Mary Ellen Broderick  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:24 am

    my parents were/are straight! and go figure i am gay.

  • 7. Chris  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:25 am

    The same argument can be used against any law. Medical marijuana should not be allowed because children will learn about drugs in school. Pornography should be banned despite first amendment protection because it will be discussed in school. War should not be funded because children will learn about violence in school. Etc. This line of reasoning is beyond a stretch.

  • 8. Scottie  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:26 am

    This is kind of stupid. Parents are worried about kids forcibly being exposed to gay sex? It's a marriage law, not a sex law.

  • 9. Anne  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Next they'll be saying we can't teach evolution in the schools because not all the parents believe in it…

    Religious beliefs should be taught at home… school is about facts, and it's a fact there there are same sex couples. Not that marriage (straight or same sex) should be discussed at all in 2nd grade, but no reason to block all marriages just because some kids might hear that some other kids have two daddies or two mommies…

  • 10. MarkieBee  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:30 am

    what does this have to do with the gay marriage issue? Gay marriage automatically means it will be taught in school? Are first and second graders currently being taught about hetero marriage in school? If so, why? I want them to learn the three R's…

  • 11. Chris  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:33 am

    It seems the defense is arguing out of their warped sense of moral conviction, not the law. Romer v. Evans is clear that animous toward a group is not justification for discrimination even under rational basis review. The Plaintiffs point in raising these ads is to show that the whole push behind prop 8 was just that… pure animous toward same-sex relationships. If I were the defense, I would try to limit the import of these school-based ads. Instead, they focused the cross on the school argument in a weak attempt to support it. This just plays into our hands.

  • 12. Kay  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:33 am

    This line of reasoning and questioning is ridiculous! How do parents teach children about opposite sex marriage. They certainly do not teach them about sexual intercourse at 5 or 6 years. They teach them about what a family is. You teach what is appropriate at the appropriate ages.

  • 13. Steffi  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:33 am

    if kids weren't be taught about gay sex they wouldn't be properly taught about safer sex! that's a thread! not knowing how to be safe and that there's actually the need to be safe even if you can't accidentially produce children. so children need to be taought about all possible kinds of sex and relations for we can't control what our childrens do or whether they're straight or gay all we can do is prepare them for live as thoroughly as possible and teach them all they need to know and hope they make the right choices. but NOT teaching them everything we can puts them to hazard. we need to protect our children from the thread of not knowing!!!!

  • 14. Shannon  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Sven, you're on here! Good luck to us all :)

    -Shannon

  • 15. Matt87  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:34 am

    I do not think the defense as a case in saying the denial of rights is justified based on what kids may learn in school.

    Smear campaigns work on TV. They don't work in court.

  • 16. Tony Russomanno  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:38 am

    Great work. Coverage of running testimony in real time as you are doing is substantial work requiring fast typing. Your deep knowledge of the issues shows in your included context. However, please figure out some way of separating your own commentary from the rest of the coverage. Don't stop with the editorial remarks– they add color and make for good reading– but they interrupt the flow of the factual coverage. Maybe just make sure any editorial comments are in parenthesis. Good luck and keep it up.

  • 17. PJOjai  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:42 am

    The questioning about kids being taught about same-sex marriage in schools…why should they teach marriage at all in schools? The fact is that the YES on Prop 8 people have already taught their kids about same-sex marriage (not in a positive light) by bringing this issue into their churches, their communities, and even in their own homes. They have isolated kids, teens in their own families who may be gay or lesbian, regulating them to feel "unworthy" of love. It saddens me that gays and lesbians in their own families, yes on 8 folks, will have to live knowing that their love is not equal to their parents. As a kid I would have been happy to know that I could love and marry the person who loves me back when I grew up.

  • 18. Mary Ellen Broderick  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:44 am

    great testimony

  • 19. NoOnProp8Events  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:47 am

    The teaching of children is a red-herring issue. Kids are read Disney stories about princes and princesses before they can even speak. So kids are learning about adult relationships really from the time they are born. And talking about relationships is NOT the same thing as sex ed.

    It's disgusting that the Prop 8 folk always want to make it all about sex. Well, if it's not all about sex when reading stories about the Prince getting his princess, then why would reading about two Princes be any different?

  • 20. kim  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:51 am

    "Today every gay or lesbian person in the country is on trial". I just can't get past that sentence. It hit me square in the stomach. Thank you, Rick, for doing this and for your honest commentary.

  • 21. michae  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:54 am

    who said anything about gay sex? we are talking about gay marriage! I am only kidding a bit … kids should be taught about gay marriage among all of the types of loving adult relationships. young children should NOT be taught about sex (straight or gay) in school – that is for families to teach. Teens need to learn about safe sex – regardless of the gender of their partner. Am I missing something here?

  • 22. Michael  |  January 11, 2010 at 7:57 am

    I'm with you Kim! it is so true!!
    I live and grew up in Bakersfield. so I understand the discrimination Perry mentions coming from this small conservative town. I was fortunate enough to marry my husband, but had to travel to LA County to do so, as our County Controller ceased all civil marriages the Friday before same-sex marriages were to be allowed. We are fortunate that our marriages were upheld, but we are still committed to the fight for ALL to be granted the same right!

  • 23. Joel Wheeler  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:00 am

    NO. Heterosexual couples can be powerful allies, but they have no skin in this game and could not reasonably be called plaintiffs.

  • 24. Steffi  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:01 am

    hmmm, I learned about sex in fourth grade. sex not marriage. no one taught me anything about marriage other than what i saw everyday in real life of TV. But I learned about sex and even that it has to do with joy and getting children. (and from that day on I wasn't afraid anymore when I accidentially heard my mum and dad when they thought I was asleep…)

  • 25. Jon  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Prop. 8 folks were a lot better at stirring up hate and fear than they have been so far at defending their position.

  • 26. Steffi  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:03 am

    I meant to say "real life OR TV" not "of" :)

  • 27. Lauren Ames  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:03 am

    This is an amazing opportunity to follow the trial since camera coverage was banned. I have been following the campaign and have conducted personal research counter acting the NOM agenda. In regards to sex ed in California public schools, check out this link.
    http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/preveducationltr.a

    It is clear that sex ed should be age appropriate, requires parent permission, and that the only required information be about HIV/AIDS -prevention.

  • 28. Richard W. Fitch  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:05 am

    The defense and their clients are quite clear with regard to this issue: Complete abstinence until marriage. (which we know is also a complete failure)

  • 29. Steffi  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:05 am

    ok I actually had to look up the word Plaintiff again (I am german for my excuse) but yeah guess you are right. the arguing for that would be a little far-fetched, though there could be argues for them being plaintiffs :)

  • 30. Mykelb  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Sure you did. You saw your parents kissing, hugging, family members getting married and baptised. Sex education starts by the time you can recognize that two people are together in a relationship. I recognized my grandparents marriage, my parents marriage, and my neighbors marriage, marriages on television and in the news by the time I was 3 or 4. We inherently know these relationships as we grow to recognize them and just seeing couples together in love and peace begins the understanding of what those relationships are. As we grow older, we get a deeper understanding as our world view expands. Kids know more than you give them credit for.

  • 31. michae  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Perhaps I was not clear … I said:
    " … young children should NOT be taught about sex ( in school" … whether straight or gay, this is not a school curricullum topic. the Prop 8 folks say this is about teaching sex options … it may be about teaching marriage options but sex education is not the topic … so why don't we correct them?

  • 32. Melanie Nathan  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:17 am

    yes you do not teach kids about sex when you define relationships and diversity. What a load of BS. I hope later witnesses calrify

  • 33. David Kimble  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:24 am

    I concur, since my sex education began, as a very young boy on a farm. We had a menagerie of animals on the farm and even had a gay rooster and one bull. It is surprising to me that man puts himself above animals and believes we are wiser than any other species on earth – I dunno perhaps it comes from the Bible, I dunno, but in nature porpoises, who mate for life, will have same sex partners for life.

  • 34. Rana  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:44 am

    While my religious views may not be popular with many of you. I do not believe Gay people should be treated any different than anyone else. Their sexuality is just that sexuality. I don't believe that anyone states in school for my first grader what goes on in the bedroom for heterosexual couples so why educate our first graders about what goes on in a homosexual bedroom. My first grader has a classmate who has two mommies and when she asked why I just told her that some families have two mommies some have two daddies others have mommies and daddy's like ours. And she accepted it fine. We do not treat them any different than any other couple in our school.

  • 35. Marissa  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:55 am

    so true!

  • 36. Jeremy  |  January 11, 2010 at 8:57 am

    It's because there is no real position besides "We hate gays."

    In the media, it's easy to use codewords to hide your actual position with flowery rhetoric. But, in the high courts, a wink and a nod is unlikely to get you special treatment.

  • 37. Erika Benites  |  January 11, 2010 at 9:07 am

    Thank you Rick for the great job at giving us a play-by-play. I have been on here and twitter to follow the trial.

    I am totally disgusted (although not surprised) that they are arguing that children need to be protected from gay marriages so as not to be educated about gay sex!! What does one have to do with the other? Children learn about sex early on these days due to all the sex on tv and internet (even when a parent monitors what a child can or can not watch) so it's a parents job to educate their child. My kids and I discussed sex when they were fairly young… they asked me a question and instead of hiding behind some fairy tale about 'a stork' I told them the truth. It's called being a responsible parent.

    I had a 'discussion' with a woman when the whole Prop 8 thing blew up and she told me that 'letting kids know about gay people, and letting them marry, was inviting them to become gay themselves". Needless to say, I was completely stunned at the ignorance of some people but calmly told her to give me proof to back that statement. She had none to offer and left very upset after calling me a few choice names I won't post here. My parents are straight and still happily married 37 years later. My siblings and I were all raised in the same household with the same upbringing yet my sisters and I are straight; while my brother is gay.

    Children need to be educated about all relationships as someone else mentioned without needing to drag sex into it. My daughters love their uncle and accept his relationship because to them love is love. I hate that I have to write because there shouldn't be a reason to have to explain this, but to them there is no difference between a straight relationship or a gay one….. I wish all parents would teach their kids the same mentality.

    Everyone has the right to marry their chosen one …. no one has the right to deny them this.

  • 38. Eduardo  |  January 11, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Every gay or lesbian person in the world! …We are all affected by it one way or another

  • 39. John  |  January 11, 2010 at 9:47 am

    The religious fanatics are always saying we gays represent a threat because we have an "agenda". What about the straight agenda we were subjected to all our childhood, that we were inferior, evil, substandard? They accuse of us wanting to do what they have always done, because that's the way they think. Control by fear.

  • 40. Marlene Bomer  |  January 11, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Here's one question I have *never* heard yet brought up by any lawyer regarding Prob 8 or any other DOMA challenge:

    What is meant by "one man/one woman"? What constitutes a "man" and what constitutes a "woman"? If a post-op male-to-female marries a male, is it a "same-sex" marriage because the woman's still genetically XY?

    Then there are the intersexed folk: I have a friend with Turner's Syndrome, meaning their genetics are XO — just who in the hell can *they* marry? What about someone who has XXX or XXY or XXYY or the myriad other genetic variations… just who can *they* marry?

  • 41. someguy  |  January 11, 2010 at 11:46 am

    The only thing more upsetting to YESsers than the thought of same-sex couples 'getting it on', is the thought that a same-sex relationship may be about more than just sex and lust. There is nothing more threatening to their concept of it than being forced to consider that two men or two women can truly be in loving relationships, *just like them.*

    Some of them don't even seem able to conceive of it, it's such an alien idea.

  • 42. Dwayne  |  January 11, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    I applaud these people for coming forward to fight for what is right. Fear has always been used by individuals who want to control a group of people. The way to defeat that fear is to educate and show that there are false threats and insecurity. I hope this comes out in favor of same sex marriage. Keep my fingers crossed.

  • 43. Thomas Gilman, MD  |  January 11, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    I am frustrated to see the barrage of insinuations that same sex marriage is "bad for the children" while nobody counters with an excellent paper published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, (not usually considered a radical gay organization), dispels with this notion using ACTUAL DATA. Who do we usually go to when we are concerned about the welfare of our children if not our pediatrician?
    It is available here; http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/

  • 44. Thomas Gilman, MD  |  January 11, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Great question, how about testicular feminiaztion? The person is genetically XY, (male), but phenotypically female. Do they marry another genetic male to "appear" as an opposite sex couple, or are they forced to engage in a homosexual relationship with another phenotypic female in order to satisfy the new law?

  • 45. Brad Pacalis  |  January 11, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Kudos to equality!

  • 46. Marlene Bomer  |  January 11, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    Exactly, Dr. Gilman! But then, things like this is beyond the comprehension of bigots, who only see things in simplistic, either/or situations. They're unable to see things as gray.

  • 47. Live Updates from the Cou&hellip  |  January 11, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    […] Live Updates from the Court IV: Afternoon Session Begins […]

  • 48. Micha  |  January 11, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    I dunno about Cooper, but I didn’t get sex ed until 4th or 5th grade!!! (to coincide with puberty…)

  • 49. Beth Taylor  |  January 11, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Great article Dr. Gilman. Sure hope this is used in the trial.

  • 50. Steffi  |  January 11, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    do they have a heterosexual couple as plaintiffs? I mean plaintiffs in favour of gay marriage? cause that would be very good! someone pls. tell me

  • 51. Joel Wheeler  |  January 11, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    This is a good overview

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa_fact_talbot?currentPage=all

  • 52. J-dV.  |  January 11, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    o wisdom of the crowds: is the lack of cross by the defense a good sign?

  • 53. Mary Lee  |  January 11, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    These plaintives are so composed, they must have prepared for this long and hard.
    I found myself crying as I red this.
    Thank you for giving us such a detailed accound of proceedings!
    Namaste

  • 54. Mary Lee  |  January 11, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    She ended the marriages by county officers not the issue of licenses. All she did was take money out of the countys pockets. Many clergy performed same sex marriages for free that first week they wer legal and I know of at least one that continued to do so throughout the months they were legal and looks forward to the day they are again.
    Namaste

  • 55. Mary Lee  |  January 11, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    I undeerstand Steffi
    The first time I remember hearing my parents I thought my mother was having a nightmare.
    So glad the room was so dark, cause I went to comfort her the way she might have me.
    I was about 5-6.

  • 56. Mary Lee  |  January 11, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    No you are not missing anything.
    All education should be age related.
    We tell our kids not to talk to strangers because there are bad people out there. We don't tell our three year olds about serial killers and child molesters.

  • 57. Mary Lee  |  January 11, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    Perhaps its because its not 'just like them'.
    I don't see any G/L folks getting married because someone got knocked up. No shotgun weddings for us.
    If a G/L family happens the children are brought into the relationship and raised out of love not ball and chain duty.
    Lets face it, we actully have MORE choice then they do if we're allowed to marry/

  • 58. Mary Lee  |  January 11, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    There was a statment made by a clergy that supported 8. When asked what his responce would be if his son were gay he said "I'd take out my gun and shot him".
    Gods protect us from this kind of love.
    Namaste

  • 59. Mary Lee  |  January 11, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    To True.
    The defence is forgetting they are not dealing with reactive ignorant voters. They are deling with informed people that reason before acting.
    I hope the plaintives bring out that the parents of that class that attended their (favorite) teachers wedding (which was used as part of the smear) objected to their children being used in that ad and had given their consent on attendance.
    When my stepson's 4th grade class learned I was to marry his mom they asked to be invited. They just wanted in on the joy of the moment, and of corse the food and CAKE. :)

  • 60. Mary Lee  |  January 11, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    sexual reproduction and diseases are the first thing taught about sex in California schoos and that's at 5th grade. teachers will tell kids 'you don't want babies or ill, don't have sex' the rest is for parents to deal with. only more advanced classes talk of abstaining for social reasons or advice on being ready emotionally for sex as part of a relationship, peer pressure etc. All of which have consent forms that must be filled out by a parent.
    this has always been a touchy area and even if a techeer calls CPS over a bruised arm they rarely volenteerily get involved in teaching kids about sex.
    If abstaining is what people want their kids to know then let them obstain from G/L sex to.

  • 61. Mary Lee  |  January 11, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    They do try to eject evolution from the schools every now and then.
    You know if another kids got two moms or dads the kids of straight parents might get jelous. You know, maybe the second mom will let them play football or maybe it means two deserts or they don't have to help with the dishes or mow the lawn. lol

  • 62. Mary Lee  |  January 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    My boys sex ed first consisted of how to treat girls. My daughter learned of periods long before she had her own so as to be more comfortable with them. Then I told my boys about them so they'd be more understanding of a girls needs.(before the school touched the subject in 5th grade) Thank god I clued my lovers son in too. He was the only one that didn't think it was funny or gross when a girl started her period in 4th grade, wearing white pants no less. (poor thing thought she was dieing because she had no clue) I always put importance on sexual comfort not the act or pleasure of it. Tho i did not become involved with another woman till my youngest were 5 they were never lied to about my lover and were given age apropreate, expanded answers to any questions asked.
    I now have 4 straight children, 3 boys 1 girl. My daughter married and I have 1 grandson from her. Looking forward to more.

    The school didn't teach my kids to be straight and I didn't teach them to be gay. They are straight because THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY! No matter what they are taught or where, a persons sexuality is an inherent part of them.

  • 63. Mary Lee  |  January 11, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    Right on Erika.
    And don't be too upset about the curseing, its the shards of ice people land on when their cottoncandy pillow gets pulled out from under them.

  • 64. Jonathan Louie  |  January 13, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    It is not for you to decide if my love is right or wrong — just as it is not right for me to decide your religion is right or wrong.

    Should I work to outlaw your religion so that my children not be forced to learn from society or school that your religion exists?

    Proponents of 8 want to keep those not like them from being enabled. They wish non-heteros to remain unfulfilled.

    Sleeping Beauty is afraid that a lass's kiss would wake her from her slumber — or that her prince prefers the knight. Worse yet, that he doesn't even care that she is wearing makeup and looks ravishing.

  • 65. jack  |  January 16, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    "It's the shards of ice people land on when their cotton candy pillow gets pulled out from under them" is the absolute best phrase I've heard in a long, long time. :)

  • 66. jack  |  January 16, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    Thomas and Marlene, as a transman I have to say I love you both. Unfortunately transpeople get a lot of flak from both sides….I appear to be a straight man and therefore get it from the lgbt side, and I'm still a queer to straight people….the fact is I'll never assimilate as a straight man, I'm a transman who lived 26 years as a woman and a lesbian; I wouldn't know the first thing about being a straight man. Who should I be allowed to marry? Thanks for pointing out that things aren't always so cut and dried. :)

  • 67. jack  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    "But the domestic partnership agreement is a legal agreement. It’s not the same thing as a celebration. We don’t remember the day it happened. We don’t invite people over on that anniversary."

    It's really important that people recognize that this statement is the reality of being in a domestic partnership. We signed paperwork in a UPS store and had them notarized there while we were on our way to work. So much for the ideal, beautiful wedding you spend your whole life dreaming of. I remember it was in April, but only because our certificate came in the mail on my birthday which was really great… I couldn't remember what day we signed those papers if you paid me, or any details about the day other than we went to work as usual. However, I will never forget my mom actually getting to walk me down the aisle, or reciting my wedding vows in front of our families, or the look on her face when I surprised her right there with the ring I said we couldn't afford to get, or the feeling in my heart when the priest who officiated told me I could finally kiss my BRIDE, not my domestic partner. I waited my entire life for that moment, and I never thought it would happen. Trust me, I know how lucky I am that I got to see it, and EVERYONE deserves to have those moments.

  • 68. Marlene Bomer  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    It's stories such as yours, Jack which shows once again how unequal DPs and CUs are to marriage, notwithstanding the fact they're unequal to begin with!

  • 69. troubleshooting car probl&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Blogging Internet…

    […]we like to honor other sites on the web, even if they aren’t related to us, by linking to them. Below are some sites worth checking out[…]…

  • 70. InsestyHany  |  April 9, 2013 at 9:17 pm

    cheap cialis onlinecheap cialis , http://ordercheapcialisnow.com/#zdcos cheap cialis online

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!