Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Liveblogging Day 6: Part I


Tags: , , ,


  • 1. Sean  |  January 19, 2010 at 1:56 am

    can someone please translate that into english please?

  • 2. David Kimble  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:00 am

    Yeah, I'm with you – anybody make any sense of this?

  • 3. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:01 am

    Heh, I was going to say the same thing.

    I understand the thing about the Prentice deposition: The plaintiffs want to revisit a deposition given by Ron Prentice, the vile chairman of and author of the pamphlet that Lamb dissected last week. And since the defendants know that their odious supporters look worse the more visible they are, they want to exclude the deposition.

    "Document 474" and the expansion of discovery to Massachusetts… I don't think we have enough info to understand that?

  • 4. CS  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:05 am

    On Twitter, @AmerEqualRights is explaining it this way: "Attorney Boutrous discussing with Judge Walker defendants' continuing attempts to stop access to documents & witnesses." But I'm sure some lawyers reading this can do a better/more thorough job enlightening us non-lawyers…

  • 5. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:07 am

    I'm sorry, I misread slightly. They don't just want to revisit the existing deposition, they want to reopen the deposition with Prentice, I think, i.e. have him deposed further.

    "Document 474" appears to be something the defendants are withholding from the plaintiffs until/unless they get discovery expanded to Massachusetts. But I don't know why the defendants would want to expand discovery, I don't know what this "document 474" is, and I don't understand how they can just be like, "nanabooboo, we're not complying until we get we want." Clearly there is some subtlety — or many! — that I am missing here…

  • 6. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Back again on unproduktive work due to trial tracking :) good I managed to do a lot of work over weekend and this morning/afternoon.
    hi everyone

  • 7. Alan E.  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:13 am

    This is my taste of liveblogging for the day. I won't be able to follow again until later this evening.

  • 8. DonG  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:14 am

    Glad to have you back, Steffi. Where in Germany are you and what time is it there (it's 9:15 am here).

  • 9. Lymis  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:14 am

    The expanding things to Massachusetts is interesting – if I read correctly, the Prop 8 people want to introduce some evidence coming out of Massachusetts, which is bizarre, because doesn't that open even further the plaintiffs' contention that things have been overwhelmingly positive for gay people and left straight people unaffected?

    Off the top of my head, the only thing I can think of regarding Massachusetts is that the one school taught the children's book where the prince married another prince, over the objection of the parents. One of their big points is that kids will be forced to learn "about homosexuality" in schools, and there is little or no California proof of that.

  • 10. David Kimble  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:15 am


  • 11. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:18 am

    because doesn’t that open even further the plaintiffs’ contention that things have been overwhelmingly positive for gay people and left straight people unaffected?

    Oh! I think you just figured it out, Lymis. I was scratching my head about that too, but now it makes perfect sense: A critical part of the defendants' case is to ensure that LGBT are not given , which would require Prop 8 to pass the "strict scrutiny" test (which it would almost certainly fail). Showing how good gays have it in Massachusetts could be an attempt to prove that they are not likely to be discriminated against. (har har har)

    I bet that's it.

  • 12. Pete  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:18 am

    Thanks for some of the explanations! I was totally in the dark about what the beginning part said!

  • 13. abbe  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:19 am

    but haven't they already introduced that bit about the price/prince marriage? because it was in an ad that the plaintiff showed?

  • 14. GrannieDee  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:19 am

    My first time here, interesting reading. Hoping and praying that Prop 8 is overturned. And, Lymis, how silly is it to not teach about homosexuality? Of course, here in Okieland, it will never happen in schools, but this old straight Grannie will do her best to enlighten her grandchildren!

  • 15. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:20 am

    My favorite line from a NOM ad: "If gay marriage is recognized, our children will be taught a new way of thinking," with ominous music playing in the background, like this is a bad thing.

    If there is one wish I could have for my son, it is that he lives a long happy life in which he is constantly learning new ways of thinking.

  • 16. Patrick Regan  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Good to have you back. I'm also being rather unproductive!

  • 17. David Kimble  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Good for you! You go, GrannieDee!

  • 18. Mark  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:24 am

    God bless Jerry Sanders for being a true and hero and for standing up for what is fair and right! I am deeply touched by his speech!

  • 19. CS  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:25 am

    Hey, everyone: go to and come out/show support for gay rights on their "Contact Us" form! Nothing hurtful, rude, or discriminatory — just drop The Other Side a line showing your humanity and wishing them an enlightened day. Maybe we can flood their inbox with gay cheer.

  • 20. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:27 am

    I'm in the south west of germany right at the three-country border to Switzerland and france. right now it's 6:30 pm so trial will last till about one or two in the morning and I am gonna be glued to the screen till then ;D

  • 21. Patrick Regan  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:28 am

    H: Do Lisa and Meagan plan to have children?
    S: I don’t know, but I’d like that.

    That part got to me. I've managed to keep fairly good composure throughout the whole liveblog, but this part was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

    I felt the love from Sanders from across the country.

  • 22. Rhonnie  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:28 am

    Unfortunately I think a lot of people won't open their minds about important topics such as this unless it "hits home." It is good to see that some people like Mayor Sanders can do so even if it might hurt his politcial career. I believe you have to be true to yourself before you can help others. The youtube video brought tears to my eyes thinking about what he and his family must have been going through… <:o)

  • 23. elizabethloved  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:29 am

    H: Do Lisa and Meagan plan to have children?
    S: I don’t know, but I’d like that.

    As my partner and I have very much kept off the decision to have children (one day, eventually, maybe not in this country…), this just made me beam. I sincerely wish one day my mother would be able to say the same thing about me.

  • 24. Eric  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:29 am

    That or they want to get testimony from those MA parents and other quacks used against No on 1 in Maine.

  • 25. Pati  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Thanks Grannie! :)

  • 26. violet  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:30 am

    James, I think you are right on. Learning to live in a constantly changing world is all about learning new ways of thinking, and the idea that teaching new ways of thinking to children is bad is patently ridiculous. Well, ridiculous unless you're doing your utmost as a parent to keep your children inside the little box of your own religious/racial/economic/ideological community. And the reality is that when kids grow up and leave that box, they almost always discover that there is a whole world outside of it that is full of things they were taught didn't exist, like loving, committed gay families. And often those grown-up kids find that the larger world has a place for them that their parents had denied.

  • 27. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:32 am

    It's possible — but given that even their expert witnesses are getting so ripped up by the plaintiffs' attorneys that the defense has started discarding their own witnesses and trying to limit further deposition, it seems unlikely they'd want to call witnesses that even they know are full of shit.

  • 28. jason  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:33 am

    Thank you Mayor Sanders for being strong enough to follow your heart and your convictions. I hadn't seen the video about the resolution in SD, but was very moved by it.

  • 29. Doug  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Facts vs Myths from

    First line:
    Proposition 8 does not discriminate against gays

    I guess vocabulary is different between gays and straights LOL

  • 30. JC  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:35 am

    Good morning, folks! I think the KQED California Report folks have an explanation for the "expansion to MA" question. Check it out:

  • 31. Callie  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:37 am

    That whole thing about hoping that Lisa and Meagan have children one day just got me. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, and even though Mayor Sanders sounds like a nice guy who has changed his thinking, it sounds kind of like his daughter still keeps her distance.

    I can understand this. My partner's family is very good to me and for a long time (being totally clueless about the situation) had assumed we were already married, but we still didn't tell her family that she was pregnant or that we were even trying until a couple of months into the pregnancy.

    We're just so used to keeping our distance from people and holding ourselves in check that it's second nature to us even when there's probably no reason for it.

  • 32. Alan E.  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:38 am

    Sometimes I wish I had a grandma like you, instead of one that refers to my husband as my "friend." I thought it was a big step when she referred to us as her "grandsons" one day when talking to some acquaintance, but then I realized that it was easier for her to say this than to say her grandson and his husband.

  • 33. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:38 am

    LOL Steffi. We are all glued to this! Nice to be in good company!

  • 34. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:39 am

    I suppose if you want to over-parse the individual words, that's technically true. Proposition 8 restricts marriage to being between a man and a woman, regardless of the sexual orientation of the two parties.

    Of course, from a practical perspective, the discrimination against LGBT is obvious.

    And even from a literal perspective, I have never quite understood how this could be in compliance with the 14th Amendment, even if we assume gays are not protected from discrimination. The law is supposed to apply equally to men and to women, right? So if a man can marry a woman, it seems to me that it is a violation of the 14th Amendment to deny a woman that same right. (and vise-versa, of course) If we are going to get into parsing on that level, then gay rights doesn't even enter into it; it's purely gender discrimination.

  • 35. Callie  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Well, the thought is and I've heard this many times from the anti-gay side, that we can get married…just to someone of the opposite sex. So, it's equal because everyone has a right to marriage.

    My counter-argument…there's nothing "equal" about being able to marry someone you DON'T love.

    I guess that's their definition of marriage. It's sanctified and bless by God as long as you don't love the person and have the church-approved body parts for sex.

  • 36. Michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Nice idea.
    I've written to Protect Marriage and stated my wish for equal rights and equal marriage. No harsh words, no condemnation… just the truth.

    Thanks to all involved in this community!

  • 37. Ozymandias  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Doug this is a classic example of how the Pro-H8 side keeps talking 'at' the LGBT community, instead of 'to' us. No one on the Pro-H8 side ASKED if we felt discriminated against – they just SAID it didn't… even though all the evidence points to the contrary!

  • 38. Liz Wagner  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:44 am

    "The law is supposed to apply equally to men and to women, right? So if a man can marry a woman, it seems to me that it is a violation of the 14th Amendment to deny a woman that same right. (and vise-versa, of course) If we are going to get into parsing on that level, then gay rights doesn’t even enter into it; it’s purely gender discrimination."

    Awesomely good point, James! :)

  • 39. Lymis  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:46 am

    Well, the thing that really ticks me off is that if you scratch even the slightest bit, you find that in every case, what they are objecting to is NOT talking about how gay people have sex or the biological or psychological origins of it.

    They want to make sure that schools are not allowed to admit that gay people even exist. Even though some kids are gay, and some kids have gay parents, and in California, gay people have identified civil rights, the majority doesn't want kids to know we exist.

    How would people react if people were passing referendums based on "Not teaching Judaism is schools" and found out they really meant "not letting schools admit Jews exist – parents should be able to decide when their kids learn other religions exist."

  • 40. Liz  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:46 am

    "We’re just so used to keeping our distance from people and holding ourselves in check that it’s second nature to us even when there’s probably no reason for it."

    And that is why we need to change this law. We're already trained to hide (i do it too). This is long overdue.

  • 41. Mykelb  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:47 am

    It may be the link between NOM and ProtectMarriage because that is the only obvious link that comes to mind at this point. My guess is that they want to show how a national organization is organizing hate against us across the country.

  • 42. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Awesome Doug. Hope you don't mind just shared it on our facebook page that Calvin started:

  • 43. GrannieDee  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:49 am

    You go, Callie! Loveless marriage is something that we fought against in the 60s–but it still rears its ugly head. Goes along with trying to make abused spouses (physical and/or mental) stay in their marriage–for the children. If I ever heard of something outright stupid that's it.

    A child of two loving parents (regardless of gender) is much better off than a child of parents who are constantly fighting–and better than a child of a single parent who is struggling to keep the family fed, clothed and housed.

  • 44. Mykelb  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:49 am

    That leaves the door open for our side to bring in NOM, the Catholic Church and the LDS to show their animus and antagonism in lobbying and campaigning against us in those states as well.

  • 45. Callie  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Just saw a news post that Nepal will be expanding their Constitution to include equal rights for GLBT people.

    Nepal, folks. And the "land of the free" we're dealing with this trial.

    What is wrong with this picture?

  • 46. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:51 am

    Mykelb: It's the defendants that want to expand discovery to Massachusetts, and the plaintiffs (i.e. our side) that opposes it.

    As I speculated below, it may be to try and show how awesome LGBT people have it in Massachusetts, with the implication that gays are not likely to be discriminated against (har har har) and therefore would not qualify for suspect classification.

  • 47. Mykelb  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:51 am

    I think it's a matter of just explaining to kids on their level, when they ask about it. Kids are so curious, they learn things by osmosis. If they see Will and Grace on TV or see Ellen Degeneris, or see their gay coupled neighbors, they are going to ask about those relationships, it's only natural curiousity.

  • 48. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:53 am

    How would people react if…they really meant “not letting schools admit Jews exist – parents should be able to decide when their kids learn other religions exist.”

    Um, I'm pretty sure Texas is already working on that

  • 49. Callie  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:53 am

    I catch myself doing it everyday, Liz. Always stopping to think if "coming out" to someone will do more harm than good, if I want to take the risk, is it worth it for this person to really KNOW me. That's ultimately what this trial is about. The harm that is done to us by feeling forced into fearing for our lives and well-being.

  • 50. Mykelb  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:54 am

    I would love to see Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown called as defense witnesses. They are the worst of the worst because their arguements are what I would call subtle discrimination as they couch their arguments in "It's my opinion…." type of talk with no specific scientific basis for their opinions.

  • 51. Mykelb  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:56 am

    You are quite right. They are coming from the position of religious doctrine and not law. So, they assume that everyone must follow their doctrine. NOT!

  • 52. Lymis  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:57 am

    Both the California and Iowa Courts made the point that it isn't gender discrimination as much as sexual orientation discrimination.

    That's because for heterosexuals, limiting marriage to one man and one woman allows them equally to choose one eligible person out of the pool of people they are emotionally and sexually attracted to.

    Gay and lesbian people, however, even though "the same" rule applies, are prevented by exactly the same rule from choosing ANYONE from among the people that they are emotionally or sexually attracted to.

    If gender is the only thing to hang a legal argument on, then so be it. But it really is not true to say this is gender discrimination. It is, pure and simple, discrimination based entirely on sexual orientation.

    The other reason not to hang it all on gender is that there are plenty of areas (most noticeably restrooms) where separate but equal, or even separate and roughly equivalent are not only supported, but mandated – forcing women to use men's facilities can be rightly seen in some cases as sexual harassment.

    Similarly, if you go only by gender, then gay people are not a minority, just a small percentage of the majority. You are identifying them, not as "gay men" and "lesbian women" but as "men" and "women" – and the test for fairness becomes "are the vast majority of the group in question being treated equally?" Gay and lesbian people become outliers in the majority rather than a discriminated against minority.

  • 53. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:59 am

    I am sure that Maggie and Brian are scared Sh*tless that this is getting out. I would just love to see them torn a new one up on the stand.

    Did you read that they had admitted defeat before the trial even began? Typical "Activist biased Judge" crap.

  • 54. L Jay Gregory  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:59 am

    Philadelphia Inquirer columnist has written a piece called "A conservative's case for same-sex marriage" when reprinted in my local paper this morning. Piece makes the case for Plaintiff attorneys joining together in this issue when they opposed each other in Bush vs. Gore.

    Motivation is the difference in performance when skills and experience are equal (Anybody bet on the Jets?).

    Three cheers for columnist Michael Smerconish and the PI.

  • 55. Kelly  |  January 19, 2010 at 2:59 am

    The speech from Mayor Sanders is beautiful. It is inspiring to see a politician doing what he knows is right, even though it might mean he does not get re-elected. That is a sign of a truly genuine person.

  • 56. Ryan  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Great explanation. Thanks for posting that link.

  • 57. Mykelb  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:00 am

    What is wrong with this picture? Legislation that is backed by tax free Mormon, Catholic and other religious dollars because of the animus toward LGBT by Abrahamic religious traditions being incorporated into our laws. Nepal is Buddhist.

  • 58. Mark  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Wonderful. Keep up the good work. I feel discouraged about the whole thing but I will try and think and pray more positively

  • 59. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Is that the same article from Newsweek??

  • 60. Desert Verdin  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:01 am

    These questions needs to be asked of the defendants:

    "Do you want your straight son to be married to a lesbian? A lesbian who has no interest whatsoever in having an intimate sexual relationship with your son? How do you think your son would feel in that relationship?"

    And of course the flip side: "Do you want your straight daughter to be married to a gay man?"


    And I gotta say, if I were bi, I would be telling the defense to get off my side. (1) Major concern trolling on their part ("Bbbut what about the bis?? Shouldn't they be able to marry one of each??") (2) Being bi != being poly. Duh.

  • 61. David from Sandy Uta  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:04 am

    The Mormon troublemakers at the center of the children's book "controversy" have had then 15 minutes of hate-spewing fame.

    One teacher decided to use one book during one teaching opportunity, and one family raised Holy Hell. Big Fluffy Deal. Time to move on.

    The fear-mongering Mormons and their handlers have used this one isolated incident to "prove" that marriage equality will force children to learn about homosexuality in public schools. (Except for a few totally stooopid people, most individuals realize that teachers, school admin., parents, members of the community, etc., are able to deal with sensitive subjects appropriately without the need to deny our fellow citizens equal protection before the law.)


  • 62. Lymis  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:05 am

    How come whenever they bring up the school field trip to the kid's teacher's wedding (which the parents had the right to pull their kids from) it never gets paired with the question about whether kids should ever be allowed to go to their straight teachers' weddings?

    The school was in San Francisco, for God's sake. It's not like the little dears aren't or won't be around gay people.

  • 63. Mykelb  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:06 am

    Hi James, thanks for the explanation, however, doesn't it open the door for our side to talk about the hate campaigns perpetrated against us by NOM and the Catholic Archdiocese asking for separate collections to lobby against us?

  • 64. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:07 am

    gotta love that the witness they tried to get admit that gays were vandalizing THEIR signs, had the YES on 8 group vandalize HIS sidewalk!! epic fail for the haters.

  • 65. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:09 am

    Well, I think that people can lack hatred, but it is probably grounded in prejudice. I’m saying that the opinion is probably grounded in prejudice.

    This is a point that really needs to be driven home. Even those of us who are progressive about LGBT issues and extremely supportive of the LGBT community may find ourselves harboring hidden "prejudices", even if they aren't based in hate or animosity.

    An example that comes to mind for me is that one night my wife and I were hanging out with a friend and her gay male friend, who we had only just met that night. I didn't realize he was gay, and at one point in the night I made a comment to him — I can't remember exactly what — that was not anti-gay per se, but that clearly presumed that he was straight. He seemed somewhat offended, and stupid me, I couldn't figure out why — until later that night, when my wife remedied my cluelessness. I was of course pretty embarrassed… I of course meant no animosity whatsoever, but it was still presumptive and insensitive on my part.

    Being a straight person in a society that presumes heterosexuality as the norm and that forces LGBT people into the closet, it is nigh impossible, no matter how you feel about the issue, to avoid prejudiced behavior altogether. It's important to realize that just because you don't have hate, doesn't mean you don't sometimes act in prejudiced manner — and to be wary about when you may be unconsciously doing so, and willing to change when you realize it.

    Sanders' change of heart on gay marriage is a perfect example of this. Here was a guy who was politically active in reaching out to the LGBT community, someone whom nobody could possibly accuse of having hate or animosity, and yet it still took him years to understand and let go of a lingering prejudice.

  • 66. Lymis  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:10 am

    This is why they don't want the trial broadcast.

    This tool just basically said:

    "You people are defacing and stealing our signs, so we are fully justified in denying your families, hurting you financially, denying you basic legal protections other citizens, claiming you are out to destroy civilization as we know it, and rewriting the constitution to make it all permanent."

    I mean really. "You saw some defaced signs? So you are opposed to your side using violence?"

  • 67. Derick Logan  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Great point!!!

  • 68. James George  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Heaven forbid that any children of religious families be taught the facts of reality, heck they might lose their religion all together if they really understand science. Hence the attack on science in the class room as well. When your entire philsophy is built in fantasy land, any teaching of any reality is a huge threat.

  • 69. Lymis  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:13 am

    The word you are looking for is either "heteronormative" or "heterosexist."

    The problem is, big words don't fit in headlines, and there is also a lot of knee-jerk "if you are able to use big words to talk about your issues, you can't really be feeling them strongly."

    Besides, "Hate" rhymes with "Prop 8" – who knows what slogans we'd've had if it were numbered differently.

  • 70. Liz  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:13 am

    Agreed, Lymis. The gender point was just a new, interesting perspective i hadn't heard before. Of course it is about sexual orientation discrimination, as you eloquently laid out. :)

  • 71. Billy  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Well, I might move to Costa Rica or Greece, but I am not moving to Kathmandu. But it does put a nice Liberace spin on the Bob Seger song.

  • 72. fiona6  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:15 am

    Great point. And there are easy, age-appropriate ways to answer those questions.

    Someone on FB once asked me, "Well, what if little 5-year-old Johnny tells you he wants to marry his best friend Billy when he grows up?" My response was: "The same as if he said he wanted to marry Janie: marriage is something for grown-ups to worry about, so let's talk about this when you're older. You might change your mind by then."

    I speak as someone who was "engaged" at age 5, LOL.

    BTW, I'm at home sick today so don't know how much I'll be participating. I got out of bed to check office e-mail and see how it's going here.

  • 73. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:16 am

    Sure, I don't disagree with any of that. My point is that the anti-gay marriage folks are damned either way: If you take the narrowest possible meaning of the word "discriminate", as ProtectMarriage is trying to do in making their counter-intuitive argument that Prop 8 does not discriminate against LGBT people, then it becomes a matter of gender discrimination and the law is unconstitutional. If you take the sensible meaning of "discriminate" as most people understand it, then it is a matter of discrimination against LGBT and also unconstitutional (in my opinion, that is; SCOTUS precedent does not necessarily concur)

  • 74. Idan  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:16 am

    This whole argument that civil unions are a fair alternative to marriage sounds a lot like "separate but equal…." Discrimination is discrimantion, irrespective of word choice.

    Also, no one is saying that the church suddenly needs to wake up to the 21st century. But last I checked, this country is supposed to have a separation of church and state. So, let them believe what they will, but they need to stop imposing those views on others. I'm just confused why this point isn't vocalized more. Any point the church tries to makes should immedietly sound off alarms…

    Maybe I'm missing something…

  • 75. Tracy Burt  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:17 am

    I LOVE the mayor of SD. It moves me to listen to him. I feel stronger in myself.y favorite part of his testimony is the repetition of Yes, but it was grounded in prejudice." thank you for blogging this!!!

  • 76. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:17 am

    good Idea :)

  • 77. Mark  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Dear all,

    Please remember that the fight for equality is not a liberal contra conservative one. We are gaining more and more support from the fair-minded conservatives out there.

    I urge you to please read the article that Fox News (I know…) published by Margaret Hoover at:

    and post your appreciative comments! This one article made me totally reconsider my Fox News aversion however the comments that are being posted are to a majority very anti-gay so far, please help me to balance them with fairness and equality!

    Please visit and comment!

    Kind regards from Mark, a conservative and proud Gay man!

  • 78. JPM  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Where's the new thread?

  • 79. Callie  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:19 am

    That's kind of the same argument I get from anti-gay people I know wondering why I rant about gay rights and marriage rights that I sound so "hateful and angry" just because they don't agree with me.

    Oh gee, I can't imagine WHY I would be angry sounding considering you all are constantly attacking my family and my civil rights.

    As if we're not supposed to have a normal, human reaction to this. Oh, that's right, because we're not really human in their eyes. Gotcha!

  • 80. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:20 am

    "H: Have you made decisions out of political fear from the LGBT community?"
    –> had to laugh hard at that! what were they hoping? that he would "in the safety of the court" admit that all he's saying he says only out of fear from the LGBT Community? to justify and stregthen their "we are the victims" statment?

  • 81. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:20 am

    I just got word personally from the L.A. production company filming the trial re-enactments. Tonight they will be uploading FULL re-enactments using the court transcripts and actors. similar to the "michael Jackson" court tv broadcast. The supremes lose this one….now we can watch the trial..albeit through actors instead of the REAL bigots….
    go to youtube tomrrow to watch the FULL trial!!!! wooohooo

  • 82. Ozymandias  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Mayor Sanders' testimony was amazing – as usual, I got pretty choked up reading it.

    "But the night before that video, I invited some LGBT friends over to tell them I was going to veto. I was shocked at the hurt that they showed when I told them."

    This right here is, I think, the actual position of MANY people who supported Prop 8. From their point of view, Civil Unions/DP might sound acceptable, or a 'reasonable compromise' – since their own rights are not at risk, it's easy to externalize the issue. However, it is when these people see, face-to-face, just how much pain their position actually causes to the LGBT community, it would (and has) cause a re-evaluation of their beliefs. This is one reason why, I believe, the Prop-8 organizers have never actually FACED the LGBT community with their claims – it's much easier to recite bullet-point claims when they don't actually have to look in a homosexual's eyes and see the actual truth.

    That's yet another reason why this trial is so very important – and why I'm so thankful this blog (and others) have the ability to report and reveal what is actually going on.

    Kudos guys!

  • 83. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:21 am

    The problem is, big words don’t fit in headlines

    Well, that, and also that one can only go so far in combating "heteronormative" behavior without first fixing some of these other problems. As much as I try to keep on my toes about it, I still catch myself making "heteronormative" comments from time to time. My wife is a big help, as she usually calls me out on it :) But like I say, being a straight person in a society where people are forced to conceal their sexuality, and where heteronormative behavior is, well, normative… it's a real challenge to get it right.

    Gay marriage is a big step towards that. I still find myself, if someone refers to "my husband", assuming the speaker must be a woman. (Reading the comments here has gone a long way to help cure me of that, though! :D) But if gay marriage becomes a normal everyday thing, even people who aren't trying to be as aware of their behavior will be less likely to make that assumption.

  • 84. James George  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Here is what I posted…

    I figure the founding fathers say it better then any of us can in our own words.

    "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
    ~Thomas Jefferson

    "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
    ~Thomas Jefferson

    “That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world”
    ~John Adams

    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

    – Steven Weinberg

  • 85. David from Sandy Uta  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Many people believe NOM to be a front for LDS contributors. Because of the backlash from Prop.8, LDS leaders seem to want to disguise their involvement in anti-equality politics. I would not be surprised if 99 and 44/100 % of the funding for NOM came from LDS sources.

    Surprisingly, LDS leaders recently backed a Salt Lake City ordinance prohibiting job and housing discrimination. One especially loud-mouthed bigot in the state Churchislature came out in favor of similar measures elsewhere (possibly as a means of controlling "the gays" and their agenda) while members of the Bigotry Forum raised their usual hate-mongering objections.

    Until the LDS organization, LDS leaders, and politically active LDS members "repent" of the harm they have done to the GLBTQ community and society as a whole, I will remain a loud and fervent voice of condemnation for their hypocritical, fear-mongering, hate-spewing behavior.

    Sandy UT

  • 86. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:22 am

    Watch the FULL trial starting tomorrow on youtube.

  • 87. Sheryl Carver  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:23 am

    Just saw this comment from "toddcunningham" posted on, article titled "Prop. 8 trial looks at personal, social changes"

    This is part of his post:

    "Heterosexual Supremacists

    Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Ike Skelton, General James Conway, and others get angry when they are called homophobes, so we should show we are gracious and come up with a better way to describe them. I suggest Heterosexual Supremacists.

    It is time to call these people exactly what they are. Heterosexual Supremacists are no different than White Supremacists, save the people they hate. And history will view them as such."

    I love this term! Especially since there are so many folks who do NOT think that they are afraid of LGBTs, just better than we are & more approved by society & their god. So in their minds "phobic" doesn't apply. But maybe "supremacist" might possibly make some of them think. Just a little bit at first until they get used to the idea – don't want to cause them any big brain cramps.

  • 88. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Watch the FULL trial on youtube starting tomorrow!!!!

  • 89. Daniel L  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:24 am

    love how sanders kept ending with "but that would be grounded in prejudice"

  • 90. Helene  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:25 am

    I understood it to be a request for an open deposition – depositions are normally limited to a size/scope, you can't question someone for days. But giving them 20,000 pages in documents will require time to not only go through those documents, but will take time in a deposition. You will have to have the person sworn to give testimony help identify those documents on the record.

    Obviously re-open depo means to be able to depose him again. If they have already deposed him up to the statutory limit of time/scope, they are arguing that the documents shed new light, new things they need to ask him on the record.

  • 91. HeatherR  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:25 am

    Do you have a link to their YouTube channel? Looking forward to seeing this…

  • 92. Doug  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:26 am

    Dieter, do you have details yet on a link to go to? Or the name of the uploader so we can easily find it?

  • 93. Liz  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:27 am

    I was about to comment, but you have to register with FOX News first. Ew. I'll try again later.

    I'm all for conservative views (when they're not hiding bigotry/prejudice), I just really hate FOX. Don't like them having my email address…

  • 94. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:28 am

    Yeah, he must have been aware of the "rational basis" test. It's the right answer.

  • 95. Kaela T.  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:28 am

    This trial tracker has been so helpful, I am glad that there is a way for us to keep tabs on this and enlighten our friends! I wish there were more time for me to be on here and discuss everything, I've already learned so much just from reading the liveblog. :)

    Take care everyone!

  • 96. David from Sandy Uta  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:28 am

    What? How?

  • 97. Helene  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:28 am

    And yes, they are using it as an excuse "oh, until we get clarified all the discovery issues we're not giving you documents…"

    It buys them time to defend against producing documents, it also forces the other side to shoot blind when asking for documents from third parties. Imagine they have documents that show connections or discussions with other groups… that kind of information would lead to more people you want to despose or try to retrieve documents from for trial.

    Sometimes when a party produces documents, information from there leads to a lot of other discovery. That's what they're trying to avoid.

  • 98. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:30 am

    Here is what I wrote:

    Hi I am a straight Woman from Germany and I am very interested in the whole marriage issue.

    I think marriage is an important right and value to uphold. Therfore I strongly hope that soon every person has the same right to marry disregarding their gender, race or sexuality. I think every child should have the right to live in a fully accepted, acknowledged and protected family where it doesn't matter whether their parents are same sex or opposite sex!
    No, as a matter of fact I didn't confuse your side with the side from the courage campain, cause that would simply not be possible I merely wanted to express my hopes that one day soon prejudice will be overcome and all people will be equal under the law as they are equal under god (though some refuse to acknowledge this).
    I wish all of you a wonderful trial and do deeply hope that you'll lose.
    All the best wishes from Germany
    Stefanie Krauth

  • 99. Billy  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:30 am

    I was looking over the Yes on Prop. 8 craptastic "myths" publication and I saw this: "Proposition 8 is supported by a broad range of organizations and individuals, including faith leaders representing virtually every faith in California – and those who subscribe to no faith at all."

    Who are the people who "subscribe to no faith at all," who supported Prop. 8? Are they legally required to be honest in this "myths" thing? Are they actually bragging about including some atheist NAZI organization? I can't think of anything but the far-right white supremecists who would be atheist and support Prop. 8.

  • 100. Helene  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:31 am

    "474" may be its batestamp.

    When one party produces documents, every document is stamped in sequential order to make them easier to identify.

    If they object to producing a particular document, they must describe it sufficiently so everyone knows the document in question.

  • 101. Steffi  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:31 am

    ps. yes I do know that it might be funny for you americans that my familiy name sounds so similar to the nick-name you guys give Germans (the krauts…)

  • 102. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:33 am

    I will be here FIRST thing in the morning with a link for ALL of you!! very excited. Won't know the exact link until the videos get fully uploaded..!!

  • 103. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Heh, I was just thinking about that yesterday…. There are plenty of atheist conservatives (in particular, there is a lot of compatibility between atheist ideals and libertarian ideals, so even though in my experience most atheists — including myself — tend to be liberals, there are quite a few libertarians as well). But all of the conservative atheists I am aware of are pro-gay marriage…… It's really difficult to come up with a justification for banning gay marriage that doesn't evoke religion (and isn't contradicted by mountains of data).

  • 104. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:35 am

    We have an L.A. production company that has been filming re-enactments of the full trial using actors and the full court transcripts. portraying the case..just like the michael jackson trial. uploading tonight. I will provide a link tomorrow morning first thing!!

  • 105. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:35 am

    Oh and BTW most "far-right white supremacists" are (nominally) Christian, as far as I know….

  • 106. Ron  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:36 am

    He's a Republican and has some political views I don't agree with, so I didn't vote for him. But after that testimony, I see Mr. Sanders in a new light. Now I'm kinda okay that he's my mayor.

  • 107. Jason  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:36 am

    I really liked reading this testimony. I think it is very important to have straight men and women stand up in defense of marriage equality. It is one thing when the minority ask for a right, but I believe more people take notice when people from the majority stand out. Opponents cannot say that a straight man is looking out for himself when he asks for marriage equality.

    I am straight and engaged. I grew up rather conservative, in a fairly christian household. After meeting my fiancee, I began to see the error in prejudiced ways. I have turned my attention to explaining the issues to my mother, who has become more and more christian with every year. She asked me once "are you gay?" to which I replied "no". She then asked "then why do you care about gays getting married?" I looked to her and answered "I'm not a woman, but I care for equal rights." She looked like she had an immediate retort, but then paused and looked pensive. Like what I had said had changed her entire world view.

    Since then, she has signed petitions in favor of marriage equality, and I have not heard a single anti-gay word out of her mouth. These are the types of conversations we need to have to change people's opinions.

  • 108. Alice  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:37 am

    I am not sure where, but I believe studies have shown that people with LGBT friends or loved ones are less likely to hold anti-LGBT prejudices. In comments here, people have talked about their views changing once they realised a person close to them was gay. If someone can avoid thinking about LGBT people as individuals rather than a faceless mass, it's easier for them to keep their prejudices.

  • 109. Mark  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:38 am

    You don't have to register with them Liz! You can do FB or Google log in or many other options. It only takes a minute. Please help our cause by proving this is not a Liberal vs. Conservative issue but a Human Rights issue! I love Margaret Hoover and that article has my conservative points on why Gay marriage is the right thing! God bless you Margaret should you be reading this! And Fox News…I am starting to consider you as my source of information again :-)

    Please Liz, post a comment on Fox!

    God bless and best wishes from Mark

  • 110. Liz  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Well done, Jason. Thank you. :)

  • 111. JimB  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:39 am

    he shoots….and he SCORES!

    Excellent descripton. Thank you!

  • 112. Sarah  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:39 am

    Any bets on how long it will take them to send you cease and desist letter?

  • 113. Billy  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:41 am

    LCR's in San Diego: "Yes, there were 4 members."!!!

    Just imagine if they could get all the closeted Republicans to attend?

  • 114. Malmeida  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Hello to all.

    I'm writing from Portugal, and came to this Blog from Andrew Sullivan's "The Daily Dish".

    I am not gay, and (so far) happily married for the past 2 1/2 years.
    Just recently a law was passed in our parliament legalizing same-sex marriage in our country. This law awaits to be signed by the President and published in the Republic Diary to become effective wich should happen in the next few weeks. The passed legislation is similar to the law in effect in our neighbouring Spain with the difference that it keeps same-sex couples from being able to addopt children.

    During the debate leading to the vote on this law several groups came out demanding a referendum on this issue, and one petition was submited to vote and fortunately rejected.

    And of course the churck came out once more with their predictions of doom for our society.

    My personal position on this matter is quite simple. I believe that I have no right to decide how my fellow citizen is allowed to live his life, provided of course his choices don't infringe on my personal rights and freedoms. I believe this should be a core value to any democracy.

    So, unless someone proves to me that because a same-sex couple is allowed to marry, I am somehow harmed in terms of my rights as a citizen, I have absolutely no problem with my goverment recognizing these relationships and even allowing the adoption of children by such families.

    I don't feel tha my marriage is any less meaningfull now than it was a couple of weeks ago before this law as passed.

    I trully wish all the best to everyone involved in this case, and that justice prevails.

    Best regards

    Mário Almeida

  • 115. Katie  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:41 am

    W00t, Sanders pretty much OWNED! This is pretty much the best thread I've read since I started following the blog. The fundies didn't get a decent word in the entire time. =) The redirect almost wasn't even necessary — he really handed it to that clown! This is like watching sports, so great.

    Am I the only one who's really looking forward to see the fundies' "witnesses" crossexamined? Since we all know there is no logical argument on their side, it's going to be grand seeing them try to deal with actually being questioned about their views — by people who won't be distracted by pictures of adorable children playing with dolls in wedding attire. 😉 Highly anticipating Fundies vs Logic over here; I've been waiting for this day for a very long time.

  • 116. Billy  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Thanks Brian and Rick. Great stuff.

  • 117. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:42 am

    I read that they were a plant from the Mormons. Lived in the area long enough to cause all this nonsense and then moved away.

  • 118. familyguy  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:42 am

    We can't fight this battle all ourselves. We need straight allies. Sanders is a good man, and it took incredible courage to do what he did. If I were his lesbian daughter I would be incredibly proud.

  • 119. Callie  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:43 am

    That's wonderful, Jason! And I loved your retort for supporting equality. You don't have to be gay to support our rights.

  • 120. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:43 am

    Yeah I'm looking forward to the defense's witnesses too. The fact that two of them already withdrew because they get ripped to shreds in the deposition portends good things…

  • 121. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:45 am

    Didn't they only do that to combat the huge backlash and media coverage? When they realized a documentary was in the works to expose them they have tried this "olive branch" tactic to dupe the public.

  • 122. mem  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:47 am

    My gay daughter that taught me that knowledge is freedom. Which is the opposite of what we are taught when we attend a church that teaches the fall from grace began with the desire to obtain knowledge.

    She also taught me tolerance. I would not change a single one of her precious chomosones!

    I am proud to be her mother.

  • 123. Callie  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:48 am

    You're a good mother. I sure wish you were mine!

  • 124. Lester Leavitt  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:49 am

    In order to fully grasp Mayor Sanders testimony you had to have been following the issues when he released his video on YouTube as he reversed his decision to veto the amicus brief as passed by his city council. This was a very powerful testimony and Robb didn't gain an inch of ground in his cross-examination.

  • 125. jh  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:49 am

    The message seems to be that the Yes on 8 people, are really nice, and that none of them are homophobic, and that they really really agonized before taking a position against legal equality, but they had to because they are all holders of political office and they all have lesbian daughters. You'd never recognize the rest of this vicious movement by the nicey-nice face they just put on the stand. The people who raised 40 million dollars to overturn gay marriage weren't agonized about it one bit, they did not all have daughters urging them to support Prop 8, and they are not the sort of people you'd put on the stand to establish that there's no animus in the anti-equality movement against homosexuals. This reminds me of the voyage of the St. Louis — where the Germans put all those Jews out to sea with all the proper amenities to prove that no other county would take them. Then, the point made, they sailed them all back to Hamburg, put them in concentration camps, and gassed them.

  • 126. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:51 am

    They CANNOT do that. court transcripts are public record, and it is being performed by actors. there is NOTHING anyone can do legally. they wont even try.
    anybody can do this with ANY case.

  • 127. Tom  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:53 am

    I did the same. Just asked them the question I ask of all folks who say "kids deserve both a mother and a father." If that's true, I ask, how does denying marriage equality increase the number of kids growing up in mother/father homes?

    They don't have an answer for that one.

  • 128. Nicki  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:55 am

    well brace yourself, and yourselves because one of the witnesses today survived a re education camp – where they try to pray and hike the gay away. That i know is gonna get my protective bear , side riled up , i see this sending kids away for this reason to be nothing short of child abuse in the name of religion. hmmm is there a pattern here ?

  • 129. Katie  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:55 am

    This is like every head-desking, face-palming argument I've ever had with them, only in a court forced to follow actual rules and use actual logic, where instead of shrieking "lalala, I can't hear you, so you must be wrong!", the judge will actually listen to all of the above. In other words, it's a dream come true!

    If only they could get Gallagher on the stand. Then I would die a happy woman. 😉

  • 130. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:01 am

    Sheryl hope you don't mind I posted your article link to the facebook page

  • 131. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:03 am

    If you read the article, I suggest you skip the comments section. I made that mistake when I read the article the other day.

    Typical derogatory commentary that we've heard for decades.

    How many times a day do we really need to hear that we are sick? Perverted? Not normal? etc.

  • 132. Jon Evans  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:11 am

    Thank you Mario for taking the time to let us know how equality prevails in democratic societies!

  • 133. Chris  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Good point Abbe. I find the Yes on 8/intervenor legal strategy very amateurish. Withdrawing a party the day before the trial? Didn't they realize how badly he would play beforehand? (Even just from public record docs?)

  • 134. Chris  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:13 am

    Thank you Dee!

  • 135. Chris  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:13 am

    Me too. Tell him on his Facebook fan page!

  • 136. Jon Evans  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:14 am

    Thank you- your support and that of our other Friends and Family is SO VALUABLE- I am not sure if you are aware of how much all of us get goose bumps when we read post's like yours (hoping its okay to speak for the entire community).

  • 137. Billy  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:17 am

    jh, please reread Sanders's testimony. He's no on 8, and was a prosecution (No on 8) witness.

  • 138. Billy  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:20 am

    I thought that white supremecists were christian too, but I think the guy who shot up the holocaust center wrote a whole bunch about being an atheist, and he had some group of atheist white supremecists he belonged to.

  • 139. Billy  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Oops, should have read, "I thought all white supremecists…"

  • 140. Tom  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:23 am

    huh? What's the context of the Chargers/Padres comment?

  • 141. Linda Gray  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:30 am

    Regarding the reenactment on YouTube…if someone files a cease and desist, does the other party have to "cease and desist" until a judge rules on the filing?

  • 142. kerri  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:30 am

    The excerpt below … is from MY wedding to MY wife the 1st grade teacher, in which the students DID NOT, REPEAT NOT ATTEND THE WEDDING CEREMONY! The whole story and lovely gesture, MADE POSSIBLE BY THE PARENTS!!! got blown way out of proportion. Also, the YES on 8 campaign used images of this wonderul day and exploited not only us but also the parents, director and school in a horrible light. The entire campaign changed the hearts and minds in the wrong direction … because THE YES CAMPAIGN EXPLOITED!!!!!! They warped it into what they wanted to convey to voters in order to sway voters into their DECEPTION!

    R: A lesson in political naivete article from San Francisco Chronicle. About first grade class who attended the teacher’s wedding.

    S: Yes, I saw that.

    R: You don’t think it was a good move?

    S: No, it wasn’t portrayed in the best light. It could have hurt the No on 8 Campaign.

  • 143. James Sweet  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:34 am

    No, "cease and desist" is merely formal notice to stop. I'm vague on the legal technicalities (IANAL) but I think a big purpose of the c&d is that it makes it easier to show intent on the part of the infringer, i.e. you can say, "Look, they kept doing it even after we sent them a nasty letter!" It may also be a requirement to bring suit, I'm not sure.

    You are thinking of an "injunction" which has to be issued by a judge. If a judge rules on preliminary evidence that an infringement case has a reasonable chance of success, she will issue an injunction to enforce the cease and desist until the case is concluded.

  • 144. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:35 am

    NO…I can put whatever I want on youtube,so can you, so can the production company that is doing this. they cannot order a cease and desist when court transcripts are PUBLIC information. They cannot tell us we are not allowed to have actors reading a public paper. period.

  • 145. InMA  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:35 am

    For everyone talking about NOM and the links to LDS, check out Fred Karger's site/org. He's done some fantastic investigating on where and how the money is funneled.

    When you lie, you have to cover with more lies (see: NOM's attempt to overturn Maine's laws) and Marc Mutty's admission of misleading the public through television ads (homosexuality being forced upon school kids) that were untrue.

    Kind of like alligators, opponents of same-sex marriage seem to spin and spin their victims and the public until everyone is confused and then they go in for the kill.

  • 146. Dieter M.  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:37 am

    actually if you watched the re-enactments from the Michael Jackson trial…not only did they act out the entire case. they actually also used extreme look-a-likes.

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

    Oh yeah, I forgot about him…

  • 148. Donna G.  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Bless you hun. That is how we'll change the world and make the future. Never say never though. I never thought I'd live to see same sex marriage in my state let alone federally yet I'm getting married to my partner in the fall. I have hope that will be federally recognized in our lifetime. Others drem for so much more than they have while we just dream for what they already have.

  • 149. Bry  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Namely because the parents organized the trip themselves as a surprise. That little fact never seems to make the testimony either and is always convieniently forgotten by the Prop8 side.

  • 150. Rhonnie  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:55 am

    The first thing I thought Jason when she asked you if you weren't gay then "why do you care about gays getting married?" was turning it around and asking her the same question. Your response was great to help her understand. Good job… <;o)

  • 151. Rhonnie  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:57 am

    Hopefully Mario, our US of the Offended, can get over themselves and see the error of their ways. Thanks for sharing. It helps give hope that we too can make our country a better place to live together. <:o)

  • 152. Lymis  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:03 am


    Didn't know it was a new idea for you. It has actually been used before in court – it was the basis of the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court case and decision, and the Hawaii Supreme Court actually ruled based on it.

    Unfortunately, they did so based on the fact that Hawaii, unlike the US, had ratified the Equal Rights Amendment and had strong anti-gender-discrimination language to work with, neither of which are true on the Federal level.

    We definitely need to keep the gender issue alive, but I don't think it will carry the weight it needs at the Federal Level.

    There is far more precedent at the Federal level supporting individual citizens' fundamental right to marry and the more or less absolute right for couples (married or not) to keep the government out of their sex and procreation decisions. I'm pretty sure that's the main focus of this lawsuit. (Along with getting our long-overdue recognition as a suspect class.)

  • 153. Lymis  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:06 am

    They had to include "no faith at all" whether it is remotely true or not – though I'm sure they could dredge up some bigoted atheists if necessary.

    Otherwise, their claim is an exceptionally clear statement that Prop 8 was passed for purely religious reasons, supported purely by religious groups. That so clearly violates the First Amendment that it would all be over but the shouting. It's still transparently obvious that it is highly religiously motivated, but by including "no faith" folks in their literature, they dodge that accusation.

  • 154. Bry  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Nice to hear from the one party that actually matters in that event. It was my understanding always that the parents had brought the kids themselves as a surprise and that there "were" kids there, but that they hadn't been cooerced by the school/you guys/etcnotparentperson.

    I agree, they turned your wedding into something much darker than it should have been, but please remember they won't succeed in their goals. They might have darkened that day but they won't darken your love.

  • 155. Donna  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:08 am

    I love Jerry Sanders!!! What a good man!

  • 156. Lymis  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:11 am

    James, others will disagree, but don't pummel yourself about it overmuch.

    Current estimates hold us at 2-4% of the general population, and social conditions still cause us to clump up in blue states and urban areas, driving our percentages down elsewhere.

    There is nothing wrong with assuming that a random married person is hitched heterosexually. Even passing universal marriage equality isn't going to change that.

    As long as you don't compound it with things like "Really! You don't look gay!" or "So, who's the man and who's the woman in the relationship" or anything else that compounds things, you'll be fine with most of us.

  • 157. Lymis  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:13 am

    It can't be based on full transcripts – there aren't any. This is a bad idea.

  • 158. Lymis  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:21 am

    Too bad about that timing, though. Obviously, for political reasons, you and your wife shouldn't have held your wedding during the run-up to Prop 8.

    You should obviously have waited until after Prop 8 to have your wedding, since that would have been more tactically valid, since obviously, the political considerations were the most important things on your mind when planning the wedding.

    Then you could have gotten married AFTER Prop 8 passed.

    Oh wait……

    Are they paying these guys to be idiots?

  • 159. James  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:21 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.

    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":

    The website for the documentary:

    A You Tube promo for the film:

    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.


  • 160. Matthew S.  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:25 am

    I agree, David. If these narrow-minded parents don't like the idea of children learning about things that affect EVERYONE in the Public, then they should be sending their children to private, religious schools. I could easily sit here and object to the fact that my daughter is exposed to things of Christian origin in public school, but the fact is that she's going to encounter a Christian or two in her lifetime (they positively ABOUND). Get over it. Gays exist and your children are inevitably going to encounter one!

    I've been in SLC for almost 4 years and I can't believe how much influence the LDS Church has on everything– especially the state and local governments. It's corrupt, in my opinion. Separation of church and state? Not in Utah! And it positively cracks me up how the legislators are so quick to say they don't take their marching orders from the Church– but practically every single one of them is a Mormon in good standing. Puh-leaze! Liars and hypocrites ALL! And while I'm ranting… how is it that the Mormon church can get away with encouraging its members to vote for Prop. 8 in the first place? Isn't that legislating from the pulpit? Sounds like somebody should have their tax-exempt status called into question. Grrr!

  • 161. Matthew S.  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:32 am

    I agree. Jerry Sanders is an extremely brave and forthright man. To be a Republican and stand up for marriage equality is no easy thing. The sad thing is, I believe he is not alone. I'm certain that there are a lot of conservatives and Republicans out there that support marriage equality, but they are afraid of taking the stand. If enough of them did, though, imagine the upheaval within the party. It would be glorious!

  • 162. Matthew S.  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:35 am

    These are fantastic!

  • 163. Matthew S.  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:51 am

    SWEET! Thank you for sharing this information. I've been waiting for someone to start re-enacting the trial. I'm so excited!

  • 164. rpx  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:59 am

    Why didn't my cooment appear? I wrote that France is logged in and watching.

  • 165. rpx  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:10 am

    errrr that would be a single OH and a double M in the word comment above , sheesh…

  • 166. michael  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:37 am

    They are going to be going from day to day testimony and trying to post one each day.

  • 167. kerri  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:42 am

    ?? We should have waitied?? Wait a min. here, that was our day as a tribute to National Coming Out Day the following day, Oct. 11th! There was no politicalness around this except to celebrate National Coming Out Day, what is wrong with that? Had we waited then we would not have been able to marry …….. We had this set in our minds even before marrige was legal that year!
    I don't have to justify myself to you….

  • 168. kerri  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:43 am

    it was parent sanctioned and sponsored, all organized by the parents and the director … not us

  • 169. Colt  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:50 am


  • 170. Michael Herman  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:00 am

    " It is still easy for people to discriminate against them, politically. That is manifested through Prop 8 and lack of marriage"

    Yes. This is good. Reiterate that Prop 8 was motivated by discrimination. :)

  • 171. Christine  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:44 am

    I feel so happy that Sanders had the guts to discuss his intention to veto the brief with his LGBT staff/friends. He was brave enough to make himself vulnerable, and when saw the pain his decision would cause, it changed his mind. I wish others who were against us could be as brave.

  • 172. celdd  |  January 19, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Same thing happened in the Dover Area School District vs Kirtzmiller case (where school board tried to get Intelligent Design textbook into the curriculum). The school board was being defended by the Thomas Moore Law Center. Most of the defendant's experts withdrew at the beginning of the trial. The defendant's attorney's (and defense witnesses) were pathetic compared to the pro-science side.

    Judge Jones was Republican and appointed by one of the Bush's, but was immediately labeled as a liberal activist judge once his decision was published. Also a recurring pattern, the right wing and so-called religious right claimed victim-hood.

  • 173. A Mom  |  January 19, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Kerri — It was so wonderful to see the news coverage of the children, parents & school director showing their support & solidarity at your wedding!! You both must have been overjoyed with their "surprise" outpouring of love. It's abominable that the Pro8 folks were able to twist the footage of your glorious day in such a hurtful way.

    Any chance you'll be testifying at the case to expose those lies?

  • 174. A Mom  |  January 19, 2010 at 9:43 am

    frightening words – my stomach is turning …
    "There will be nothing in this world that can defeat us"
    "When something needs to be done we now how to do it."

    Olson & Boies – hand them a defeat and show them how to do it!

  • 175. JC  |  January 19, 2010 at 10:12 am

    I feel doma and prop 8 are sexual harrassment and gender disrcimination..LGBT should sue the fed for our tax money back! equal rights or no taxation!

  • 176. Daryl H  |  January 19, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Someone is either trying to type while they listen, record everything via shorthand, or tape the proceedings and transcribing it later. Lawyers aren't particularly known for getting to the point via the shortest route possible. They know where they want to end up but then try to get there using the most detail they think they need to make their point. In the case of the opposing attorney, they go out of their way to try and get the witness to say something that will hurt the opposing side and help their own. If you can keep from getting bogged down in trying to have every word make sense and can follow the general progression of the testimony, this is really a very good layman's account of the dance lawyers undertake in examining and cross-examining a witness. Even though we may not have a clear understanding of the destination or why they are asking some of the things they're asking, they (usually) know exactly where they want the testimony to go and the purpose the testimony serves. (And no, I'm not a lawyer.)

  • 177. V Abi Abad  |  January 19, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    Hello Gay Brothers and Sisters everywhere:
    My name is Abi, and I too submitted a short brief on my personal experience that profoundly impeded my life progress. I am so proud of our Gay Community stepping forward and submitting our collective story of why we need s/s marriage. I so appreciate reading all your personal testimonials on what Prop 8 has done to impact your lives. It is extremely important that the world know how hate, bigotry and religious prejudice is harming all of mankind whether Gay or not.

  • 178. rhythmia  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Nice quotes! *saves for use elsewhere*

  • 179. Box Turtle Bulletin &raqu&hellip  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    […] to Courage Campaign and FireDogLake for […]

  • 180. Prop 8 Trial: the plainti&hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:02 am

    […] examinations was provided by conservative Republican mayor of San Diego Jerry Sanders, who explained his change of heart when he decided not to veto a City Council resolution supporting an amicus brief against […]

  • 181. V Abi Abad  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    I would like to be informed so that I can comment. Please send to me….Thank You!

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