Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Livebogging Day 11: Part V

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

[Wherein at the end, the witness says “Discriminatory not to call two things that are the same by the same name.” This is not out of context. That’s what he said about same sex marriage vs. domestic partnerships. Read to the end. This guy is just too much. And boy can he talk!

I’m sorry to keep editorializing, but this guy has strong opinions and no data. He just knows what he knows, is apparently incapable of original research and just keeps repeating himself.]

DB: Dr. Norval Glenn who is prominent sociologist at Univ. of Texas in Austin 2004. Reads: However, acceptance of the arguments made by advocates of same sex marriage would lead to its logical end, i.e., that purpose of marriage is the couple rather than anything larger than the couple.

The scholars are on opposite side of policy side of whether we should adopt same sex marriage.

CC: Are there other scholars who talk about same sex as accelerating deinstitutionalization of marriage?

DB: Yes

CC: How confident are you that same sex will accelerate deinstitutionalization of marriage?

DB: Impossible to say. I do believe marriage will weaken through deinstitutionalization. No one can say with absolute certainty that this will happen. I sincerely, believe this is likely result of adopting same sex marriage.

CC: Getting close to end of examination. How will this manifest self in society?

CC: In what ways in your opinion will extending marriage to ss couples and therefore the deinstitutionalization of marriage manifest itself in society?

DB: I think a likely consequence is acceleration or devaluation of marriage, fragility, divorce, one-parent homes.

[Okay here it is. He says that if the gays can marry, more people will get divorced.]

DB: My fear and my conclusion is that this is a likely outcome.

DB: I have had some personal experience with this. Since 1995, I have spent more time than just about anyone else saying that child needs father. Ought to be non-controversial. Will go from mildly controversial to mean-spirited, offensive. If you cannot speak publicly about a value, hard for me to see how we can defend value. Simply being able to say that a child needs a mother and father, if that becomes just indefensible in any forum, a church, a school, a PTA meeting we lose something precious.

Boies: Objects.

Judge Walker: I’ll overrule . You said you are getting close to the end?

CC: Yes, your honor. How will same sex marriage hurt kids?

DB: When Canada passed same sex marriage, struck words, “natural parent” and replaced with “legal parent” which increases likelihood of children being raised in family forms other than her own two natural parents.

Also possibility, I there, could be the possibility of the public willingness to consider family forms such as polygamy. I think polygamous marriages are not in the interest of women or society. There’s already that in our society. The concept that marriage is between two people is already weakest attribute. It seems likely that over time that this aspect of the institution as well will come under criticism and call for reform.

CC: Why would redefining marriage as adult centric increase possibility of polygamy being accepted?

DB : Because man and woman reinforces idea of institution to two. If you knock out one of pillars, becomes less defensible.

DB: I support Civil Unions as possibly humane compromise between homos and marriage. I co-authored article in NYT with Jonathan Rausch who is scholar at Brookings who is proponent of same sex marriage.

DB: I really had not thought much about domestic partnerships until about two years ago. Rausch publicly challenged me and called me out on this. Said your thinking about DPs is uninvolved and immature. He challenged me to consider more carefully. I told him that I would and I did. It began a sort of journey with him and other leaders of pro-same sex marriage. That led to Rausch and I writing article endorsing civil unions and domestic partnerships in NYT.

CC: Why had you not thought about domestic partnerships until that time?

DB: Did not think I had to. Went into with idea that if you set up comparable institution to marriage and open to heteros as well, would set up smorgasbord of options for relationships. The people I was talking to were vociferous in denunciation of domestic partnerships. They thought was invidious, demeaning to same sex people. I accepted that view. Strongly influenced. I repeated that view as back of the bus, discriminatory and unfair. My concern about setting up dual institutions and the unfairness, the idea that it would be discriminatory without having written or thought much about.

Then in meeting with Rausch in 2007 and in next two years, I tried to think about it deeply and carefully with Rausch and others and that led to article I published with him last year.

CC: I take it that you no longer have views you had before?

DB: Still worry that domestic partnerships possibly could have weakening effect on marriage institution, but think we should do anyway because of other issues involved, but satisfied myself on issue of fairness. Is it unjust to have DP program. Core journey and exploration for me. My thinking now is that the core principle that we can hold out for our understanding is that marriage is larger than the sum of its legal incidence. When we say the word marriage, it’s a big institution that performs a very large contribution to society and much larger than its legal incidence. Marriage is not a creature of law. We look to law to recognize and support marriage, to give it support. Look at legal incidents of DP and legal incidents of marriage, comparable, but not same as marriage. Purpose of marriage is to bring together bio male and female, to bring together two genitors of child, to make it as likely as possible that they will be parents of child. That’s the lodestar. The DP is a differently purposed institution particularly with respect to marriage. This lodestar notion that animates the DP is different. Discriminatory not to call two things that are the same by the same name. I had to work that out with myself in the mirror. I’m not saying he’s responsible (Rausch) for my journey. I have worked that out to my satisfaction. Means a lot to me personally. I have been able to understand as advocate for customary marriage.

CC: Thank you.

Judge Walker: Ten minute break.

[UPDATE] 3:52

[Wherein the defendant’s witness says he’s for same sex marriage, seriously.]

Boies cross-examines.

Boies: Did you understand that the research shows that there is causal relationship between father/mother family and worse outcome to children?

DB: Yes.

Boies: Did you read the entire chapter?

DB: I read the whole book.

Boies: Do you remember the next page that says that single family homes are not cause of poor outcomes.

DB: Yes.

Boies: Are you saying that adoptive parents are worse than bio?

DB: No. (Insists on saying that because of screening often adoptive parents can be better parents than bio.)

Boies: Yes, I was going to get to that, but you have speeded things along.

(Puts up article from B’s institute. Did not expect to do this, but witness is more helpful than I thought.)

Boies: Offer exhibit 2880. When your Institute for American Values does it studies, it treats bio and adoptive together.

DB: I did not do this study, but I would not be surprised if we used them all together. We used customary practice that lumps them together. To see different outcomes, you’d have to study them separately.

Boies: Ordinarily, researchers include adoptive parents in studies with bio parents?

DB: No sir.

Boies: Ordinarily, do researchers …

DB: Depends on factors.

Boies: Let me jump right to bottom line.

DB: Good.

Boies. Are you aware of any study that shows that children of gays and lesbians have different worse outcomes than straight?

DB: No. May I add?

Boies: It is not okay for you to volunteer any information. You can give speeches when your counsel has you.

Boies: Have you given a lot of thought to DPs?

DB: Yes.

Boies: I asked you whether it was your view if DPs contribute to deinstitutionalize marriage? Yes, No. I don’t know.

DB: Yes, they could.

Boies: Let’s try to get your view regardless of what you said before.

DB: I believe it’s possible they could do so.

Boies: You say it’s possible. Anything is possible. Do you say it’s likely that they do so?

DB: I believe

Judge Walker: Counsel is entitled to an answer to his question. There’s a question and then an answer. That’s the way the process works.

Boies: Do you believe that DPs that are open to opposite sex couples are likely to speed deinstitutionalize of marriage.

DB: Yes.

Boies How about only open to same sex?

DB: Significantly less likely to do so.

Boies: Opposite sex couples over 62?

DB: Significantly less likely.

Boies. You know that same sex couples are raising children?

DB: Of course!

Boies: Hundreds of thousands?

DB: I don’t know.

Boies: Did you attempt to find out how many?

DB: Yes.

Boies: Approximately how many?

DB: I don’t know.

DB: I believe that adoption of same sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.

[UPDATE] 4:17

Boies: Reads DB’s quotes in which he says that America would be more just if it provides same sex marriage.

DB: I believed when I wrote them and I believe them now.

Boies: Do you recall scholars that you identified with Mr. Cooper?

DB: Yes.

Boies: Did any of the scholars that you identified with Mr. Cooper say that same sex marriage would reduce hetero marriage?

DB: May I say it back to you? I think I understand it.

Boise: Have any of scholars you have relied on asserted that allowing same sex marriage would lower rate of hetero marriage.

DB: Safest answer is I don’t know, but I believe the answer is that some of them have.

Boies: In that case, I’ll ask you which ones?

DB: I thought you might. That’s why I was careful walking into it. (Harrumphs.)

Boies: Comes from those discussions.

DB: Mr. Glenn talks about deinstitutionalization…

Boise: I need you to focus on the question. It’s a simple question.

DB: Not simple to me.

Judge Walker: Don’t argue with each other. Just ask a question and give an answer.

DB: I can answer the question.

Judge Walker: Than why don’t share your answer?

Boise asks question again.

DB: I believe that some of the scholars believe that permitting same sex marriage would lead to deinst of marriage. And goes on…

Judge Walker: Shall I take that as a “I don’t know?”

DB: With respect your honor, I do know the answer. I said it and I can repeat it.

Judge Walker: (Quite exasperated) The record is quite clear on what you said.

Boies: What scholars said that same sex marriage will lead to lower marriage rates?

DB: It will take me a few minutes to compose my memory.

Boies: Let’s be sure you know what is being asked. Which scholars that you have named with Cooper assert that deinstitutionalization of marriage will be hastened by same sex marriage and will lead to lower rates of hetero marriage.

DB: Professor Norval Glenn said that. He’s one of the most distinguished family scholars.

[Judge has completely stopped paying attention. This witness has ZERO credibility.]

DB: Prof. David Popenoe from Rutgers is another one.

DB: Popenoe says that same sex marriage will reduce hetero marriage rates. I can’t sit here right now that I cannot prove in exact word formulation what he said. If he were sitting here, I believe that’s what he would he say.

Boies: I am asking you to tell us what these people have written, not what you think they’d say if they were here, or what you believe they think. Do you understand the difference.

DB: Of course I do.

Boies: Answer my question.

DB: I am trying to the best of my ability. I came all the way from NY to be here to answer your questions to the best of my ability. I believe that Popenoe asserts that deinstitutionalization of marriage will lead to lower marriage rates, but I do not know if he mentioned same sex marriage.

Boies: While we were talking, I was looking at Professor Glenn’s paper. I don’t see that it mentions same sex marriage?

DB: It never occurred to me that everything I would say regarding my views had to be documented. I have studied this for twenty years. Maybe I made a mistake, but it never occurred to me that all of the views that I state had to tie to documents at end of book. If it did, this would have had many more scores of documents listed.

Boies: I do want to follow up on something you just said.

DB: No sir, (that article by Glenn) it’s listed.

Boies. At end of expert’s report, you placed a list sources on which you relied to form your opinion.

DB: Yes. That’s the list from which I was just reading.

Boies: Maybe the easiest way for me to approach this is to go through the articles that you went through with Mr. Cooper.

[NOTE] Last thread of the day.

Tags: , , ,

315 Comments

  • 1. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:34 am

    Blankenhorn is giving us the NOM talking points… they had no data to back them up, chances are he won't either.

  • 2. Andrea  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:35 am

    CC: How will SS marriage hurt kids?
    B: When Canada passed ss marriage, struck words, “natural parent” and replaced with “legal parent”

    I see his point. Kids are very sensitive to these sorts of changes to the legal code.

    Go ahead, just try to change the part where Goldilocks creates a tort when she samples the first bowl of oatmeal. I dare ya.

  • 3. Caleb  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Is Blankenhorn getting paid by the occurrence of the word "scholars" in his testimony?

    I thought HE was supposed to be the expert here.

  • 4. Adam  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Can't wait for the cross!! Thank God for Boies and Olson!

  • 5. John  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:36 am

    "CC: How confident are you that ss will accelerate deinstitutionalization of marriage?
    B: Impossible to say. I do believe marriage will weaken through deinstitutionalization. No one can say with absolute certainty that this will happen. I sincerely, believe this is likely result of adopting ss marriage."

    So he admits there is no empirical basis for this. Just his opinions. Very nice.

  • 6. Yann  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Again, I whish I could call myself an expert with such a low level of expertise on things…
    I could brag with a much better conscience.

  • 7. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:37 am

    What a load of horse shit.

  • 8. Ron  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:37 am

    thats all it is John its their opinions they have nothing more then that

  • 9. Gery  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:38 am

    Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It's just opinion, and I'm not even convinced that's it's truly informed.

  • 10. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:38 am

    At this point, I think you can.

  • 11. Yann  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:38 am

    I meant "I WISH…", of course…

    Damn, this stupid witness is making me lose my spelling abilities!

  • 12. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:38 am

    So, let's make sure we all understand this. I looked up Jonathan Rauch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Rauch

    While Mr. Blankenhorn makes it sound as though he and Rauch are on the same piece of paper, they are not. Rauch is gay, and a proponent of same-sex marriage.

    The article to which Blankenhorn refers makes it sound as though they are agreeing collaborators; they aren't. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch

    They are diametrically opposed to one another's positions. What Blankenhorn is basically saying, IMO, is that the big, bad, smart gay man made him more prejudiced.

  • 13. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:38 am

    Obviously, his expertise is stealing other people's work.

  • 14. Scottie  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:38 am

    Come on man he feels it in his gut!

    This is the George W. Bush approach and it worked for eight years so why not now?

  • 15. DM  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:38 am

    "The concept that marriage is between two people is already weakest attribute."

    WRONG. The concept that marriage is forever is its weakest attribute in America today.

  • 16. Happy  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:39 am

    Well, I'm glad B feels good about himself and his decision that DP and Marriage and Civil Unions and whatever else he wants to compare are all the same. I'm glad he sleeps well at night. I'm so glad he was able to work it all out to his "own satisfaction."

    Unfortunately, there are millions of homosexuals who are decidedly left UNSATISFIED, and have NOT worked it out to their own satisfaction.

    What a presumptuous a-hole.

    Today's my day to call people a-holes. Well, mostly just "B."

  • 17. Dave  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:39 am

    And now, Mr. Boies will commence with the demonstration that the witness's personal "Deep Thoughts" are not actual "evidence."

    I'm getting a picture in my mind of the medical expert who testified for the plaintiffs in "The Verdict". Only I don't think that the Prop 8 side has a nurse ready to come out and testify on their behalf…

  • 18. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:40 am

    Yep, he won't 'smooth-talk' his way through cross. Can't wait to see what they dig up from his depo.

  • 19. Happy  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:40 am

    WRONG again. The concept that marriage is between a man and woman ONLY is its weakest attribute in America today. :-)

  • 20. Mandy  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:41 am

    I think polygamous marriages are not in the interest of women or society
    _____________________________________________

    what… I have known a couple of people in polygamous relationships and in each situation it was one women, several men.

    of and ftr everything else the guy said was bs

  • 21. Alexandra  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:41 am

    This is a repeat question, but does anyone know why he is referred to as Dr.? He said he only has a Master's, but he's sworn in as Dr.

    Thank you.

  • 22. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Nothing but unsubstantiated assertions to see here. Move along, move along.

    ——–

    Good god man!

  • 23. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Yeah, I caught that too – Cross examination is up next.

  • 24. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:41 am

    "My fear and my conclusion is that this is a likely outcome."

    Yes, let's base ALL of our conclusions on our fears. How could that possibly be a bad idea?

  • 25. Anne  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Oh I am so looking forward to the cross exam on this one!

    Real simple …if marriage is for the kids, then SS couples with kids should be able to marry, and heteros who don't plan to have kids shouldn't be able to .

    As someone said earlier, if he really is arguing that marriage is better for the kids, better for society, how can ss marriage not be good as well?

    Anne

  • 26. Dan  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:42 am

    So apparently adopted children or children with a deceased parent are also evidence of marriage being "weakened"? I'm so confused.

    This guy makes no sense. I guess we shouldn't let anyone get married who isn't planning to procreate? Huh?

  • 27. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:42 am

    I love the argument that the straight people screwed up marriage, so let's not further risk it…. for the children

    Yeah, right. Clean your own house before judging mine.

  • 28. Rick Heintz  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:42 am

    I think I am going to need some popcorn and a soda for the cross on this one.

  • 29. John  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Probably just a mistake on Rick's part.

  • 30. Colt  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:42 am

    How about "asshat"? I never really heard that till I found this awesome trial tracker … looove that particular insult, hehe.

  • 31. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:43 am

    CC: How confident are you that same sex will accelerate deinstitutionalization of marriage?

    DB: Impossible to say. I do believe marriage will weaken through deinstitutionalization.

    Explain "weaken."

    And remember: Correlation does not equal causation.

    ——-

    Good god man!

  • 32. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Yeah, I agree – I did same thing as you did about Rauch and came-up with same conclusions!
    Love,
    David

  • 33. Jason  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Seriously – This case is all about getting to SCOTUS. The defense is depending on the 5-4 split to uphold this at the federal level. Unless we start organizing now for the appeal we will never get anywhere after this.

    That is the only conclusion i can possibly reach after these horrid witnesses.

  • 34. Russell V  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:45 am

    They have it coming to them. I can only salivate in anticipation of Boies' cross exam. Worth REAL butter on the popcorn, rather than the margarine I've been reading from the witness.

  • 35. Alexandra  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:46 am

    His name is David, I think it was my error. Thank you.

  • 36. katie  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:46 am

    I wonder how my Great Aunt and Uncle who were married for 57 yrs and had no children will feel when they find out that their marriage meant nothing to society?

  • 37. paulo  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:46 am

    So Mr. Blankenhorn has "evolved" on the issue has he? Very well then he has stated that his prior thinking and methodologies are in error. What exactly is his basis for telling the court he is not in error again? And why exactly is he unable to mouth any reasons "for" DP?

    One suspects he is playing CYOA for the Prop8 folks trying to get the judge to believe some scrap of the lie that they don't hate us.

  • 38. Carl E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Oh, yes. The dogs are fed, the dishwasher is running, and I have a nice tall glass of bourbon here. This is going to be one hell of a show.

    I've got $20 that says once it starts getting tough, Blankenhorn fakes a heart attack on the stand. Any takers?

  • 39. JerseyJ9  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:47 am

    "Civil Unions as possibly humane compromise" like were animals!!

  • 40. Eric  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:47 am

    This guy is a joke. He's developed his conclusion and gone searching for ways to back it up.

  • 41. jc  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:48 am

    i am literally on the edge of my seat, antsy with anticipation for the cross on this…there is no way he's coming out left with any dignity, oh wait, he seems pretty delusional(the pugno method to seeing reality your way…in ten easy steps), he'll probably not realize what a fool he'll appear to be afterward!

  • 42. Rebecca  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:48 am

    "CC: Why would redefining marriage as adult centric increase possibility of polygamy being accepted?"

    Marriage is not adult centric?

    DB & CC have completely pulled this out of their butts.

  • 43. Frijondi  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:48 am

    My two fine, legally married till death-did-them-part, biological parents would have been horrified at the notion that the most important about our family was its genetic and gender composition.

  • 44. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:48 am

    CC: How confident are you that same sex will accelerate deinstitutionalization of marriage?
    DB: Impossible to say. I do believe marriage will weaken through deinstitutionalization. No one can say with absolute certainty that this will happen. I sincerely, believe this is likely result of adopting same sex marriage.

    What? Did that happen in Canada?…..NO!

    Mass?……NO!

  • 45. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Purpose of marriage is to bring together bio male and female, to bring together two genitors of child, to make it as likely as possible that they will be parents of child.

    And that's why marriages where a child is adopted aren't recognized by the state, and same-sex couples never raise children!

  • 46. Denny  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:49 am

    It sounds like this guy wants to be some sort of mediator or therapist. I'm waiting for him to say "why can't we all just get along" and then suggest a group hug.

    BTW I am offended by the word "humane." What does he mean? Is it like putting your dog to sleep? It sounds more like giving us some sort of recognition so we'll shut up?

  • 47. Fildo  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:49 am

    CC: How will SS marriage hurt kids?
    B: When Canada passed ss marriage, struck words, “natural parent” and replaced with “legal parent”

    Um, I think the term "legal parents" was already being used when adoption started, not just when SS marriage passed.

    Geez!

  • 48. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:49 am

    And again if marriage is about bio parents only then again all orphans are left out in the cold!

  • 49. Jason  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:49 am

    CC: How will SS marriage hurt kids?
    B: When Canada passed ss marriage, struck words, “natural parent” and replaced with “legal parent”

    All forms I've seen in my life state Parent/Legal Guardian, so whats the diff?

  • 50. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Naah…Boies would just pull out the shock paddles and keep up the cross while zapping Blankenweenie.

  • 51. Frijondi  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:50 am

    That little slip of the tongue just spoke volumes about what they really think about us.

  • 52. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:50 am

    They are trying to argue that marriage is not about the adults involved at all but is, in fact, child-centric.

    This is, of course, absurd.

  • 53. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:51 am

    FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

    This guy is doing more cherry picking then a Roman Virgin Orgy!

  • 54. Nicole A  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Amen to that!

  • 55. becca  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:51 am

    I hope Boies *murders* this guy. I hope he absolutely destroys him and leaves a smoking pile of rubble., leaving no smug stone atop any other.

    He's implying that adults who don't/can't/won't have children get married only for their own pleasure, devalues any non-biologically formed family, even those biological families created through assistive technology like IVF. If I, as a hetero adoptive mom, feel this strongly about this man, how much more strongly must gays feel?

    Marriage is only for procreation, bah. Love, of course, committed relationships, have nothing to say to it. We people in any such relationship should be contented with a DP. my ass.

  • 56. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:52 am

    I have concluded that the Prop 8 proponents really *do* want to take marriage back to the good ol' days … which for them means that love is irrelevant, women are property to be handed over to cement contracts and birth babies in wedlock while the men go out with their mistresses, and so on.

  • 57. John  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:52 am

    But scholars say it will happen. Scholars! More than one of them!

  • 58. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:52 am

    And now you owe me a keyboard …

  • 59. Glenn I  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Data shmata. This man feels.

  • 60. Shelley  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Agreed I think the defendants don't really care about this case. They just want it to go to SCOTUS in hopes that it will be struck down.

  • 61. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Frying pan ….. meat my head!

    BAOW!………..BAOW!……….BAOW!

  • 62. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Dogs and cats, living together … mass hysteria!

  • 63. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Asshat isn't necessarily and insult. If someone is ignorant and you call them an ignoramous, that is just telling the truth.

  • 64. Colt  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Wouldn't it be awesome if it was somehow broadcast live and we could all gather in a big theater with said popcorn and pop and chortle at the proceedings together? :)

  • 65. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:54 am

    I hope Boies *murders* this guy. I hope he absolutely destroys him and leaves a smoking pile of rubble., leaving no smug stone atop any other.

    I second the notion!

  • 66. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:54 am

    LMAO!!!!!……..I'm sorry!

  • 67. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:54 am

    @Mykelb: I have had to explain the difference between ignorance and stupidity more time than I can count. Ignorance can be cured. :-)

  • 68. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Someone asked about him calling himself a Doctor, but I can't find it right now, so will post it here. From I have determined he "is founder and president of the Institute for American Values, a private, nonpartisan organization devoted to contributing intellectually to the renewal of marriage and family life and the sources of competence, character, and citizenship in the United States". Sorry, there is so little information available on this guy, I am wondering why he can call himself a Doctor.

  • 69. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:54 am

    They need a busload of psychiatrists to analyze them and then they need to go back to college to learn critical thinking skills.

  • 70. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:55 am

    I have only known polygynous relationships, not polyandrous ones … but, you know what? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, I really don't give a damn what they get up to.

  • 71. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Dr. B.S.

  • 72. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:56 am

    And … I just realized that this makes it look like I'm one of the people involved. I wasn't; I meant to say that I had only known *people* in polygynous relationships, not polyandrous ones. Ugh.

  • 73. Frijondi  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:56 am

    I think he means it exactly like putting your dog to sleep.

  • 74. John  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Let the show begin.

  • 75. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Purpose of marriage is to bring together bio male and female, to bring together two genitors of child, to make it as likely as possible that they will be parents of child.

    Unfortunately, that is the argument that won in NY's highest court. That is the foundation of their rational basis argument.

  • 76. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Heck, I'd even share my Junior Mints around!

  • 77. Lisa  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:56 am

    "Because man and woman reinforces idea of institution to two."

    Good god man, can he even count? How is one man and one man or one woman and one woman NOT two?

  • 78. A Mom  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Rausch review of DB's book: http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/gay_

  • 79. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:56 am

    I can say one thing, after Boies is done, he probably will be wearing Blankenhorn's ass as a hat! :)

  • 80. ron1008  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Sounds like Communist Front

  • 81. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:57 am

    We should make them procreate first, and then give them a license.

  • 82. A Mom  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:57 am

    oops … misspelled (Sorry, Jonathan RAUCH)

  • 83. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:58 am

    Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    Love,
    DV

  • 84. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:58 am

    "I do believe…" So What? Your belief system is not fact man! Get some concrete empirical evidence and come back with an answer.

  • 85. Frijondi  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:58 am

    And they said it in studies.

  • 86. John  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:59 am

    "B: I believe that adoption of ss marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children."

    If their case wasn't already dead, there's the coup de grace.

  • 87. PM, in the UK  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:59 am

    "B: I believe that adoption of ss marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children."

    New logic blackhole forming in 3…2…1…

  • 88. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Did he really just say that? I am speechless.

  • 89. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Great find, fiona64.

    I am confident Mr Boies will take Mr Blank to school on that one!

  • 90. Jason  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:00 am

    B: I believe that adoption of ss marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.

    Im sorry what? Did you just say that SS marriage would be better for children???

    and since that is the purpose of any marriage according to you, isnt it logical that it should be adopted?? Hello Moron!

  • 91. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:00 am

    @fiona And as Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid."

  • 92. Lisa  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:01 am

    OMG! He really said that?!

  • 93. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:01 am

    We have got to make sure main stream media get's a hold of this little statement, because we all know Andy's not going to say it on his blog.

  • 94. JerseyJ9  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:01 am

    high 5, Jason!! WTF is wrong with these people!

  • 95. Jim  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:01 am

    “B: I believe that adoption of ss marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.”

    This is the Defense's expert?

  • 96. John  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Agreed. This is going on Facebook as soon as I get home, as well.

  • 97. Ann S.  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Wonder what Debra Saunders thinks of this guy's "feelings".

  • 98. inMA  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:02 am

    DB speaking to self into mirror…

    DB: What is the true meaning of marriage?…oooh…shiny!

    DB becomes distracted by shiny object in bathroom, thus ending his thoughts of equality in marriage.

  • 99. Ray Harwick  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:03 am

    B: I believe that adoption of ss marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.

    He's the defense witness????

  • 100. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:03 am

    "I don't No"?

  • 101. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Was that posted correctly?

  • 102. Bry  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:03 am

    God forbid we should alter the place where The Three Little Pigs lost their case to the Wolf (due to his subsequent hospitalization from oxygen deprivation)

    Or what about the part about the Witch violating zoning laws building a candy house!

    Or Rapunzael (sp) filing for emancipation… Or the chick from Rumplstiltskin screaming about labor laws!

  • 103. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Living up to the name Dr. BLANKenhorn!

  • 104. Glenn I  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:04 am

    If marriage is about the children, then why are the Prop H8ers all about punishing children being raised in households headed by same sex couples?

    Depriving children by law of married parents does nothing for anyone. It doesn't help any double-sex couples in any way at all. It doesn't help the children of double-sex couples in any way at all.

    Restricting marriage to those who might have biologically generated their children helps no one. It only hurts people. And by people I mean children, of course.

  • 105. Joel Wheeler  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Blankenhorn: "I believe that adoption of same sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children."

    And yet I still oppose it enough to testify for the defense in this trial.

    Gross.

  • 106. N  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:05 am

    The witness doesn't know how same sex marriage will weaken heterosexual marriage but he also knows that "it’s a big institution that performs a very large contribution to society and much larger than its legal incidence." Which is exactly what we are fighting for – the same rights, responsibilities, and social meaning surrounding marriage. Equal treatment under the law and in the view of society.

    Other than what he believes and who he quotes, maybe he needs to be asked what, based on actual research he has done, SPECIFICALLY will change for any hetero couple by the marriage of a ss couple? That answer would be nothing.

    I mean, by preserving an institution for one group (albeit the majority), it defacto denies that to another group(s). And what is that? Discrimination. I'm not too versed on the CA constitution but wouldn't it be logical to have an equal protection/access clause there as well? I think my state has one although we also passed a const. marriage amendment. :( Not just the federal Const.? In which case, it should have never made it to the ballot – see the the first sentence of this paragraph.

  • 107. ron1008  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:05 am

    DID WE READ THAT?

  • 108. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Same reason Harry Jackson calls himself "Bishop". They are both self annointed.

  • 109. Gery  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:06 am

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

  • 110. Bry  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:06 am

    "I can say one thing, after Boies is done, he probably will be wearing Blankenhorn’s ass as a hat! :)"

    NOO…NOOOOO he can't! After massacuring Miller, Boise has enough hats. ENOUGH HATS I SAY!!

  • 111. Kohai  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:06 am

    “B: I believe that adoption of ss marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.”

    is this a mistake? It gives the impression that he opposes SS marriage cause it would make people happy!

  • 112. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:06 am

    "Everybody wants to be a cat…..because a cat's the only cat who knows were its at!"

  • 113. Scottie  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:06 am

    I have no idea what just happened. He really said that at the end there? This is amazing. What in the world? I am… wow.

  • 114. waxr  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:06 am

    He seriously believes that adoptive parents cannot be as good as natural parents. That position will not win him many friends.

  • 115. Lisa  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:07 am

    @NCLRights twittered that as well.

  • 116. JO  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:07 am

    I agree!!

  • 117. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:08 am

    It was. it's also what's being twitter'd

  • 118. Marci Walley  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:08 am

    A tad off-topic, but related… Have you guys read Romer vs. Evans before? It is a SCOTUS decision from 1996, that reversed a Colorado amendment to keep gays and lesbians from being protected from discrimination. The dissenting opinion is pretty damn scary. These are supreme court justices that believe this.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?…

  • 119. Devon  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:08 am

    "B: I believe that adoption of ss marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children."

    Excuse me? Did he REALLY say that?!

  • 120. Troy  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:09 am

    "I believe that adoption of same sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children."

    He should be for the plainiffs, not the defense.

  • 121. Devon  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:09 am

    I apologize, I was writing this and walked from the comptuter for bit! It was before anyone else had posted.

  • 122. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:09 am

    Wait, wait, wait wait wait Wait for it………

    Boise: Did you attempt to find out how many?
    DB: Yes. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    Boise: Approximately how many?
    DB: I don’t know. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    DOAH!

  • 123. Kimeron  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Ann!! I love it!! Talk about your anti-intellectual! Debra Saunders needs to look directly in the mirror!!

  • 124. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:10 am

    I wanted to make a comment again, which has been shared with others at this site. We may not like Blackenhorn or respect his views, but I see no need to grovel at the DI's level regarding comments here. My point is that we make no friends by attacking a person's character or appearance, so can we please try to keep it civil?

  • 125. ron1008  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:10 am

    DB: I believe that adoption of same sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children. I CANT BELIEVE HE SAID THIS. This is English Right!

  • 126. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:10 am

    I think that deserves one of these:

    Losing Horns

  • 127. l8r_g8r  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:10 am

    How did that just happen???

  • 128. Andrea  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:11 am

    I thought the Wolf won that case because the house of straw created an attractive nuisance?

  • 129. A Mom  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:11 am

    DB: I believe that adoption of same sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.

    Did I read this right??? Did he actually SAY that??? Are the D-I's changing their diapers??

  • 130. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:11 am

    "Blankenhorn: I believe that adoption of same sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children."

    I BELIEVE THAT ADOPTION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE WOULD BE LIKELY TO IMPROVE THE WELL-BEING OF GAY AND LESBIAN HOUSEHOLDS AND THEIR CHILDREN.

  • 131. sugarbritches  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:11 am

    “B: I believe that adoption of ss marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.”

    B: Ummm, oops?

  • 132. Kimeron  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:11 am

    I'm still wondering why he's referred to as "Dr." in the transcript when his credentials only list a Master's degree.

  • 133. 109  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:12 am

    DB: I believe that adoption of same sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.

    OMG

  • 134. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:12 am

    @Devon Note I meant Blankenhorn's comment, not the repeating – which happened a lot with this comment :)

  • 135. l8r_g8r  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:12 am

    While I absolutely respect your view, I would like to point out that attacking his statements and position is very different from attacking his character or appearance. All of the attacks I have seen are on statements or position.

  • 136. Gery  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Can the Prop8 side REALLY be THAT confident in the face of all of this, SCOTUS will rule in their favor? I mean, they just seem to be going through the motions here.

    What DO they have up their sleeve?

  • 137. Lisa  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:13 am

    I have to say, I agree with the "expert".

  • 138. John  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Just to get it across:

    “B: I believe that adoption of ss marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.”

  • 139. Rod  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:13 am

    The suspense is killing me…Did he really say that?!?

  • 140. jamie d  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:13 am

    I can't help it, I just keep clicking and clicking….

  • 141. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:13 am

    http://www.sadtrombone.com/

  • 142. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:13 am

    MOVE TO STRIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 143. Layla  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:13 am

    "DB: I believe that adoption of same sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children."

    Did he say this already or is Rick just typing what I want to hear?!

  • 144. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:14 am

    @DV – Indeed, nothing wrong with that whatsoever. I just did not want to imply primary knowledge that I do not have.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 145. John  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:14 am

    I was thinking the same thing. I have a hard time believing this is really the best they can do. They must be incredibly confident in that 5-4 majority to put out crap like this.

  • 146. familyguy  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:14 am

    Apparently DB believes that although SS marriage would improve the well being of g & l's and their children, that nonetheless he opposes it because it might "deinstitutionalize" marriage.

    In other words, human beings (including children) be damned, we have an "institution" to protect.

    Despicable. My children are more important than his view of the institution, and they deserve the protections of having parents with the full protection and societal recognition afforded by marriage,

  • 147. Gery  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:14 am

    @Fri: Scholarly studies no less.

  • 148. Devon  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:15 am

    Haha! I understood perfectly. And that's absolutely hilarious thanks for posting.

  • 149. John  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:15 am

    Someone earlier said it was also on Twitter, so I'm inclined to believe it, incredible as it is.

  • 150. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:15 am

    Just leave it open – that way when anyone for the defense says something horrendously stupid (See Blankenwhatsit above), you can just click away!

  • 151. Kimeron  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:15 am

    And we should proceed with outlawing divorce..seems like a much simpler way to slow down the deinstitutionalization of marriage….

  • 152. Tammy Takahashi  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:16 am

    It sounds to me from his logic so far, that he opposes SS marriage because it would make gays happy. If gays and their children are happy, there will be more gay marriage. Therefore, there will be a higher likelihood of deinstitutionalized marriage.

  • 153. Dana  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:16 am

    So, DB thinks that adopting same sex marriage would be good for the children of gay and lesbian households, but the children of OS households would suffer ?

    Suppose we don't tell them? Kind of like a placebo…

    I am waiting for the next update to see if this was a mis-statement.

  • 154. Josh  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Of course he said that, he's speaking to OUR well being and saying "yes it would be better for the homosexual community" but he's going to retort that just because its good for them does not mean its good for opposite sex couples. he will say that for every bit that it strengthens same sex couples it will undermine the well being of straight people.

    He's a self righteous bastid!

  • 155. cc  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Ah I knew the "but" was coming!

  • 156. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:17 am

    N., there is an equal protection clause in the CA constitution.
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

    Now, thanks to our stupid initiative process, it really needs to have " … except for those people over there" as an addendum.

  • 157. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:17 am

    The Black Knight always triumphs!

  • 158. Tom  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Please please PLEASE, Rick — get to Olson and/or Boies and tell them this: even IF mommy/daddy homes are "best for children," how does extending marriage equality to same-sex couples increase or decrease the number of children growing up in homes with both a mother and a father?!

    We get caught up in these studies of which is best and ignore what is the key point — marriage equality does NOTHING to affect whether kids grow up with a mom and a dad. Gay people will still have kids, straight people will still get married (or not) and it has nothing to do with whether or not we can enter into a legal civil marriage!

    This is driving me nuts! It seems so simple. Why can't Olson and Boies just ask the question of witnesses: will denying marriage equality mean fewer children will grow up in mother/father homes? If so, how?

  • 159. hearsay  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:17 am

    I think I figured this guy out – I guarantee you his father (bio) abandoned him when he was a kid and ever since he's been trying to work out that psychological sense of abandonment. Doesn't want other kids to go through what he went through. Has nothing to do with same sex marriage. In his own fanatical way, he's trying to keep fathers from abandoning kids. He never should have attached himself to the defense.

  • 160. Bry  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:17 am

    I saw that too, I can't wait to see what Boise makes of it… "Humane compromise" really, Humane? You think your treatment is Humane?

    …Then yes…like we're animals, that too

  • 161. Steffi  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:17 am

    even the other side tweeted this…

  • 162. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Agreed, but I have seen a few that border on personal attacks – i.e. – there was one that said something like, "I hope this guy can clean his shorts after this." I would define this as ad hominem, since clearly it is not related to anything in the testimony that he said.

  • 163. Frijondi  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:18 am

    If you google "the pill kills" a lot of sites will come up promoting the idea that hormonal birth control = abortion. On, and that the "contraceptive mentality" promotes an anti-child culture.

    Egalitarian heterosexual couples are next on their hit list.

  • 164. bJason  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:18 am

    I Love you guys/Gals!!

    I can't fathom the end of this trial. We MUST keep this community going.

    Endless thanks to CC for this forum!!

  • 165. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:18 am

    As they would say…"We have God up our sleeves"

    Well now would be a great time to let him out!

  • 166. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:18 am

    I need an update now. It's like a heroin fix!

  • 167. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:19 am

    I will be as civil as the opposition.

  • 168. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:19 am

    Projection all the way.

  • 169. JonInSF  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:19 am

    DB: I believe that adoption of same sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.

    Bwah? Wait… What?

    Did I miss something?

  • 170. Steffi  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:19 am

    agreed!

  • 171. Tammy Takahashi  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:19 am

    I'm pretty sure that "happiness" is not one of the purposes of marriage, according to their definition. So, I doubt that the other side sees this as a point for us.

    Also, ADF tweeted that, although it might make gays happier if they are married (and the children happier too), SS"M" is not good for the larger society. Again, goes back to the fact that it seems pretty clear that happiness is not a factor in their analysis of what makes a good society.

  • 172. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:19 am

    So what is B: saying? That Cu's and DP's are discriminatory? This witness is about as clear as thick river mud. Is he saying that he now advocates same-sex marriage, or what? He is very good at obfuscation.

  • 173. Variola  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:20 am

    WUT. I just coughed up a potato chip.

    Not only has he admitted that denying marriage is discrimination, but now he admits that ss marriage is good.

    Is he going to try to say that although it's good for GLBT couples, it''s still 'bad' for straight couples and therefore shouldn't be allowed? All based, of course, on his concerns and fears. Where the hell is he going to go from that statement about ss marriage?

  • 174. Kimeron  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Stupid is stupid. And when we here someone purporting to be an "expert" with no credentials and no original, empirical data to back up horrendous things that they say, then they deserve to be called whatever we feel like calling them. To heck with political correctness.

  • 175. John  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Ooh, he's actually citing some of those elusive "scholars" by name now! He's getting a shred of credibility.

  • 176. ron1008  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Ya Keep it Civil- This guy is on our side

  • 177. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:21 am

    I came all the way from NY to be here to answer your questions to the best of my ability

    Cry me a river! Looks like your best isn't good enough.

  • 178. Lymis  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:21 am

    The fact that he relies purely on his own opinion makes him an ideal representative of the views of the defense.

    For what that's worth.

  • 179. waxr  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:23 am

    Of course. Then when the children grow up, the adults get a divorce.

  • 180. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:23 am

    I am getting frustrated over his answers. Apparently the defense is making a terrible mockery of court.

  • 181. Kevin P  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:24 am

    B: It never occurred to me that everything I would say regarding my views had to be documented.

    Seriously!!!! You're testifying in court and you don't think you need documentation???

  • 182. Rightthingtodo TX  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:24 am

    this guy is an effhole

    does he think that stuff just "happens"? his bull crap about the deinstitutionalization of marriage…the pillars and all that stuff…as if humanity/society has no control over it. fine…we knock one pillar down and build more than one pillar back up that is stronger

    what a douche

  • 183. JonInSF  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:25 am

    Wow… He's already melting down. That wad fast!

    Once again, do not taunt happy fun Boise!

  • 184. Kevin P  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:25 am

    B: It never occurred to me that everything I would say regarding my views had to be documented.

    Seriously??? You're in court and didn't think you would need to back up the BS you're spouting?

  • 185. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:25 am

    J: Shall I take that as a “I don’t know?”
    B: With respect your honor, I do know the answer. I said it and I can repeat it.
    J: (Quite exasperated) The record is quite clear on what you said.
    Boise. What scholars said that ss marriage will lead to lower marriage rates?
    B: It will take me a few minutes to compose my memory.
    Boise: Let’s be sure you know what is being asked. Which scholars that you have named with Cooper assert that deinstitutionalization of marriage will be hastened by ss marriage and will lead to lower rates of hetero marriage.
    B: Professor Norville Glen said that. He’s one of the most distinguished family scholars.
    J: Judge has completely stopped paying attention. This witness has ZERO credibility.

    WOAH!!!!!!!!

  • 186. Rick Heintz  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:25 am

    LOL… I concur

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

    CAn they even get granted an appeal? With what?

  • 188. Kimeron  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:25 am

    Wow!! this guy is withering more quickly than I imagined! I KNOW the answer, but I just can't tell you…cuz then I'd have to….!

    It's bittersweet to watch yet another "scholar" melt like the wicked witch after Dorothy throws water on her.

  • 189. Steffi  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:25 am

    J: Judge has completely stopped paying attention. This witness has ZERO credibility.

    is that what the judge was saying or just a comment from Rick?

  • 190. Lymis  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Purpose of marriage used to include widows and kids getting taken care of by nice new husband when previous husband keeled over or was killed in war.

    Also used to include widowers getting a new mommy for the kids he and his previous wife who died in childbirth produced.

    Divorce, hell, stepparents have been around forever.

  • 191. Rod  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:26 am

    In a sick way, that makes sense to me. He realizes marriage would be better for same-sex couples and their kids, making those families stronger and harder to stigmatize. He's showing what is really behind his conclusions…he just doesn't like us.

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

    I THINK comment but not sure…

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

    Is this guy for reals?

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

    I'm pretty sure that last entry is a commentary, not a quotation.

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

    Never truer words. Wasn't this guy extra prepped after yesterday's testimony?

  • 196. CharlesF  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Listen to this guy! "I came all the way from NY to answer your questions" BAWWWW! "I wasn't aware everything had to be documented". Oh, you poor baby! I'm not a lawyer–do judges take pity on people for this carp? (Yes, carp)

  • 197. JVM  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:27 am

    This is priceless: "DB: I believe that adoption of same sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children."

    Hey, I thought this guy was the Prop 8 proponent's expert?

  • 198. DM  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:27 am

    this guy obviously thinks very highly of himself. He thinks he is sooo evolved and kindhearted and HUMANE. and he's trying really hard to answer the questions with what he BELIEVES may possibly be facts that maybe support his ideas. and was surprised to think he might actually have to be accountable for the materials he and his organization use to influence policy!!! imagine that!! what a douche.

  • 199. Ron  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:27 am

    its so weird he says" I came all the way from NY to be here to answer your questions to the best of my ability"but he can't answer the questions

  • 200. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:27 am

    I'm voting comment, but from astute observation.

  • 201. Devon  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:27 am

    I feel so bad for him! Honestly.

    He did agree to come, but the defense should have put REAL EXPERTS because these people honestly have no idea why they think or believe what they do and are getting embarrassed.

    I'm glad they did, in a way, but the witnesses are so easy to tear a part I am just dumbfounded.

  • 202. M.E. Graves  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Why, yes, I do believe that allowing marriage will weaken marriage, because the more people who get married, the fewer people who will get married. But if we let fewer people get married, then more people will get married, because by denying marriage we are strengthening marriage.

    And… my eyes just went into the back of my head…

  • 203. PM, in the UK  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Nope:

    "B: Professor Norville Glen said that. He’s one of the most distinguished family scholars.
    J: Judge has completely stopped paying attention. This witness has ZERO credibility."

    Quite rightly to be honest, it's all been downhill from the point at which Boies said he wasn't an expert and Walker allowed him basically on account of their being no other defense witness to call – which is pretty darn far down the hill already.

    Have to think that "I am trying to the best of my ability. I came all the way from NY to be here to answer your questions to the best of my ability" is only going to lower his stock further – not exactly doing the court some kind of personal favor by deigning to testify.

  • 204. Steffi  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:28 am

    I like your name :) maybe we should open a Boies fanclub? :) I like him more and more the longer I read this

  • 205. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:28 am

    David,

    This “I hope this guy can clean his shorts after this.” is not an ad hominem attack.

    Ad hominem attacks discount an argument based on some circumstance or characteristic about the opponent.

    Example:

    1. Bill: "I believe that gay marriage is morally wrong."
    2. Ted: "Of course you would say that, you're a mormon."
    3. Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
    4. Ted: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a mormon, so you have to say that gay marriage is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the mormon Patriarchy, so I can't believe what you say."

    Ad homs are not merely negative comments about an opponent (however funny or inappropriate those comments may be).

    Does that make sense? And your concern is noted.

  • 206. sugarbritches  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:28 am

    It's my understanding that in the trial court (that's where we are now…) the parties are supposed to introduce evidence, and elicit testimony supporting that evidence. That's kinda what the trial court is for. On appeal, there's no more of that. Then it's just legal arguments. So one would think the defendants would try to get at least a little solid evidence into the record. So far, that simply hasn't happened. The appeals courts only look at the evidence on record from the trial court. I'd have to say the defendants haven't made much of a case.

  • 207. John  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:28 am

    I hope it's just commentary, or they may actually have something of a case for judge bias.

  • 208. Kevin P  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:29 am

    Best of his ability == No ability

  • 209. paulo  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:29 am

    I just read that Blankenhorn came all the way from New York.

    On behalf of the people of NY I apologize to California and assure you we are not all like that.

    I will now go and feel deeply ashamed for my state.

  • 210. familyguy  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:29 am

    This trial deserved to be telecast. *&($%^(^ the SCOTUS. Does anybody know if the recording can ever be made public (perhaps after the decisions have been handed down ?

  • 211. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:29 am

    What is even more weird is that he thinks that really give a flying FU<K! that he came all the way from New York!

    Big F-ing deal……..WOW!………The Ego!

  • 212. Lymis  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:29 am

    Is anyone else picturing the Schwarzneggers in the governor's mansion and/or Jerry Brown doing the happy dance that they were smart enough to have nothing whatsoever to do with this?

  • 213. sugarbritches  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Point being, apparently they feel they have such solid support in SCOTUS they don't need a case. Interesting gamble.

  • 214. Kevin P  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:30 am

    I'm guessing that none of the defense's "expert" witnesses were prepped.

  • 215. Jenny O  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:30 am

    I love the "wherein…" comments at the beginning of each update. It reminds me of Winnie the Pooh 😀

  • 216. Lisa  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:30 am

    it's a comment.

  • 217. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Two, really bad witnesses for PROP 8. This tells me that the ADF team and protectmarriage.com really believes their own crap. (yes crap)

    Ho could you come to court with two, really ill-prepared witnesses?

  • 218. Layla  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:30 am

    I'm not surprised he said it. I totally believe it. I just can't believe that he said it only 10 minutes into his cross examination.

  • 219. Rick Heintz  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:30 am

    I don't know about you all but at this rate I'm kind of hoping there is a third witness. This is like crack! :-)

  • 220. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:31 am

    They have tried to get FULL books into evidence, not just sections or pages, but full books. Which makes me think they didn't do their homework and wanted the entire book for future reference, JIC. But the judge wasn't going for it.

  • 221. M.E. Graves  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:31 am

    I believe that a GA lawmaker tried to ban condoms because it resulted in "pre-conception abortions."

  • 222. jayjaylanc  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:31 am

    DB: It never occurred to me that everything I would say regarding my views had to be documented.

    Hi. Court. Expert witness.

    Don't do this kind of thing much, does he?

  • 223. Gery  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:31 am

    Any word from the other side as to ongoing proceedings? Tweets, blogs, that sort of thing?

  • 224. M.E. Graves  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:31 am

    And horses will EAT EACH OTHER!

  • 225. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:32 am

    He's saying he used to think that CUs and DPs were discriminatory – until Rauch (sp?) challenged him on it a few years ago.

    Of course, when our option is absolutely nuthin', no relationship protection whatsoever v. a CU or DP, then of course many will (grudgingly) accept the "humane" (as he put it) option.

    However.

    Marriage equality is best, and throw the rest of the patchwork of schemes out the dang window.

  • 226. erasure25  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:32 am

    This is what has been absent from their side all along! The PROOF! It's easy to parade around saying that SS marriage will cause harm and will lead to the downfall of civilization and that studies have indicated the dangers of SS marriage….

    Then you ask HOW or where's your EVIDENCE and all of a sudden it's "how I feel" and "because its what I believe."

    These mysterious "studies" disappear and transform into "opinions." Finally we have their B.S. on the record!

  • 227. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:32 am

    you can download all of the transcripts
    http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/hea

  • 228. Steffi  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:32 am

    I'm right here with you!
    you guys grew on me a lot during the last few weeks. I really began to like many of you though I never met you in person.
    As I keep saying, you became some kind of a family :)

  • 229. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Oh, I have no doubt in my mind that such is the case. I've watched anti-choice activists chip away at access to contraception and abortion. "It's still legal" is not much of an argument when you have no access to those services.

    I have become convinced, over time, that there is a disturbingly noisy and visible faction in the US that thinks Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale" would be a good way to live. :-/

    (For those who have never read it … contraception is illegal, fertile women are forced to bear children for the infertile, and LGBT people are executed for "gender crimes". Of course, there's more to the story … but that's the world of Gilead.)

  • 230. Kevin P  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:32 am

    From protectmarriage on twitter – marriage expert says scholars assert ssm wld contribute to deinstitutionalization of marriage, reduced hetero marriage rates.

  • 231. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Okay, agreed. Thanks,
    Love,
    David

  • 232. Jenny O  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:33 am

    oops i didn't mean to leave that comment in response to yours.

    Since I'm here, I laughed at the "ALL THE WAY from NY" comment. Poor dear, he tries so hard :( (*mock sadness* -doesn't always come across in written messages)

  • 233. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:33 am

    IANAL, but I don't think judges take much notice of supposed 'hardship', especially when the witness AGREED to testify for the defense, then bawwws all over the place when Bad Mr. Boies doesn't wanna play nicey-nice.

  • 234. Lexi  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Blankenhorn testifies "we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than the day before"

    I have been reading correctly for the past two weeks? This guy is on their side, right? He's confusing me!

  • 235. John  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:34 am

    But you'd think they'd at least TRY to put up a real case, just in case that doesn't work. That tells me that either they actually believe this crap, or there's something else going on.

  • 236. Carl E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Steffi,

    I think some people here are actually working on a T-shirt with that exact phrase on it – keep an eye out for it.

  • 237. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Tam said something similar last week. He never thought he would have to defend his views in court one day or something.

  • 238. PM, in the UK  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:35 am

    I know we may make jokes or genuinely despair about the anti-intellectualism of 'the other side', but the standard put forward by their 2 willing and 1 unwilling (Tam) witnesses has just been shocking.

    They cannot even put their illustrious leaders forward even if they were willing to stand in the cold light of day, because those folk have walk-in skeleton lined closets and literally no qualifications beyond their willingness to spew bigotry all the way to the bank.

    Even on a grander stage, who've they got to call?

  • 239. Mike  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Reading this thread and the one from yesterday is absolutely tantalizing. It's like watching a movie. Incredible drama in the deft cross-examination from Mr. Boies!

    And great job keeping this thread so up-to-the-moment!

  • 240. Nakhone  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:35 am

    ROFLMAO. That's funny. I know, I'm like, omigod. Like, for real? For real…for real? This guy's from NY? Like, I thought most New Yorkers are like very sophisticated and stuff. LOL.

  • 241. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Are they at the same trial?

  • 242. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Yeah, I guess I'd better go home and tell my husband that we have to get a divorce since we went to my lesbian friends' wedding.

    What a maroon …

  • 243. ron1008  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Boise: Here eat this lovely apple, Dr Glen

  • 244. nightshayde  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:37 am

    … and it didn't meet fire codes.

  • 245. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Now Blankenhorn whips out the TAM DEFENSE:

    "DB: I am trying to the best of my ability. I came all the way from NY to be here to answer your questions to the best of my ability."

    OMG. I couldn't write a movie script this priceless. No one would believe it.

  • 246. Gery  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Thanks Kevin. :) but… WHAT SCHOLARS!?!?!?

    Hopefully we'll be told who they are next update. 😛

  • 247. Glenn I  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:37 am

    No one could have anticipated it.

  • 248. jamie d  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:38 am

    What do they have up their sleeves? Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, and their repeated and demonstrated disregard for jurisprudence.

  • 249. sugarbritches  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:38 am

    At this level, the appeals court cannot refuse to hear an appeal. So it's guaranteed to go at least that far, provided the losing party in this trial appeals.

  • 250. Christine  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:38 am

    They had some good ones, but they were too afraid of our brutal gay fury to testify in court :(

    I hope you're all ashamed of yourselves, scaring those nice people.

  • 251. Bry  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Looked like Comment from Rick but it was delicious.

    After this, I might have to rethink that whole hypnotically-induced multiple-orgasms being the height of possible pleasure theory.

    I submit that..THIS…is quite possibly great pleasure

  • 252. jayjaylanc  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:39 am

    I see this a lot in right-wingers. They believe that even if such-and-such would be more just or more fair or make for a better individual outcome, defending the institutions of society so they stay EXACTLY AS THEY ARE NOW OMGWTFBBQ IF THEY CHANGE WE'RE DOOOOOOOMED! is more important.

  • 253. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Such would not be considered bias.

    Bias, legal bias for a judge, is shown where the judge has taken bribes or has some actual affiliation w/ one side or the other and did not recuse him/herself.

  • 254. Joel Wheeler  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Agreed. So much for the trinity of inalienable rights.

  • 255. Alena  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:40 am

    LOL! He feels. that's so FUNNY!
    Sorry, just had to interject… LOL!

  • 256. Glenn I  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:40 am

    That's okay. We Californians won't hold it against you. After all, we've got plenty of our own crazies. I really don't know why anyone went to the expense of dragging one across the country.

  • 257. Tammy Takahashi  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:41 am

    "It never occurred to me that everything I would say regarding my views had to be documented. I have studied this for twenty years. Maybe I made a mistake, but it never occurred to me that all of the views that I state had to tie to documents at end of book. If it did, this would have had many more scores of documents listed."

    This is similar to what William Tam said. In other words, they are not used to having to actually back up their opinions with actual proof, and, seem somewhat surprised that they are being asked to.

  • 258. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:41 am

    In case people were wondering about David Popenoe's opinion:

    Iannone: What are your views of homosexual marriage?

    Popenoe: I am opposed to it, but I’m for civil unions—as were our two presidential candidates in the recent election, but for different reasons. I am against same-sex marriage because I am strongly pro-marriage, and I think that same-sex marriage is going to change the cultural debate considerably and further weaken the institution of heterosexual marriage, such as the importance of fathers in childrearing. If it weren’t for that, I would not have any problem with it.

    Source: Carol Iannone, "Family Matters: A Conversation with David Popenoe." Academic Questions 22:11-36, 2009.

  • 259. P-dee-tee  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Boise. Are you aware of any study that shows that children of gays and lesbians have different worse outcomes than straight?

    DB: No. May I add?

    Boise: It is not okay for you to volunteer any information. You can give speeches when your counsel has you.

    >>comic relief<<

    Love,
    P-dee-tee

  • 260. Lisa  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:41 am

    There simply aren't real experts for their side, cause it's just BS. That's the beauty of it. The problem is, our side still has to prove a lot more than they do.

  • 261. nightshayde  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Are you sure that's not the low-fat, low-sodium, artificial margarine-like product?

    Something like pasteurized process cheese food only without the melty goodness?

  • 262. hearsay  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:41 am

    I think it's like Alan E. commented earlier – it's all projection. If you really think/believe everyone is judeo-christian anti-gay, then you figure you'll get through with a wink and a nod no matter what the law says.

  • 263. rpx  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:42 am

    LOL, so funny.

  • 264. Bry  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:42 am

    My father used to be from NY and he's not like that

    …he's just kinda a bit of a douche

  • 265. JefferyK  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Yup. I suspect this is the first time any of these people have been directly challenged.

  • 266. Polydactyl  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:43 am

    My god, this is a blood bath. They're going to need a serious cleanup crew to get bits of witness off the walls.

  • 267. Bry  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Jerry Brown's actually 100% on our side and has been from almost the beginning, he's just tied by his office to do what he has to do – he doesn't like it one bit.

  • 268. jerek  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:43 am

    So do we, like, automatically lose if Boise makes him cry, or something?!

  • 269. JefferyK  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Yup. And I think that's going to be the crux of the argument at the Supreme Court.

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

    I told them that they left out the part where he says his thing about ssm being beneficial for LGBT and their children…

  • 271. Buddha Buck  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:44 am

    The CA Constitution does have such a clause, and until November 2008 it was the controlling clause regarding same-sex marriage in California. Then Prop 8 added another clause to the CA constitution that overruled it in regard to same-sex marriage.

  • 272. Tom B.  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:45 am

    I'll consider it a win, myself.

    FINISH HIM!
    BOIES WINS! HUMILIATION! FATALITY! BABALITY!

  • 273. Gery  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Hey, I'M a father, and I'm rearing a child on my own.

    That must make me the exception that proves the rule?

    *preens*

  • 274. Erik  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Call it a DP, call it a CU, call it Marriage. Just let me do any of those and have it mean something NATIONALLY. Let me bring my Canadian partner into the country just like any hetero can.

    He actually has potential to do good in our country, unlike some of the others we let in.

    This trial says it all. Equality NOW!

  • 275. Polydactyl  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:46 am

    i…. i am *sob*

  • 276. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Is it just my boredom or did Blankenship start to drift into sounding a lot like a certain "Naked Civil Servant" at times? :-)

    I found meself reading his words and hearing them spoken in the voice of dear sweet Quentin Crisp! I vote a Quentin impersonator for his part… :-)

  • 277. Gery  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:46 am

    When you be preaching to the choir, ain't gonna BE no need for backup.

  • 278. Charles  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:47 am

    M.E. Graves: If that was a conscious reference to the Scottish play, my hat goes off to you :-)

  • 279. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Heh. My husband had sole physical custody of my stepson from 6 months of age onward because his first wife decided being a mommy wasn't as much fun as she thought it would be and took off. So much for the argument that straight marriage guarantees a two-parent household.

    Thanks, SA #3008, for finding the Popenoe quote. I gave up trying various spellings to find out who the heck he was.

  • 280. Bry  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:47 am

    "This is what I believe!!"

    "And you have proof to back that up right? Proof?"

    "Proof?….Um….. that…is something of a myth…"

  • 281. jayjaylanc  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:48 am

    MOAR, darnit!

    [F5][F5][F5][F5]

  • 282. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:49 am

    MORTAL KOMBAAAAAAAAT!!!!!

  • 283. Nikki  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:49 am

    About David Blankenhorn: His institute is funded by ultra-conservative money bags, including Richard Scaife. He is also the one who deceivingly wrote a letter to the editor of the LA Times during the Prop 8 campaign, claiming to be a liberal Democrat who endorsed Prop 8. —->

    Posing as a "liberal Democrat" in the L.A. Times, David Blankenhorn endorsed a California initiative to ban gay marriage. His right-wing funders must be pleased. Link: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/02/b

    Also, if you google "David Blankenhorn" + "mormon" you get a ton of hits of mormon websites citing Blankenhorn. Could be mistaken, but Blankenhorn may well be LDS member, funded in part from the Mormon church…

  • 284. Ray Harwick  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Boise: Maybe the easiest way for me to approach this is to go through the articles that you went through with Mr. Cooper.

    He did. I checked the liveblog at FireDogLake and to each person or organization Blankenhorn relied on Boise asked if they had ever asserted that ss marriage would lead to deinstitutionaliszation of marriage. He asked this of about a dozen resources Blankenhorn used.

    As I remember, Blankenhorn either didn't know, replied NO, or asserted that "if that author was here he would say YES, but I can't say he has actually ever written such.

    Blankenhorn was TOTALLY RATTLED by Boise according to FDL's Teddy Partridge.

  • 285. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:51 am

    @Andrea: that whole "attractive nuisance" thing just gets up my nose. I was in equestrian sport for many years, and one of my friends was *successfully sued* under that law. She had a horse at the stable, and one of the girls who hung around kept begging to ride it in exchange for doing work (mucking out, etc.). She agreed to occasional *supervised* rides.

    Well. The kid decided to ride one day when my friend wasn't there and was injured when she got thrown off the horse (being thrown is a hazard of the game, so to speak … it happens to all of us). The lawyer for the girl's family argued that my friend should have *known* that the child would sneak a ride on the horse and therefore it was her fault under the attractive nuisance statute. The jury agreed.

    Argh.

  • 286. Ray Harwick  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:52 am

    LOL, Andrea!!!!!

  • 287. rpx  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Not to nit pick but that happens quite a bit. :)

  • 288. Jeff G.  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Totally, courtroom scenes like this in a screenplay would get you rejected because of "unbelievable dialogue." Of course, you could always call your script a farce…

  • 289. Rebecca  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:56 am

    "DB: With respect your honor, I do know the answer. I said it and I can repeat it.

    Judge Walker: (Quite exasperated) The record is quite clear on what you said."

    Love this Judge so much!

  • 290. Devon  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:02 am

    I am aware there are no "real" experts for the case, and it's absolutely wonderful.

    But for some reason, to me, it's scary how bad their defense actually is. It's like they didn't even try to fake it well.

  • 291. Charles  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:09 am

    I agree, it's a bit like watching a donkey at a Kentucky race. Of course it's the fault of the owner and the hippodrome for letting the donkey compete when he had no chance, really, but you still feel sorry because it's the donkey being destroyed you know?

    They brought witnesses who are worth NOTHING as experts, so much they apparently didn't even know they had to… you know… back up what they say. With, like, research.

  • 292. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Gotta give it up to Ann S. on that one.

    And you KNOW how that KILLS me, Ann S. ; )

  • 293. Kohai  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Wait, a donkey can't compete in the Kentucky Derby?

    crap, what am I gonna do with this ass in my apartment?

  • 294. Andrea  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:54 am

    @Fiona64: Good God, Man! I thought I was cracking a joke. Just…. wow.

  • 295. NVLawMan  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:55 am

    DB: It never occurred to me that everything I would say regarding my views had to be documented. I have studied this for twenty years. Maybe I made a mistake, but it never occurred to me that all of the views that I state had to tie to documents at end of book. If it did, this would have had many more scores of documents listed.

    So this "doctor" is saying that he wrote a book, but didn't cite his sources because he didn't think anyone would ever question his work…… Ummm, I'm sorry, but the college Sophomores I teach as a current graduate student all know that is 1) not an acceptable assumption; 2) a violation of basic research methodology; 3) absolutely ludicrous; and 4) ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS! How and where did this man even finish his master's let alone a [theoretical] Ph.D.?

  • 296. pepper  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:57 am

    So what if straight people dont want to marry anymore if gays can. Their choice. Who cares.
    These people are rediculous.

  • 297. NVLawMan  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:59 am

    Note my comment below. Absolutely laughable!

  • 298. Brian D  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:03 am

    This was quite possibly the best line of todays hearings.

    Hello Smack! My name is Down. Can we conjugate? hahahahahaha…

  • 299. NVLawMan  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Nooooo! Of course not! We academicians NEVER expect ANYONE to question our work. I mean, we're just all always right the moment we think of something. Really, all that research, and math, and observation, and statistics, and thinking, and proof is all just because we are bored after we think up how the world works…….. or after the Flying Spaghetti Monsters tell us how it works.

  • 300. pepper  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:14 am

    David, this Blankenhorn guy is the symbol of so much hatred and irrationality towards gay people for decades. I'd say, ctiticize and attack him as much as one likes. Get that anger out, why spare such a hateful and discriminating douchebag?

  • 301. waxr  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    It sounds like he is saying that sex without the intent of having children is evil.

  • 302. waxr  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Again, sex is for the procreation of children. Sex without children is evil.

  • 303. Linda  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    Ha! I'll see your bourbon and add a sweet tea vodka! Oh, and reeses; gotta have the reeses. :)

  • 304. Linda  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    Oh, Eric! That sums up their whole case, doesn't it?

  • 305. Linda  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Don't you remember the argument about interracial marriage? It shouldn't be allowed, because the children might look funny. Seriously! Same type of thing!

  • 306. Linda  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Purpose….? Sounds like motive to me.

  • 307. Linda  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    It would improve the well-being of GAY AND LESBIAN households. But do we matter?

  • 308. Linda  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    Oh, I'm so glad ADF got right on that. 'Let's just make this clear–our goal is NOT to make homos happy!'

  • 309. Linda  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    The underlying point of this, though, is that even though it would benefit US, it would not be in the best interests of society as a whole. We can be sacrificed, it seems, for the 'greater good.'

  • 310. Alyson  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    I want a T-shirt that just says 'Good God Man!'

  • 311. Liveblogging Day 11: Part&hellip  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    […] Livebogging Day 11: Part V […]

  • 312. The Gaytheist Agenda &raq&hellip  |  January 26, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    […] TT Liveblogging Day 11 Part 5 […]

  • 313. Lymis  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    Oh, they'll still marry. It'll just be deinstitutionalized.

    Which, I guess, means that they'll stop getting all those monthly newsletters from Marriage Command on things like who does the laundry and who kills the bugs.

    Oh, the humanity!

  • 314. James Sweet  |  January 27, 2010 at 12:17 am

    Simply being able to say that a child needs a mother and father, if that becomes just indefensible in any forum, a church, a school, a PTA meeting we lose something precious.

    I'll agree with him as far as saying that a child needs a comprehensive support structure, and that it is difficult for a single person to meet that need. (Which of course doesn't give anybody an excuse to insult single parents, but I'll agree with him as saying it is a non-ideal situation — just as the lack of extended family support for me and my wife is less than ideal, and that's okay) I think what he is missing is not that the idea of a child needing a support structure has become controversial, but that the idea that the gender of the support structure participants is crucial has become controversial.

  • 315. Nikki  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:43 am

    Blankenhorn is not a doctor. He only has a Master's degree, and in an unrelated field (labor unions).

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