Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 6, Part II

Liveblogging

by Brian Leubitz

Lee Badgett (L), research director., PhD in Economics from Cal

David Boies (D) examination.

B: Starts with basics. Offers documents into evidence. Defense objects to some of them.

Back from 15 minute recess.

B: Hav e you written articles?

L: Yes, I’ve written a number of articles about same-sex marriage. I’ve written 2 books about marriage equality, and edited a third one. One called “When Gay People Get Married”

D: Admit the book into evidence. In 2008, did you co-author any materials relating to same-sex marriage.

L: Yes. I probably authored quite a few, some related to California. A colleague and I estimated the fiscal impact of allowing gay marriage on California budget.

D: In 2005, did you author a similar article on the effect of marriage equality on the budget?

L: Yes.

D: Have you been invited to speak at other universities.

L: I’ve been invited by many universities at many institutions around the nation and world. She lists lots of schools… I’ve also given talks at law schools…lists schools. Foreign schools…lists schools. All on the subject of marriage for same-sex couples.

D: American Psychological Association. What is Sec 44?

L: Yes. It focuses on LGBT concerns. President of 44 invited me.

D: Have you had papers accepted for conferences?

L: yes. Lists lots of groups.

D: Have you been asked to peer review articles about this subject?

L: yes…lists them.

11:02: D: Have you ever been asked to testify for the government?

L: Yes, in front of committees of both houses of Congress, testified before California Senate, and many other states.

D: Want to offer her as expert. No objection

L: Look at Demonstrative 10. A slide that shows her four points

· Prop 8 inflichts substantial economic harm on same-sex couples residing in CA and their children.
· Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not adversely affect different-sex couples, children, or the institution of marriage.
· Same-sex couples are similar to different-sex couples in most economic and demographic respects
· Prop 8 imposes substantial economic losses on Californa and its counties and municipalities.

D: What is the first point damages to same-sex couples.

L: Marriage reduces transaction costs. States and employers give specific benefits

D: Another slide with a big list of ways same-sex couple are harmed.

· Marriage confers numerous econ benefits, many of which are not provided by DPs
o Greater specialization of labor (families than can do that better are better off economically)
o Reduced transaction costs (wills and other agreements)
o Add’l health and other insurance benefits
o Greater economies of scale (Living together decreases costs)
o Stronger statement of commitment ( People understand what marriage means. That is what makes other economic benefits available)
o Greater validation and social acceptance of relationship (marriage is not just a commitment b/w individuals, but benefits come from outside recognition)
o More positive workplace outcomes from reduced discrimination (Research shows that gay and lesbians who believe they are feeling discrimination, get different work experiences. In the case of same-sex couples who aren’t allowed to marry, they may feel they are being discriminated. That feeling might hurt their work performance, decrease odds of promotions…)
· Some of these costs may not be quantifiable, but they are substantial, and are imposed on virtually all california same-sex couples who would marry if they could. (The costs are well-known, but they are tough to get a number on. But, they might be quite large. Domestic partnerships just aren’t the same thing. People who have DPs would still suffer costs b/c they couldn’t marry.)

D: You said some people who haven’t gotten DPs who would marry?

L: yes, I’ve seen a lot of research showing that.

D: Another slide showing disparity b/w marriages and domestic partnerships during time that same-sex marriage is allowed. 18,000 vs about 2000

D: Another slide.

L: Shows percentage of number of couples that got took up domestic partnerships, civil unions, and marriages in the first year that they were allowed. 37% took up marriages in first year. 12% for civil unions, 10% for domestic partnerships. In California, only 5% registered in 2000, the first year DPs were available. In six months, 21% of same-sex couples were married.

D: Another slide. Damages to couples who don’t want DP but do want marriage.

L: Goes through slide.
· Lack of access to health insurance
· Increased state taxes
· Increased transaction costs

D: Can you quantify?

L: For some. They are likely to be in the thousands of dollars per year, for thousands of couples.

D: Why do same-sex couples who want to marry don’t want DPs?

L: A variety of reasons. They might see DPs as second-class citizens. They see less value of DP. The data suggests that people prefer marriage. The difference in the value is that marriage is an institution that is recognized by lots of people. Marriage has much more meaning.

11:35 AM:

D: How does it hurt children?

L: Well, one way is that to the extent it costs the couple more money, it won’t go to the children.

D: Publication on survey with Mass Dept. of Public Health

L: Sample was from a mailing list that was working with DPH. It provides a good point of reference.

· Over 72% of respondents felt more committed to their parents
· Almost 70 percent felt more accepted by their communities
· 93 percent of those raising children agreed that their children were happier and better off as a result of their marriage. (Children were more able to relate to their peers)

D: Does this have meaning for California?

L: Yes. In the United States, there are many similarities. Demographics are similar. Many similarities show that we can apply Massachusetts statistics to California

D: Prop 8 harms children being raised by Same-Sex Couples in CA slide

L: Same-sex couples in CA are raising 37,300 children under age 18. One in 10 of CA’s adopted children live w/lesbian or gay parent. Both different-sex and same-sex couples in CA with their own children have, on average, 2 children

D: Are you aware of prof orgs that say that not allowing same-sex marriages harms those children?

L: Yes. Am. Medical Association, especially with respect to health insurance.

D: Can you summarize impact of s-s marriage on different sex marriages?

L: Yes, I looked at a lot of data. Behavior, data, and relationships do not bear out any evidence that same-sex marriages hurt different-sex marriages.

D: Can you generalize from other states to California?

L: You need to be careful to control for other variables.

D: Slide 32. Quote from Prof Allen, who was going to be a defense expert: “In the Netherlands, the total number of heterosexual marriages has slowly fallen since the introduction of same-sex marriage. Like most western countries, this is no doubt part of a larger secular trend.”

L: I agree with this statement. It is an example of things that you have to take into account when applying to California.

D: Some other trends you would consider when applying?

L: Divorce laws in Spain were made easier around same time as gay marriage was made legal.

Objection from defense counsel Cooper. L didn’t mention this in her deposition. Judge allows it, and says defense can file motion to strike if necessary.

D: Can you give example from Netherlands?

L: Yes, at the time, marriages were allowed to convert to partnerships, making divorce easier. Partnerships were given more responsibilities.

D: Any differences from applying data b/w states and different nations?

L: yes, it would be easier to compare from Massachusetts. Less cultural differences

Objection from defense. Another issue of disclosure in the deposition. Objection overruled.

D: Did you see any evidence of any adverse effects on the institution of marriage in Massachusetts?

L: No, neither for the couples nor their children.

D: What does Mass. Experience lead you to believe?

L: I believe that there would be no effect on different-sex couples.

D; You testified that there were many more similarities b/w same-sex and diff-sex couples than differences. What is that from?

L: Looking at the demographics.

D: Slide showing reasons same-sex couples wish to marry
· Just as with different-sex couples, same-sec couples are
o Raising children
o Engaged in positive assortative matching (people seek partners who are similar. People partner with people of similar race, age, economic positions, etc.)
o Seeking the economic benefits of marriage.

D: What economic benefits can you quantify for the state?

L: Some data we could quantify. Costs associated with weddings. Couples from other states.

Brian comment: Andy Pugno just walked in to overflow courtroom.

L: Continues to describe economic analysis of how she came to her numbers. Comes around $470 mil over three years. To the state itself, $40 million.

D: Other economic damages?

L: Yes, if people feel they are being discriminated they won’t be as productive.

D: Higher spending on means-tested programs?

L: yes, s-s couples who aren’t eligible for marriage will likely be

D: Higher costs for health care of uninsure same-sex partners

Yes, couples that can’t get married might need MediCAL or CHIP.

D: Loss of workers?

L: Yes, people might move to where they could get married. There is some data that has been analyzed, same-sex couples moved there. From the “creative class”, drivers of economic growth, were attracted to Mass b/c they could get married there. It was one of the reasons that couples married.

No more Qs from Boies.

Cross-Examination by Charles Cooper (C)

C: Prof., you have long been an advocate for legalizing same-sex marriage?

L: Yes, for many years, I have studied this for many years, and I do have the opinion that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

C: Would it be fair to call you a gay rights activist?

L: I’m not sure what you mean, but I do believe

C: You were given an award by the Advocate

L: Yes

C: You contributed No on 8.

L: Yes

C: You study sexual orientation?

L: Well, my general study is labor economics, but I study sexual orientation.

C: Are there problems defining sexual orientation?

L: yes there are several dimensions on how to quantify.

C: Introduces paper by Williams Institute on asking questions. Three dimensions of sexual orientation. Self-identification isn’t always in concordance with sexual attraction?

L: It is for most people.

C: What do you ask to determine sexual orientation based upon these dimensions?

L: It depends on the survey

C: You would need to assess the study.

L: Yes, you would need to think about those questions.

C: Are you familiar with the 1992 national health and life survey?

L: They asked about those dimensions in separate questions.

C: Complications with defining sexual orientation? There can be a wide range of classes of sexual orientation depending on what dimension is being used, is that correct?

L: yes, it happens rarely, but it does happen. Most people fit more neatly into gay or straight.

C: You said in your book that race and sex are more easily determined, there are not these types of problems?

L: No, I would disagree. There are many factors as to who identifies

Judge: What is indogeneity?

C: You discussed varying rates of partnerships in the Netherlands. Domestic Partnerships dropped after marriage was made available.

L: Same-sex couples have a choice in the Netherlands.

C: Opposite sex marriages have increasingly been replaced by registered partnerships?

L: I’d need to look at the data you have.

C: yes or No?

L: If these numbers are correct, then yes.

C: You refer to qualitative data for the statement that alternative status are deemed inferior?

L: I did interview people, 19 same-sex couples. 6 male same-sex couples, 13 female couples.

C: All but 2 had some postgraduate experience.

L: Yes, they did skew from my academic network. This type of research is not designed to be generalizable.

C: None of the couples had a partnership before?

L: Right, I think one of

C: What was AB 205?

L: I think that law added to the rights of DPs here in California. I looked at the fiscal impact of that legislation. The purpose of the report was to find out whether it would cost the state money on net.

C: Goes through other reports in other states. You have supported other legislation in other states?

L: I did research on them, which was different. I might have supported DP legislation in the past.

C: Goes through some essays that Badgett wrote. Presents DP statistics from the Sec. Of State. Look at the statistics for 2008. Look to the months marriage was legal in California. How many DPs were registered in July 2008? 356. 510 were registered in July 2007. 332 in July 2009.

C: The number of DPs declined between 2008 and 2009.

L: Yes.

C: Compares similar figures from October 2007-2009.

C: Compares first 11 months from 2008 to first 11 months of 2009. So the rate of registration of DP was substantial during the period marriage was similar to 2009?

L: Well, I don’t know if some of the 18,000 married couples didn’t also get DP’d as well.

12:33

C: How many of the 84.400 same-sex couples according to the Am. Community Survey are married?

L: 18,000 were married in California.

C: Shouldn’t the 18,000 couples be deducted?

L: No, I accounted for that.

C: Goes through a long question, that is rather unintelligible, something about numbers. L admits it.

Lunch break until 1:30.

Tags: , ,

142 Comments

  • 1. Patrick Regan  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:45 am

    This should be good. Another well qualified witness.

  • 2. David Kimble  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Yeah, I agree – it will be the Prop 8 side to try and discredit this witness and his testimony.

  • 3. James Parmley  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:51 am

    …"Starts with basics. Offers documents into evidence. Defense objects to some of them."

    Just the usual. Deny. Deny. Deny!

  • 4. Patrick Regan  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:52 am

    Her testimony actually. Dr. Badgett is a woman.

  • 5. tom  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Lets say some voters were motivated by animus and others by irrational fear or misinformation. In order to qualify for intermediate or strict scrutiny do you have to prove the majority of voters were motivated by animus or just a a few?

  • 6. David Kimble  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Yeah, I realized that, so sorry!

  • 7. FishyFred  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:57 am

    The fact that Boies is handling Badgett's testimony means that this is an absolutely critical part of the proceedings.

    And I can't imagine what the defense is going to say on cross.

  • 8. FishyFred  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:58 am

    If you believe Jerry Brown, they were all motivated by animus on the most basic level.

    I believe Jerry Brown.

  • 9. Mark 'RikerBear  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:58 am

    I'm afraid I'm missing some of the blog entries…..has there been a big lag in postings?
    Today's postings are not all labeled by time and such so am not following along as easilya s last week for me

  • 10. Patrick Regan  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:00 am

    No, problem, I thought that at first as well. Lee isn't common as a woman's name.

  • 11. Daniel L  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:00 am

    Is she testifying about animus or economic impact or something else?

  • 12. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:01 am

    The voters' motivations don't matter per se; you have to prove that there exists no motivation other than animus.

    So actually, you have it somewhat backwards… The defendants are trying to show that at least some pro-Prop 8 voters were motivated by "rational" reasons. (Not "good" reasons, just "rational" as defined by SCOTUS precedent)

    If LGBT is not considered a suspect class, and the court thought they could come up with a rational justification for Prop 8, then it would not matter even if every single one of the Yes-voters were motivated by prejudice. The mere existence of a "rational" reason is enough in that case. The focus on voters' motivations by the defense is just a shortcut to this, i.e. if they can show some voters were motivated by reasons other than animus, then they can endorse those reasons as the "rational" basis.

  • 13. David Kimble  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:01 am

    Yes, there has and I don't the reasons for this, except that having been a clerk-typist, at one point in life, it is not easy to record everything accurately, yet a big thanks to Rick and all for what you have been able to provide us in this trial.

  • 14. Liz  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:02 am

    I think you're in the right place (Day 6 Part 2).

    Just keep hitting the refresh button on your browser and the post will update with the latest info.

    I think he's basically breaking the 'parts' out by witness.

  • 15. ricky leliefeld  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:02 am

    What is the best way to update the conversation or transcript as it comes out?I hit refresh but that does'nt seem to do it so well.

  • 16. David Kimble  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:03 am

    I think she will probably testify, as to the economics in this case, since that is her specialty.

  • 17. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:03 am

    According to firedoglake:

    She will testify about the private harms and public costs caused by Prop. 8, differences between marriage and domestic partnership, and the impact of same-sex marriage on the marriages of different-sex couples.

  • 18. Happy  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Hi Mark –

    Today the liveblogging is being done by Brian Leubitz. I have a feeling he's not as fast a typist as Rick Jacobs, who did them last week. … and maybe he hasn't had the time to format like Rick did… But bless his heart, he's in there trying!

    Thanks Brian and Rick!! :)

  • 19. Steve J  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:07 am

    All our witnesses so far have been so sharp!

  • 20. Patrick Regan  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:12 am

    refresh is really the only way. They probably have the site set up with some sort of reverse proxy to cache the pages. This site gets hammered during the day, so even though he might have updated, some browsers won't get the refreshed data for a few minutes.

    Another way to get updates is to subscribe to emails. But that only will work with brand new posts, not edits to the posts already there.

  • 21. Elizabeth  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:14 am

    That's a really good explaination, although a scary one! Although I was pleased by how the SD mayor responded, that even if people didn't realize their decision was rooted in animus or thought they had a rational reason, it was still based in that. I've met some really polite well meaning people who think they "love me" but absolutely don't think I shoud be allowed in society or have the right to live in the same apartment complexes as them.

  • 22. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Good firedoglake is back up.

    To clarify what happened earlier and get more details in the Q&A check this out:
    http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/24959

  • 23. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:16 am

    Yeah, Sanders did a great job with that. He must have been coached about the "rational basis test" or otherwise been aware of it. Repeating, "Yes, but that would be rooted in prejudice" was exactly the right answer from a legal perspective (and from a moral perspective too, I suppose :)

  • 24. Lance W  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:17 am

    DPs huh? Oh Joshua, will you Domestic-partnership me?

    Hell no! We want marriage, opposite-sex couples are no better than us.

  • 25. Frank  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Steve is spot on here.

    I suspect that in terms of polish, credibility, etc., our witnesses are going to blow the other side's out of the water.

  • 26. DonG  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:20 am

    For up-to-date tweets, go to: http://twitter.com/ddayen where David Dayen is tweeting. They are short, but current.

  • 27. Mark 'RikerBear  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Wasn't complaining…just wanted to make sure I was getting all that is being posted.

  • 28. tom  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:22 am

    James THANKS for the insight!!!

  • 29. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:22 am

    I’ve met some really polite well meaning people who think they “love me” but absolutely don’t think I shoud be allowed in society or have the right to live in the same apartment complexes as them.

    I related a story on the other thread that, even as a straight person who is very passionate about gay marriage and very supportive of LGBT issues, I still occasionally find myself making heteronormative comments, at least once to my deep embarrassment. :/ When a prejudice like this is so deeply ingrained in society, it's very easy to engage in it without even consciously realizing you are doing so.

    For people who are less self-reflective… it's unfortunately no surprise people could view themselves as tolerant while simultaneously holding extremely bigoted opinions.

  • 30. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:24 am

    It's kind of creeping me out to read "DP" over and over again, because when I have encountered that acronym it meant something very different…

  • 31. Katie  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Wow, nice! Go, Boise, go! Go, witness, go! Powerpoint presentations and all! This really is an awesome testimony so far. Looking very much forward to seeing what Boise does on the redirect.

    Yikes, I hope the fundies enjoy responding to this — 'cos I sure as heck wouldn't want to be the one who has to follow this act. ;)

  • 32. Patrick Regan  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Ha… don't worry I felt that way too the first few times I saw it.

  • 33. Nikki  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:35 am

    @ James Sweet, who wrote: "For people who are less self-reflective… it’s unfortunately no surprise people could view themselves as tolerant while simultaneously holding extremely bigoted opinions."

    Precisely. Just like our resident troll, George.

  • 34. Daniel L  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:37 am

    Thanks James! Looking to be an interesting day at court… though probably leading to a less productive work day

  • 35. JC  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:39 am

    Boy, I wish I could testify as to "economic harm." My wife and I have co-mingled our assets since the 1980s (!) until I sold my company a few years ago and my wife stopped working for outside income. Turns out that if we had just carried on as before I could have been liable for federal gift tax on all the things we bought for ourselves out of our joint account, since I was then the sole breadwinner. Can you imagine? My alternatives were to "hire" my wife and pay her a salary (um, not exactly a good thing to do in our marriage. I'm working on toning down my bossyness as is!), start a foundation and appoint her the director and pay her a salary out of that, a few other even less desirable options, or the one I chose, which was to use the one-time federal gift tax exemption and gift her a substantial sum that would generate income for her so she could have something to report on her federal income tax return and from which to write monthly checks into our joint account. Sigh. What a shell game. Took forever to figure this out and lots of tax/accountant types who had no idea how to proceed. (It was our estate attorney who pointed out the possible IRS liability if we didn't fix things.) And from that point on, all major purchases have to be in my name (auto/real estate titles, for ex.) or else I could be liable for federal gift tax. I love sharing this info with my straight married friends who think nothing of joint accounts and seamless transfer of property. My main motivation for marriage equality is, indeed, equality, but, heck, that FEDERL economic impact is a non-trivial matter.

  • 36. Ray Harwick  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:43 am

    @ James Sweet: Thank you so much for those explanations

  • 37. evenevan  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Rock on Dr. Badgett!

    D: What does Mass. Experience lead you to believe?

    L: I believe that there would be no effect on different-sex couples.

  • 38. JimB  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:48 am

    @James Sweet re: deep embarrassment/heteronormative comment

    Considering how you've helped me & I'm sure others understand what is going on here, I, and I'm sure others again, would personally vote you a 'get out of embarrassement for heteronormative free' card.

    The prejudice related within this thread ('well meaning people who think they love me') and your comment are like relating a crouton to a 6 foot long double meat italian sub with provolone.

    Point: there are probably gentle & unassuming ways to broach subjects. I know you less than the person related in your anecdote, but I would completely overlook your perceived faux pas…and probably more likely respond with a hearty, "How dare you assume I'm heterosexual", resulting in a rigorous round of guffaws and perhaps a few random chortles, followed by a round of slippery nipple shots and flirting with the random table condiment.

    Now please – return to your insightful play-by-play. My world is better for you posting on here.

  • 39. Ray Harwick  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:50 am

    All the economic stuff just slays me. In the middle of my working life, when I was in my mid 30s, I became profoundly deaf in both ears. I was an elementary school teacher and I couldn't teach any more. So my (then) partner (now husband) had to support me. We were also raising a child and he had to shoulder her support. When I went to Social Security to try and get Disability assistance they DENIED it and their explanation was that since I was in a relationship, they viewed that as a marriage.

    What???? The state didn't even have domestic partnership at that time and of course the federal government recognized NO same-sex relationship.

  • 40. JC  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:54 am

    That's just so wrong! I hope the situation got remedied to your satisfaction (??).

  • 41. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:56 am

    Heh, thanks JimB. What made it particularly embarrassing was the guy to whom I made the comment presuming heterosexuality had suggested we go to a gay bar (it was my wife, a female friend of ours, and a gay friend of hers that we had just met that night), and we were actually in said gay bar at the time I made the comment. He looked at me like I was crazy, and I only figured out why later. hahaha…

    So I don't know if that's uber-progressive of me, or uber-heteronormative… heh. Since there is a neighborhood lesbian bar that my wife and I used to go to fairly frequently because it has good beers and a chill atmosphere, I don't find the idea of someone wanting to go to a gay bar indicative of their sexuality — so maybe that's progressive, but I also just assumed by default that this guy was straight, which is rather anti-progressive. heh… yeah, pretty embarrassing in any case… ;D

  • 42. Liz  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Thank you for sharing, Ray.

    THIS is why marriage is important.

  • 43. Ray Harwick  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:12 am

    No. It never did. I reapplied about ten years later and was denied assistance again. This time the said I simply wasn't disabled **enough**. So, I'm sitting there in the SS office having to read what the say to me since I can't hear them and they told me that. I provided all my medical records and showed the a list almost 200 places I had sought employment where I wasn't merely not hired, I didn't even get an interview. Nobody wants to hire the handicapped because it costs them more for their company insurance. I have balance problems because of my deafness and back problems from when I was in the Air Force.. I couldn't do heavy manual labor, and now I've had an onset of arthritis (okay, I getting old). I got jobs by being self-employed, wrote a column for USA Today covering college softball (my fav sport) and designed web site for softball organizations. At best, I made about $5K one year. I had to self-teach to learn how to create sites since I couldn't attend a class (my signing skills suck).

    No. It was never resolved. I'm a conservative politically and my natural inclinatiion was to try and handle my own issues without seeking public assistance. I do feel good about that, but I still was able to find work anywhere. My husband, as you might expect, is my hero. He's done it all and he's now 86 years old.

  • 44. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:17 am

    LMAO!!!!

  • 45. David Kimble  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Yes, exactly and for a host of other reasons, too! Thank you for sharing Ray, the wheels of justice turn slowly.

  • 46. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:20 am

    Agreed!!

  • 47. Leslie Wilde  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:21 am

    Are they on a lunch break?

    How hard is it to type a simple sentence telling the thousands of trial trackers that the trial will resume at a certain time or that another witness is coming up?

  • 48. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:21 am

    Here is a link to a short video about a news story telling about a company that has been adding BIBLE scriptures on military weapons, against military policy. the military claimed NO knowledge of this fact, however on the military's website, a man is showing the items, and goes so far as to say: "and if any of you aint Christian..just get over it." This is our MILITARY. http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?cl=

  • 49. ron  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:22 am

    I feel suspended- are they eating lunch?

  • 50. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Maggie Gallagher…is that you?…wow….calm down.. I don't see YOU doing anything.

    why don't YOU give us an update..oh wait…you can't.

  • 51. James  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Hi All,

    I'm one of the many quiet, voracious readers following this trial. In a very real way, I feel like my relationship and potential marriage is on trial as well! My partner and I have 5 children (from prior heterosexual marriages) and have been together for 7 years. We are also former Mormons, who moved from Utah to San Diego 3 years ago. (Way to go Jerry Saunders!)

    I don't know how much this might affect this trial, or provide fodder for evidence, but this week is the beginning of the Sundance Film Festival. One of the films presented at Sundance this week is "8: The Mormon Proposition", which attempts to expose the involvement of the Mormon Church in financing Prop 8. Here is the information I have:

    The official Sundance link to "8: The Mormon Proposition": http://sundance.bside.com/2010/films/8themormonpr

    The website for the documentary: http://www.mormonproposition.com/

    A You Tube promo for the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upWb2jBk5xw

    Well, I don't know how this information might affect this trial directly, but it is likely to provide more evidence and insights into how the proposition passed.

    Thanks,
    James

  • 52. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:26 am

    they usually update at the end of each section or after the end of a witness testimony.
    settle down.
    there are other sites that give faster updates but they are brief twitter snips. not as much info as here.

  • 53. DonG  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:27 am

    You can get current info at http://twitter.com/ddayen

    David Dayen is tweeting, so the comments are short, but they are timely

  • 54. Patrick Regan  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:28 am

    not at lunch, but a lot of back and forth, he's probably not able to get it posted, because he's busy typing.

    Follow #prop8 on twitter to get some idea as to how much is going on.

  • 55. A  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:28 am

    I hope that issues like this are brought up in the trial!

  • 56. Jane  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Wow. Just wow.

  • 57. Frank  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:32 am

    Is there somewhere that lists the attorneys and witnesses? Other than Boies, Olsen & Stewart, I'm not sure which attorney is on which side of the issue sometimes!

  • 58. Rollie  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Pwn

  • 59. ron  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Interesting gun info-Makes you feel embarassed to be Christian? Ya like killing people for Jesus. Religon sure gives sick people excuses.

  • 60. David Kimble  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Yes, I agree, James Sweet, that would seem to be the tact (or tactless argument) they are trying to make.

  • 61. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:38 am

    They are all having troubles with the connections today,

    By the way NOM said this before trial started:

    "We do not expect to win at the trial level, but with God’s help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack."

  • 62. Andrea  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:38 am

    In the context of this case, the minority is easily identifiable – they are people who want to get married, and who either both have an "M," or both an "F," on their identification.

    All this handwaving about identifiable classes misses the point. People who self-identify any which way can marry those of the opposite sex right now; this is not in question.

  • 63. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:42 am

    To see complete witness list go to American Foundation of Equal Rights home page. See Our Work Tab, Legal Filings Tab:Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibit List, Plaintiffs’ Trial Witness List, Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief, Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact.

    This does not show their info as it has not been released anywhere I can find it

  • 64. David Kimble  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:42 am

    And excuse me for asking, but exactly what does the "Constitution" have to do with this?

  • 65. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:43 am

    It misses the point if you are talking about what is ethical/moral, of course… But unfortunately it's critical to the legal argument.

    If you want to argue that your suspect class is "people who wish to get married to someone of the same gender", then you are going to have trouble with the "immutable trait" criterion for suspect classification.

    I am not optimistic about SCOTUS ruling that LGBT is a suspect class, but I do think that challenging the "discrete and insular" criterion is really grasping at straws. I don't think even an asswipe like Scalia is going to buy that crap. That's like arguing, for example, that because dark-skinned Cubans could be classified as either black or Hispanic, it is therefore impossible to discriminate against racial minorities. Dah-ERP!

  • 66. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:44 am

    is it just me or is the defens always merely trying to lable the whitnesses as gay-rights-advocats to try to relativize their statment by it? It gets kinda boring…

  • 67. Marlene Bomer  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:45 am

    Of course, there's no indicator of "I" – intersex on the forms, either, forcing thousands of people to lie. AFAIC, there should be no sex designator on ANY form, whatsoever!

  • 68. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:47 am

    thing is most groups aren't identifiable all the time very easily. even for traits that seem to be obvious like race it is not always easy. last week they made this point I think. it is not even possible to identify "blacks" as a group and you would have to think carefully about your definition when you want to do a study

  • 69. robert wright 1 of 1  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:48 am

    The entire case is about the Constitutionality of Prop 8. The couples who brought the suit say that it violates the US Constitution, that's what it has to do with it.

  • 70. Patrick Regan  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:48 am

    They are trying to show that the witnesses are biased and therefore the evidence they bring are not purely "scientific." This is an "impeachment" of the witness. By trying to paint them as biased they can try to cast doubt as to whether or not the information they presented is tainted before they started or not.

    does that help?

  • 71. Jack  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:49 am

    I began following the trial on Friday. I find it fascinating. I'm having trouble getting work done today.

  • 72. Bill  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:49 am

    It should be crystal clear to ANY LGTB person in America that it is the intention of (most) heterosexuals to abuse us from cradle to grave. And in any way possible.

    Whether it be that LGTB children are subjected to violence and ridicule in their own schools and homes or that the Governor of Rhode Island recently vetoed a bill that would allow LGTB citizens to claim the dead bodies of their partners, THEIR INTENTIONS ARE CLEAR.

    Cradle to grave, people. THAT is their intention. To make our lives difficult, nearly unmanageable, secluded from society and without the benefits needed to raise our families. THAT is their intention. Marriage equality is just one part of their plan.

    What they TRULY want is to DESTROY us.

    And so it must really piss them off that we rise up, we SUCCEED, we FIGHT.

    But most importantly WE LOVE. Despite what they have done to us, WE LOVE. Despite having been trampled on by them for our entire lives, WE LOVE.

    They have never and will never be able to take that from us. And that is what they TRULY want.

  • 73. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:49 am

    In the news:
    1.) tornado warning in L.A.
    2.) Glee goes ULTRA GAY!
    “We just announced we’re doing a nationwide search for the season 2 cast, and [a boyfriend for Kurt is] one of the three roles that we’re adding. And we’re going to make them a power couple. We’re not going to do the whole hiding-in-the-shadows thing. We’re going to make them popular, and out and proud and glamorous. Like prom king and king. We’re doing the opposite of what’s been done.”

  • 74. Craig  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:50 am

    Steffi,

    The defense keeps harping on "gay rights activists" because in their own slanted view, merely being an "activist" automatically invalidates everything that the witness has to say. To the bigots, being a "gay rights activist" is about the worst thing you can be. Oddly, even this questioning EXPOSES the defense's innate prejudice.

  • 75. David Kimble  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:50 am

    That's just another ploy they use to try and hide behind their prejudices. I really hope that somewhere in the trial, we will see or hear witnesses, who can provide some evidence to support my point further, than it has been already. Particularly interesting testimony on Friday, I believe makes that point.

  • 76. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:51 am

    If this lawsuit were to succeed at the SCOTUS level, it would most likely establish a precedent that the 14th Amendment protects the rights of LGBT people. In other words, while it wouldn't alter the constitution directly, it would alter how it was applied for the forseeable future.

    And in that sense, if you are a theocratic assholes whose bigoted religion demands discrimination against LGBT, then it is not a stretch to perceive this as a "grave attack" on the constitution.

  • 77. Marlene Bomer  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:51 am

    NOM and the other deluded fanatics believe once the Constitution was written, it was set in stone, aside from the Amendments — it's called "strict constructionism.

    Meaning since there's nothing in the Constitution *specifically* grants gays the right to marry, it needs to be "protected" from "activist" judges who read that into the document.

    The racists back in the 60s tried to use the same argument when Loving v Virginia was ruled which tossed the state laws banning interracial marriage, and the religionists, complaining about the removal of forced Christian prayer and bible reading in public schools.

    To put it bluntly, they want to return to the days where rich, white, conservative Christian males held all the cards, and everyone else were second-class citizens, undeserving of equal rights.

  • 78. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:51 am

    I can't wait until the DEFENSE starts their witnesses and OUR side asks every one of them…"did YOU contribute to yes on 8?"…LOL…

  • 79. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:51 am

    "C: Goes through a long question, that is rather unintelligible, something about numbers. L admits it."
    WHAT? L admits what?

  • 80. Raven  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:52 am

    *blush* I'm sure I have no idea to what you are referring!

  • 81. JC  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Thanks, A. Me, too. (I also want to clarify that we understand how very fortunate we are to even HAVE this problem. Don't mean to be "whining" like our adversaries have been doing; just pointing out a dimension that never seems to get mentioned.)

  • 82. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:53 am

    I'm a little confused by it, though, because it doesn't seem like this is likely to be an effective tactic in a bench trial…? If it were a jury trial, sure… cast random aspersions at the opposition's witnesses, and hopefully some of them will stick. But I don't see a federal judge falling for it… he's going to judge the witnesses' testimony on its own merit.

  • 83. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:54 am

    Ok I guess this argument would be stronger :D since only people driven by animosity would porbably contribute to "yes on prop8"

  • 84. Bry  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:54 am

    I read this last night on both abc and (I believe) DKos. The ABC had a really offensive comment about "We're being attacked by "non-Christians" and this is a Christian company"

    The DKos had two comment-posts from the group's webpage or something that were really wingnutty, absolutely insane, really.

  • 85. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:55 am

    love how the haters are stating that it is imperative for the people who contributed to anti gay measures to remain confidential, and then they ask every one of OUR witnesses to state whether or not THEY were involved and to what extent…opening a dangerous door if they want to keep THEIR donators secret.

  • 86. Andrea  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:56 am

    What exactly are plaintiffs seeking here? Is it equal protection under the law, or for the Judge to create a suspect class at the Federal level based on one ruling in one state?

  • 87. Katie  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Oh no, the Gathering Storm! It's HERE, folks! The gay storm is HERE! Take cover!

    :P

  • 88. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:57 am

    I can only hope it's raining men…hallelujah!

  • 89. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:58 am

    get ready for unproductive work for the rest of the time this trial lasts :) btw. how long WILL it last?
    I am going to Africa on the eigth of february and I wanna see the outcome of this trial..

  • 90. Lisa  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:59 am

    2.) Glee goes ULTRA GAY!

    Oooh this makes me so happy!!!

  • 91. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:01 am

    @Dieter. I hope you're right! (though pls. not only gay men but also straights and/or bi)

  • 92. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:01 am

    glee?

  • 93. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:03 am

    the tornado warning has expanded to include Orange county…..Im skeeeeered

  • 94. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:03 am

    yeah I got that, but the SAME argument on every whitness?! this is fucking stupid but I guess it's the only thing they can do when they have such an obvious lack of propper arguments.

  • 95. Raven  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:04 am

    Ha. Okay, that made my day. A boyfriend for Kurt!!

  • 96. Bry  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:04 am

    Bear…

    …Nother Bear

    Oh wait….that was the same one >> j/k

  • 97. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:04 am

    Steffi try: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/24966

  • 98. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:05 am

    Based in the firedoglake transcript… They are arguing about some esoteric point relating to her estimate of how many couples would take advantage of marriage if it was offered.

    It sounds like both Brian and the firedoglake people are confused… Actually, it also sounds like Badgett is confused! It seems like a weird angle to pursue…

  • 99. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:06 am

    ok, now you need to tell me what exacly you're talking about, I wanna know. (I really don't know…)

  • 100. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:07 am

    to those of you global warming deniers…this year we have Tornados in Los Angeles, and Snow in Sacramento….now you tell ME this planet aint changing…LOL

  • 101. Roberta K  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:08 am

    And with all those major purchase in your name alone, without proper legal protections (wills, etc.), it would be quite easy for your relatives to swoop in and grab those items leaving your wife with nothing.

  • 102. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Who the heck know with those wackado's. They just make crap up and beg for money.

    I have a strong belief that "our Constitution" is the Bible.

  • 103. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:10 am

    I just hope his boyfriend is a tad bit butcher…lol… not hatin..just sayin…..lets finally get a non fem non stereotype gay guy on TV for ONCE!!!!
    someone that the entire nation wont look at and go…GAY!!!!!! obviously GAY!!!

  • 104. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:11 am

    Check the Paul Hogarth's post on the topic, and/or the Wikipedia entry on "suspect classification".

    The plaintiffs need to show either:

    1) that LGBT are a suspect class, thereby placing the onus on the defendants to prove that there is a "compelling" justification for Prop 8 (hint: there isn't); or

    2) that there does not exist any "rational" justification for Prop 8, with "rational" in this context only meaning that there was some state interest behind the law (even if the costs far exceed the benefits).

    It seems logical to us that in order to discriminate against LGBT, the government would have to provide a compelling case to begin with, but that's apparently not how US constitutional law works… So that's why the obsession with some of these seemingly mundane side topics.

  • 105. Roberta K  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:12 am

    I think Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel) is doing the liveblog; she liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial so she is definitely experienced.

  • 106. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:15 am

    But this tactic can backfire for them big time when their "experts" hit the stand and it is shown that they actually are completely biased. And have no backing to the views and findings they express outside of their organizations. I love it about all theses previewed studies because none of their crap is done outside their "we hate the gays" think tanks.

  • 107. rpx  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Ahhh these lunch hours kill me, it is after 10pm by me in France. This economist seems to be a much better witness that the chief economist for the city of SF. How many times with the defense bring up the Netherlands? Marriage is down in France also and there is no legal SS marriage here. I believe I am correct to say that marriage is declining in Europe and has been for many years. More and more hetro's just going for the paque (DP).

  • 108. Patrick Regan  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:18 am

    @steffi:

    DP is an abbreviation for certain adult entertainment. It's hard to say this without being inappropriate, so I'll just say it.

    Double Penetration.

  • 109. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:18 am

    I agree with that 100%

  • 110. nightshayde  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:26 am

    Again, I'm going to protest the broad generalization here.

    "… it is the intention of (most) heterosexuals to abuse us from cradle to grave…"

    I believe it is the intention of some heterosexuals to abuse LGTB people from cradle to grave. Tragically, some heterosexuals are quite eager to make the "grave" part come as early as possible.

    If there's going to be a generalization of "most" heterosexuals, I think it should be more along the lines of "they don't specifically intend to abuse LGTB people, but often do harm via ignorance or apathy."

    Then there's another considerable some heterosexuals who think that discrimination (legalized or otherwise) against LGTB people is reprehensible & needs to be stopped — people who speak out against discrimination and against those who discriminate. People who really do think every person in our society deserves to find a soul mate and deserves a "happily ever after" with the partner of his/her choosing.

    Unfortunately, the people who really do want to harm LGTB people in any way possible seem fairly able to draw from the pool of the ignorant "most" by spewing their messages of hate/fear/heterosupremacy. Their messages seem to work on the ignorant most effectively when the messages are costumed as something less than reprehensible. "We're not endorsing discrimination – we're just protecting marriage." "We don't dislike gays — we just want to protect the children." "We don't want to take rights from anyone — we'll give them CUs/DPs which will be "just like" marriage. See how thoughtful and considerate we are?!" This matter becomes even worse when religion is involved. If people are taught from cradle to grave that challenging their church's teachings on anything is sinful and that critical thinking is problematic, they're less likely to listen to any argument against what they're taught by the church. It's not that they're "out to get" the LGTBs — it's that they don't even know how to begin to challenge what they've been taught all their lives.

    The sadly ignorant bunch in the middle are the people who can be swayed by seemingly reasonable arguments from either side, whether those seemingly reasonable arguments really are reasonable or not. That is why we who believe that civil rights should apply to all need to start thought-provoking conversations with people who have been mislead. We need to help people realize that granting equal rights doesn't hurt anyone — and that there may be benefits they've never considered.

    There are quite a lot of people out there who once were against ss marriage but who have changed their opinions because of conversations they've had with LGTB friends, co-workers, children, parents, neighbors, etc…

  • 111. christina  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:26 am

    i just wish they'd let cameras in. nobody gets to see what goes on. i thank the transcribers wholeheartedly. i 2 got emotional when watchingSanders video.
    prop 8 is not scared of backlash, they just dont want millions hearing the prejudice in their words. if you read their site, they are all high on the fact they they win EVERY argument. please, i mean yea, i do think we look better everyday too, but it's RATIONAL. why do they think it willl lead to prostirution and sex w children???

    i remember people being nervouse to giving ELLEN her own show, saying a gay woman would not have much in common with other everyday woman. WHAT?!?!?

  • 112. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:31 am

    stay tuned..tomorrow I will be posting a link where you all can view the trial on youtube. made possible through a production company in Los Angeles. They are uploading the videos as we speak, and starting tomorrow the trial will be re-enacted using actors reading the court transcripts!!

  • 113. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:33 am

    @Patrick: I thought it must be something of that kind cause you all were so… yeah kinda secretive and shy :D
    but honestly guys whats so embarrasing about sex? Ok wait – I forgot that in some states of the US some sex positions are still legally prohibited….

  • 114. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Nothing embarrassing about sex per se, but I am reading this at work….

  • 115. nightshayde  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:35 am

    It's a currently popular television show in the US. It is full of win. =)

    Too hard to describe in one little post here — but it takes place in a middle-America high school & one of the main characters (Kurt) is a gay boy.

  • 116. Andrea  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:41 am

    I know what a suspect class is. I asked what the plaintiffs are seeking.

  • 117. JC  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Yup. That's why we have a trust and 3 wills (2 personal and 1 for the trust) and good relations with our families. (But I know all bets are off when death and money are involved.)

  • 118. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:44 am

    I was sensitized to this issue when I encountered an individual in the talk pages of Wikipedia who complained about someone referring to this individual as "he", and requesting a gender neutral pronoun such as "ze". I jumped and said, "Oh yes yes, let's be careful, please use 'he or she'," to which this individual responded that no, this was not good enough, as this individual did not identify with either gender.

    I explained (and luckily some people from the Wikipedia LGBT Project backed me up on this) that there's just no practical way we were going to get anybody to honor this request, but that I would do my best to honor it personally (and you'll notice I was very careful in the preceding paragraph, even though I still have not adopted any of the invented gender-neutral pronouns — I just don't like any of them! heh).

    Still, I was very glad to have had this experience. I was completely unaware that intersex individuals even existed. I was already totally down with the distinction between gender and biology, but the idea that some people didn't even experience any gender per se was a real eye-opener.

    Sadly, I'm going to have to predict that it's going to be a long time before society can really get its head around intersex individuals. I mean, as the above conundrum illustrates, the very language has to change! And since gender discrimination is unfortunately very commonplace, it's not really practical to stop collecting data on gender any time soon… So I dunno what to say about that one. I think at this point, even just getting people to understand that intersex individuals exist is a pretty big challenge…. :/

  • 119. SpoonmanTX  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Maybe someone can clear this up… how does this testimony (since there were a lot of references to Massachusetts) relate to what happened this morning with the depositions and Item 474 etc…

    Just trying to better understand.

  • 120. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:46 am

    keep forgetting the different time zone.
    It's all dark outside and nearly 11pm over here :) so no office hours ;)

  • 121. Matthew S.  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Seems like we're a fairly identifiable lot… we're the ones WITHOUT opposite-sex partners (well, most of us… nothing against the Bi's). Since they clearly don't like anything BUT opposite-sex partners, what difference do any of the other categories make? They only want it one way and the rest of us be damned.

  • 122. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:47 am

    they want to bring Mass in so they can tell the judge..LOOK..in Mass they are teaching our little babies about gay sex in schools….LOL..an epic failure that won't float.

  • 123. John  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:47 am

    My screen read "on lunch break until 1:30."

  • 124. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:49 am

    Thanks nighteyshade. Yeah, geez, I'm sorry you feel that way Bill, but a lot of heterosexuals (like me) are passionately on your side. I'm still on your side even though you are kind of being a dick. heh :D

  • 125. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Ah, sorry.

    I'm assuming they are pursuing both paths in parallel.

  • 126. Kevin  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Sexual-orientation as a category would constitute the suspect classification and proving their history of discrimination and political powerlessness does not have to relate to the marriage issue at all, although these laws have been used to malign and marginalize LGBT communities. The interesting part, I think, about the argument that all individuals, regardless of sexual-orientation, are able to enter the institution of marriage with a partner of the opposite sex concerns consummation. As far as I know, I believe there there is still at least one state that *requires* consummation in order for a marriage to be valid. This would exclude gay men from marriage who, for obvious reasons, could not "perform" the sexual act with a partner of the opposite sex. Failure to consummate a marriage is also grounds for the dissolution of marriage, and this also creates an unequal institution for LGBTs who want to marry and are forced to do so with a member of the opposite sex since it puts them at a distinct legal disadvantage relative to similarly situated heterosexual couples.

  • 127. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:51 am

    LOL..Glee is a show that is like FAME on steroids…

  • 128. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:51 am

    we’re the ones WITHOUT opposite-sex partners

    Heh, that definition doesn't work either… Unless I was gay through most of high school and didn't know it! ;p

  • 129. Liz  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:56 am

    While you're waiting for the full liveblogging updates, you can also follow people tweeting updates from the courtroom by searching for prop8 on Twitter.

    Or, go here: http://twitter.com/#search?q=prop8

  • 130. Mark 'RikerBear  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Okay back from lunch 45 minutes ago….am I missing the new updates?

  • 131. Michael Herman  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Same-sex marriage bans hurt the economy. Definitely true, and I'm glad to see it brought up. ^^
    Conservatives should be all for gay marriage. Too bad Neo-Cons are hypocrites.

  • 132. Loren  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:16 am

    That's a solid point about the defendants trying to out the donation status of plaintiff witnesses while keeping their own closeted.

    If this trial continues like this, there's just no way the defendants can win.

  • 133. bonobo  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:23 am

    It's been almost an hour. What's going on? We're on pins and needles here.

    bonobo & mama bonobo

  • 134. pepper  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:30 am

    'C: You refer to qualitative data for the statement that alternative status are deemed inferior?'

    The key is equality. If you (a) offer people both gay/straight both marriage and DP (in Netheralnds), you give them the choice, If you take the choice away,(b) keep DP for gay and marriage for straight, that is inequality, then DP is inferior. In the (a) there is equality and DP is not inferior to marriage.

    If In Holland we kept DP and marriage for gays, and marriage for straight only, then this would be unequal (yes, for straights lol), and also would have guaranteed higher marriage rates for straights, because they didnt have DP option. The Dutch dont care as much about marriage (Im talking straight people here) as I think Americans do. Less religious, different feelings about marriage, nothing to do with gay marriage.

  • 135. Go_proton77  |  January 19, 2010 at 8:36 am

    It's true though, your homosexual sex act is what defines you, and you must influence the youth to accept gay sex as normal.

    We don't want any kind of gay advocacy near minors and the gay agenda crosses childrens paths, against our wishes. ( and in legal speak you people claim discrimination, when we seek to protect our children from your choices)

  • 136. robert wright 1 of 18,000 second class married couples  |  January 19, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    you can also follow at Firedoglake. They are a little bit ahead of this blog in the content of the trial. And they must have an actual court reporter, the testimony is much more detailed, but I watch both blogs as each has it’s bits that are better than the other. Together they rock…

    http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/24966

  • 137. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    C: Are there problems defining sexual orientation?

    I’m tellin’ ya, according to Paul Hogarth’s post about suspect classification, it sounds like one of the requirements is that the group must constitute “a ‘discrete and insular’ (i.e., identifiable) minority” — I think they are laying the groundwork to argue that since some people cannot be easily classified as gay or straight, they cannot be a suspect class… In other words, it is impossible to discriminate against LGBT because you can’t accurately identify them 100% of the time!

  • 138. jc  |  January 19, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    oddly i’m with james on this one! ;) thanks for the chuckle james sweet!

  • 139. Care Bear  |  January 19, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    I introduced myself earlier as an Atlanta gal in a committed relationship for 13 years and raising our two kids. I had an impressive dinner conversation with my 7 year old son this evening. Back at school today after the MLKjr Holiday and he proceeded to tell me the story of Rosa Parks and how she wasn't allowed to sit in the front of the bus. He was amazed that she was arrested. Also relayed that blacks and whites had different water fountains and that the black water fountains were usually broken. Given the topic of the meal, I went on to tell him about the trial going on in California and what was being argued. We've never discussed black v white or gay v straight with the kids but we knew the time would come. I went on to explain that two men or two women were not allowed to get married and that this trial could help change that. He listened intently and his only reply was that it sounded a lot like Rosa not being able to sit in the front of the bus and "we all know that was stupid!!!!" …from the mouth of babes.

  • 140. jimig  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
    at some point the supporter for hetero-sex marriages will start with data supporting traditional marriages. This is a nice piece of reseach and the Barna Group is known for there research methods.

    George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented:

    "While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."

    I believe you should read this report but it also tells me that these same people who are always speaking about marriage as an institution quickly turn on their own. Read the percentages of faith groups including the over 20% Mormons and make your own conclusions.

  • 141. zozz419  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Just FYI re: Kendell's Testimony. Alliance Defense Media just tweeted:

    ADFmedia Mr. Kendall admits his exp w/ conversion therapy is unlike the experience of most as he was forced to do it against his own will

    ADFmedia Most who undergo therapy, voluntary, want to change. Admits he never wanted to change, never sought to change

    Is it just me or is that just an out and out lie? I mean, they're not even cherry-picking; they're just completely changing the testimony.

  • 142. zozz419  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:28 am

    and then this:

    ADFmedia Acknowledges that many who choose conversion therapy do indeed have effective results

    Didn't he say that the one person who claimed to be cured actually admitted that he was just pretending?

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