Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 10: Part I

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

It’s just after 0830 and we’re back for week three, day ten. I now feel as is I belong up here on 19, in the Ceremonial Court Room, with Teddy from FDL and seven or so others. Frank Schubert just walked in. For the record, he’s a genial guy and he obviously knows how to win campaigns. Let us not mistake skill for belief. He’s no William Tam or Andy Pugno (see Brian’s excellent post).

The Prop. 8 side has given notice that they want to call Frank, but the plaintiffs have objected. We’ll see what happens.

The first order of business this morning will be procedural and then we’ll have the plaintiff’s document dump, which I have a feeling will be more than fascinating.

For those of you not in San Francisco, it’s wet and cold again. Remember that that the first day of the trial, with that beautiful vigil organized by Molly McKay and MEUSA, was a cold, crisp and eventually very bright day. While I’m not much into omens, that was the right way to begin this trial.

One last point. At some point today or tomorrow, I’ll write a bit about the folks behind AFER, but I want to mention again the key person. His name is Chad Griffin. I have known Chad since the Dean Campaign, in 2002. He’s young (well, he’s recovering slowly from that), uncannily smart and has a natural talent for communications. While Rob Reiner had the idea to hire Ted Olson and gets full credit for same, Chad made all of this happen. He’s sometimes a bit reluctant to get too out front and that’s probably smart given today’s environment, but we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude.

We’ll be back to you, the community that cares so deeply about equality, to help get some ideas about how to build our movement during the coming weeks, months and even years before this winds up, almost inevitably, at the Supreme Court. We cannot rely on judges alone. We have to show our friends, neighbors, coworkers and all of America that we progressives, we who are gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, we who are straight and care about our nation, all want equality.

We’re waiting for the judge. And then off we go!

[UPDATE] 8:59

Judge Walker: Good morning. I hope you had a good weekend. Mr. Boutrous, I understand you have some things to bring up?

B: We understand that the proponents want to call Mr. Schubert. We do not think the proponents have the right to call Frank Schubert while having obstructed our inquiry with 76 objections to producing documents. In terms of calling Mr. Schubert to authenticate documents, we have no particular objection, but if

Judge Walker: When did you learn that Mr. Schubert would be a witness? As I recall on Friday, the defense was going to call Mr. Blankenhorn and Mr. Miller. They did not mention Mr. Schubert.

B: Last night. We filed a motion to object to Mr. Schubert. They have zealously guarded Mr. Schubert thinking, state of mind, they even objected to admitting Schubert article. We would have to cross tomorrow.

Ms. Moss: We received plaintiff’s motion against Schubert last night at 1145PM. This may be moot. Depends upon the documents that plaintiffs submit. Depends on docs they will submit based on 9th Circuit’s revision. In lieu of reopening depo, questioning would be limited to authenticating docs. That itself may not have to happen depending upon plaintiff’s agreement to the docs we submit.
One of the objections that we have…

Judge Walker: Assuming that they all come in, you have to assume they will.

M: Depends on whether they come in blank or with tender with specific tender.

Judge Walker: The evidence is what it is.

M: We might need a witness to respond to them as opposed to wait for their post—trial briefing when they would say that some documents are campaign docs and some not.

Judge Walker: These are defendant’s docs?

M: Some are, some not.

Judge Walker: ” What is source of docs?

B: Some are docs before trial that we’ve laid foundation. Some are from website, some from trial.

Judge Walker: Do you believe that the source of all docs is ProtectMarriage.com?

B: Some are not directly from ProtectMarriage.com, but we can show that ProtectMarriage.com funded and are connected from another source but they screened it in advance.

Judge Walker: That is category you are concerned about?

M: Yes. We very much dispute that some of the docs are made by, produced by ProtectMarriage.com. If coming in through sponsoring witness, clear from witness source and we could clarity. If docs are just moved into record, we may have to put on witness such as Schubert. These are docs we produced because we were forced to do so. They are moving into evidence. We have right to call witness.

D: They disclosed at 0829AM that they have objections. There are many, many docs on list that Schubert needs to authenticate, so they want to use Schubert for other stuff.

M: We want to move into evidence other docs. If everything that they’ve ided comes, in, we may need to bring Schubert up.

B: We asked in depo (Schubert) over and over about docs. Did Protect<arriage.com produce simulcast? Instruction not to answer. What

M. is asking for is since they have blocked us in depo—really quite extraordinary how depo was handled—now they want to have it both ways bringing Schubert up to talk about docs when the blocked dep.

J: I’ll reserve on that. We’ll proceed with doc production and then I’ll decide whether or not we need to call Schubert.

Boutrous: Now want Mr. Boies.

[UPDATE] 9:08

Boies (B): What we don’t have agreed to, is that we have objections to some of their designations is that the witnesses they have called are not competent to testify on those matters.

Judge Walker: (refer to some legal designation that fits with this objection.)

B: We have marked yellow ones that we agreed to and rest pink or red.

Judge Walker: Happily most are yellow.

B: Yes, we’ve tried to limit our objections. They have designated a whole series of questions and answers that shows that Prof. Young has very limited expertise. She’s not an expert in psych, soc., anthropology, and clinical dev. Is an expert in religion. She is an expert in Hinduism. Never did study in US about prejudice against gays and lesbians. Has never studied how many g and l are raising children, consequences. Not even familiar with views of US churches toward homos. Does not know proportion of children raised by gay and l or single couples.

Judge Walker: Excuse me for interrupting. Perhaps the way for me to deal with this is for me to take these into chambers to review? Mr. Nielson, who is going to deal with this?

Nielson (N): Patterson will deal with this, but I’ll make points. Court did admit parts of depo that Young and Nathanson made. There’s no question that they designated their testimony, but they want to use designation that is outside of their expertise. Under rule of completeness, we want to show that Y and N produced information that was beyond their expertise. Great irony here. They want to put info in that is outside of their expertise, but rule of completeness means they should be in.

Judge Walker: Very well, I need to see testimony in question.

B: We think yellow is what we played and should be brought in. Pink is not responsive.

N: That is not objection that I have heard before.

Judge Walker: I’ll read at lunch break or this evening and we can talk about it.

Moss: Very briefly, defendant interveners have order to compel against several groups that are associated with No on 8. We are not asking for argument, but for ruling.

Chis Desseaux (CD) (For Plaintiffs)

CD: First admission by parties, campaign messages (on which we have disagreements), docs from witnesses that should be brought. These should not be objectionable. Start with good news. 46 docs defendant has no objection. I appreciate courtesy Ms. Moss has shown in doing that.

[UPDATE] 9:37

M: No objection.

CD: Have witness binder that ties docs to witnesses for your convenience. These are docs that both sides have agreed to move into evidence. List we gave you includes all three categories.

Judge Walker: I assume at some point you are going to take me through these and tell me what these docs establish.

CD: Thought we’d do in closing or post-trial.

Judge Walker: Very well (with quizzical look on face). I don’t want to make your presentation overly long. There are a number of docs here and what I am supposed to derive from them is not clear. If you want me to derive some fact or inference or admission, you need to make that clear.

CD: Let’s look at all of them and then figure out what’s best. Next category is campaign docs. Three simulcasts we want to move into evidence: 503-505. 1867. 1868 and 506. 1867 and 1868 are court reporter-certified. The other is from PM.com website. These were moved in in depo with Prentice. P said they were part of pastor rapid response. Undisputed that simulcast part of grassroots campaign, paid for by campaign, undisputed that they are part of campaign.

If counsel wants to move against these, we can now. Or I can show some other evidence that makes clear there is no dispute.

We have binders for the court that are campaign material. 2075 (gives binders to court for review).

CD: Start with 2075 because we already moved into evidence and there was no objection. We can move this to screen as already in evidence. Blast email from F and S identifying themselves as campaign managers of Yes on 8. Passage that begins, “on www.protectcamarriage.com ” Also find videos of 25 September, 1 October and 19 October for various rallies to take place, all church-related.

Next document is 421. Exhibit 421 got from website. Not produced. Did check website over breakfast in my hotel room this morning and it was still there. Webcast protect marriage.com presents, which seems to be rather unequivocal evidence that ProtectMarriage.com behind rallies. Offers for sale these DVDs for $5 per DVD. That’s how we got them.

J: There’s also reference as well to “for more info about Prop. 8, visit www.protectmarriage.com .”

M: Moss? It is not a website of ProtectMarriage.com. I don’t know who maintains website. Mr. Prentice said he was never aware that these simulcasts were for sale. Fact that they want to put these into evidence when they have not proven that this is pm.com website. We do not dispute that simulcasts were paid for by PM.com. However, we do not know what is in simulcasts that plaintiffs contain are relevant. Prentice testified that he did not attend simulcast. Memory could be wrong, but I’m not sure anyone from PM.com was there. Without showing relevance, we are at a loss as to what is relevant. We know that we paid for them. The website is as it is. Not from files of PM.com and need to lay foundation.

CD: Ms. Moss just conceded that simulcasts paid for by ProtectMarriage.com. This is document we put on our list Thursday. This morning, website shows still presented by ProtectMarriage.com so it’s a bit odd that they’d object. I have another document that may shed additional light (2656).

2656 is document produced during trial by ProtectMarriage.com. Jim Garlow sends email to Mr. Flint. About halfway down you’ll see that Mr. Pugno says, “If we are saying that Protect Marriage is paying, CCM cannot say presented at no charge.” Pugno further says “CWA presents must be taken off, but it is presented by ProtectMarriage.com.” “The mass mailing must also be identified as coming from the Campaign’s address.” CWA is Christian Women of America.

Judge Walker: Objection to admitting 2656?

M: No.

Judge Walker: (Interrupts) Very well. Admitted.

M: We are saying that since money for simulcasts from ProtectMarriage.com, had to be disclosed, but if they are trying to draw inference that ProtectMarriage.com controlled content, not established. Not clear what they want to show with these simulcasts.

Judge Walker: I gather there is no objection that ProtectMarriage.com paid for?

M: No objection.

J: Very well. That is sufficient basis to admit. It is admitted.

[So here we go again. PM.com does not want their own campaign info admitted because it is so damning because it is true.]

CD: New doc. Email between Tracy from Skyline Church with Prentice. Four page agenda of simulcast before it is presented. If there is question of coordination, here it is.

M: No evidence as to whether Prentice read or responded to email.

J: That goes to weight of evidence rather than whether it should be admitted?

M: Our objection is that they have not shown relevance?

Judge Walker: You’re going to that now?

CD: Paid for by ProtectMarriage.com and represented by Mr. Pugno that paid for by ProtectMarriage.com. That’s relevance. Want to enter all as evidence. My hope is that we can admit all as relevant, but show messages that were presented to CA voters as part of campaign.

CD: Playing 6-minute excerpts.

[UPDATE] 9:42

[You HAVE to read this. Here is the essence of Ron Prentice and Andy Pugno’s Campaign. And by the way, Frank, if you sanctioned this, which I’ll bet you did, shame on you. You should have objected to this, that it’s beyond the pale. This is just lies and fear. That’s how they won.]

Shows 6 minutes of Pastor Jim and Tony Perkins and others. Roberto Miranda, Lion of Judah Church of Boston, says, “Polygamists are waiting in the wings! If we have same sex marriage, we’ll have polygamy next.” Perkins video from US Capitol. People all over America do not understand implications of same sex marriage. Destroys foundation of marriage. Here I’m visiting couple in Mass where they show book that shows child being introduced to Clifford and his same sex partner.

Miranda says that governor of mass elected by strong support of homo lobby. Homo teaching being admitted more and more to schools, people of mass being desensitized day by day, being more and comfortable with same sex marriage…”

Garlow, “thanks for coming on. We see in papers that sky did not

AA Minister: No one wants to be called bigot. Attempt to hijack civil rights movement. I’m offended by that comparison. I had no choice but to be born black as opposed to deviant behavior …

Another AA guy: “Offended. Racist to compare homosexuality to being AA. Being black is not a choice. Being homo is.

(Screen is blank, but hearing stuff)…Saying that kindergarten books are already out there showing that kids in kindergarten are being to be homo.

Compare this to 9.11. How does this directly affect us? I did not know planes would crash into building. Change of marriage is same sort of thing. If Prop. 8 passes, it’s like 9.11.

AA guy interviews woman. Let’s just say that sexual attraction is definition. Pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry. Mothers and sons. Man who wanted to marry horse. Any combination would have to be allowed.

[UPDATE] 10:06

[No smoking gun here, more like an arsenal of incendiary devices. This is how they won. FEAR. LIES.]

Judge Walker: Ms. Moss?

M: If these are admitted, we want to review for rule of completeness to see if we need to add anything. [I can’t imagine what the hell they’d add. They’ve said it all.]

CD: Email between Prentice and Pastor Garlow.

M: We need to see relevance so we can see if we need to respond should we have any evidence to respond with.

CD: If we move to evidence, we’ll be pleased to point out…

M: Post-election doc.

Judge Walker: I notice that.

CD: I can show relevance. Email shows that after election trying to keep simulcasts out of public hands.

J: Goes to control?

CD: Yes and state of mind. “We must control message from simulcast.” Jim, I do not see any way to show any of simulcast to see “religious bias.” This is about what’s about to come up on Dr. Phil Show. [Prentice is trying to avoid showing that there is religious bias in campaign.]

CD: Pre-election videos that show Prentice speaking at rallies. Want to admit. And want to play 2.5 minutes to you.

M: If I am correct that these were shown in entirety to Mr. P during depo and he agreed they were he speaking, no objection.

P: We know that today we must win. That’s why we are so grateful that 2,500 pastors have come out on consistent basis every month. If someone is going to vote no, we flip them to show that kids will be taught this in schools. We have spent thousands of dollars on polling. Continue to do so. In 1999, LDS got involved in Hawaii. With capital S, they were significantly involved. No different this time. Campaign will cost minimum of $25 million and LDS across this state deeply involved. Catholic Bishop in SD, three evangelical ministers from SD all got involved. Asked Focus on the Family for money. They sent us $50,000 that allowed us to get petitions printed. Thanks to you, we are here, we will win. Don’t pay attention to newspapers, we have secret weapon (or secret voters or something, but basically, the weapon is kids in school.)

CD: Flyer from California Family Council of which Mr. Prentice is CEO and Mr. Tam is involved. This is flyer that was produced during campaign. Any effort to distance campaign from knowledge or control, not credible.

M: Not PM.com. No evidence that this was distributed. No evidence as to whether this was draft. Dispute at depo as to date. Prentice disputed that some on this flyer were not involved in ProtectMarriage.com. Should not come in as something that was distributed. IF it was, to whom? Mr. Prentice is head of CA Family Council. Something that happened to be in his files and got produced.

Judge Walker: Goes to weight rather than admissibility. Without attaching weight, I’ll admit it.

CD: On page two of exhibit, “background: “The goal of the homo community is not marriage. IN fact, in countries where homo marriage is legal, no more than 3% married. Goal is full annihilation of marriage…”

1999—With the onset of domestic partnerships, CA legislature begins incremental attack on marriage.

CD: Another video. From Tony Perkins

M: Mr. P saw this video in depo and did recognize himself in video. I don’t know that this was shown to CA voters and until they can show that it was shown to CA voters, object to relevance. Website that talks about video, not ProtectMarriage.com. Can pull down from website now, but not show it was shown.

J: Weight. P was shown video at depo. Relevant. Admitted.

Shows video:

Everett Rice (AA fellow): Says that Prop. 22 would be overturned by judges unless Prop. 8 passes.

P: Homo lobby stronger and stronger.

VO: Activists made sure via media that CA court knew what they wanted to do.

P: If this passes, children will be indoctrinated

(Shows video of guys kissing at City Hall…Not only something to tolerate, but will be something to celebrate.”

(P: Whole argument that children need “mother love and father love”

Dads have instinctual differences from Moms. When do kids learn to be leaders without Dad?

Intentionally robbing children of male and female role models that God intended them to have.)

CD: Want to intro another video by American Family Association (the previous one was also). AFA donated $500,000 to campaign. Wanted to put out video during campaign with Mr. P in it talking to voters. For people who made this video with Mr. P. cooperating and participating, relevant.

M: No evidence that put out during campaign. No evidence that P was speaking in video for ProtectMarriage.com. No evidence that he knew what it would be used for, nor would be used to persuade voters. He’s not party. If there is article, it is hearsay. Not clear that it does, but if it does (prove that it was made for campaign), it’s hearsay.

CD: Article by people who made it …

J: I sustain objection. Tenuous connection.

[NOTE] I’ve started a second thread over here.

Tags: , , , , ,

94 Comments

  • 1. JC  |  January 25, 2010 at 1:55 am

    Thank you so much for your commitment (and fingers of steel)! The last 2 weeks have been game-changing for me in terms of activism. I've been very out for years, but now I don't give a fig if I irritate people by sharing so much about the trial. There's always more 'out' to be, isn't there? Again, many thanks.

  • 2. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 25, 2010 at 1:55 am

    HI Rick, and Thanks again for all your wonderful work-and Hi all-Up for another day, I hope!
    Loves
    Nick

  • 3. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Yes, I wanted to add my thanks, too for all of those at Courage Campaign, who have kept us informed and up-to-date on these proceedings.

  • 4. Patrick Regan  |  January 25, 2010 at 1:58 am

    Seconding the thank yous. I am straight, but I am actually bring this up in more conversations. It makes for interesting discussions.

    Love,
    Pat

  • 5. Matt in Seattle  |  January 25, 2010 at 1:58 am

    Thank you Rick and all the folks at Courage Campaign.

  • 6. Sam  |  January 25, 2010 at 1:58 am

    Yeah, I'd like to add my thanks too, you're doing an amazing job Rick!

  • 7. Doug  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Infinite thanks to all of you on the front lines of this battle. We owe are livelihood to you.

    Love,
    Doug

  • 8. dj  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:05 am

    Adding my profound thanks to everyone from Courage Campaign who have kept us informed and to those whose posts have added so much to my understanding, appreciation, admiration, gratitude and love.
    My partner and I moved to a small town in NC from an area near New Orleans and have been in culture shock and community withdrawal ever since. Hearing about the community forming on facebook is (almost) enough to get me off my duff long enough to create one for myself.
    Namaste', dj

  • 9. Sam  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:07 am

    I don't want to post too much information on things before Rick gets around to updating, but according to NCLR the defense are trying to undermine their own witnesses in an attempt to limit the damage they did to their own side last week…

  • 10. Sam  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:07 am

    *witnesses/experts

  • 11. Bob  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:11 am

    Who is Miss Moss? I assume she's on the defence side, but I don't see her name in the "Key Players" list.

  • 12. Brad  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Adding my deepest appreciation for everyone's hard work and commitment. I have been glued to this blog for the last two weeks. Without your efforts we wouldn't know what is going on. Thank you so much!

  • 13. truthspew  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:13 am

    Now that is something else, undermining your own witness. It's becoming clear that the Prop 8 proponents really don't have a valid defense, or at least one that isn't motivated by religious belief.

    I think the trap has already been laid by Olson and Boies.

    Now for the defendants to just walk right into it.

  • 14. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Yes, Miss Moss is an attorney for the Defendants, in this case.

  • 15. Linda  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:15 am

    I have been doing some math. Taking the numbers of voters on prop 8 (and I'm rounding) we had 7,000,000 vote yes, and 6,400,000 vote no. That's a total of 13,400,000 votes. Now, let's break that down.

    Using 5% as our estimate of LGBT votes (I think that's a generous estimate of our percentage of the CA population), that would mean that of the total votes, 670,000 were by LGBT. That leaves 12,730,000 votes that were cast by straights. Subtract the 7,000,000 votes for 'yes', and that leaves us with 5,730,000 straights who voted NO.

    And we know that their aren't THAT many atheists/agnostics in our state, so one has to assume that a significant percentage of the straight 'no' vote was cast by church-going folks; and they voted that way despite being told repeatedly from the pulpit to vote 'yes'.

    We have many, many allies in this fight!

  • 16. Bob  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:18 am

    Perhaps I'm being totally dense, but I have difficulty following what's happened so far this morning. Can someone clarify?

  • 17. Patrick Regan  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:22 am

    IANAL, but from what I can tell, our side is trying to add some documents to be considered for the ruling. Some have been agreed on, without objection. Some have not.

    Also, we objected to some docs that the defense is trying to add. Judge is going to rule on both after lunch (if I got that right).

    We are also trying to show that one of the witnesses for the defense isn't really an expert on the case.

    That's really all I got, maybe a laywerish person could help out more.

    Love,
    Pat

  • 18. Jerry  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:23 am

    Many thanks to everyone at Courage Campaign. Just thinking that being Progressive doesn't depend on being GLBT. I was Progressive long before I realized/admitted to myself that I am Gay. Onward and upward in Life, Love, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!

    Love,
    Jerry

  • 19. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:23 am

    I dunno, but it sounds to me like the defendant's case has weakened again. I believe the dispute is about admissable evidence and witnesses.

  • 20. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:27 am

    Disclaimers: IANAL; I am a little confused too; I am relying heavily on Sam's explanation he got from NCLR. So proceeding…

    First, the argument about Schubert. The plaintiffs want to introduce a whole pile of documents that they say are either from ProtectMarriage.com, or from organizations so closely affiliated with PM.com that it might as well have come from them. The defendants say that the latter documents have nothing to do with PM.com, and they want to bring in Frank Schubert to help authenticate which documents really ought to be considered to come from PM.com.

    This sounds reasonable at first blush, but the plaintiffs are saying WTF, because in Schubert's deposition, whenever the plaintiffs asked him about whether a document came from ProtectMarriage, the defense advised him not to answer or raised on objection. Then the defense only announced at like 11PM last night that they wanted to call Schubert. So the plaintiffs are crying foul, because it seems like the defense is trying to ambush them, i.e. they prevented the plaintiffs from learning in the deposition how Schubert would respond to questions about authenticity, and then they waited until the last minute to announce him.

    Second, and this is the part I am less sure about, is the stuff about the witnesses/statements undermining Dr. Young. If you recall, Dr. Young and Dr. Nathanson were the defense witnesses who, in the deposition, made a number of statements that were damning to the defendants' case, resulting in them being dropped as witnesses. In a case of transparent damage control, the defense is now trying to discredit their own former witnesses so that their "unfortunate" statements will have less string. For instance, they are arguing that Dr.. Young is only an expert in religion and nothing else, and therefore anything she has to say about sociology or homosexuality is bullshit.

    Furthermore, it sounds like the defendants are asking for some kind of "have your cake and eat it too" outcome, where Dr. Young's and Dr. Nathanson's deposition would remain on record (so they can use the parts that help them) but because their "expert designation" was incorrect they can now ignore the parts that didn't help them.

    Fascinating, if I'm understanding it correctly.

  • 21. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:28 am

    Don't think I've axtually put into words the thanks I have to Rick and all for doing this.

    Also, wouldn't it be easier to use TWO-letter identifications for who is speaking, so we don't, for example, confuse Boutrous and Boies?

  • 22. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:30 am

    I've got a more extensive comment awaiting moderation, but in the meantime:

    Also, we objected to some docs that the defense is trying to add.

    My understanding is that the plaintiffs are trying to add the documents, and the defense wants to bring a surprise witness in to discredit some of the documents — and that's what we are objecting to. There are more details in my comment that is hungup in moderation.

    We are also trying to show that one of the witnesses for the defense isn’t really an expert on the case.

    Close… I think their side is trying to show that two of the witnesses for the defense aren't really experts on the case, because those witnesses made damning (for the defendants) statements in the depositions.

  • 23. Patrick Regan  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:30 am

    Yes you do. I don't live in Cali, so I didn't vote, and while I'm an Atheist, I know there are a ton of religious voters who are on our side (the right side).

    Love,
    Pat

  • 24. randompro42  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:31 am

    legalese

    basically, plantiffs want to keep certain documents and statements from the record, and to challenge the necessity of calling schubert

    defense interveneors want to get everything and the kitchen sink in by using a technical exception of completeness of testimony (it would be like calling a ceo of ford to testify about accident reconstruction)

    ultimately, the defense wants to have an expert talking about something outside their expertise – something not against FRE/daubert, but it will not be as useful in a bench trial as opposed to a jury trial

    TRO

  • 25. abbe  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:31 am

    Re: Religion and the 14th amendment

    I found this:

    "The first major religion case in the 20th century was Cantwell v Connecticut (310 US 296 [1940]). In this case, the Supreme Court found that the religious freedoms embodied in the 1st Amendment were protected from state infringement by virtue of the 14th Amendment." http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

    Full text http://laws.findlaw.com/us/310/296.html

    Thoughts?

  • 26. Patrick Regan  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:31 am

    cool, thanks for the clarification. Legalize confuses me a lot sometimes.

    Love,
    Pat

  • 27. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:32 am

    I second the confusion… what's this about undermining witnesses and paying for simulcasts?

  • 28. Bertrand  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:33 am

    Thanks Rick you rock, I have this up on my comp at work all day, I live in Mass. and boy does it get some people going.

  • 29. Bob  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:39 am

    I was just thinking it would be easiest to just use last names. It becomes very difficult to follow with just initials.

  • 30. David  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:41 am

    Wow, it looks like we just found another smoking gun!
    Love,
    David

  • 31. David from Sandy UT  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:42 am

    IMPORTANT BREAKING NEWS

    Well, not exactly “breaking news” since it happened yesterday, but still very, very important.

    During a break or after today’s testimony, please slide over to The Salt Lake Tribune web site and read about the first showing of 8: The Mormon Proposition at the Sundance Film Festival. http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14260222. See also http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14260127 about a small group of pro-equality protesters at the screening.

    Please see especially the TribTalk comments to the news articles. Can you see why we call this place “Utardia—The Pretty Hate State”?

    My message to my fellow Utardians consistently emphasizes (1) individuals are welcome to their personal, religious beliefs so long as they do not harm other people, and (2) no religious belief, regardless of how strongly it may be felt, justifies hurting our fellow citizens AND THEIR CHILDREN!

    David
    a.k.a Utardian
    Sandy UT

  • 32. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:43 am

    There have been so many 'smoking guns' it is a wonder the courtroom fire extinguishers haven't gone off.

    Love,
    Prup

  • 33. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:44 am

    I think my comment got hung-up in moderation because I swore at one point… trying again without the profanity (or maybe it was just too long)…

    Disclaimers: IANAL; I am a little confused too; I am relying heavily on Sam’s explanation he got from NCLR. So proceeding…

    First, the argument about Schubert. The plaintiffs want to introduce a whole pile of documents that they say are either from ProtectMarriage.com, or from organizations so closely affiliated with PM.com that it might as well have come from them. The defendants say that the latter documents have nothing to do with PM.com, and they want to bring in Frank Schubert to help authenticate which documents really ought to be considered to come from PM.com.

    This sounds reasonable at first blush, but the plaintiffs are saying WTF, because in Schubert’s deposition, whenever the plaintiffs asked him about whether a document came from ProtectMarriage, the defense advised him not to answer or raised on objection. Then the defense only announced at like 11PM last night that they wanted to call Schubert. So the plaintiffs are crying foul, because it seems like the defense is trying to ambush them, i.e. they prevented the plaintiffs from learning in the deposition how Schubert would respond to questions about authenticity, and then they waited until the last minute to announce him.

    Second, and this is the part I am less sure about, is the stuff about the witnesses/statements undermining Dr. Young. If you recall, Dr. Young and Dr. Nathanson were the defense witnesses who, in the deposition, made a number of statements that were damning to the defendants’ case, resulting in them being dropped as witnesses. In a case of transparent damage control, the defense is now trying to discredit their own former witnesses so that their “unfortunate” statements will have less string. For instance, they are arguing that Dr.. Young is only an expert in religion and nothing else, and therefore anything she has to say about sociology or homosexuality is invalid.

    Furthermore, it sounds like the defendants are asking for some kind of “have your cake and eat it too” outcome, where Dr. Young’s and Dr. Nathanson’s deposition would remain on record (so they can use the parts that help them) but because their “expert designation” was incorrect they can now ignore the parts that didn’t help them.

    Fascinating, if I’m understanding it correctly.

  • 34. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Apparently so many people did the site is crashing — the Trib one.

  • 35. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Compare this to 9.11. How does this directly affect us? I did not know planes would crash into building. Change of marriage is same sort of thing.

    Ah, but did you know that homosexuality was an inside job by the Bush Administration?

  • 36. Kim  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:49 am

    SSM is like 9-11???!!!?!?!?? I'm not sure I could get more disgusted with this whole thing, and I just did.

  • 37. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:51 am

    Well, it's a slippery slope. If you allow a marriage between a man and a man, then you also have to allow marriage between a mother and a son, a man and a horse, a 747 and a building…

  • 38. MJFargo  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:51 am

    All of these "talking points" are alive and well and constantly being fed into the minds of people who are all too willing to believe it. Just log onto SFGate and try to discuss in any reasonable manner a subject related to SSM. All of this is brought up again and again.

  • 39. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:52 am

    And yeah, it's so disgusting the only way I can think of to respond is with humor :/

  • 40. Sam  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:52 am

    If Prop. 8 passes, it’s like 9.11.

    Yeah, I had to re-read that line a couple of times to ensure I was seeing it correctly. An absolutely disgusting way to win votes.

  • 41. Kate  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:52 am

    It's that judge I feel sorry for. I oughta take him into the bar and buy him a drink some time.

  • 42. Cathy Renna  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:56 am

    can you clarify what this CD was – a planning or strategy meeting?

  • 43. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:58 am

    CD is Chris Desseaux, a lawyer for the plaintiffs I believe,

  • 44. David A  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Thanks, that seems to make a lot of sense.

    Love,
    David

  • 45. Rachel  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:01 am

    I was in high school when the planes hit the towers.
    I was in panic thinking my father could be working on building 7.

    I DO NOT FEAR FOR MY COUNTRY WHEN TWO LOVING PEOPLE WANT TO BE MARRIED!

    How on EARTH would ANY reasonable/sane/compassionate person compair 9/11 to someones right to marry…

    Thats like compairing apples to Cuthulu…..

  • 46. Alan E.  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:02 am

    9……11
    If it wasn't so true, that episode of Family Guy would be funnier than it is scary.

  • 47. Roger  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Verb noun gay

  • 48. Lymis  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Well, 9/11 only killed a couple thousand people, but same sex marriage will end the whole human race…..

    or something.

  • 49. Sam  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:05 am

    That was the first thing that came to my mind! Haha!

  • 50. Doug  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Think Cathy meant what the video was from. And I believe it was just a DVD on their website that they sent to people to scare people into supporting them.

  • 51. randompro42  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:08 am

    my favorite portion of the video is that homosexual marriage leads to a mother marrying her son…

    wait for it…

    "Only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized as valid"

    all the anti-8 people want is the right to marry the concenting adult of your choosing

    all the pro-8 people want are one man and one woman

    a mother and her son sure sounds a lot more like the latter than the former

    TRO

  • 52. Rev Scott West  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:09 am

    first I would like to sort of say thank you. I'm supposed to be working on my dissertation, but I instead take at least an hour out each day to read the transcripts.
    The second, is this, when this is over, will the transcribers be able to sue the prop 8 people for carpal tunnel syndrome… sorry, had to say it.

  • 53. bJason  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Love that one! Lois v. Adam West – too funny – because its TRUE!!

  • 54. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:11 am

    You know I heard that line before on nj.com message board…..the community member that goes by the screen name "DLight" said that Gay people and the Gay agenda are responsible for 9-11.

    I have never been more offended then at that very moment…I responded with:

    "So what did we do? Paint a big cross on the targets with a sign that says strike here? Made sure that the terrorists were well dressed as they committed suicide taking many Americans with them? Did we sing show tunes and musicals while they did it? You are delusional DLight!"

    That person also believes that hippies were created by the government, the first steps on the moon was staged, The Rockerfellers and the Rothchilds are responsible for women's rights, the death of JFK was apart of the gay agenda, the native Americans willing gave up their land and willingly denounced their heritage as folklore and mythology, that there was no Gay concentration camps, and that anybody who is not Republican is a Marxist.

    COO COO!!!!……….COO COO!!!!!!

  • 55. Sam  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:11 am

    *ahem* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg *ahem*

    Some light relief, ladies and gentlemen.

  • 56. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:12 am

    When do kids learn to be leaders without Dad?

    Oh, the misogyny, how it burns!

  • 57. abbe  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Religion & Amendment 14: Cantwell v Connecticut (310 US 296 [1940])

    p.s. how long are comments in moderation?

  • 58. fiona64  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:14 am

    OMG. At least the hate speech there is more articulate than on the Sacramento Bee site … but it's still there. I've refuted a few comments, but could only take so much. (I'm "hasnicemormonparents".)

  • 59. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:14 am

    the native Americans willing gave up their land and willingly denounced their heritage as folklore and mythology

    Now if only the Religious Right would do the same thing…

  • 60. James Sweet  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:18 am

    Awesome, thanks!

    Upon an initial skimming, it is looking to me like the First Amendment was indeed key to the court's decision to apply strict scrutiny to laws regarding religion, but I need to read further to be sure.

  • 61. Sam  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:21 am

    New post everybody. http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/25/liveblogg

  • 62. M S  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Yes, because both Prop 8 and 9.11 have numbers in them…

  • 63. John D  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:22 am

    Remember "religious" doesn't always mean "church-going."

    I don't know what percentage of voters is Jewish, but I do remember reading that 74% of Jews voted NO on 8. Judaism provides something of an inversion of Christianity on this issue. The biggest group, Reform Judaism, has supported equality for same-sex couples for many years. The second biggest group, Conservative Judaism, recently agreed that rabbis and congregations could perform Jewish weddings for same-sex couples.

    Orthodox Jews comprise about 15% of the Jewish population. Various Orthodox rabbis have spoken in opposition to same-sex marriage.

    So, some of the straight "no" vote was cast by people who go to a synagogue.

  • 64. Dan  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:23 am

    As do I. Hopefully my friends aren't getting sick of me talking about it yet. Most of them actually seem pretty interested in the updates I've been giving them.

    <3

  • 65. Loren  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:31 am

    James – I'm stealing this joke. Figured you have a right to know.

  • 66. Kevin_BGFH  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:31 am

    I bet most of us also have anecdotal evidence, like my 90 year old Catholic grandmother, of Church-going folks who voted no on Prop 8.

  • 67. Kate  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:47 am

    It seems like only yesterday my friends and I were talking about how inappropriate it was of MJ's diehard fans to compare his death to a major national/world tragedy like the Kennedy assassination or 9/11. Now that I've read the right wing's comparison of gay marriage to 9/11, I can feel my blood pressure rising and my fists balling…!

  • 68. Bill  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:56 am

    "AA guy interviews woman. Let’s just say that sexual attraction is definition. Pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry."
    __________________________________________

    Pedophiles are ALREADY allowed to marry.

  • 69. Sarah  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:13 am

    "Dads have instinctual differences from Moms. When do kids learn to be leaders without Dad?"

    As a woman this makes me furious. I can not be a leader or teach my children to be leaders? There is deeply rooted sexism at the heart of many of their arguments. Reading again and again throughout this trial that children do not just need parents who love them but a mom and dad who conform to strict gender roles is making me sick.

  • 70. Ronnie  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:13 am

    hehehehehehe…….Oh SNAP!

  • 71. Bill  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:14 am

    After 9/11, Pat Robertson went on the air to specifically blame gay citizens for 9/11.

    What more proof that we caused 9/11 do you need?

    Pat Robertson said so.

  • 72. Richard  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Thank you once again for this. All of you!

  • 73. Sarah  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:05 am

    This is a little more from Firedoglake:
    "The spectre of children being raised in same sex homes. Where do you go to find out how to change the oil if you have two moms? It’s not the same natural aspect. Who’s gonna teach kids the dad stuff if there’s two moms. Instead of parents having complementary role models, these marriages mirror easch other and rob children of God’s plan for them."

    So now I don't even know how to change the oil in my car?

  • 74. PM, in the UK  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:06 am

    I know there's a second thread now and I'm late to the party, but one line just perfectly summed up the defendant interveners case to me…

    "Mr. P saw this video in depo and did recognize himself in video"

  • 75. Barb  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:08 am

    Are they saying that in their homes they will not TEACH THE girls how to change oil? Girls can only learn girly things and boys can only learn macho things?

    How dense!

    Love
    Barb

  • 76. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:20 am

    This made me sick! I feel like I wanna grab the only (openly) gay person I know and hug him cause of this huge Insult. (Ok I wanna hug him like all the time anyway since he is such a lovley, great person and about the greatest person I know 😀 anyway this just increases the feeling of disgust at such insult.)
    But since he's not here I virtually hug all you guys and hope (and am quite sure) no one takes this comparison to heart!

  • 77. Steffi  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:25 am

    That's exactly what I thought too!

  • 78. NG  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Hoping this thread is still active, can someone specify or clarify the simulcasts introduced in court by Plaintiffs?

    Thanks.

  • 79. Brent  |  January 25, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Something I would find extremely helpful would be if attorneys for one side were identified by bolding their initials, and attorneys for the other side were identified in text with italics – or a similar set up. (Witnesses and the judge, being ostensibly neutral, would not get markers of either type – which would be marker enough.)

  • 80. Susan R Barnes  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Blatant sexism

  • 81. Colt  |  January 25, 2010 at 6:50 am

    "When do kids learn to be leaders without Dad?"

    When Mom teaches them! If I'm not mistaken, our president was mostly raised by his mother … guess "leader of the free world" doesn't count to these people …

  • 82. Jenny O  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Oh my god! As a woman, I was incredibly offended by that statement! I'm glad someone else noticed how stupid and rude that was.

  • 83. Jenny O  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:32 am

    Amen sister! I was incredibly offended as well.

  • 84. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:01 am

    As some one who HAD lesbian moms, I regret I couldn't be deposed on that subject — well, not cars and oil changes, never drove in my life, but 'Dad things.'

    On the other hand, as someone who blames the 'obnoxious teenage boy' syndrome of heterosexuality — 'sex is a game where you 'score'' — sex is something you do to someone rather than with someone, or even the forgettting that both parties can and should enjoy what's happening — on the myths passed on from father to son — maybe it is a good thing that some people don't get taught 'Dad things.'

  • 85. Tim  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Thank You Linda! I would also like to send my deepest gratitude to the Courage campaign for being our eyes and ears during this historic trial! It is not recieving nearly the press that it deserves.
    And a huge, huge thanks to our straight brothers and sisters that are following along with us. You set a very important example! Bless you all.
    And to my LGBT community, Your Family Values are worth fighting for. Yes, the Family Values they say we don't have.

    Much love Tim. Sonoma Ca

  • 86. Michael Herman  |  January 25, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Those ads are what got me involved in the No on 8 campaign. I was sickened.

  • 87. Explosive evidence expose&hellip  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    […] really believe. As reported to us by Yusef Robb of the American Foundation for Equal Rights and shown at the trial today, the video included the following stunning quotes: “Then pedophiles would have to be allowed […]

  • 88. zaq  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:50 am

    If you're suggesting that there might be a case to be made that prop8 was an exercise of free religion, and therefore protected by the 1st and 14th amendments, then there is a useful parallel in free speech rights. There was a famous supreme court decision where in the majority opinion a justice wrote that a right to free speech under the 1st amendment does not mean the right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Libel and slander are similarly not protected as free speech.

    I think that something similar probably holds true for religious rights (although I am not specifically familiar with religious rights, I am merely assuming parallel limits on speech and religious rights). Take human sacrifice as an extreme example. Because prop8 infringes so much on the rights of LGBT individuals it is not automatically protected by the 1st amendment.

  • 89. zaq  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:01 am

    opps, forgot to totally delete the human sacrifice part. I was simply using that as an example of a religious act that is not constitutionally protected.

  • 90. Prop 8 trial + DADT debat&hellip  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:31 am

    […] that was used to scare the religious right into supporting Prop. 8. At that time, he said that if gays and lesbians marry, we will have more incest, pedophilia and eventually polygamy. He said that. And his other allies in the fight to separate Americans from each other joined right […]

  • 91. Rick Jacobs: Prop 8 trial&hellip  |  February 3, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    […] that was used to scare the religious right into supporting Prop. 8. At that time, he said that if gays and lesbians marry, we will have more incest, pedophilia and eventually polygamy. He said that. And his other allies in the fight to separate Americans from each other joined right […]

  • 92. how to change a car batte&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    Car maintenance…

    […]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[…]…

  • 93. ICICI Bank&hellip  |  May 21, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    ICICI Money to India…

    […]the following are some web page links to websites which I link to because we feel they really are worth visiting[…]…

  • 94. US Building Consultants Inc  |  March 3, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    Hοwdy! I’m at ѡorҡ ѕuгfіng aгߋսոd ʏοսг Ьloɡ frߋm mƴ nеա іƿhߋnе 4!
    Јսѕt wаnteԁ tο ѕay Ι lоνе
    геаdiոǥ үօսг blօɡ ɑnɗ lоօƙ foгԝагd to аll ƴоսг рοѕtѕ!

    Ϲɑrrƴ oո tҺе ߋսtѕtandіng ԝߋгк!

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