Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 5: Part II Michael Lamb cross

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

[You GOTTA read this sh*t. You gotta. It’s both sad and very, very funny.]

Prop. 8: Gave money to ACLU, NOW, and a bunch of other orgs and “even PBS.” [Laughter] SO we can agree you are a committed liberal? You are committed liberal

L: Okay.

Prop 8: Goes after L because he has not interviewed gay kids. Is political. Is influenced by ideological forces, politics, etc. If there is a prevailing ideology in a society manifests at universities and think tanks take ideological view, charitable orgs take pov. Funding often provided by govs, think tanks, major charitable orgs? (Object).

L: Funding usually provided by govs.

Prop. 8: Govs determine what is studied.

L: I think your question presumes that govs decide what is studied. It’s all under peer review. Vociferously disagree re: gov demanding results.

Prop. 8: You’ve read the “East Anglia Climate Change” emails that show that politics can enter into science?

L: I’ve heard about them, but not read them.

Prop. 8: You would agree that the sci community is littered with theories that are discarded, such as phrenology.

L: Not an expert on history of psych. Some people believed it. Point out that many were not scientists. [Lots of laughter.]

Prop. 8: Freud is no longer in use?

L: Probably true if you are referring to body of scientific research, not as true for clinical work. Pockets where analysis holds. My view that Freudian analysis not a major player in field today.

[You gotta be here for this. It’s the entire Scopes Monkey Trial!}

[UPDATE] 10:22 [Documents that Prop. 8 gives are upside down, as noted by judge, so both judge and witness have to turn entire big binders over. Perfect analogy. This sh*t is upside down.]

Prop. 8: Reading from one of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psych that says that Assoc opposes any discrimination against L, G, B, T. Not rich literature of children of B and T so this is based on politics not studies?

L: I suspect that rights. Not member of APA so no idea.

Prop. 8: Accepted conclusion is that g and l is about 2% of pop.

L: Not demographer, but sounds right.

Prop. 8: Your studies are about gender orientation and sexual orientation interchangeably, yes?

L: I confess that I do, but I’m trying to be better behaved. (Laughter)

Prop. 8: Many differences in our society between men and women. Men go to prison, alcoholics, violent. Women live longer than men. Death of parent traumatic event for child. Men and women get diseases at different rates. Intelligence of parents can have a psych effect on well being of children.

L: All above yes except last. Not sure that better educated people are always better parents. You could make the case that people who have extremely low levels of intelligence could affect well being of children.

Prop. 8 is trying to say that if you have single sex parents you will end up with a collection of seriously bad people as parents.
More men are like Homer Simpson than not?

L: I cannot say that. Some worse.

Prop. 8: did not know any could be worse. Men can’t breast feed and breast feeding is important. Economics matter. Women earn less than men. Lesbians have higher or lower income level than hetero? There are differences between earning power of gay m en and lesbians?

[So Prop. 8 I s being as reductionist as possible. It’s just way funny, but it’s sad.]

Prop 8 quotes Lee Badgett: contrary to popular opinion, gay male income in California is 4% higher than hetero and female is 7% lower.

L: This study all homos, not just parents.

Prop. 8: Women spend more on children than men. Some occupations are specific to genders. Men are more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse than women. Step fathers more likely to molest children, abuse children than women. Molestation is bad for kids. Evidence that men who are married to women drink and gamble. You are not saying that men and women are completely interchangeable.

L: Same feature of parents behavior important to children’s development.

[UPDATE] 10:46 Prop. 8: Fathers predisposed to treat kids differently than mothers? From 2000. Fatherhood in 21st century which you coauthored, page 130. [Reads out article.]

L: It’s from David Poekenoe.

Prop. 8: You thought Poekenoe sufficiently significant to mention?

L: Scholars like to be sure they don’t leave out things.

Prop. 8: Studies that show that attachments between mothers and babies are strong.

L: If you are talking about babies being raised in two parent families, both important.

Prop. 8: Evidence that shows that bio is more important than involvement in raising kids?

L: Not the case.

Prop. 8: Attachment and Affiliative Symptoms.

L: I do recall writing this even though written in 1970s and published in 1982.

Prop. 8: Reads from article that suggests that L believed then that bio is more important than involvement.

L: Testified earlier that finding has not held up in subsequent research.

Prop. 8: So science was wrong?

L: Science is a cumulative process in which studies grow and develop. Both mothers and fathers can play different roles when children are being raised by heterosexual parents when both are deeply involved in raising children. Often qualitative differences in ways in which mothers interact with children, but those differences in and of themselves do not affect children’s’ adjustment.

Prop. 8: It is disturbing that role of fathers has diminished in 20th century.

L: You have done a great job of refreshing my memory of very old documents. I hope you have in some of these other tabs my more up to date research (Laughter).

L: Some findings have held up that boys do better with fathers and some don’t.

Prop. 8: Article from 2000 that shows that your research shows this is true? Boys without fathers do worse in school, have less self-control?

L: No causal connection between father absence. Relationship with and between parents and economics explain.

Prop. 8: Nurturing fathers can contribute greatly to daughters and contribute greatly to their success in further hetero relationships?

L: Yes.

Prop. 8: Failure to achieve same sex identity may be pathogenic? Go to role of father in childhood development, 1976 version.

L: Citations here are from 1950s, 1960s. We have learned more and there are subsequent editions of this book that show that. I was a student then.

L: When children are living with or have two parents, children do better with involvement of both.

Prop. 8: Moral development hurt by father absence?

L: Early. Now move from “moral development” to more concrete such as delinquency and encounters with police.

Break until 1055.

[Amazing. They cherry pick 1970s literature. They show that because he is ACLU, NAACP, Amnesty International, NOW, Nature Conservancy and even PBS that he’s a liberal and therefore a bad scientist. We are at the Scopes Monkey Trial. Evolution did not happen. History stopped. Pretty soon, they’ll ask, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” My friend Michael Keegan over at PFAW has it right: They want to bring to back McCarthy. They are McCarthy.]

[NOTE]: I’ve moved to a third thread after the break, where Michael Lamb’s cross-exam continues.

Tags:

137 Comments

  • 1. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:12 am

    OMG, I can't believe the defense is going here!

  • 2. BobbiCW  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Ack! Don't forget that Scopes lost, Rick!

  • 3. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Believe it, but don't worry, Lamb can dish out the truth faster than they can spin their web of lies. I can't WAIT to see how they spin this at ProtectMarriage later though. Or are they already?

  • 4. FishyFred  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:15 am

    Oh noes! He's a committed liberal!

    From a legal view, this isn't even close to the arguments they were presenting this past week (which were, frankly, as strong as they possibly could have been). Politics invading science? Come on. The judge is not going to buy that.

  • 5. Calvin  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:15 am

    Wow…..more victimization of the big bad gays who are a powerful lobbying force and making science say whatever we want because we own the government.

    ………..People really believe this bullshit?

  • 6. OS2Guy  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:16 am

    The Defense is going to do whatever it can to prevail against the gay community. That's their purpose and they are quite good at it. We must ensure that we are ready for their every move and counter it again and again.

  • 7. Peter Cortessis  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:17 am

    If I believed in a god, I'd be saying something along the lines of: "My God", while simultaneously pressing my palm into my face as hard as humanly possible.

    As it stands, I'm only capable of doing one half of the equation.

  • 8. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:18 am

    I agree and I feel our side has been very effective – so touche!

  • 9. FishyFred  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:18 am

    http://twitter.com/ADFMedia

    Lamb member of ACLU, NOW, not a clinical psychologist, hasn’t interviewed a child for 20 years

    Lamb admits government funding of research, admits that clinical psychologists now reject Freudian psychology

    Lamb has never interviewed the child of a same sex couple

    Lamb doubts that the members of the American Psychological Association would unanimously agree with his conclusions

    Lamb admits social sciences are affected by politics. Universities not free of influences of ideological forces

    Lamb admits that there are differences between men and women

    Men are incarcerated at a greater rate than women, men are more likely to be violent than women

  • 10. Greg  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:19 am

    "Science has been wrong before, therefore all scientific studies are IRRELEVANT AND INCORRECT!"

    Sorry buddy; science doesn't work like religion.

  • 11. Colt  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:20 am

    I'm walking two dogs and still trying to stay up to the minute with the trial. Addicted, without a doubt.

  • 12. Andrew  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:20 am

    This line of questioning might have a secondary purpose of showing that gays are not "politically powerless"–they're able to obtain funding for agenda-based science after all–and therefore discriminatory laws don't qualify for strict scrutiny.

    Doesn't make much sense, but it's an excuse that an appeals court might use to justify a finding with no other support.

  • 13. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:21 am

    I admit, he's making some mistakes but he's on fire still, at least it seems like it to me. Our side will have to fix those mistakes on redirect

  • 14. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:21 am

    You need this one:
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2530/4084529573_2f

  • 15. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:21 am

    anyone wanna actually READ such a study? that finds that children do equal in ss-parentage? cause I have two of them 😉 (one a little dated from the 90's and one from 2004)

  • 16. FishyFred  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:22 am

    Scopes lost because the law specifically said that teaching evolution was illegal. Everyone knew he was guilty of that. He admitted it. It was a show trial.

  • 17. George  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:22 am

    The judge is a republican.

  • 18. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:23 am

    He brought up climate-gate! What a tool!

  • 19. Peter C  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:23 am

    I'd say that modern knowledge of history of the Scopes trial would allow us to not create the modern equivalent, but then you have to remember Kitzmiller v. Dover happened only 5 years ago.

    True, science won the day, but the fact that the subject matter had to be brought to court at all is mind boggling.

  • 20. Rebecca  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:23 am

    The defense has relied on Right-Wing Talking Points and Stereotypes for their entire defense.

    This has been so laughable.

    If the Court rules in favor of Prop 8 after hearing what I've been hearing I will have lost all of the little faith i have left in our legal system.

  • 21. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:23 am

    Plus some of the comments he's making seem to directly contradict some of what he's said before according to the tweets, so it's possible the tweets are phrased wrong? Maybe?

  • 22. Kevin  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:24 am

    *** BREAKING STORY *** Proposition 8 defendants conclusively invalidate all science. All natural phenomenon to be explained by the Bible, four elements, and something called "ether."

  • 23. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:26 am

    -it's not letting me reply proper so I have to reply here

    ActOnPrinciples #prop8 #trial Lamb gender has a ripple and wide ranging effects on the ways parents raise their children

    he said just a bit ago that gender had NO effect on the raising of children. Something's screwy

  • 24. Asemodeus  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:27 am

    I'm not the least bit surprised that they are pulling standard creationists arguments out of their hats to be used here. One of the staples of creationists illogic is the refutation of science since it always changing. Where as anybody with any formal reading would know that science's ability to update and fix errors is a good thing.

    That is what the defense is doing with regards to Freud.

  • 25. ET  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:27 am

    *F5* *F5* *F5*

    Can't hit F5 fast… enough…

    Sounds to me like the Defense is trying discredit the science out there that supports SSM – so it wouldn't matter what studies have been made in the last few years – 'they're all wrong 'cause they don't support our outdated position!'

  • 26. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:29 am

    HEY, don't knock Ether! Ether is awesome!

  • 27. George  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:29 am

    You have to admit that given the flaws identified in Freud's theories – Freud, a rock star in his field whose theories reigned supreme and unquestioned – that it is reasonable to scrutinize, and perhaps even assume bias, in psychology and psychiatric studies.

  • 28. Mr. HCI  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:30 am

    LOL!!!

  • 29. ET  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:30 am

    True enough – but damn, they'll pull out anything by Paul Cameron and say 'See! See! It's scientific!' In typical fashion, they're hoping that people won't put their 'Science is wrong because it keeps changing' and 'Paul Cameron's research is STILL correct!' and say 'Huh?'

  • 30. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:31 am

    Bry — wonder if he might be referring to gender roles, rather than actual gender, as in one gender (usually the woman) taking a larger role in child-rearing; in a same-sex relationship such duties would possibly be spread more evenly.

  • 31. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:31 am

    ……………………………………..________
    ………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,
    ………………………..,.-”……………………………..“-.,
    …………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
    …………………,?………………………………………………,
    ………………./…………………………………………………..,}
    ……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
    ……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
    …………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
    …………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./
    ………../(_….”~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/
    ……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}
    ………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……“;,,./`…./”…………../
    …,,,___.`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../
    …………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”
    …………/.`~,……`-………………………………./
    ………….`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..,__
    ,,_……….}.>-._……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
    …..`=~-,__……`,……………………………
    ……………….`=~-,,.,………………………….
    …………………………..`:,,………………………`…………..__
    ……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
    …………………………………._……….._,-%…….`
    ……………………………..,<`.._|_,-&“…………….`

  • 32. JosephH  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:31 am

    Frankly, it appears that the defense is playing to the court of public opinion, to a jury (another big difference between this case and the Scopes trial). They seem more interested in making a statement than in winning.

    They could also be playing to the Catholics on the court (Scalia, Thomas, Alito & Sotomayor). Or to the first three (and we already know that Thomas is a pornography buff).

  • 33. Mr. HCI  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:33 am

    OMG . . . why on Earth are men allowed to be fathers at all? They're horrible! Violent! Molesters! Alcoholics!

  • 34. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:33 am

    if they're going to argue that Children need a mother AND a father well then all children from single parents needs to be taken away. and also there is a very interesting (but little dated from the 90s) study saying that children do better in a ss-home than with a single parent…. so I would never suggest single parents are bad or anything (having had a single mother myself) but it clearly shows that ss-parentage is not bad and other studies go the same line by saying that ss-parantage is as good as opposite sex parentage. and for the bullying argument: Why the hell are they being bullied if not because of those bigots that also run prop8?!?

  • 35. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:35 am

    would be if there ever was evidence for it 😀

  • 36. Peter C  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:35 am

    "Women spend more on children than men. Some occupations are specific to genders. Men are more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse than women. Step fathers more likely to molest children, abuse children than women. Molestation is bad for kids."

    Am I misreading this or is Prop 8. directly equating two gay men raising a child with child molestation?

    There are no adequate words for the rage I am feeling now. So instead, I'll go with a photo instead.
    http://jansontech.com/rage/rageface.jpg

    Link is hot.

  • 37. Steve  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:35 am

    The thing about playing to a jury? It only works if there's a jury there to play to in the first place.

  • 38. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:36 am

    There are differences between earning power of gay m en and lesbians?

    Yet another argument of the former "Group X is stigmatized, and that causes problems for them, therefore to solve those problems we should stigmatize them even further."

    Nice.

  • 39. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:37 am

    "Men more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse" — well, since all Catholic priests are male…

    And my mom loved to go to Reno and Tahoe to hit the slot machines and get the free drinks…so you could say that women married to men drink and gamble too. Maybe the problem is MARRIAGE altogether. Get rid of marriage for EVERYONE!

    I don't get this Prop 8's dude's point at all…

  • 40. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:37 am

    Thompson: Science was wrong.

    Lamb: Science is cumulative.

  • 41. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Of course you wouldn't, he's an IDIOT… We're not supposed to understand him.

  • 42. David from Sandy  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:39 am

    Did I miss the direct questioning? This looks like it starts with cross?

  • 43. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:40 am

    My favorite line of the day so far muwahahahaa

    BAM!!

  • 44. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:40 am

    Hey, thanks – I needed to get a nausea pill before reading it though!

  • 45. Jenny  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:40 am

    Yes, I better watch that husband of mine carefully. Maybe to protect my children I should become a lesbian?

  • 46. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:40 am

    Those statistics on income pretty much reflect the general "gender gap" in income overall, IIRC…

  • 47. Kevin  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:41 am

    He's practically arguing that only lesbians should be allowed to have children.

  • 48. drjams  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:41 am

    So what the defense is essentially setting up is that a child would be BEST brought up by two mothers (lesbians)??? I guess I could see that…hahaha

  • 49. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Direct was in Part I of todays liveblog; Rick started a new one for cross because the first one was getting unwieldy (sort of like the pro-Prop 8 case).

  • 50. Kevin  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:42 am

    Direct questioning was on an earlier blog entry.

  • 51. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:42 am

    My understanding is that he previously did not say that there was no effect at all, but that there was no effect on mental well-being of the child, specifically.

    That's the sick thing about this whole argument being applied to rights. It's worthwhile to study these things, and that can help set public policy… but when it comes to allowing people to make individual decisions, there are so many interrelated variables in play, you cannot make hard and fast rules.

    Even if we assumed that children of same-sex couples were at a disadvantage, that would not indicate that same-sex marriage should be prohibited, any more than we ought to prohibit alcoholics from getting married, or people with depression from getting married. Family issues are hands-off for the government, except in extreme cases.

  • 52. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:42 am

    I'm following http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com side by side with this. I love Rick so much, but the FDL site is more detailed. Read together, you get a very good picture of what is going on.

  • 53. Sam  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:43 am

    So, what Thompson is really saying is, men are terrible parents, therefore only lesbians and bisexual women marrying other women should be allowed to marry?

  • 54. Michael Adrian  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:44 am

    I don't understand how fitness as parents is even relevant to the question of marriage. Gay couples are allowed to adopt children, they are allowed to raise children outside of marriage, so how does marriage have anything to do with parenting skills and outcomes? Their whole argument is based on children, but it seems totally off topic to me.

  • 55. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Nice.

    A good friend of mine owns this URL. I usually link to that, but I'd love to be able to do it in ASCII. Thanks!

  • 56. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:45 am

    Marcy totally rocks — and she's experienced in liveblogging trials having done the Scooter Libby case.

  • 57. DonG  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:46 am

    I believe it's more accurate to describe Judge Vaughn as being a libertarian.

  • 58. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:50 am

    I can't believe this guy for the Prop 8 folks — this from the FDL liveblog: "Men can’t breast feed. Breast feeding clearly has benefits for children." First of all, there are plenty of women who can't breastfeed — and it says nothing about those parenting older children, especially those who are adopted.

  • 59. Beth  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:50 am

    And yet, the defense — and prop 8 propagandists — seem to be leaning very heavily on Freud's theories that sex governs or informs every action and that gay people are "inverted" — i.e., not sexually "normal."

  • 60. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:50 am

    I'm reading it but it only goes up to a certain point that isn't at where we are now @@ am I missing something?

  • 61. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:51 am

    Sorry for the double post, scratch that…I'man idiot today XDDDD

  • 62. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:52 am

    Eh, not buying it. Other arguments of that form:

    You have to admit that given the flaws identified in Ptolemy's theories — Ptolemy, a rock star in his field whose theories reigned supreme and unquestioned — that it is reasonable to scrutinize, and perhaps even assume bias, in astronomy and cosmological studies.

    You have to admit that given the flaws identified in Sir Isaac Newton's theories — Newton, a rock star in his field whose theories reigned supreme and unquestioned — that it is reasonable to scrutinize, and perhaps even assume bias, in physics and chemistry studies.

    You have to admit that given the flaws identified in Hippocrates's theories — Hippocrates, a rock star in his field whose theories reigned supreme and unquestioned — that it is reasonable to scrutinize, and perhaps even assume bias, in health and medical studies.

    Anyway, it is reasonable to scrutinize — nay, unreasonable to not scrutinize! — scientific studies in all fields. In fact, this may come a surprise to some of the know-nothings on The Other Side, but that's kind of the entire point of peer review — to subject everything to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is inherent to the scientific process.

    Assuming bias unless proven otherwise, though? That's called "poisoning the well", and it's a well-known logical fallacy. (The pro-Prop 8 side being no stranger to logical fallacies…)

  • 63. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:53 am

    I think it's to blow holes in the argument that "marriage is for the procreation/raising of children" — which makes me wonder what my 18 year childless marriage means to these folks…

  • 64. Tea Dough  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:54 am

    wow, cross examinations to this case has been really pathetic but today's cross [examination] has to be the most absurd to date.

    i'm really sad for a world full of closed-mindedness. These are [most likely] the same people that don't think women have a choice.

  • 65. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Indeed, libertarian is probably more accurate.

    The judge has made some interesting rulings in the past (it's worth paying a visit to the Wikipedia entry on Judge Vaughn) and despite some rather disappointing pro-corporate/anti-consumer rulings, looking at his history it's not inconceivable he could rule in favor of the good guys on this case.

    Of course, that would be a small victory. Even if both Vaughn and the 9th Circuit rule in favor of the plaintiffs, it will indubitably head to SCOTUS, where it will most likely fail. :(

  • 66. Tea Dough  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:56 am

    “marriage is for the procreation/raising of children”

    Again, I raise the question:

    if this is their argument, impotent men, women not able to bear children & couples making the conscious decision to NOT have children shouldn't get married?

    again, absurd.

  • 67. Shannon  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:57 am

    "Men are more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse than women. Step fathers more likely to molest children, abuse children than women. Molestation is bad for kids."

    ….And yet they still are trying to ban same-sex female couples… given their own logic, lesbian parents would be the very best! Aaahaha. [And obviously they should be prefacing all this with 'heterosexual' before the 'men'.]

    "Evidence that men who are married to women drink and gamble."

    So then why is hetero marriage legal? ;D

  • 68. jamie d  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:58 am

    David Papineau, i think he was referring to.

  • 69. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:59 am

    Hmmm, but maybe this strategy makes sense… Assuming that this case will almost certainly lose when it is appealed to SCOTUS (unless one of the conservative judges suddenly retires in the next year or so), perhaps the best thing for the pro-bigotry side to do for this and the inevitable Circuit Court case is to play to the public rather than the judge. After all, unless SCOTUS rules in favor of the Good Guys, this fight is still being waged at the ballot box. And barring some huge PR coup for our side, they can probably continue to win for several years to come.

  • 70. ron  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:00 am

    I can't wait till they bring up that most all these gay people came from straight people. Man they sound like bad people. I want to be reborn to a Lesbian

  • 71. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:01 am

    How long is this going to go on? I'm glued to my computer or phone and I need to eat, work, etc… To me this is the most important thing going on right now other than support for Haiti. I need a timeline so I can plan my life around it..

  • 72. JC  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:02 am

    We were just thinking the same thing, Kevin. The other argument: outlaw divorce of heteros because it "protects children." Whoa. Seriously warped arguments.

  • 73. Tom  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:03 am

    I can't believe our lawyers aren't SHOUTING that it doesn't matter whether or not kids are better off with a mom and a dad or two dads or two moms or just a mom or just a dad. This isn't about parenthood! It's about equal rights. Allowing or denying marriage equality will not in the slightest degree affect how many children grow up in mom/dad homes.

  • 74. Calvin  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:04 am

    But wait, women make less money so lesbians also can't have children. Gee, heterosexuals look terrible in this cross-examination. Parents as a whole, really. But especially heterosexuals.

  • 75. Sara  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:07 am

    The way the defence is arguing at the moment that is the only way to protect the children. Quick start making out with girls!

  • 76. Lori  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:08 am

    I offer my congratulations to the Yes On 8 side and their pro-family/children stance. In the course of one cross examination you've denigrated ssex parent families, all fathers, single parent families, families with adopted children, families with in vitro babies and women who don't breast feed.

    Remember you own Bible: He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.

  • 77. FishyFred  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:10 am

    Teach the controversy!

  • 78. Theresa  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:11 am

    "Prop. 8: did not know any could be worse. Men can’t breast feed and breast feeding is important. "

    Good lord! I know a LOT of uptight conservative women who aren't comfortable breastfeeding. Perhaps we shouldn't let THEM have kids.

  • 79. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:13 am

    I think it's important to recognize that NOT having the proceedings available online provides the other side to "interpret", "twist" and "distort" the reality of the responses.

    As #3, FishyFred has posted above, the other side is presenting an interpretation intended to convince the Pro 8 people that they will win and they were right in bringing the measure to the citizens of California.

    When your audience is incapable of analyzing, understanding and grasping the truth, it's best to manipulate information so they can continue to be used for one's political agenda.

    Much like the "news" today, I don't need an anchor or an "expert" to decipher what I just saw. And just imagine if reporters today eliminated the use of adjectives. Theatrics and melodrama would no longer be part of "news".

  • 80. Marlene Bomer  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:13 am

    A-hem! If men supposedly can't breastfeed, then *why* do they have nipples?

    You give the right hormones to a natal male (whether or not they have gynecomastia) and they'll give milk!

  • 81. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:14 am

    heh, yeah… heterosexuals can't have children because men married to women gamble and drink too much. Gay men can't have children because men are all child molesters. And gay women can't have children because they don't make enough money.

    I never knew the pro-Prop 8 guys were members of vhemt.org

  • 82. fiona64  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:14 am

    This all about their whole "protect the chillllllddddddrrrrrrunnnnnn" argument, trying to prove that LGBT people are somehow dangerous to kids. Ridiculous, but we know that.

  • 83. Dean  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:15 am

    I agree with "teadough's" question. If this is their argument, then they have just eliminated the rights of half the U.S. population. That old saying is so true – the only time these people are interested in any kind of human rights is before someone leaves the womb, not once they're actually born.

  • 84. Michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:15 am

    L: You have done a great job of refreshing my memory of very old documents. I hope you have in some of these other tabs my more up to date research (Laughter).

    LOVING THIS!!! you rock Lamb!

  • 85. Dave  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:15 am

    So let's see. The Prop 8 idiot has compared me (a father) to Homer Simpson and complained that "It is disturbing that role of fathers has diminished in 20th century."

    I guess the only appropriate role for a father is to be absent & unaffectionate (judging from my own father's role in my life).

    I don't mean to badmouth my parents – I love them dearly and I understand that my mother & father were bound by roles which they believed they should play. But you can be damn sure that I am working hard to avoid falling into the same trap!

  • 86. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:15 am

    It's shocking how similar the anti-gay marriage folks are to the Creationists.

    "Piltdown man was a hoax! Therefore, all fossils are hoaxes!"

    "Psychology got at least one thing wrong! Therefore, everything psychology has to say is wrong!"

    "Lalalalalalla I can't hear you!"

  • 87. JC  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:16 am

    Beautiful analysis, Lori. I was just sputtering in disbelief. Thank you for nailing what I was trying to articulate.

  • 88. Mr. HCI  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:17 am

    If it's all so flippin' for children to be raised by their bio parents, and all children who aren't are damaged goods, why did God choose an ADOPTED child to lead the Israelites out of Egypt?

  • 89. Kelly  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:17 am

    The generalizations the defense is providing about how mothers and fathers take 'assumed roles' in the family is just absurd. The Atomic Family of the 1950s has changed, yet according to all of their defensive material for Lamb is from then. The roles of parents are no longer 'breadwinner' and 'homemaker' and they are much more fluid, even in heterosexual households. Perhaps the defense is afraid to admit the progressive nature that is a homosexual parenting household.

    The defense has seriously disappointed me this past week. I thought they were here to protect the ban on marriage, not prove they were so very wrong to have the ban in the first place.

  • 90. sarah  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:17 am

    I want to say that maybe our side is working the gays are good parents angle to show that gay marriage is in fact a benefit and not a detriment to society and that it's not a reason to deny us rights.

  • 91. Lou  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:17 am

    Tom – Dr. Lamb was called by our lawyers. I suspect as part of an overall pln to counter all the points the Yes on 8 folks used in their campaign. Also it goes to 'killing' yet another of the possible 'rational basis' for extending the discrimination against marriage equality.

  • 92. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:18 am

    You can't sustain a baby solely on that milk though… can you?

    I'm not trying to challenge you, I'm really interested. I've never even heard this idea mentioned. I knew that male breasts could secrete fluid, but the suggestion that this could be used for breastfeeding is an entirely new one on me…!

  • 93. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:18 am

    I concur with you completely – thank you for saying this!

  • 94. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:19 am

    Which is why they didn't want this trial broadcast on YouTube… imagine a montage of clips summing up all of those points. Tell me that wouldn't get a few people back on our side.

  • 95. Nicki  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:20 am

    worse – he is perpetuating that all men/males are preditors are preditors all the time meme, and that is a dispicable insult to birth assigned males, and a reductionism of their humanity, that is both appalling and enraging, – and at the root of it all is misogyny, as they equate the qualities of good parenting only to women and the feminine. Idiotic Gender Police.
    their arguements are preposterious !

    what did Karl Rove call these people …oh yeah they are the third chromosome people (and they vote)

  • 96. Liquid  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:20 am

    'So Science is wrong?'

    Brilliant line!
    Great argument!
    Imagine the precedent!
    (I can hear the oil companies salivating…)

  • 97. Charles  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:21 am

    I don't know if they're doing it on purpose or if they're really that dense, but from the defense argumentation, you'd think they've never seen or read a peer-reviewed article you know? I mean, for God's sake, you need to go to college to become a lawyer, right?

    How can these people be so oblivious to how research works?? Maybe it's a strategy, but in my IANAL view, they're just making themselves look dumber than dumb…

  • 98. Mr. HCI  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:21 am

    I'm surprised the defense hasn't tried to claim that s-s parents are likely to have children who are more accepting of homosexuality, therefore making s-s parenting evil.

  • 99. country lawyer  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:25 am

    The Scopes case was a set-up, what today would be called a "test case," probably initially dreamed up more to put Dayton, TN on the map than test the statute. Scopes lost at trial and was convicted and fined. We should keep in mind what happened next: Scopes appealed to the TN Supreme Court. The TN SC upheld the anti-evolution statute but vacated the conviction on the ground that the judge and not the jury had set his fine, an issue neither side had raised at trial or on appeal. The TN SC then pointedly urged prosecutors to dismiss "this bizarre case," which they promptly did. This left Scopes with no conviction to appeal to SCOTUS.

  • 100. Tea Dough  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:27 am

    Amazing, point!

  • 101. Shannon  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:29 am

    I hate this entire line of reasoning, though – let's say that ALL the children who come from gay and lesbian people themselves become gay and lesbian. SO?!?!?!?!?!?! The underlying premise is that GAY = BAD and we should try to minimize the number of gay people who exist as much as possible. Which ties in with the "but it's biological, don't worry!" argument that annoys the s**t out of me. We can never fully challenge heterosexism and homophobia as long as we're agreeing with the premise of minimizing our own existence and indirectly agreeing that "don't worry, more people won't be gay than is biologically necessaray".

  • 102. Lymis  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:29 am

    "If it’s all so flippin’ for children to be raised by their bio parents, and all children who aren’t are damaged goods, why did God choose an ADOPTED child to lead the Israelites out of Egypt?"

    Umm… Jesus had a stepdad and his mom wasn't married when she conceived. Blended families can't raise decent kids?

  • 103. yael  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:29 am

    what a bunch of tools come on prop8 people this is just sick

  • 104. Shannon  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:30 am

    Yeah… I so hear you on that. Probably not healthy. But it is what it is!

  • 105. truthspew  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:30 am

    I love how the social scientists and psych scientists make the proponents of Prop 8 look like the bigoted jerks that they are.

    That they as someone else puts it, cherry picked research from the 50's to the 70's clearly indicates that they are all kindred spirits of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who himself was a vile piece of the proverbial excrement.

  • 106. Lymis  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:32 am

    "The defense has seriously disappointed me this past week. I thought they were here to protect the ban on marriage, not prove they were so very wrong to have the ban in the first place."

    If you are disappointed now, wait until they trot out their experts, who are going to be roasted on cross-examination.

    Practice now saying to yourself "This is the best they can come up with?"

  • 107. Lymis  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Even if it is important, it isn't critical, or demonstrated ability to lactate would be a prerequisite for heterosexual marriage.

  • 108. Michael Herman  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:36 am

    Completely laughable, but no surprise whatsoever. They're going with the "OMG LIBERALS ARE EVIL" bias that the extreme right loves. Unfortunately for them, it only shows desperation on their part. They're running out of arguments because they're all being refuted by the truth.

  • 109. Lymis  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:39 am

    Ah, but men may be abusive, but women don't earn enough, so all lesbians are poor and can't be allowed to marry.

    Obviously, lesbian couples don't meet the federal minimum income requirement for marriage, like all heterosexual couples do.

    Wait, what? There isn't one? Damn. There goes that argument.

  • 110. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:46 am

    I'm there too. Together its crystal clear!

  • 111. Tom  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:49 am

    I know. It's just that it seems so simple to me. Equality, that is. And I'm just confused as to why this meme of "protecting the children" hasn't been effectively countered with "denying marriage equality will have ZERO effect on who children's parents are."

  • 112. Marlene Bomer  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:49 am

    Here's some links, James, and yes, it's regular human milk just like a natal female produces.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation http://www.momlogic.com/2009/08/men_who_breastfeehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G826-2p57k

  • 113. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Also soon I expect they will be bringing the Buses around to round up all those "Poor and Mistreated" kids in single parents or non biological households and orphanages. Maybe they will all be opening their own "perfect" homes for them all….. Did you read about the breastfeeding bit. Guess that is going to be forced on all mothers now. Because that is what is "best" for the child.

    Talk about a house of cards…

  • 114. George  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Psychology requires more scrutiny because of the oftentimes esoteric nature of the data and its susceptibility to researcher bias (Freud) ; physical science theories can be proven, oftentimes with great precision through physical evidence (Newton).

  • 115. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:56 am

    Read the Brief filed and then this makes sense. They are knocking this baby right out of the park!!!

  • 116. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:00 am

    I think Maggie/Dolores Umbridge is probably crapping her pants…And I love it!

  • 117. Walter Bergner  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:02 am

    As a "straight", husband, father, senior citizen, retired attorney and strong supporter of social justice, I have been following "Prop 8 TrialTracker" more or less continuously for the past five days.

    I am moved, (disgusted,) by the emotional and misleading statements, tactics and techniques of the "ProtectMarriage" fanatics. Their (emotional, as contrasted to factual,) positions and arguments have, in my view, damaged their cause, reputation, and credibility, (and encouraged my financial and moral support of the "CourageCampaign").

    While I certainly understand, and agree with, the emotional reaction of members of the LGPT community, I respectfully call to your attention that your "commentators" are reporting what is, to the courts, and the thinking public, an intellectual exercise in evaluating the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

    While you are, in effect, preaching to the choir, it is important that you get your intellectual points, and principally that Proposition 8 deprives lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people of rights which are available to others. Those rights include rights and, benefits, (statutorily, socially and contractually,) predicated on “marriage” as distinguished from relationships euphemistically otherwise named, and creating harmful legal and social distinctions.

    To that end I suggest that comments to your "TrialTracker" refrain from emotional reactions and statements and be limited to factual statements rebutting the claims of the supporters of Proposition 8 including the attorneys, witnesses and the judge as well as examples which make the point of the plaintiffs or constitute concise expressions of thanks to the reporters and his Campaign.

    City Lawyer

  • 118. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Maybe the are going to argue that they were incompetent to defend their clients….

  • 119. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:06 am

    That's the subtext of their argument

  • 120. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:09 am

    Yes I hope that we ask them if they admit that they are Bigots and Religious Wacko's who have contributed to the H8 Campaign. How much how many times to admit they are biased by personal views not supported by facts.

  • 121. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:10 am

    I don't think any amount of scrutiny is a bad thing when you are talking about science, but still, by assuming bias unless proven otherwise, you are poisoning the well, as I described earlier. Do you not understand this? I know you do not click links (I learned that yesterday) so let me help you:

    Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem…

  • 122. JC  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Just give 'em time….

  • 123. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:11 am

    Damn, you learn something new everyday! Thanks!

  • 124. JC  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:15 am

    To understand better, do you wish that our comments or the liveblog refrain from emotional comments?

  • 125. Petr Tomeš  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:18 am

    http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file130_2

  • 126. Dave Pursley  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Thank you for all your blogging, Rick. While YouTube would have been nice, this is quicker and offer your amusing commentary, too!

    I appreciate it greatly!

    I'm finding it both funny and pathetic that the prop 8 people appear to be in possession of Mr. Peabody's "Way Back Machine" since they keep dredging up stuff from the 50s and 60s. This line of questioning only underscores how ancient and outmoded prop 8 supporters are in their way of thinking and, frankly, makes them look like fools!

  • 127. Anna  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:35 am

    "L: You have done a great job of refreshing my memory of very old documents. I hope you have in some of these other tabs my more up to date research (Laughter)."

    This is a lovely and very snarky reply. Gold stars for Lamb- he's flaying the Prop 8 lawyer here and it's beautiful.

  • 128. Petr Tomeš  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:05 am

    http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17

  • 129. Jeff  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:43 am

    What's odd is that the defense seems to be forgetting that gay couples are already raising children, whether or not they are married. Does the defense think that if we prevent same-sex couples from marrying, they will no longer raise children?

  • 130. waxr  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:44 am

    "Prop. 8: Many differences in our society between men and women. Men go to prison, alcoholics, violent. "

    I fail to see the point in the above statement. Is the attorney trying to say that men should not be allowed to marry? That would make only marriage between women legal.

    But there are women in prison, some women are alcoholics, and some women are violent. Maybe he is trying to say that people in jail, alcoholics, or violent should not be allowed to get married. But prisoners, alcoholics and the violent have a recognized right to marry.

  • 131. Elizabeth L.  |  January 15, 2010 at 9:40 am

    I'm surprised he never introduced the SCUM Manifesto into evidence with the way he was going.

  • 132. Liveblogging Day 5: Part &hellip  |  January 15, 2010 at 10:14 am

    […] Liveblogging Day 5: Part II Michel Lamb cross […]

  • 133. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 10:28 am

    Republican != idiot; my Republican relatives routinely laugh at the antics of the theocons while worrying about the damage they’re doing to the GOP. As one of the few liberals, I just sit back and chuckle to myself…

  • 134. Liveblogging Day 5: Daily&hellip  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    […] Going to switch to a new thread for the next update. It’s here. […]

  • 135. Dudlyne  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    That's what I was thinking. Arguing about what type of parents gay couples makes shouldn't impact the decision on marriage because regardless gay couples will continue to raise children and have families. No matter the decision they will not start taking people's children away based on their sexual orientation.

    If only this all could be seen by the general public. When I mention this case to all the straight people I know, most of them do not even know that this is going on or even what Prop 8 is about. If this could be on tv, it would help make it visible. There is still so much ignorance around us. I wish so many people could see this testimony and read the accounts shared in the comments. All of this shows the real struggle we go through everyday just to be ourselves. It breaks my heart how under the radar this case is right now. And I say this with obvious understanding that Haiti should be at the forefront of news, because much help is needed (And I say this with a deep level of understand as a Haitian woman myself). It is all too evident as a triple minority(woman, black, lesbian) that this is a very important civil rights movement.

  • 136. Chris  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:28 am

    I'm only just studying for the LSAT now, but isn't that just fundamentally bad legal logic? By simply saying that a study has some ulterior motive, it doesn't negate the findings of the study. You have to prove that the study is flawed in some way.

  • 137. ___ __  |  November 3, 2013 at 10:28 am

    Hello, I enjoy reading through your article post. I wanted to write
    a little comment to support you.

    Feel free to surf to my blog: ___ __

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