Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Liveblogging Daily Summary: Day 6

Community/Meta Daily Summary Liveblogging

By Julia Rosen

We are back from the long holiday weekend and had a short day today, with Judge Walker adjourning early to deal with some other business.

Today Brian Leubitz liveblogged the morning, with Rick Jacobs taking over the duties for the afternoon.

Thanks to everyone who introduced themselves this morning in the welcome thread that now has more than 300 400 comments. Our Trial Trackers are amazing. The stories you have been sharing have been painful and inspiring to read.

We are now over 700,000 views, 5,000 comments and 80 blog posts in a week and a half. Just incredible.

The daily summary is below. All of the livebloggers today seemed to think that the defendants were hurting themselves with their line of questioning on the statistics during the cross-exams this afternoon. What do you think? How did the day go?


Had the trial begun today rather than last Monday, the anti-science folks on the other side would have said that the rain meant that the elements were conspiring against the gays because last week we began with the vigil under clear, crisp skies.

We begin today at 0830. Brian Leubitz is taking it from here. I’m in the room, but not doing the live blog right now.

Boutrous: Proponents filed a motion to expand the core groups for discovery so that it would now reach to Massachusetts. We have opposed. Proponents are withholding documents until the group is expanded. We object. We also want to open depo with Prentice (ED Protect Marriage) since we got 20,000 pages. We would like to reopen depo. Some of documents cast doubt on his prior claims that he had no connections to various groups. We’d like to have Magistrate Judge Spiro open depo.

Judge: First part is doc 474 re: John Doe and TV commercial. And there is a motion challenging Mag. Judge general discovery order. I am ready to rule on the latter order. Have you had opportunity to reply to query re: doc 474? I’ll look at that and either decide myself or refer to Spiro.

Two matters, then. Prentice depo and 474.

Cooper: I’ll reply by tomorrow.

Judge: First witness?

Herrera: Mayor Jerry Sanders of SD.

8:45 by Brian Leubitz: SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera calls San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders

Judge: You need to review Mr. Flynn’s deposition, he needs to learn proper objection form

Jerry Sanders: States Name:

H: You are mayor of San Diego. You are Republican. What term are you in? Description of career:

Yes. I am a Republican in my second term. Before becoming mayor I signed up as a recruit in the San Diego PD. I rose through the ranks of the SDPD. In 1986, promoted to captain, and commander in 1990. Command of half of the city and in charge of Internal Affairs. He was promoted to Chief of police in 1993 and retired in 1999. Between 1999 and 2005, I was president/CEO of San Diego United Way. He then reconstituted the American Red Cross San Diego Chapter.

H: Are you gay/married?

S: Not gay, am married. I have two daughters. One daughter is straight the other is lesbian.

What was your relationship with the older daughter, Lisa.

S: Lisa was basically my shadow. We had a very close relationship. We were pretty much inseperable on the weekends.

How did you learn Lisa was a lesbian.

Lisa called me in her sophomore year in college, and said that she wanted to talk to wife and I. She told us that she was a lesbian, and in a lesbian relationship.


I felt overwhelming love. I understood how difficult it was for her. I told her that we loved her more than ever. I would support her. I told her that it was very tough on gay people in society.

I was concerned because I seen what had happened to people who were openly gay. I saw a sargeant who came out in the 1970s who was driven out of the police department. I have seen violence against the gay community simply because they were gay. We had a series of gay bashings in San Diego. I had heard the slurs and the comments that people made.

Herrera: Did you take a position in your first campaign on marriage equality?

Sanders: I took a position that domestic partnership was a fair alternative. I took the position because San Diego was in a tough spot. I thought civil unions were fair.

H: Did you change your position?

S: I changed my position in September 2007. The city council passed a resolution on behalf of the City of San Diego to file an amicus on behalf of marriage equality in San Francisco’s marriage case.

H: Did you make an announcement at that time? And was it widely available?

S: Yes, I did. I believe it was on YouTube.

The Court plays this video:]


Cooper: Points to two-page table of statistics for each state. Stats for CA total column is 84,397 same sex couples, number used in your expert report. Across row unmarried 60,994. Then we see 18,000 legal same sex marriages, which is estimate you all made. Different between census number (which is 84,397-60,994) vs. yours, but that’s just different methodology?

B: Yes.

C: Now you use same sex marriage rates in Massachusetts are predictor for CA.

B. Yes, I’d think it would be reliable predictor.

C: But Mass does not have DP; it only has marriage or cohabitation.

B: Some might have gotten DP in Vermont.

C: In California, couples can choose between marriage and DP?

B: Yes, unless legislature acts.

C: But that would require legislature to ac?

B: Other states did eliminate DP when they got marriage.

C: But CA had both for a time?

B: Yes.

C: Reads from B’s depo. “Some of benefits of marriage might differ slightly across other states. Other difference is that they’d have choice in CA of DP or marriage.”

B: Yes, that’s what I said.

C: If Mass allowed DP, some would have chosen DP just as they do in Netherlands and did in CA? If that premise is accurate shouldn’t your 64% of same sex couples who married in Mass be reduced?

B: I don’t think so. In the six months that ss marriage legal in CA, 27% of ss couples married, so for a year it would be about the same as Mass (i.e., 54%).

C: Also some disincentives for ss couples to marry in CA that they don’t have in Mass?

B: Not aware of any.

C: Refers to Marriage Registration and Dissolution by SS Couples in US, a document you participated in preparing in July, 2008, page 13. Shows that there was decline in average monthly license of marriage or DP.

B: Hard to deal with California because the law changed so many times.

C: AB 205 extended quite extensively the rights of DPs to equalize with marriage.

B: That appears to have been the case.

C: Looks at dissolutions of legalized ss relationships. 2004 number spiked from 733 in 2003 to a much larger number in 2004 of 2,413 (ch) dissolutions. So not only did new registrations decline after AB 205 (which would have extended obligations of marriage, i.e., taxes), but dissolutions spiked in anticipation of enactment?

B: Could be.

C: Makes point that AB 205 brought about decline in registrations and spike in dissolutions (before enacted). He’s trying to show that gay people don’t want “permanent” relationships.

B: Enormous confusion among some couples about tax and community property issues. Journalists talked to many individuals who said their relationships were not ending, but they had not idea of what tax consequences would be and their attorneys and tax advisors said to dissolve. No one knew what DPs in California would mean, since this version (California’s) was unique.

[Brian Leubitz makes the excellent point that DP had state tax consequences, but unknown federal consequences, because federal law does not allow for DPs (or same sex marriage, thanks to DOMA). So this all might result in a gift tax.]

C: Makes point that Mass is not one of the nine community property states.

C: Talking about uncovered same sex partners who are not covered by employer benefits. According to survey, 70% of all CA employers offer coverage to employees; 30% offer none.

B: Yes and all 70% do offer family coverage (according to CA Wellness Foundation).

C: But only 70% offer coverage.

B: I took that into account in my data.

C: Employers rarely pay for all coverage. Significant portion employees pay: $3,000 vs. $10,000 paid by employer. Did you account for that in your analysis?

B: (looking at report) No, I did not.

C: Not all employees are eligible for coverage by employer?

B: Correct.

C: You say 79% are eligible for coverage, but only 79%. 20% are not eligible at all?

B: Correct.

C: Not all of those eligible take it up, which makes sense since premiums high. Net effect is that only 65% of all employees are covered by their employers in California.

B: Correct.

[This is still going to go for a while. He’s trying to show that her conclusions are based on flawed data.]

[UPDATE] 2:33

C: You estimated some 51,320 same sex couples would marry based on your own data that do not match up the discrepancies discussed above (changes in the way the census does its same sex household calculations).

14,384 + 3,746=18,130 (her estimate for in-state vs. out of state couples respectively that married in CA). I can’t get those numbers to sum. They are close, but not exact.

Judge: Perhaps there’s an explanation. Perhaps you could ask her.

B: Looks like a typo.

C: Shows that there are only 27,000 or so couples that might marry in California, substantially lower than the number you estimated?

B: Doesn’t matter. Our methodology yields more than 51,000 will marry. It might take a few months or year to get to the number. Still, hundreds of millions of dollars would be lost by California.

C: Doesn’t really matter what number you use, does it?

B: Well, it’s not exact, but we know it will cost California hundreds of millions.

C: You site NC, Arizona, NV, Oregon, NM (and others) as high California tourism states and you conclude that (a large number of) same sex couples will come to CA to get married from these states, but they are from those inflated numbers?

B: They are from those numbers, yes.

C: Have you deducted the number that have already gone to IA, NH, Mass, CT to get married?

B: No. We tried to estimate of the roughly 3,400 couples who came from other states to marry were from those other states, so we subtracted them from our estimates?

C: But would you have to deduct the number of couples that will marry in those states that will marry in other states before California by whatever means enables ss marriage?

B: Did not.

C: One would not expect many of those couples in other states to wait for CA to allow marriage to marry here?

B: No. It will be a loss to CA no matter what. If it takes 4-5 years for CA to pass marriage, it will cost CA and its municipalities a lot of money.

Judge: (Smiling and irritated) Shall we move onto another subject?

C: Says you use highly pessimistic study to show that 28,000 would come to CA to marry, that the first state to offer marriage would have a big advantage. Did you ever revisit after the laws changed for DP, etc.?

B: Not sure why, but relatively few out of state couples have registered their DPs in CA (even though we were first). Dampening of demand because other states instituted similar types of statuses and shortly after we published this in May 2003, a few months after that, Mass Supreme Judicial Court allowed marriage there which may well have dampened interest in something less than marriage.

Roughly 5% of registered DPs have addresses outside of CA.

C: Average of 472 DPs registered since 2005, which is roughly 17,000 or so, which is a little on the high side. 5% of that figure is about 8%, which is quite a bit lower than your pessimistic scenario.

B: Depends upon what numbers you look at. We made the point that there was great uncertainty.

[Judge Walker looks somewhat bored. The point Cooper is making over and over again is the same point that Badgett is making: lots of factors created lots of changes. It’s actually the same argument that I heard the President of the Chamber of Commerce make this morning about the economy: if business does not have a clear understanding of government policy and union activity, it will not do well. So it’s okay for businesses to say they need stability in the law, but apparently it’s irrelevant for people in love who want to marry to have some stability. This seems like water torture. If we can marry, this problem is gone and nothing bad will happen. The rest, as the rabbis say, is commentary.]

[UPDATE] 2:46

C: Tries to get B to engage a hypothetical exercise.

B: You started in that hypothetical that is too low and I think if you multiply it by 3 it’s even lower.

C: Is the number 32,000 (ss couples who would come to Mass to marry) still accurate?

B: I doubt it. After Mass, NH, Vermont, CT, Iowa all started to allow marry so Mass may have lost some out of state marriages.

C: Do you support same sex marriage?

B: Yes, I do think it’s good for some people and won’t hurt anyone.

C: Do you know of anyone who would change their opinion on ss marriage because it would save the state money?

B: I don’t know.

C: Do you know of anyone who would change their opinion if it costs the state money?

B: I don’t know anyone who thinks that?

C: Shows voter guide that shows fiscal effect of Prop. 8 is negligible. Is that accurate?

B: No.

C: Do you think voters were entitled to rely on this?

B: No.

C: Good time for a break. It might allow us to tighten up the cross.

Judge: That’s an offer I can hardly refuse.

[Break at 2:40 for ten minutes.]

[So here’s the deal. Cooper is making up numbers and asking Badgett to then agree or disagree that his made up numbers are higher or lower than hers. And then he tries to say that there is change, but he does not allow her to include changes in the law in her estimates. He’s just trying to throw up a bunch of dust to impugn her. I don’t think it works. Let’s see what happens when he comes back and in the redirect by Boies.]

[UPDATE] 3:20

We are back for more.

[Cooper directs her to a page in her deposition book, which she had put away, but now she had to take it back out again. These are three-inch binders, huge black three hole affairs and there are dozens of them at various times.]

C: Reads from a report she wrote. “Data from Netherlands, the first country to allow ss marriage,” suggests that hetero couple marriage trends do not change. (Here we go again with the Netherlands.) (Putting up a slide of stats that attempts to display the marriages per 1,000 inhabitants in the Netherlands from 1994-2008).

Shows 5.4 to 5.1 per 1,000 1994-2000. Then goes from 5.1 to 4.6 marriages per 1,00 from 2001 to 2008. Shows another chart that they have calculated to show average yearly increase in the rate of marriage form 1994-2000 by .02% (which is, by any measure, statistically insignificant.) Then show average yearly change in rate of marriage of .007% from 2001-2008. This is a 450% decrease from the previous period.

[Okay, he’s right but it is all a rounding error!]

Cooper: Clear that marriage rate has declined significantly?

Objection: [hard to hear, but says it was a long question.]

Judge: Well, it was a long question, I’m much more sympathetic to that.

C: It is clear…

Judge: How about asking “if” it has declined significantly?

B: It has not declined significantly.

C: (Shows another graph that shows numbers of unmarried couples with children in Netherlands from 99,610 in 1994 to 314,566 in 2008.) The numbers have steeply increased. Is that accurate?

B: This is same chart you showed before, although 1994 makes sense to start it out if that is earliest date of numbers. But if you look at that chart, no one in this room would be able to tell you when ss marriage passed (because the graph is a 45 degree angle and does not change at all in 2000 when ss marriage passed.)

C: Another chart that shows “rate of growth of families without children” has increased since 1994.

B: Again, it looks perfectly straight. “No one could look at this and see that anything significant happened in 2000.”

C: Shows graphs that show that average yearly rate of couples unmarried with kids increased by POINT 18 (eighteen basis points for you in finance) to POINT 21 percent from 2000-2008. Says it’s a 17% increase in rate of change post-same sex marriage.

B: Hard to see that.

[Cooper shows more and more of these that show miniscule changes. In this case he’s dealing with point 032%. That’s right, 3 basis points. Bond dealers don’t even that excited about these point shavings.]

B: Doesn’t make any sense to me. 5.6% in 1994 and 6.4% in 2008 and call that a 150% increase does not make any sense to me.

C: (Stumbling) That’s the change in the annual growth rate. (Pfifer: Figures Never Lie; Figurers do.)

[I know I’m biased, but this is really undermining Prop. 8’s case. They are using bizarrely drawn sets of data to derive bizarrely derived conclusions. Badgett summarized it all when she said that a change from 5.6% to 6.4% is by no means a 150% increase. This is just literally ridiculous, grasping at statistical toothpicks.]

Judge: Are we done with the big binder?

C: Well there are a few more demonstratives (charts).

[UPDATE] 3:33

C: Reads a bunch of statements from B’s book that suggest that we should go slow, including comments that some in the gay community that we should go slower so as not to engender backlash, that some on the right feel that the “judicial activists” have foisted their opinions on unwilling citizens.

B: I don’t agree with these statements. I wrote them in the introduction so that I could address them. I think the progress has been quite measured.

(Boies on redirect.)

Boies: Are their difficulties in measuring racial and ethnic differences in surveys?

B: Not so much.

Boies: Put up same chart that C used to show data about the change in marriage from 1994 to 2008? Accurate?

B: No.

Boies: Let’s put up your chart.

B: Shows very clear long term trend from 1960 that shows clear long-term downward trend in marriage rates.

Boies: Shows that 1994 or 1995 was low point between two higher areas. If C had picked a date before 1994 or after 1995, the data would be quite different?

B: Yes, they would be quite different.

Boies: Defense expert: In the Netherlands the total number of heterosexual marriages has slowly fallen since ss marriage passed. No doubt part of a secular trend.” Defense expert then withdrew because he said that it’s a secular trend.

B: Yes.

Boies: 9% marriage rates in 1960, dropping to 4.5% in 2008. Is rate any different after ss marriage passed?

B: No. When you look at data from 1960, you see that there has been no real change in the rate of decline of marriage.

[Brian Leubitz has the slides and is putting them up! You’ll see the nonsense in living Internet.]

[Final update of Day 6]

Boies: You said that better than looking at Netherlands for effects of ss marriage in US is to look at other US states.

B: Yes.

Boies: Massachusetts shows a pretty steady decline of marriage from 2000-2007. Chart shows that marriage rate actually increased after May 17 2004 when ss couples could marry. And Mass rate of decline in marriage is lower than nation.

B: Divorce rate has actually declined since passage of marriage in Mass at a greater rate than in the US, where divorce rates also have declined since 2000.

[This is all hard to read, but the point is that Boies shows that divorce rates in the US have decreased since the passage of marriage and decreased even more in Massachusetts. In short, Mr. Cooper just pulled data right out of his ass to prove whatever point he wanted to prove.]

B: Chart shows that 18,000 married in five or six months of marriage in CA, but only 2,000 or so got DPs.

B: Chart shows that in the first year DP was allowed, 5% of ss couples chose it. In first year marriage allowed in US, 21% chose marriage. Clear that overwhelmingly greater number of ss couples choose marriage.

B: Reads again from report that reiterates point we have heard over and over that registered partnership in Netherlands is not as meaningful as marriage. Shows that individuals not only see marriage as more valuable than alternative status, but alternative status itself is devalued because it sends the message that it is devalued.

Boies: Shows Cooper’s chart that purports to show a 150% increase in rate of couples living outside of married with children, even though it’s a tiny number.

Boies: Look at rate of change from 1997-2001, see increase of 34,000 who are unmarried with children. In the period after 2002, is there any period that had a comparable increase?

B: I don’t see any that come close to that number.

Boies: For example from 2002-2004, about 17,000 and they get smaller after that?

B: Yes. It’s a straight line. It’s about as straight a line as you’ll ever see in statistical studies of population.

Boies: Does this show any proof whatsoever that there was an increase in rates after “gay marriage” was legal?

B: No.

Boies: After 2002, is there any year in which rate of increase of unmarried couples with children approaches rate of increase was greater than form 1999-2000?

B: No.

Boies: Did any of Mr. Cooper’s questions go to whether gay and lesbian couples can be substantially hurt by being denied marriage?

B: No. I have not changed my opinion.

Boies: Did he show you anything that children of gay and lesbian couples would be hurt by parents being allowed to marry?

B: No. He never mentioned it.

B: I’ve seen no evidence that would suggest there is any harm.


Judge: Regrettably, we have to adjourn. I have a judge’s meeting at which I must preside. Sorry to disappoint the lawyers.

Resume tomorrow at 8:30.

Quick conclusion:

Prop. 8 not only does not like science, but they flim flam math. The numbers that they used undercut their case. When someone shows you cherry-picked statistics and then uses fake math to justify them — i.e., that the rate of increase derived by averaging silly numbers equals 150%, when as Prof. Badgett points out the actual numbers are 5.6%, increasing to 6.4% — everyone sees the game being played.

Dave Dayen over at FDL came over to Brian Leubitz and me after the proceedings ended and said, “are they trying to lose?” It’s not a throw away. Maybe they want to lose so that they can show that the court is overruling the people so that they can raise more money to hurt more people and elect more nuts. In some ways, today was more unsettling than many days last week, because today we saw their lead lawyer, Mr. Cooper, parsing numbers in an embarrassing fashion.

I’m guessing that Mr. Cooper believed in this presentation. If he did, this is indeed very upsetting.

An investment banker friend of mine visiting from Russia a few years ago said that from a distance he thought the US was more unstable than any other big country. I asked why. He said that from his perspective, he sees us fighting at a very shrill level over less than essential matters. In other words, it’s not as if we are fighting over capitalism vs. Bolshevism. I get his point. But the fact of the matter here is that I do think we are fighting for the essence of democracy and liberty.

The right of individuals to live as equals in this country is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Yet, we have religious extremists fostering dogmatic politics. This trial is a window into the soul of America. Gay or straight, conservative or liberal, does America believe in equality? That’s what’s on trial. And the outcome will go a long way toward answering my Russian friend’s questions.

One other point. I’ve had the chance to read some of the comments. Julia’s excellent post has highlighted what we’ve been seeing. You are fast becoming a community. It’s our job collectively to insure that this trial tracker community stays together and grows, but that this movement grows horizontally. The holy grail for the Courage Campaign and any online organizing entity that’s worth its salt, is to build communication from the many to the many. Put simply, we can send emails from those of us here who work for you and we must do that. But everything we do has to be about empowering you. Each of you. And each of you, to the extent you choose, can then empower others by telling your story.

That’s the elegant beauty of a movement. And we’re part of one that I first saw when Howard Dean was propelled to prominence in 2003. Remember that his early support and money were from the LGBT community, because in 2000, he had been the first governor in the country to institute civil unions. But then his voice against the war and for the people rang true. Millions followed and eventually that movement put Obama into the White House.

Thanks for leading, each of you, every single day.

Oh, one last thought. Early this morning as I was standing up to get off the airplane from LA to SF, two young women seated in the middle and window seats looked at me. One said, “Are you Rick Jacobs?” Well, I was stunned. I was so taken aback that I did not even have the presence of mind to ask their names. They had been in LA to visit the parents of one of the partners (maybe they are married?). The woman who began the conversation said, “We read the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Thanks for doing it.” I was speechless. And I still sort of am.

This is really yours. It’s your trial. It’s your blog. It’s your movement. Don’t ever, ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

See you in the morning.


Tags: , , , , ,


  • 1. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    I literally have been glued to this site since it first went up. Thank you all so much for getting this out to all of us. You are each doing such an amazing job.

  • 2. Clayton Bosler  |  January 19, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    Brian's question, and your take on a possible justification is most disconcerting, and has the ring of truth to it. These folks recognize that they're holding a losing hand and that the only way to win is to completely change the game. Their hope lies in some sort of major, public uprising to carry the day. The volume of the tea baggers, the defeat of Coakley, the rampant right-wing discontent with Obama perhaps suggests that they can parlay a loss in court to a big win with their constituency. Ugly prospects!

    Meanwhile, keep up the excellent work and coverage. We are indeed fighting for freedom and justice for all!

  • 3. Desert Verdin  |  January 19, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Thanks to everyone for all your hard work keeping us so well-informed on the trial.

  • 4. G  |  January 19, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    I went to Christian school for five…maybe five years. None of them were ever afraid to pass judgement on me then, in fact, I'm sure many of them still do. A few months ago I could have cared less–until now, since they're so afraid of discrimination and retaliation. Now I'm just curious as to what happened to the God fearing man that was to stand up for his beliefs in the face of retaliation and discrimination.

    They're afraid I might steal their sign again and let their kids shout faggot as I walk by…and I'd gladly participate.

  • 5. Catherine Ferrara-Ha  |  January 19, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    "The right of individuals to live as equals in this country is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Yet, we have religious extremists fostering dogmatic politics. This trial is a window into the soul of America. Gay or straight, conservative or liberal, does America believe in equality? That’s what’s on trial."

    – Rick Jacobs

    You said it all right there. I, too, am glued to these proceedings thanks to you and the others making it available.

    A thousand blessings on your work and may billions of hearts open and minds embrace equality and justice.

  • 6. Karen  |  January 19, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    Boy, oh boy, I wish I could be there to watch the trial unfold. But since I can't, this tracker is certainly the next best thing.

    I don't know which scenario I fear more: the possibility that the Yes on 8 folks would be happy to lose this trial to gain social traction, or the possibility that they actually believe what they are saying.

  • 7. Josh  |  January 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Great job today, guys!

    Just in case anyone here has also been following the 'Protect Marriage' coverage, they've finally put up their recap of today's proceedings.

    …the witness had to admit that, since the legalization of same-sex marriage in that country, there has been an increase in the rate of children born out of wedlock and the number of single-parent families, and that the rate of opposite-sex marriage has declined. On re-direct questioning by plaintiff lawyer David Boies, the witness testified that these trends were in place before same-sex marriage was legalized.

    I was especially looking forward to how the spun or glossed over this afternoon's testimony, and I'm really surprised they even admitted to that last part. I didn't figure on that being addressed at all. And then:

    The afternoon’s take away: the impact of same-sex marriage is an evolving social experiment and it is fully within reason for Californians to retain the traditional definition of marriage while the Netherlands—and any other state in our nation – throw the deck of cards in the air and see where they land. Californians are well within their right to choose not to be the guinea pigs for this social experiment.

  • 8. Jeb  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    Please keep posting the best transcripts your fingers can type! This really is the trial of the century and you are creating a fantastic record of it.

  • 9. Linda  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    Rick, I agree…we have become a Community, and this may be the best outcome of this whole thing. We are united and communicating and sharing stories, our lives, our emotions. We have created a network; well, YOU have created a network, and we are now empowered. We have 'family' here. Thank you!

  • 10. Callie  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    “The right of individuals to live as equals in this country is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Yet, we have religious extremists fostering dogmatic politics. This trial is a window into the soul of America. Gay or straight, conservative or liberal, does America believe in equality? That’s what’s on trial.”

    – Rick Jacobs

    This…right here, says it all. Hope you don't mind, Rick, but this is becoming my new FB status!!!

    Keep up the great work! You all must be EXHAUSTED!

  • 11. jimig  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    As the child of a same sex relationship I strongly believe the results and testimonies being given in support of raising healthy children. As a pastor I worry that they will attempt to validate there false beliefs and will regardless of strong research believe the lies that driven by hatred. I am very curious if they bring forth evidence that marriage is for procreation only (Like I said thats easy then only pregnant peopel should get married). There is a great reseach piece by the Barna group on faith and divorce it is worth a quick read. The Barna Group is one of the few religious groups that do solid reseach and then print the truth even if it hurts, it gives a breakdown on divorse rates withing religious groups including baptiust evangical and yes the Mormons.

  • 12. Shun  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    For those that don't know, just to note that a group of actors will reenact the trial on youtube.

  • 13. Shun  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    And here's an article on what Judge Walker is like

  • 14. Santa Barbara Mom  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    I, too, have been glued to this website! And it has evoked a variety of emotions: I have laughed at the Defense attorneys, I have been touched by the testimony of the plaintiffs, and I have felt heartache in reading the comments. The heartache comes in reading how many of you have thrown in the towel on religion or who no longer acknowledge God. I am a mother of 5 children, ages 22-33. My desire for marriage equality is as strong as my testimony of God and Jesus Christ………….and for the record, I am a Mormon and am very active in the church. I testify to you that God loves everyone unconditionally. He created each one of us, he knows our challenges and feels our pain. Please do not allow common people to convince you otherwise. Ignorance breeds fear, and I am so sorry this trial can't be televised. People like Wm. Tam go against ALL teachings of Christ and are in for a rude awakening the day they have their personal interview with God. For God's greatest commandment is that we love one another, even as He has loved us. Kudos to "jstuart" from yesterday's comments, who stepped down from Deacon in his church and still attends because he wants to set a good example…………he has the vision. I love my "eternal family" and my gay son completes it. I don't know why a former blogger would have been excommunicated for being gay, as we have gay people attending our churches. For those who have chosen to believe in evolution, you might like reading "Earth, In the Beginning" by Eric Skousen. He states, "When science and revelation are both properly explored and understood, they will not contradict each other". I have to wonder what would happen if the prop 8 opponents chose a new response to the attacks of the prop 8 people: ie "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do". It's a positve and empowering response, and would most likely send them into a complete tailspin! We need to be the example and not play into their tactics. Know you are all loved :) And thanks to Rick, et al for doing a terrific service to many people.

  • 15. Shun  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    > 12

    "I have to wonder what would happen if the prop 8 opponents chose a new response to the attacks of the prop 8 people: ie “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”. It’s a positve and empowering response, and would most likely send them into a complete tailspin"

    I am sorry but that would be a TERRIBLE thing to do in court.

  • 16. Santa Barbara Mom  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Sorry, I definitely didn't mean in court! My point was that throwing daggers back and forth doesn't resolve anything, esp when the media thrives on dirt.

  • 17. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    Hey everyone while the reenactment has yet to be uploaded if you take this link you can see pictures and names of the people that we are reading about. Also it has the Proh8ers Witnesses:

  • 18. Daniel L  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    The mathematical nit-picking seemed to do more harm than good. In the end I don't think they made any mathematical argument.

    In one article (I think San Jose Mercury News) the journalist wrote that both sides were trying to spin the numbers. I'm assuming Judge Walker is better at math than that journalist.

    My concern is how much weight personal testimony from Sanders, Zia etc actually will hold. Worse case scenario is none or close to none

  • 19. Gabriel Flores  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    I have been reading each of your LiveBlogging posts since the start of the trial. I have read each line and really appreciate the play-by-play detail you've been providing. This has offered remarkable coverage!

    I am hoping that we ultimately win this case. I live in London and am fortunate to have an amazing partner Marcel, who is from Hungary. I am hoping that through the efforts of Olson/Boies & Co., Marcel & I will be able to marry in the USA. We can get married in the EU, but I would very much like to be married in my home country (and Marcel is a BIG fan of the USA and wants to live there someday)!

    Reading the testimony, I re-connected with my own struggles as a gay man. This trial has brought about an increased awareness and appreciation for who I am – and of how strong we all have been – to rise above the day-to-day self-doubts and struggles to live productive lives that contribue to society.

    Whilst I believe that the African-Americans' struggle through the Civil Rights era was truly a horrible time – they were never made to deny who they really were. They could not hide their identity – but in not hiding it – they didn't have the loneliness and dispair that comes with denying your true identity. Our struggles are not worse, but they are not easier. They are not comparable – but they are equally noble – a people committed to be their full self – to express their contribution to the world in the fullest way possible.

    We have a long way to go to have equality in America not just in policy – but in hearts and minds. But the future is bright and I am confident with time, the consciousness and awareness of our country will rise to new levels, bringing out the best in all people.

  • 20. Alan McCornick  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    You guys are my heroes. Big time. Can't tell you how important you are to counteracting the loss of coverage on YouTube. You are a ray of sunshine.

  • 21. Susan R Barnes  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    I agree with Alan. You guys are big time heroes. Bigger than the sun!

  • 22. rpx  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    As the trial progresses we start following the garden path and slowly come to actually believe that the judge might rule in favor of the Plaintiffs. But now I feel myself pulling back emotionally.

    Yeah right we might win in SF but what happens, how will I feel if we loose higher up. As winning comes closer I become more and more afraid of believing in an ultimate repeal because I don't want to feel the pain of being crushed after my hopes have been built up. Am I alone in feeling this way?

    If is does go to SCOUS there better be the biggest march on Washington this country has ever seen. I was a child during the civil rights movement of the 60's and we were at a convention my father attended every year which was in DC when Resurection City was built. I'll never forget seeing people of color living on the mall under sticks with plastic roofs for rain protection. It is a sight that sears into your heart and you never forget it. I remember the civil rights march on Washington and how it changed the national conscienceness (spelling there prolly lol).

    If and when it goes to SCOUS there better be the biggest march on Washinton this country has ever seen. GLBT people better show up with all their family and friends and camp out and not go away. The only way to get your civil rights is to demand it en mass, and that means all of us. GLBT may only account for 2% to 3% of the population however everyone of you comes from a family and that means bigger numbers of people.

  • 23. rpx  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    Bitterly disapointed in Leonard Pitts Jr. I have enjoyed reading Mr. Pitts commentary for many years, he is syndicated columnist and writes out of the Miami Herald. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commetary, you may recall his column writen after 911.

    He just last week received the 2009 columnist award from GLADD. I think he did deserve it as he has consistantly written about the civil rights of GLBT being trampled on. Now I am beginning to doubt him, I wonder if he shouldnt' turn back in his award. Where is Mr Pitts now??? MIA. He hasn't written one single word about this trial, not one. He live chats on Wednesdays from 1 – 2 pm and there is a feature where you can send in your questions in advance. I submitted 2 questions to him about this trial and gave links back to Prop8TrialTracker and… drum roll please… nothing. Not only did he not comment on my presubmitted question, the questions didn't even appear on the website :(.

    This is our Brown vs. Board of Education and where is Mr. Pitts? I am disapointed in him as I have written to him on occasion for 6 or 7 years now and ocassionally even get back a reply. But now, on the biggest civil rights trial since Brown vs Board of Education he is MIA. I think GLADD should recind his award. His silence is deafining and his actions (lack of) lead me to doubt his sincerity of Justice For All. When Justice doens't mean "Just Us." Fair weather friend Pitts may be e-mailed at This guy has really disapointed me.

  • 24. M_A,B,Cx2,J,L,ox3 gg  |  January 19, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    I went private school, but I do not remember that we should dicriminate other people base on their sexual orientation. If people are truely committed and love one another why should our society punish them. They are the most passionate, tender and caring people I have observed during my research watching movies. Their are some constrasting views between same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage but the argument from the heterosexual community really do not affect how same sex marriage will affect their procreation processes. This ban is a violations of the 14th ammendment which states that people have the rights for the pursuit of their happiness, life, liberty and equality for all humanity. Supreme Court Justice agrees on this arguments. I hope that the ban of same sex marriage will be lift off because it does not serve any purpose and common sense. They also pay taxes, while exconvicts and other convicted criminals are allowed to get married at the taxpayers expense. Thank you.

  • 25. Alice  |  January 19, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    Thanks for another day of great updates. Like everyone else, I'm glued to this site.

  • 26. Jon Childress  |  January 19, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    One of the best uses of the internet I have yet seen. Thanks for all the hard work! I am glued to this daily.

  • 27. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Shades of the anti-miscegenation laws …

    Do these people even *read* the words they post?

  • 28. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:11 am

    I was kind of mind-boggled by this statement on the Prop 8 site (from their "summary" of yesterday's testimony):

    San Diego Mayor, Jerry Sanders, provided emotional testimony wherein he expressed his feelings behind changing his mind on the issue of civil unions. At the time he previously supported civil unions for homosexual couples, he believed it was “a fair alternative to marriage,” and that he “didn’t communicate hatred and didn’t feel hatred” toward gay and lesbians by supporting civil unions.

    Sanders also conceded on cross examination by Prop 8 defense team attorney Brian Raum that he believes “reasonable people can disagree on the value of civil unions versus same-sex marriage without hostility, animus or hatred” for homosexuals, and that a “good number” of people who voted for Prop 8 likely did so without animus, simply believing in the traditional meaning of marriage.

    Really, that's not what he said at all. Sanders pointed out repeatedly that those beliefs were rooted in prejudice.

    Talk about editing out the realities … wow.

  • 29. Garrett Birkel  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:06 am

    When one's duty is to "god's will", … truth, compassion, and common sense become expendable frivolities.

  • 30. Randy C  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:48 am

    All men are created equal. That means, ALL men are created equal , not just the straight ones. This is THE basic tenet of our government and unless it is practiced in full, we, as a country are hypocrits. Stop hiding behind God people. Have the guts to at least say what YOU think (if you even know what that is)

  • 31. Prop 8 Trial Coverage&hellip  |  January 24, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    […] Day 6 – Day 7 – Day 8 – Day 9 – Week 2 Summary […]

  • 32. ____________  |  March 1, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    Hi there this is somewhat of off topic but I was wondering if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or
    if you have to manually code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding know-how so I wanted to get advice from
    someone with experience. Any help would be greatly

    Feel free to visit my page :: ____________

  • 33. protein concentrate click  |  May 13, 2014 at 8:08 am

    I rarely leave comments, but i did some searching and wound up here Equality On TrialLiveblogging Daily Summary: Day
    6 Equality On Trial. And I actually do have a couple of questions
    for you if you tend not to mind. Is it just me or does it look as if like
    a few of the remarks look like they are written by brain dead visitors?
    😛 And, if you are posting on other online social sites,
    I’d like to keep up with anything fresh you have to post.
    Could you make a list of the complete urls of all your public
    pages like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?

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