Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Liveblogging Day 11: Part VI


By Rick Jacobs

This witness is probably very clever. He is belligerent, but clever. I fear that even though he is worthless or worse for their side, he’ll be great to say that he was bullied or whatever. He was not. He’s just uncooperative and not an expert on anything discernable.]

Boies: Did Prof. Quayle write anything in here about same sex marriage?

David Blankenhorn (DB): No. I’m not aware of her ever having said anything about same sex marriage. That was written in 1988.

Boies: Deinstitutionalization?

DB: No. She’s a historian. That’s a term that comes from sociology.

Boies: Neither Davis, nor Quayle, or Fraser, nor Committee of Anthropology of Northern Ireland, nor prof. Vandenberg, nor prof. Malinowski talk about same sex marriage or deinstitutionalization of marriage?

DB: Not correct.

Boies. I was trying to speed things up, but it won’t work.

DB: I can speed things up.

Boies. Let’s do it my way.

Boies: Fraser, same sex or deinstitutionalization?

DB: No.

Boies: Quayle, same sex or deinstitutionalization?

DB: No

Boies: Davis?

DB: Either uses deinst or uses same argument. My best understanding is that he does use that term.

Boies. At end of that long speech, you said yes.

DB: Not long speech.

Boies: I get to ask the questions. I ask them in a precise way to get you to say yes, no or I don’t know.

DB: That was not a long speech. I can’t answer these yes or no. I do know the answers and I can’t answer when you ask that way.

Boies: (Finally gets him to answer “I don’t know.”) There. I knew I could do it!


Boies: Royal Institute discusses same sex or deinstitutionalization of marriage?

DB: Not same sex, but in substance discusses process of deinst.

Boies: Can you find that for me sir?

DB: If you get me the book, I can.

Boies: Vanderveer?

DB: I tried to make clear that I did not rely on them for same sex and deinstitutionalization. They are historians.

Boies: I’m trying to make the same point, that you tried to make, that you did not rely on any of the people in this notebook to arrive at your conclusions?

DB: That’s not correct. We already found that Prof. Davis dealt with deinst.

Boies: Where?

DB: I can’t find it here, but he does.

Boies: Malinowski?

DB: Not on same sex marriage.

DB: Deinst, in body of writing.

Boies: In those materials in your binder does Malinowski deal with subject of deinst of marriage?

DB: I don’t know.

Boies: Prof. Levi Straus?

DB: I can save time by saying that he does not deal with same sex marriage but I don’t know if he dealt with deinst. Quite confident that this is only article in my testimony.

[UPDATE] 4:42

[This is the last for today, but I may try to reflect tonight. The presentation phase of the trial ends tomorrow at noon. It’s kind of sad, but it’s way time.

Boies keeps trying to get him to answer yes, no, I don’t know.

The judge is very amiable, but pushing. He said, Mr. B, you can answer the questions and then Mr. Boies or your counsel can ask what you think.]

Judge Walker: Perhaps a good night’s sleep will help everyone here. Can we conclude by noon tomorrow?

Boies and Cooper confer.

Boies: Yes, I can sharpen my questions and perhaps the witness can sharpen his answers and we can work together to get that done.

Judge Walker: Mr. Cooper, will you call Mr. Schubert?

CC: I don’t believe that will be necessary. We can solve the evidentiary issues between us.

Judge Walker: Very well.

CC: Tomorrow at 8:30?

Judge Walker: Absolutely! See you tomorrow.

Tags: , , ,


  • 1. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:39 am

    B: That was not a long speech. I can’t answer these yes or no. I do know the answers and I can’t answer when you ask that way.

    Hence why you are not an 'Expert Witness.'

  • 2. Steven  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:40 am

    ok…so is this guy just falling apart or is it just me? And getting very, very testy?

  • 3. JerseyJ9  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:42 am

    This is getting embarrassing!! Do you see this?? this is exactly how they ALL are! WE HAVE NO RIGHTS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE IGNORANT!! period!!

  • 4. Kimeron  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:43 am

    No, you are correct Steven. He's a HOT, STEAMING MESS sitting up there confused and ticked off that he's not getting to look "expert-like".

  • 5. Ron  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:43 am

    hes not an Expert Witness hes a joke sorry but its true

  • 6. Jenny O  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:44 am

    It's pretty bad, but I think this guy is actually doing better than Miller. That's not really much of a positive statement for them though.

  • 7. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:44 am

    I find it fascinating that he tries to cite Claude Levi-Strauss (a structuralist) and Bronislaw Malinowski (an ethnographer) … and then falls on his face and has to admit that neither of them wrote a single thing about same-sex marriage.

    Levi-Strauss did write about exchange of women as property (and said that the same principles applied in cultures that exchanged men), and Malinowski did write about homosexual relationships in various cultures he studied.

    The idea that either of these two men opined on marriage in cultures they studied amuses me no end. A good anthropologist observes without interference or judgment.

  • 8. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:44 am

    This man is a dolt.

  • 9. DM  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:44 am

    seems like he is being deliberately ornery so that he can be perceived to be badgered by the evil homo-lovin' lawyer. he does strike me as smart. snake-like, and still unqualified (bc it's hard to cover up your homophobia with a coat of fake intellectualism), but smart.

  • 10. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:44 am

    HOSTILE WITNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 11. Steve Mathias  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:44 am

    I am definitely hoping the plaintiffs win, but I can see where some of these questions could not be answered in a simple yes, no, I don't know structure. Social sciences can be complex and nuanced, and that can influence the ability to answer a straight-forward question.

    That said, he already established that he has, at best, very limited credibility, so we might as well rush him off the stand for his sake.

  • 12. Alena  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:45 am

    THIS is awesome. Cliffhanger!!
    I can't wait for the movie to come out!!

  • 13. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:46 am

    I guess we will be continuing cross examination tomorrow. The judge must not be going out of town after all.

  • 14. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Boies:" Yes, I can sharpen my questions and perhaps the witness can sharpen his answers and we can work together to get that done."

    I Like this guy! (Boies)

  • 15. Alyssa Ri  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Okay, are the Prop 8 side SERIOUSLY losing on purpose? C'mon how they possible put up witnesses like this on stand? It's incredibly embarassing… I don't understand, what makes them think in their right minds they are going to win this case? Aren't they worried??? This whole prop 8 testimony was TERRRIBBBLEE!!

  • 16. DM  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:47 am

    helpful context! makes me want to go read some of this stuff!

  • 17. karen in kalifornia  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Humm, no Mr. Schubert, darn was looking forward to that guy. The Mr Swiftboat of Prop 8.

  • 18. Steffi  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:48 am

    the other side is arguing the same what we were arguing some days ago, that the attorney askes questions that are to complicated to answer simply with yes no or dunno…

  • 19. Charlie  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Organ music swells. Tune in tomorrow at this same hour for another episode in our continuing saga…

  • 20. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Ignorant people get angry when faced with the fact that they really don't know very much.

  • 21. Michael  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:51 am

    I'm of the impression the anti-8 forces are putting on the more convincing case. Still, I'm afraid it'll head to SCOTUS and once there, I'm not sure what they'll do even with Messrs. Olson and Boise on our side.

  • 22. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:51 am

    I suppose it depends on the view you take. I agree the past few days have been a terrible rout for the defense, but they still spin it – "to their audience in a way that makes it more palitable.

  • 23. Steffi  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:51 am

    hey guys, wanted to say good night (its 1:50am here)
    hope I'll be able to see you tomorrow but if I can't make it we'll see on the trial-tracker facebook side.
    love you!
    (lol, this works for "night" as well as for "no on 8")

  • 24. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:52 am

    I dunno either, but will be interesting to see!

  • 25. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:54 am

    I believe that Blankenhorn thought he would be identified as an expert witness and not have to back up his testimony. In other words, he thought he could get by on being vague.

  • 26. ron1008  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:54 am

    After 11 days-THEY HAVE NOTHING- I want my Rights Now

  • 27. Alyssa Ri  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:54 am

    I guess same-sex marriage will be legalized in California in 2010 after all

  • 28. hearsay  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:55 am

    That's how you know when someone is lying. When they can't answer a simple yes or no. Did you steal that? No. Versus: Did you steal that? What exactly do you mean by steal?

  • 29. Steffi  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:56 am

    After the plaintiffs rested their case, the legal team called its first witness, Professor Kenneth Miller, a Harvard lawyer and political science professor at Claremont McKenna College. Dr. Miller thoroughly debunked the idea that those who seek to redefine marriage in this country possess no political power. From the speeches and policies of President Obama, all the way to the support of the California Legislature and public officials, Dr. Miller demonstrated the excessively thorough amount of political power that the “No on 8” campaign—and their allies across the country—do have regarding their agenda.

    At the end of day 10, the cross-examination of Dr. Miller was proceeding, and that examination will continue into day 11, Tuesday. Stay tuned, as Tuesday expects to see another important witness for the legal team: marriage expert David Blankenhorn.

  • 30. Ozymandias  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:56 am

    "Boies: Yes, I can sharpen my questions and perhaps the witness can sharpen his answers and we can work together to get that done."

    Holy crap… his questions were RAZOR SHARP already!! Can't wait can't wait can't wait!!



  • 31. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:57 am

    I don't know about ignorant (I am ignorant about the workings of astrophysics, which is why I go ask my rocket scientist friend … I'm not embarrassed when people know more than me), but *stupid* people surely do.

    That's when they start talking about "elitists" and "over-educated people" and pretend that eloquence is the equivalent of condescension.

    I'm just saying. :-)

  • 32. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Sorry, I have to ask again. Do they have anything to appeal. I would think that an upper court would call this a slam-dunk and refuse to accept an appeal.

  • 33. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:58 am

    When I say Good God you say Man!

    Good God!…….

  • 34. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Damn Steffi, they just keep on lying to their audience. You would think this legal spanking would teach them to stop lying.

  • 35. Dallas  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:00 am

    I don't think they are puposely trying to throw the trial. All these scare tactics and falsehoods were used to scare people into voting for Prop. 8. They had no evidence, facts, or whatsoever to back them up and now that they are being questioned on them, they are being brought to light. It just proves that people will believe anything regardless of facts or scientific evidence. In other words, they totally played the electorate based on fear mongering, using children, etc.

  • 36. Dracil  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Unfortunately, he sounds a lot like Creationists when cornered. Thinking of that "Dr." Dino guy who got thrown in jail for tax evasion. Can't even remember his real name anymore.

  • 37. Tommy  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Regarding the strict "Yes" or "No" answers, I will add that when the defense was cross-examining our witnesses, our witnesses rarely gave simple "Yes" or "No" answers either. They always qualified what they were saying. Not sure how Boies is getting away with it.

  • 38. Steffi  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:00 am

    protect marriage:
    Well, although we filed a motion some time ago asking the court to order the “No on 8” campaign to disclose to us the same types of documents as those we had to disclose to them, the court has refused to rule on our request and thus we have been prevented from examining even one single document from the opponents of Prop 8.

    This is the sort of striking disadvantage we have suffered all along even before trial started and now during trial. Since the moment the case started, the court has consistently sided with our opponents as they continue to “railroad” their case against the people’s right to vote for traditional marriage

    To show that homosexuals are not politically powerless, Dr. Miller provided “striking” examples of the many ways in which they have won support for their political agenda in California, claiming allies such as federal officeholders (both US Senators and President Obama) , local and statewide elected officials (more than 30 local officials, mayors of the top three cities, and every single Constitutional officer); organized labor (more than 54 such groups opposed Prop 8); major newspapers (21 of 23 opposed Prop 8 while the other two took no editorial position); major corporations (including a consortium of Silicon Valley businesses), and the fact that the “No on 8” campaign actually raised more money than the “Yes” side.

    Far from being “politically powerless,” the evidence has firmly established that the political influence of gays and lesbians in California has become quite powerful.

    NOTHING about cross (they don't have anythin from today)

  • 39. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Depends on what is, is.

  • 40. Steffi  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:01 am


  • 41. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:01 am


  • 42. sugarbritches  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:01 am

    But the appeals court CAN'T refuse to accept an appeal. They're stuck with it.

  • 43. Erwin  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:02 am

    We all gave Mr. Clinton heck over the "depends on what the definition is . . ." answer. It seems some people never learn from history.

  • 44. nightshayde  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Plus, after they spin to their followers about what an excellent job their side has done, they can rant and rave about commie pinko bleeding-heart liberal activist judges who pay no attention to anything said in the courtroom when their side loses this round.

  • 45. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:02 am


  • 46. nightshayde  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Sleep well, Steffi!

  • 47. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Malinowski reference:


    These links list major publications/books in addition to biographical information.


  • 48. ron1008  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Appeal! The only appeal here should be a call for a settlement for all the years of heart ache gay people have been put through. Like children being abused by priests. Where is the monitary settlement for us.

  • 49. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Now OTOH, the Supreme Court can toss this case out like last week's garbage, which I could see hapenning after we win here and in appeals.

  • 50. E. Thor Carlson  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:03 am

    The question he keeps asking is: "Does "X" discuss same sex marriage or deinstitutionalization of marriage in this work?" As an expert witness who sited these works he should be able to answer with a yes, a no, or I don't know. It's that simple.

  • 51. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:04 am

    Kent Hovind

  • 52. Steffi  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:04 am

    and worst of all: they are laying already the foundation…

    "This is the sort of striking disadvantage we have suffered all along even before trial started and now during trial. Since the moment the case started, the court has consistently sided with our opponents as they continue to “railroad” their case against the people’s right to vote for traditional marriage."

  • 53. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:05 am

    Waiting the Pug to spin the fact that Dr. Blank said that children would benefit from the legalization of Same sex marriage…..Oops!

  • 54. Glenn I  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:05 am


    We lose to ignorance. Not the sort of thing that makes me feel good, that's sure.

  • 55. Lily  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:05 am

    This is just getting pretty sad. I'm almost starting to feel sorry for the defense. Then I remind myself that they're attempting to stop me from getting married and I suddenly don't care about their feelings.

  • 56. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:05 am

    Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence in the Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina, after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including twelve tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents and forty-five counts of structuring cash transactions.

  • 57. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Peace Out!

  • 58. Nicole A  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:07 am

    Not a lawyer but I think you can appeal based on procedural issues: things that were admitted into evidence that I higher court will say should not have been. I don't think it's always dependant on the validity of the argument.

  • 59. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Feelings! WOAH OH A OH!…..FEELINGS!

  • 60. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Once this lawsuit is over and we have been classified as a suspect class. We should all of us file a class action lawsuit against the LDS church, the Catholic church, and the Southern Baptist coalition for civil rights abuses and ask for 5 trillion dollars in reparations from each organization. Enough to right the wrongs that we have had to endure all our lives.

  • 61. Dieter M.  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:10 am


    Rain in California: Blame the Gays
    Posted on: January 26, 2010 9:16 AM, by Ed Brayton

    San Diego's favorite wingnut, James Hartline, says that the torrential rains in Southern California are God's punishment on the gays:

    On January 16th, James Hartline warned San Diego and America about the radicalized homosexual group CAPI which has ties to an anti-semitic globalist homosexual group. CAPI is holding a gay pride conference in San Diego on January 21-24, 2010. The homosexual event is sponsored by Planned Parenthood.
    God responds five days later by bringing a catastrophic storm and flooding to the area during the wicked pro-abortion, homosexual activist event.

    James, James, James. You of all people should know that when the gays make it rain, it's raining men, baby.

    Punchline: he then quotes this Bible verse:

    "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be." Matthew 24:35-39
    Uh, James….that generation DID pass away without those things taking place. Heaven and earth did not pass away during that generation. Jesus didn't come back during that generation. But if you wanna build an ark, have at it.

  • 62. Linda  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:10 am

    He assumed that since he was testifying as an 'expert', his opinion would be all that mattered. He did not anticipate having to back anything up with actual documentation.

  • 63. J. Stone  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:11 am

    Boies is "getting away with" demanding yes or no answers because that's his prerogative during cross examination. He is a better lawyer than anyone the defense has, period. If defense counsel doesn't know how to conduct cross examination properly, that's no reason why our side has to botch it up, too.

  • 64. JimW  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:11 am

    My guess is that the defense will spin this so that they're the victims and use it as a way to raise money.

    Eventually it will make it's way to the SCOTUS. Considering how they have just handed our government over to the corporations, I'm concerned that even if there's a solid case on our behalf, we'll lose. The only encouraging hope I see if if all the appeals run on long enough for at least one of the conservative judges to die or retire and get replaced by one who's more liberal or at least moderate.

  • 65. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:13 am

    yeah, I'm with Tom, I'm thinking tossing… unless there's some bias on the bench.

  • 66. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:13 am

    I don't feel anything but contempt for them.

  • 67. IanSmith  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:13 am

    I think it should be clear by now that the Prop 8 people won by an appeal to emotion and fear, and the underlying (false) assumption that "good" people will simply agree with them.

    If there are more state measures or if an anti-prop 8 is resurrected here in CA, if organizers don't go into the black churches and take the ministers to task for using the exact same language on gays that used against blacks 50 years ago, their missing something important.

  • 68. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:14 am

    If he weren't so ugly on the inside, he probably wouldn't be so ugly on the outside.

  • 69. Andrew  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:14 am

    I know some have said that the questions the plaintiff lawyers were asking today were similar in structure to what the same lawyers objected to from the defense's cross examinations. I see the similar, but I would like to point something out.

    Whether or not a question can be answered with a simple yes, no, or i don't know really is dependent on how complex the question itself is. To me, Boies' questions are really fundamental, simple questions. "Was this said? Was that said?" etc… To that end, even though the subject matter may be complex, the question itself really isn't. Complex arguments and theories really only crop up from combining the answers to more fundamental and simple questions such as these.

    From what I remember of the defense's cross examinations, the questions weren't as clear-cut and fundamental. So to me, even though it seems like the plaintiffs are doing the same thing they objected to earlier, the reality is that the similarity is only superficial.

  • 70. Lymis  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:14 am

    The reason that there seems to be a difference in cross-examinations is that our side is very, very careful to ask questions that can accurately and specifically be answered yes or no, while their was not.

    "To the best of your knowledge, is the sky blue" is a very different question from "Tell me how you feel about sunsets."

    Similarly, "to the best of your knowledge, did this researcher address same sex marriage" is a yes, no, I don't know question that an expert witness can answer.

    The other side kept asking "so-and-so said this, do you agree that this is reasonable" and "doesn't this show that this is true?" questions, where an expert witness has an actual responsibility to say "hold it, you've phrased that wrong. This is the way it really is."

    Our side seems snippy, yes, but they are being very careful to ask only questions that are within their rights, and reining in the witness when they try to go outside the question. The other side often let our witnesses wander way off topic, which is also their right, if they choose to allow it.

  • 71. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:17 am

    We could also sue for defamation of character!

  • 72. Andrew  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:19 am

    So question… if we win here and all the way through appeals, etc… and it goes to SCOTUS, but SCOTUS just tosses it out, that basically means that we lost in the end since we're the plaintiffs, right?

  • 73. Linda  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:20 am

    I get the feeling that the prop8 sites have their 'blogs' written days ahead. They bare no resemblance to what actually took place.

    The key, I think, is the transcripts of this trial HAVE to get to the public. TV, billboards, mailings….what's the best way to get the word out? Newscasters would be a big help, but I'm not seeing it happen.

    How can we make this thing go viral?

  • 74. sugarbritches  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:21 am

    Yes, after the appellate court rules, if this is appealed to the Supreme Court it's up to them whether to hear the case. If they decide to sidestep the whole issue and pretend it doesn't exist, then the appellate court ruling would stand. That ruling, of course, would provide precedent for other federal cases.

  • 75. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:22 am

    RE Andy's blog entries. Comments are ON for all blog entries up until January 11. Doesn't look like anyone ever commented (they are still open for comments before January 11.)

  • 76. sugarbritches  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Andrew, no, if we win here and at the appellate level, then we've won. If the Supreme Court doesn't hear the case, the appellate ruling stands.

  • 77. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:23 am

    Yes Ronnie, even their own witnesses could/should sue.

  • 78. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Flood every MB from here to China…..Copy what is posted on here and paste it on evert phone pole and street light……… put copies on every car and in every male box……go to malls and put copies inside every pocket of every clothing that is for sale…….just to name a few

  • 79. Nicole A  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:25 am

    This should come as no surprise: David Blankenhorn's Institute for American Values pubished this little ditty:

    The Age of Unwed Mothers:
    Is Teen Pregnancy the Problem?
    Maggie Gallagher, Principal Investigator. 1999

    Our old "friend" Maggie Galagher! To be fair, this was published before NOM was started but it's still not surprising.

  • 80. Andrew  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Ok, so we would stand with our win at the apellate court… but if SCOTUS doesn't accept it, then it only applies for the 9th district and can then only be used as evidence of precedent for another future SOCTUS case on the same issue?

    Sorry if this is rudimentary, I'm just trying to sort it out.

  • 81. sugarbritches  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:28 am

    Not as precedent for a Supreme Court case, no. As precedent for other federal cases. Generally speaking (and there are certainly plenty of exceptions), courts like to follow precedent. So this would strongly influence other federal court decisions.

  • 82. Charlie  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:30 am

    "Only bad witches are ugly." (from The Wizard of Oz)

  • 83. becca  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:32 am

    I dunno, folks. I think he's coming across better than Miller did – wish I could actually *see* his reactions rather than trying to read things into his words. And if the "marriage is for babies" argument has already succeeded in NY court (cite?), it could succeed here or at appeal.

    I didn't follow the NY case: did anyone try to ask them what about adoptive families, infertile couples, childless by choice couples?

  • 84. Spaniard  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:33 am

    In a way, I don't want this trial to end! I'm so totally addicted to this live blogging and the conversations at the comments, and everything that all these is bringing up… and then we have to wait how long?

    thanks for another day of good work, Rick!

  • 85. nightshayde  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:33 am

    The problem is that the Pro-8 ministers in the black churches have carefully taught their congregations that being gay is a choice and can't be compared with the civil rights struggle in which the AA community has been involved for all these decades.

    I'm not sure if this is a related thought or not … but I remember being told in my Human Sexuality class at UCLA that agencies working on HIV/AIDS prevention/awareness were having trouble getting their message heard in the AA community (they were specifically trying to target their education program at bisexual men who were becoming infected with STIs & then bringing the infections back to their wives). The professor said one big problem was that bisexual AA men didn't self-identify as "bisexual." In their minds, they were just straight men who happened to enjoy sex with other men. I don't know if attitudes in the community have changed in the past two decades, but I would think that would add to the "gay is a choice" opinion in the black churches. If straight men who have sex with other men can just choose not to have sex with men, why can't other men just choose not to have sex with men?

    I don't know that the concept of people being in loving committed relationships rather than just having emotionless sexual relationships has been raised in the churches — and I think that the lack of that viewpoint is definitely a problem.

  • 86. Miller  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:34 am

    when was the NO on 8 campaign asked to disclose the same internal communications and why did it not have to be turned over to the defense?

  • 87. erasure25  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:35 am

    It's easy to answer yes or no when you know the answer, like our experts did!

    Sure, there are times when you are telling the truth and you have to explain a little bit. But when you are committing intellectual dishonesty, which DB was doing on the stand, then you always have to go on some long ramble.

  • 88. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Let's separate facts from beliefs. Remember, beliefs are the opposite of facts.

    First of all, the US Constitution GUARANTEES equal rights, equal access, and due process to EVERY US citizen. It also guarantees the freedom of religion, the separation of church and state, and the freedom to assemble, or associate. These protections are guaranteed regardless of race, creed (beliefs), religion, sex (it does not say gender, but SEX), national origin, age, and so forth.

    What the Prop 8 people would like to do is to impose their beliefs, and most usually, their religious doctrinal beliefs upon other people, as if they had no rights. They might have no or little voice, but equal rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, even though they are not always enforced with prudence and equanimity to the full effect of the Law.

    I am a Republican, and I am both outraged and humiliated that some people would chose to try to impose their religious Burkhas on other Citizens, cloaking other people's rights, identities, and families, with smug arrogance.

    Perhaps the reason the Prop 8 people seem to be falling apart is because they do not have RIGHT on their side.

    If the religious people prefer Holy Matrimony, then that is their right under Freedom of Religion. However, legal, state sanctioned Marriage, is a fundamental legal right, it cannot be denied to some citizens whose orientations differ from the Majority. Right are immutable. Instead of calling for Gay Rights, I think it is more accurate and prudent to demand Equal Rights for Gay people, moreover, Equal Rights for Everyone. It is already guaranteed. Now it must be demanded, recognized, and legislated by the Federal Courts who protect the Rights of ALL.

  • 89. Suzy  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:39 am

    Ya know…every time I see DB…I mentally say Douchebag.

  • 90. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:39 am

    Boies-speak for: "Today I brought daggers, tomorrow I bring the big swords!"

  • 91. erasure25  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:40 am

    I should also note that academics love to qualify their answers. It protects them from being accused of intellectual dishonesty. I'm an environmental scientist and I qualify all of my data (X was based on assumption Y, which resulted in Z – implying that if Y is not the case, then Z may not be the case).

    But it seems DB went overboard and was trying to qualify everything, even to the point of contradicting something from his earlier works and depo. Inconsistency will bite you in the a$$.

  • 92. Tim  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:41 am

    OMG, I had only heard of him in the context of creationism, and had no idea that he went to prison!

    Then I read

    "On October 21, 2006, the trial began in which he hoped to convince a jury that his amusement park admission and merchandise sales belonged to God and cannot be taxed."


  • 93. Ziad  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:42 am


  • 94. Miller  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:43 am

    i don't fully understand. i read that this trial creates the record of evidence for the following trials. if the verdict is appealed to the next stage (or two) will there be all new testimony and witnesses?

  • 95. Brad  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:44 am

    I pasted below the first two paragraphs of a 2007 NYTimes interview with Blankenhorm. Well, today, he told the court that children of same-sex couples will benefit if their parents are allowed to marry. Okay, so what's good for those kids would seem to be good for those kids' families and for the social institution of family; and so for the social institution of marriage. Time for Blankenhorn to come out of the intellectual closet and acknowledge that same-sex marriage strengthens marriage as a social institution.

    Published: June 23, 2007

    Could legalizing same-sex marriage actually strengthen marriage as a social institution? “If I could believe this,” writes David Blankenhorn, “I would support gay marriage without reservation.”

    Mr. Blankenhorn is a self-described liberal Democrat and “marriage nut,” a veteran leader in the movement to strengthen marriage, and especially fatherhood, in the United States.

  • 96. Miller  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:44 am

    tell a lie enough times and people will believe it.

    the side telling the most lies is wrong.

  • 97. CharlesF  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:45 am

    Whoa there. Let's not conform to all the leftist stereotypes at once, shall we?

  • 98. Brad  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Well reasoned and well said, Bill.

  • 99. SarahE  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:47 am

    This is exactly what I was thinking.
    Can't we somehow sue them for lying?

    Love from Phila,
    Pennsylvania will approve ss marriage right after Mississippi does :(

  • 100. Steven  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:48 am


  • 101. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:49 am


    They are actually building this case. They know it is just the beginning. Every word on the record can really only help us at this point, as all of their witnesses have really done poorly, almost crumbling, on cross-examination.

  • 102. Suzy  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:50 am

    ok…I have a question.

    The trial is being recorded (audio), right?

    Can someone request that the audio be released under the freedom of information act?

    And if so, how much time must elapse before the request is made?

  • 103. Dieter M.  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:52 am

    Maggie Gallagher, the self professed expert on how hetero marriage protects and is meant soley for procreation, had her very OWN child out of wedlock….what do ya know..LOL..
    Maggie has an illegitimate bastard baby, and is telling US how sacred and pro child hetero marriage only is.

    POT: meet kettle…..

  • 104. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Please cast the main roles for us.

    I will start:

    Burl Ives as Judge Walker,…

  • 105. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:54 am

    I was looking forward to that too!!!

    Bill in Cali, too!

  • 106. Suzy  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:55 am

    I tried posting this question, but it didn't go through. So I'll try again

    The trial is being recorded , right? At least an audio?

    Can someone file a freedom of information request for it to be released?

    If so…how long must one wait after the legal process before a request can be made?

  • 107. Suzy  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:55 am

    oops…double post. Sorry.

  • 108. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:56 am

    I guess it really always does come down to what the definition of 'is' is?

  • 109. sugarbritches  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:58 am

    No, at the appellate level there's no new evidence and no witness testimony. An appeal claims either an error in law (the judge applied the law incorrectly to the facts), a fact error (the judge interpreted the evidence incorrectly and arrived at the wrong factual conclusion) or a procedural error. The attorneys for the two sides submit briefs, and the court reviews the briefs and the record from the trial court. Sometimes they allow oral argument by the attorneys as well.

  • 110. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:58 am

    @Miller – No – only the record and evidence of this case goes to a higher court as well as the lawyers for each side in an appeal.

  • 111. Mark  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:59 am

    On behalf of the straight population, I would like to thank you all for helping end the drought

  • 112. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:01 am

    Thanks, Brad. I like your posts, too.

  • 113. Christopher in San F  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:01 am

    hi suzy,

    it was my understanding that the recording was for the judges review only. im not sure it can be released….anyone else?


    christopher in san francisco

  • 114. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:03 am

    They believe in microevolution civil unions, but not macroevolution same-sex marriage.

  • 115. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Thanks for the link. Pretty much everything he stated in here is in that article.

    I am planning on re-reading it tomorrow after I have read the full transcripts from today.

    He seems to be chasing butterflies (for lack of a better term) in his thought process.

    He said, “Anything that causes an interesting new conversation where both sides recognize the validity of some of the other side’s concerns,” he said, “who knows, maybe an interesting new dynamic could emerge.”

    That's what we have been trying to do, but seems it's their way, or no way.

    Again Brad, thanks for the link.

  • 116. sugarbritches  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Hmmm…wonder why I said "sometimes?" Oral argument is the rule rather than the exception, although it's at the discretion of the court.

  • 117. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Love the sinner, hate the sin.

    Ain't you been payin' attention?????????

  • 118. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:07 am


    Because I thought James Hartline was God's punishment on humanity for anal sex.

  • 119. chet  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:09 am

    to 98: Becca…
    In the courtroom Blankenhorn seems to be annoying the judge with his long, evasive answers that make Boies start over. Rick's (excellent but approximate) transcript can't convey the stammering and befuddled looks, nor the weirdly fervent and rambling speaking style (that to me betrays his fierce determination to defend his irrational house of cards). Transcript version of Blankenhorn makes him seem way more coherent than he is.

    Not that the judge would care, but it seemed to me during his direct testimony that Blankenhorn looked frequently at Boies after and during his answers, as if constantly worried that he might say something to be used against him.

    Contrast all that with Miller, who seemed fairly calm in demeanor throughout. Though he did by the end seem to be calm in a sort of humiliated, given-up-hope way.

  • 120. chet  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:11 am

    oops I realize now I should've replied to Becca's comment above, as the comment numbers don't stay constant.

  • 121. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Ok so I was saving this for a good time but I really want to get this out because it's kinds funny:

    I was walking my do last night (3 & 1/2 yo long haired Chihuahua) and he always barks and is attack mode with this man in my neighborhood…..

    So last night he finally asked, "Dude WTF is up with your dog?"

    I said, "I don't know… your approve of same sex marriage?"

    He said, "are you f-ing kidding me with this, NO!…and the whole usual argument, god this adam ect ect…"

    I said, " There's your answer, even a dog knows a Bigot is full of shit!"

    Mean while the entire time I am fighting to hold back my fierce little dog…

    I walked away but looked back and his mouth was wide open with shock….."GOOD GOD MAN!"…..hehehe

  • 122. butchfaginnola  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:11 am

    which again proves the arrogance of the bigots.

    very much the grounding that includes circular thought patterns like:

    you have to do xxx because I said that god said you have to do xxx because i said god said so, and i know its true because god told me so and he said you were not going to believe me which makes you a bad person because god said so and you sitll have to do xxx or go to hell because that is where god sends abominations like you unless you do what i said god said to do

    whew!!!! that was hard to type, my head is exploding….

  • 123. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:11 am

    You ARE aware that you have failed the GOP Purity test, aren't you, Bill.

    (Another 'Bill' here)

  • 124. Miller  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:12 am

    thank you for clearing that up! So this is THE trial as far as evidence and testimony. Further trials will basically be about technicalities? Does this bode well for the plaintiffs? I think it does based on showing no state interest in excluding ss couples from civil marriage.

  • 125. atriana  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:13 am

    Wow, ain't that the truth.

    This trial made into a movie would sway the hearts and minds of everyone in this country and I think we'd see real change happen all over the place.

  • 126. Taylor  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:17 am

    The thought occurred to me today as I read DB's testimony…. provided he truly believes what he says…. These type of people DESPERATELY want the 1950's back. There is absolutely no room in their narrow blinder-vision perception for anything other than a Ward and June Cleaver kind of family.

    We are all here supporting marriage equality because we know that just like individuals, families don't fit well in cookie cutter molds.

    I personally came from a very broken hetero household. Lots of physical, mental and sexual abuse. I know first hand that one man – one woman is not an automatic recipe for success. I think a lot of you know the same. To hear an implication that a single parent, gay parent or whatever is an automatically less desirable child rearing environment makes me want to spit.

    The 50's are gone. No amount of wishing on their part are going to bring those times back. The world has changed. They can fight the future, but they ultimately are going to lose.

  • 127. Kathleen  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:18 am

    When Mr. Blankenhorn was going on about the importance of fatherhood, I kept thinking… 'so is his only objection to lesbian marriages? After all, if fatherhood is so critical, then wouldn't two fathers be better than one?'

  • 128. michael  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:18 am


  • 129. Tim  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Hey be careful there! I dunno where you live, but people have gotten beaten up by gay bashers for less than that. Like Jack Price last year :(

  • 130. Patrick  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:24 am

    also to address Tommy-

    Boies is not trying to impeach his testimony (though the witness is doing a mighty fine job of it himself) he is trying to impeach him as an expert. The difference between an intelligent lay person and an expert is quite clear. As a lay person, you can have opinions, be well versed on the law and have a well organized view of how the world should work. You can testify in trial as to your opinions, if you are ever asked to do so. AS AN EXPERT, you MUST have a scientific basis for your testimony. You are not being asked your opinion, and therefore, you are not being impeached on your personal views. You are testifying as to your understanding of scientific research. The only opinion they are asking you, is what you think the research shows. THEREFORE, when Boies is grilling him to point out where he found the basis for his finding that "research shows X" he, as an expert, should be able to provide the sources. He is not asked to study something for 20 years, become versed in the subject matter, then testify to his own conclusions (esp since as he admitted in the beginning that he had not done any research on this). This would be an intelligent lay person. His side should have explained to him what would be asked of him, and prepared him to answer appropriately. This is not badgering the witness. It is Boies' job to expose this "man" as not an expert and therefore not worth listening to (at least not as an expert witness), and he's doing a mighty fine job!

  • 131. Woody  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:25 am

    Holy crap! He looks like that scary preacher dude in "Poltergeist"!

  • 132. Suzy  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Just a comment here.

    I have been soo bombarded with work these last few weeks. I usually give 150% at work, but the last few weeks it has only been 100%. I love the folks I work with. They from across the spectrum…Catholics, Muslims, Protetants and heathens (thats me!)….but they all support SS marriage.

    Anyways, although I have only made a few posts, I have grown found of many of the folks posting here.

    I think it would be really great if a forum were available on this site for us to keep up with one another. Maybe that can be addressed in the suggestions that were requested earlier.

  • 133. Miller  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:34 am

    It's so sad because the defense has no case. These two guys did not help their case at all. The only help they give is for more lies to be spread by the prop 8 people. This case is exposing all of their lies. Religious persecution will be claimed by the traditional marriage side and they'll point to the bible to show that their persecution was predicted.

    The fact is, if they didn't pick the fight against us, they wouldn't be in this case. Religious groups against ssm are free to forbid it in their building, but they are not free to restrict our rights in civil matters.

  • 134. sugarbritches  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:38 am

    I would be reluctant to characterize questions of law as technicalities. That aside, certainly I think the plaintiffs have a much stronger case, but I'm way biased and not really qualified to judge. Keep in mind that the trial is about whether Prop 8 is constitutional, not about whether same-sex marriage is beneficial or desirable. So the evidence about how wonderful same-sex marriage is needs to be evaluated as to how it supports the claim that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, not as to whether it makes a good case for same-sex marriage.

  • 135. Woody  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:42 am

    They don't want the real, sometimes scary Fifties (atomic bombs, McCarthyism), but a fictionalized, idealistic simulacrum of the 1950s. What they want to "go back to" never really existed.

    Like when Michelle Bachmann says she wants roll back to the days of the founding of the Constitution–forgetting that African Americans were slaves and women like her didn't have the right to vote, let alone hold office.

    I really believe that these people are living in a fantasy world and are lashing out in frustration that the real world is not as they think it should be. Thus, they cannot win, because they can't go back to a world that never even existed.

  • 136. muaddib1  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:42 am

    Bill, you make some very good points, however, my understanding is that the separation of church and state is a principle, not _specifically_ addressed in the US Constitution or any amendments.

    This is from Wikipedia:
    "The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The modern concept is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court, though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle."

  • 137. Woody  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:42 am


  • 138. Woody  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Still funny though! I wish I had the cajones to do that sometimes.

  • 139. Miller  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:50 am

    What is the best way I as a person, or as a small group, to get the word out about this case?

    Can I print flyers and put them on cars and telephone poles all over the city? What should go on the flyer to best inform the public of the truth?

    Is there a site comparing the facts of the case to the kool-aid being served on the site? This might be really helpful for people on the fence about marriage equality.

    If anyone would read the flyer and went to a web site they'd probably want a simple site to get the basic facts and catch their interest and then go to links with more in depth information.

    Are there apps for cell phones or phone friendly sites to make it easy for someone to quickly check our side of the case?

  • 140. NVLawMan  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:53 am

    All witnesses under cross-examination are hostile…. That's why there is the automatic right to ask leading questions. A witness can only be designated as "adverse" or "hostile" when they meet the following criteria:
    1) were originally called/to be called by the opposing party but have now been called by the opposing side to provide material evidence or expand the scope of understanding (ie- Mr. Tam from a few days ago)
    2) were intended as a a non-hostile witness but during the course of direct examination provide testimony that is antagonistic in its tone or form or that is contrary to the legal position of the examiner's client [in this case the examiner must make request for issuance of the designation and the judge must order it to be so]

    Sorry, just wanted to clear up this very common misconception/misappropriation of the legal term.

  • 141. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    to Woody I just had to mention that my dog's name is Woody also….xoxo…. ; )

    to tim…. true but I'm not scared of anybody…. I have been threatened in high school (just 7 0r 8 years ago)….. I'm a pretty good boxer so I can hold my own…If anything it would look like a straight bashing….while my dog bites of his fingers…….But I also have video phone so the would be proof is on my side that it would be self defense….hehehe

    Don't you just love technology age?

  • 142. Callie  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    I'm all in for a civil suit against the churches for defamation of character and slander. They've deliberately lied in order to ruin our lives. They need to pay for this.

  • 143. Callie  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    And just to be clear, pay financially. Don't want that misconstrued.

  • 144. Linda  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Oh, I think they'll claim bias. They were claiming bias before the trial even started. That, really, has been their whole defense.

    We need to do side-by-sides of their blogs re: the trial, and the actual Q & A exchange.

  • 145. NVLawMan  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    My concern lies with the (assumedly imminent) appeal process. I have little doubt that this is some calculated move. I really can't imagine that they are all really just that bad at lawyering on the defense side (although I suppose it is not beyond the realm of possibility).

    In issues such as this, where the right knows their argument is based not in reason and fact but in a set of ideological muck, they always shoot to get something off on a technicality. I don't think we should ever underestimate the deviousness of our opponents, because at least we would be pleasantly surprised if the truth really were they are just that bad while a mis-calculation could be disastrous for our position. Further, I think the evidence presented in this trial lends itself to drawing the assumption that they have scheming little minds (see LDS Presidency's calculation that it would be "bad" if they were associated too closely with Yes on 8).

    Heck, they might even have proffered these attorneys as sacrificial lambs to later be swept aside and discredited before the appeals court and, most likely, SCOTUS. And just think about the lack of witnesses…. it is unfortunate in a way that the 9th Circuit and the Eastern District of CA attempted to utilize this case as a pilot for the broadcast because they have played the game as we have seen that their "poor witnesses are scared for their families and the potential for their economic welfare". That is, I theorize, at least part of the reason why the Olson-Boies team have made every effort to include the depositions of these witnesses as evidence and to even call Tam as an adverse witness. That lessens their ability on appeal to make a case for a mistrial or to call for remand.

    It has the added benefit of further supporting our case.

  • 146. Linda  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Isn't passing legislation because it is a tenet of faith of the majority of Americans establishing religion? By saying that I can't marry, because it is against their God's laws, aren't they establishing their religion as superior and more valid than mine? I am not required to believe their dogma, but I am required to live as if I do.

  • 147. butchfaginnola  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    @ 40. Miller | January 26, 2010 at 5:34 pm
    when was the NO on 8 campaign asked to disclose the same internal communications and why did it not have to be turned over to the defense?

    They actually didn't, instead their blogosphere twisted an order against a Perry request for disclosure of internal campaign information into one that supposedly went against them, which oddly didn't.

    if you go to

    and in the cases of interest list select the link about the third from the bottom, it shows you all the opinions and orders issued up until 01/04/2010

    you can see in the document listed as 01/04/2010 Amended Opinion that the good guys ((us)) over reached in a discovery request and the bad guys ((them)) claimed first amendment privilege for their campaign. very interesting and very telling.

    That ruling coupled with the recent SCOTUS rulings have me a bit concerned on how this will play out in the end game.

  • 148. becca  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    I post the link to here and to firedoglake on my fb status frequently, and mention the trial in other fora that I follow. I'm trying in my owl quiet way to get the word out that something truly momentous is going on.

  • 149. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    Of course you are right. Even though there is separation of Church and State, it has NEVER been a reality, or realized.

  • 150. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    LOL. You are very funny. You do realize that the fundamentalist extremists are a fairly new feature to the Republican party over the past 25 years or so? They used to be Democrats (the poor uneducated fundamentalist extremists who have become middle class in the last generation or so.)

  • 151. Jane  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    OMG — When this goes in for appeal Pugno will claim he had incompetent witnesses. The witnesses will probably sue for harrassement and claim they had incompetent counsel.

    Actually I think this is a good showing of how much respect or lack there of that Pugno and his crew have for the law. Talk about things being based on "feelings" and "emotions" — this witness isn't a qualified expert by definition, he works with people that talk about deisnt of marriage, but they never say anything about ss, yet that's what he takes to the public — gets their emotions and feelings going.

    Heck I think they should let Shubert testify, just for the entertainment factor.

    I wonder if Pugno can get disbarred for his actions in all of this.

  • 152. James  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    Thank you, you are brilliant!!!

  • 153. Taylor  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    Excellent clarification.

  • 154. Tommy  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    I really don't see the difference.

    “So-and-so said this, do you agree that this is reasonable?"

    Why wouldn't that be a yes or no answer?

    If the defense grilled Professor Cott, for example, in the same way, "Yes or no, please," "You can give speeches for counsel, not for me," "Your Honor, please instruct the witness to answer my question," I'd be pretty pissed, as I'm sure others on here would be. I'd be screaming, "Let her answer the damn question!"

    As J. Stone said, I guess it just boils down to Boies being a better attorney. I'm just glad he's on our side.

  • 155. James  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    don't fool yourselves. Ward liked riding crops, and June had a special relationship with her dildo. Don't even ask about Beaver….Wally, well, he was just your normal homosexual sort of anything is ok guy.

  • 156. MJFargo  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    I believe it was specifically stated the recording could be used for/by the judge. Transcripts (not blogs) are up at

  • 157. Dave T  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    They're not purposely trying to throw the trial, but they are setting things up for more scare tactics – "See, the judges are out to corrupt your children too!"

  • 158. Kate  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Posting a link to the official court transcripts is a good move. It's neutral, no commentary or 'spin' from either side. Just the proceedings as captured by the court stenographer:

    They pretty much speak for themselves.

  • 159. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    not really, unless you pronounce it "nate"

  • 160. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Did I misread, or did DB say that same-sex marriage was good? And if so, how come Boies didn't bring it up?

  • 161. Livebogging Day 11: Part &hellip  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    […] Liveblogging Day 11: Part VI […]

  • 162. Gus  |  January 26, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    And all their ‘history’ is gleaned from 1950’s movies. Look at the westerns, man strikes out to the west after a failed business or just poverty in the east. Gets his land and his family follows after a few years. What crap, the man left his family back east and made a new one in the west.
    And their religion is all Cecil B DeMille.
    This is why they fight so much to bring back 1950's and 1960's style television thru AFA and other organizations.

  • 163. William  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    On the SCOTUS issue, can't Obama appoint two or three additional Supreme Court justices that might be expected to be more in sympathy with the minority in that case (and also in this case)? As far as I know there is no limit on the number of justices, although it's been traditional for several decades to limit them to nine. Thus the origin of the otherwise obscure saying, ”A switch in time saves nine.“

  • 164. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    Tommy, the reason is it is a yes or no answer is that the wording of the question does not suggest or hint for anything but a yes or no answer.

  • 165. Kathleen  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:22 pm

    Here's the AP story of yesterday's trial, as reported in the NYT:

    We weren't the only ones who perceived this witness as being an ineffective defense witness.

  • 166. Karl  |  January 27, 2010 at 12:04 am

    No – James Hartline is NOT God's punishment on humanity for anal sex. He's God's punishment for the Velour jumpsuit. A common mistake, though

  • 167. Tigger  |  January 27, 2010 at 12:21 am

    That sums it up! Compared with what the blog says (DB said all this fancy stuff about the deinstitutionalization of marriage, with no mention of how his position disintegrated under cross). Then they end with:

    "Outside the courtroom, the plaintiffs’ attorneys sharply criticized the notion that redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships would contribute to the deinstitutionalization of marriage. That argument, they said, is like saying that extending the right to vote to women “deinstitutionalized” the voting process.

    "Nice sound bite, but the analogy fails. Securing women’s right to vote didn’t do a thing to change the meaning and importance of voting. By contrast there is no doubt that re-defining marriage to include homosexual relationships would ipso facto divorce the institution itself from its fundamental, biological foundation. Nice try."

    Oooh! they used Latin words, just like in a real courtroom!

  • 168. Kathleen  |  January 27, 2010 at 12:59 am

    I'm so sick of listening to these people talk about the "biological foundation" of marriage. They say women voting "didn't do a thing to change the meaning and importance of voting." I contend that allowing same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to change the meaning and importance of marriage. It's precisely because of the "meaning and importance" of marriage that it's so important to extend this right to same sex couples!

  • 169. Kathleen  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:08 am

    Oh, and while we're talking about institutions… how about the fact that legalizing same sex marriage will be a move toward deinstitutionalizing bigotry.

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