Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 12: Part I

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

It’s the last day for evidence in this trial. We’re still upstairs, in the 19th floor Ceremonial Courtroom. This morning, Teddy from FDL beat me to the room, but it’s pretty much our same little group. So far, there are about eight people here, with a few meandering in. I ran into AP’s Lisa Leff on the way into the building today.

Up on 19, we’ve formed a sort of community. Everyone is respectful of each other, even if we are not all on the same side. The Prop. 8 folks continue to sit in the jury box up here, behind me. I’m at the long plaintiff’s table, next to the projector that occasionally shows videos, slides and “demonstratives” from the trial room.

The other twelve foot long, blond wood table that would have been at home in a college library.

0834: The judge just entered.

Judge Walker: Good morning. Mr. Blankenhorn, you understand that you are still under oath.

DB: Yes

Judge Walker: The oath that you took yesterday still applies?

Boies: Good morning Mr. Blankenhorn. I’m going to start with some things we agree on. You agree that marriage is a public good.

DB: Yes.

Boies: What is a public good?

DB: Benefits society..

Boies: Good for children and couples.

DB: Yes.

Boies: You believe it would benefit gay and lesbian couples and their children to allow same sex marriage?

DB: I believe it is likely to do that.

Boies: You believe it is almost certain to do that?

DB: Yes, I believe same sex marriage is almost certain to benefit gay and lesbian couples and their children.

Boies: Reads from B’s book. “If adopting same sex marriage would be likely to impede that goal, I’d be against it.” You believe that the rights of gays and lesbians should take second place to an existing institution?

DB: Read me the sentence again?

Boies: I’ll read the next sentence in which B says that if marriage will be sacrificed, I’d put gays and lesbians in second place.

DB: Yes.

Boies: To the degree that I must choose, with some anguish, I would choose children’s’ collective good and the institution of marriage…

DB: My entire book…

Boies: I’m not interested in your entire book.

DB: My book is about goods in conflict. (whines)

Boies: I thought you would agree with what I read (because they are your words).

DB: I do agree (whining again, like a little boy), but I am writing about goods in conflict. I do not believe that (gay marriage) is bad. Two “goods” in conflict.

Judge Walker: Let’s have a question and an answer.

Boies: I’m going to read from your chapter Goods in Conflict which is a sort of group think experiment in which you wrote things on a white board.

DB: I agree with substance of what you say, but it’s important …

Boies: Your honor would you instruct the witness to be responsive to my questions and not make statements no matter how important he thinks they are.

DB: I am making important points! I do not need those instructions!

Judge Walker: If this were a jury trial, the jury would be instructed to weigh the witness’s background and other factors. One of those factors is the witness’s demeanor. If the witness is not responsive to the questions, that affects the jury’s weighing of his testimony. I’m sure you would not want your testimony to be diminished by your demeanor. So please be responsive to the questions. Your counsel will have a chance to allow you to expand on points.

DB: Yes, your honor.

Boies: Read silently to yourself the 23 points that are listed in this chapter and tell me whether yes or no you agree with them.

DB: 1. – 7 yes. 8 and 9 no. 11

[UPDATE] 9:30

DB: 1 – 7 yes. 8 and 9 no. 11, 12 yes. 13. I don’t know. 14 no. 15 yes. 16, I don’t know. 17. No. 18 yes. 19. Yes. 20. I don’t know. 21. I don’t know. 22. Yes. 23. I don’t know.

Boies: Thank you. I’d like to publish this list and go through it and both identify the ones you agree with and ask you some questions about the ones you don’t agree with.

(UP on screen)

1. Same sex marriage would meet the stated needs and desires of g and l who want to marry. In so doing it would improve the happiness and well being of many gay and lesbian and individuals, couples and family member.

2. Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children.

3. Extending the right to marry to ss couples would probably mean that a higher proportion of gays and lesbian would choose to enter into a commitment relationships.

4. Same sex marriage would make more gays and lesbians enter committed relationships.

5. Decrease promiscuity.

6. Same sex marriage would signify greater social acceptance of homosexual love and will increase the worth and validity of intimate relationships.

7. Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and include. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be treated warily as “other” and increase the number who are accepted as part of us. In that respect, gay marriage be a victory for and another key expansion of the American idea.

910. Gay marriage might contribute over time to t decline in anti gay prejudice as well as more specifically reduction in hate crimes.

11. Long one- basically would make homos more stable economically and therefore more likely to contribute to US.

15. Extending same sex marriage rights to would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex and thus would likely reduce unhappy marriage to opposite sex couples.

18. By increasing the number of married couples who m be interned in adoption and foster care because same sex couples can have kids in their families.

19. Adopting same sex marriage would likely be accompanied by a side ranging and potentially valuable national discussion.

22. Gay marriage would probably expand the possibility and research on a variety of topics related to marriage and parenting.

Boies: Go back to number 14, with which you disagreed. Let me ask you if you agree with any part.

Reference here to “marriage lite” schemes such as civil unions and domestic partnerships, which can harmfully blur the distinctions between marriage and non marriage”

DB: I do believe, it is a concern of mine, one concern that needs to be taken into account, because cu and dp are similar to marriage so they could blur the distinction.

Boies: You are saying that marriage lite schemes such as civil unions and domestic partnerships are a concern because they could blur the distinction between marriage and non-marriage.

DB: Yes sir.

Boies: You understand that you were to list the documents you used to create your expert report?

DB: No sir. As I explained yesterday…

Boies: I do not want your explanation. I just want a yes or no.

Judge Walker: Perhaps if you showed the witness the expert report.

Boies: Shows report. Which of these show that same sex marriage would undermine hetero marriage.

DB: With proviso that most of these were written before the debate on same sex marriage arose, I can list these exhibits. 2, 3, 10, 24, 37 and that’s all.

Boies: With respect to number 10, who is this?

DB: Historian.

Boies: Not an anthropologist or

DB: One is by Maggie Gallagher. Who is Maggie Gallagher?

Boise: Who is Maggie Gallagher.

DB: Writer and organizer whose principal focus for the past four or five years has been to oppose gay marriage.

Boies: Do you believe she is a scholar?

DB: I do. She is an intellectually serious person.

Boies: Do you define scholar as intellectually serious?

DB: If you are quarreling over terms…

Boies: I’m not quarreling. You use term scholar a lot. What is it?

DB: Scholar is someone who is able and equipped to engage in serious discussion with one or more bodies of evidence and make rigorous arguments with one or more bodies of evidence. Good scholars operate with integrity and try to seek the truth of the matter.

Boies: One attribute is objectivity?

DB: In the sense that one must try to deal with objectivity, yes. Maggie Gallagher has a dual role. She’s a journalist and a partisan.

Boies: Has she published any peer-reviewed articles? Which ones?

DB: I don’t have her CV here. I can’t recall them here, but she has been in peer-reviewed journals.

Boies: Which ones of her peer-reviewed articles have you relied upon?

DB: I have read thousands of articles, hers included.

Boies: Which of Maggie Gallagher’s?

DB: You are putting words in my mouth.

Boies: On which of Maggie Gallagher’s peer-reviewed articles that rise to objectivity that you say scholars aspire to?

DB: None. I did not rely on any of her articles for my testimony here.

[Blankenhorn is self-righteous and very, very self-important. He really believes that he is a big deal and that what he says matters even though he comes across as a sloppy amateur.]

Boies: Article by Norval Glen you identified.

DB: I believe you asked me to identify any articles that I used to come to my conclusions.

Boies: Which of these materials contain assertions that homosexual marriage will harm heterosexual marriage, if any?

DB: Does it have to say it in that exact form of words that you offered?

Boies: No in words or substance so that a reasonable reader could read or understand that homosexual marriage would weaken heterosexual marriage.

DB: The key word is “likely.” No one can predict the future with certainty.

Boies: Yes, Mr. Blankenhorn. Likely.

DB: I believe a reasonable reader reading these materials would agree that this author states or suggests that homo marriage is likely to weaken institution of marriage.

Boies: Difference between stated and suggested?

DB: Stated would mean unequivocal assertion. Suggested would mean a serious concern or belief that ss marriage would be likely to weaken hetero marriage.

Boies: Let’s take them separately.

DB: Laughing I was afraid that’s where we were going! (Ha Ha)

[Tam did not bother me. He’s just an inflexible old guy. Blankenhorn is sanctimonious and dangerous because he is infinitely flexible, likes to play with words and that can hurt people.]

Boies: Stated?

DB: Number 3, Sinsky—opponent of ss marriage. I cannot speak with certainty

Boies: You understand that you cannot say that in this particular material that is cited here that she unmistakably communicates that ss marriage would undermine hetero marriage.

DB: I do not know if those exact words appear in the book Parity of the Sexes so we have to take her off the list. You are using an extremely narrow construction, which is your right.

Boies: You do understand that these are the works you listed?

DB: Of course!

[UPDATE] 9:45

Boies: Norval Glen trying to talk about substance of same sex marriage or the debate about ss marriage?

DB: I believe it is the latter.

Boies: So he’s concerned about the debate over same sex marriage will weaken marriage?

DB: I have not read this article in years, but this is more about the debate.

Boies: One of the thing he says is that legalizing same sex marriage would at most have a small effect on the percentage of fatherless children.

DB: Let me read it.

Boies: I understand, but do you see what I said?

DB: I do see it.

Boies: Take as much time as you like to review the context and let me know when you are ready.

DB: I’ve finished.

Boies: Do you agree that legalizing same sex marriage would have at most a small effect on the percentage of fatherless children.

DB: Do you want to know what he is saying?

Boies: I want to know what his words are, not what you think they are.

DB: That’s not what he means, but if you don’t want to know, that’s okay. (Pouting)

Boies: Do you agree with what he says here that there is no precedent for creating prohibition of family form.

DB: When I think of polygamy, and I’m no expert, it is prohibited because it is not a good form for children. Other forms that I’m not able to conjure now that have been prohibited, but I don’t remember.

Boies: You have said you are not an expert on polygamy, but do you know why it was prohibited in the US?

DB: I’m not an expert on polygamy.

Boies: Do you know any reasons?

DB: Not that I could state as a scholar.

Boies: You had said, The main rules of the game for the rules for marriage are three.

DB: You make it sound jocular.

Judge Walker: There is a question here, Mr. Blankenhorn.

DB: Do you wish me to stop my inquiry? I’ll stop if you want me to. I’m going for clarity.
[Blankenhorn is more interested in jousting and showing that he is smarter than he is in convincing the judge. The judge looks pretty disgusted at this point. Had Blankenhorn any credibility with any jurist, it is loss.]

DB: Yes! I was right! It came from an Nobel-prize winning economist! That’s why I footnoted it! (See, I told you so! I told you so!)

Boies: You have said that the rules of the game (of marriage) are three.

[NOTE]: Sorry about the delay everyone. A new thread is up.

Tags: , ,

279 Comments

  • 1. Lisa  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:57 am

    Wow, sounds like Blankenhorn is a spoiled child who isn't getting his way in an argument with his parents!

  • 2. Sarah  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:58 am

    What a start… so much for doing better after some sleep.

  • 3. Will  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:58 am

    Thank you, David Boies!

    Boies: What is a public good?

    DB: Benefits society..

    Boies: Good for children and couples.

    DB: Yes.

    Boies: You believe it would benefit gay and lesbian couples and their children to allow same sex marriage?

    DB: I believe it is likely to do that.

    Boies: You believe it is almost certain to do that?

    DB: Yes, I believe same sex marriage is almost certain to benefit gay and lesbian couples and their children.

    Blackenhorn should just stop roght there.

  • 4. Ann S.  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:58 am

    "I am making important points!"

    Stamps feet, crosses arms, and pouts.

    Walker sends to room to think about how he has acted, and not to come back until he can behave like a grown-up.

  • 5. Jenny O  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:59 am

    "Yes, I believe ss marriage is almost certain to benefit gay and lesbian couples and their children." and he calls same-sex marriage a "good" thing. Wow! Great start!

  • 6. JonInSF  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:00 am

    Hoa, a VERY rocky start for Blankenhorn today! We'll be portrayed as dragging him out into an alley and mugging him now. =(

    this is curious, though. Why is defense allowing this testimony? He's all but saying that ss marriage is better than ss couples remaining unmarried. Actually he IS saying that! So what're the DIs up to?

  • 7. Richard  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:00 am

    Is he an "expert" witness, or a spoiled little brat? Either way, Mr. Blankenhorn does not sem to be toeing the party line, so to speak, does he?

  • 8. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:01 am

    Boies: You believe it would benefit gay and lesbian couples and their children to allow ss marriage?
    B: I believe it is likely to do that.
    Boies: You believe it is almost certain to do that?
    B: Yes, I believe ss marriage is almost certain to benefit gay and lesbian couples and their children.

    He said it again…we win….make gay marriage legal!

  • 9. Sam  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:01 am

    J: If this were a jury trial, the jury would be instructed to weigh the witness’s background and other factors. One of those factors is the witness’s demeanor. If the witness is not responsive to the questions, that affects the jury’s weighing of his testimony. I’m sure you would not want your testimony to be diminished by your demeanor. So please be responsive to the questions. Your counsel will have a chance to allow you to expand on points.
    B: Yes, your honor.

    Ouch.

  • 10. Jan  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Wah wah wah expert my arse

  • 11. ron1008  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Is Blankenhorn gay?

  • 12. ron1008  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:03 am

    J Edger Hoover was no prise

  • 13. evenevan  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:03 am

    I LOVE Judge Walker! I wonder if he expected this kind of monkey business when he signed on for the trial…?

  • 14. Lymis  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:04 am

    They don't have a choice. They picked him. They examined him. This is cross-examination, where the other side gets to ask whatever (within the rules) they want.

    He is an "expert witness" in part because of what he has written. He hasn't written much. They can hardly claim him to be an expert because of his writing and then object when the plaintiffs ask questions about what he wrote.

  • 15. Lymis  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:05 am

    He got chosen at random from a pool of available judges. Wow did we hit the jackpot with that one!

  • 16. PaulN  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:05 am

    Defense: *headdesk*

  • 17. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:08 am

    Boies: Reads from B’s book. “If adopting same sex marriage would be likely to impede that goal, I’d be against it.” You believe that the rights of gays and lesbians should take second place to an existing institution?

    DB: Read me the sentence again?

    Boies: I’ll read the next sentence in which B says that if marriage will be sacrificed, I’d put gays and lesbians in second place.

    DB: Yes.

    He's not too familiar with his own writing.

  • 18. Jenny O  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:09 am

    What else is there to say: The defense's "expert" admits ss marriage benefits the couple and benefits their children. It is a 'public good'. Prop 8's whole case is bleeding to death.

  • 19. Lexi  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:09 am

    My kids act just like Blankenhorn when they need a nap or time out!

    I wouldn't have the patience to listen to him whine all morning, I feel sorry for the Judge and the rest of the courtroom.

  • 20. Kate  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:10 am

    Sounds like Dr. Blankenhorn needs a diaper change. All of those right-wingers are crybabies, but he's got it down to a science (no pun intended)!

  • 21. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:11 am

    Git him Boies ….GIT HIM!!!!

  • 22. Lymis  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:12 am

    "I don't need these instructions! I never follow instructions! Why should I have to follow instructions! What were those instructions again?"

  • 23. Shawn in LA  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:12 am

    I’ve been following the testimony from day one on this site almost word for word (as well as most of the comments) but this is my first time posting.

    I think my favorite line from this whole trial is:

    Tam: “I don’t know what a core group is, but I’m not part of it”

    Watching all this unfold has been an incredible, eye-opening experience. I came out at age 27 – relatively late in life for people of my generation (I’m 36 now). The years before that were pretty tough, so hearing everyone share their personal experiences, insights and reactions in the comments section throughout the last two weeks has been a tremendously positive experience for me. I’ve never met any of you, but I feel like you are all my close friends now!

    Thank you all for sharing your deepest personal experiences in such a heartfelt way. I especially want to thank Rick and his team for keeping us up to speed this whole time. You guys are doing the community and the world a tremendous service which will resonate well into the future. This stuff needs to be heard!

    As Harvey Milk said “you gotta give ‘em hope!”

    Between Rick and his team, and all the trial trackers on here – believe me – you are giving me and thousands of other people, a lot of hope!
    Thank you!

  • 24. jayjaylanc  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:13 am

    So WE must suffer because the other side has no confidence in the resilience and strength of the institution of marriage? Who's denigrating marriage, again? The side who believes in its ability to absorb a slight shift in definition or the side who believes that it's so brittle that it will shatter if you blow on it the wrong way?

    Also see, "Christianity, weakness of"

  • 25. Dave T  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:13 am

    Here's where the defense is going with this: Blankenhorn argues (apparently) in his book that SS marriage would be good for kids (& maybe even society) but that it conflicts with something else that is a good, namely "straights-only" (geez, I almost wrote "whites-only" there – a Freudian slip?) institution.

    But he's going to have to explain two things: 1) why the two things are in conflict (not obvious to me) and 2) why "straights-only" marriage wins.

  • 26. 109  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:13 am

    Symbolic. He thinks everyone should listen to what he says! But the world doesn't work like that.

  • 27. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:13 am

    BWAHAHAHA!!!

    Images of my 2 1/2 year old of any time I tell her "no" are going through my mind.

  • 28. Happy  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:13 am

    The question was never whether ss marriage would benefit us, I think it's just about the fact that marriage has been given a distinct definition that they believe should not be changed.

    Just like the definition of marriage should never have been changed from including only one WHITE man and one WHITE woman in the South, right? (WRONG!)

  • 29. Tiffany  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:13 am

    "Judge Walker: If this were a jury trial, the jury would be instructed to weigh the witness’s background and other factors. One of those factors is the witness’s demeanor. If the witness is not responsive to the questions, that affects the jury’s weighing of his testimony. I’m sure you would not want your testimony to be diminished by your demeanor. So please be responsive to the questions. Your counsel will have a chance to allow you to expand on points."

    Ha ha! Blankenhorn just keeps on making a better case for us. Talk about a horrible "expert" witness for the defense. He's even frustrating the judge. I think the stars are in our favor at this time. He seems to be taking the hill that we face and making it far less steep (at least in this case). In fact, all of the experts for the defense have helped us (at least the ones I have read).

    I really hope that this case goes in our favor and that we are able to finally get married. I have a woman to whom I need to re-propose and legally marry. :-D

  • 30. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:14 am

    But then he adds that if it's not AS good as hetero marriages, it'll have to play second fiddle to everyone else.

  • 31. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:15 am

    DB: I am making important points! I do not need those instructions!

    Holy out a ring on it!………….. Is this witness really telling the lawyer and the judge what to do?

    GOOD GOD MAN!….. You're so Egotistical!

  • 32. Jane  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Ohhh, did Blackenhorn not eat his Wheaties this morning?

  • 33. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Talk about a spanking! Ohhh, that stung!

  • 34. ExcuseMeExcuseMe  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:16 am

    The judge didn't sign on. He was assigned the case through a random draw.

  • 35. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:17 am

    So marriage is "good" and same-sex marriage is also "good" . . . but *allowing* same-sex marriage is bad???

    I think my brain just exploded.

  • 36. Lisa  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:17 am

    That's because he doesn't want to say out loud: "Screw gays and lesbians, I don't want my definition of marriage to change."

  • 37. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:17 am

    Ouch! is am understatement. Try OUCH!!!.

    Remember, in effect, Judge Walker is the 'jury.' And he's already said — look back to the end of Boies' voir dire — that were this a jury trial he is very dubious that he would have let Blankenhorn testify at all because his background and credentials are so lacking. Now he reminds him again as he mentions his demeanor. Boies has to continue to demolish him 'for the record' but Judge Walker has already said how much weight he's giving his testimony. (Can we say 'none' boys and girls?)

  • 38. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:17 am

    ROFLMAO…typical anti-gay attitude. You have to follow the rule, I don't. What do you mean I do? NO FAIR!!!

  • 39. Jenny A  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:17 am

    I will miss this sense of community blog when the trial is over. It has been a source of comfort in all this and to know others take it just as seriously as I do. Thank you bloggers for being out spoken! You all so rock! May we win our fight and may our love be acknowledged

  • 40. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:19 am

    I hope not because then he is a sad sad excuse of a man.

    Grow some balls….Dr. BLANK!

  • 41. bJason  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:19 am

    I have figured out the exact date that this will be decided by SCOTUS… 12/21/2012

    :)

  • 42. Alan E.  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:19 am

    So in his book there are points that he doesn't agree with, even though he wrote them?

  • 43. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:19 am

    Please be sure to join the facebook page that Calvin started for us all to stay connected:
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43024709571

  • 44. Lisa  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:19 am

    Marriage can't take all that goodness and will thus degenerate. Duh.

  • 45. Jan  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:20 am

    I agree, Shawn!

  • 46. truthspew  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:20 am

    I find it interesting that of the two witnesses the defendants have proferred, both have made the case that same sex marriage would be a public good.

    In essence, when you remove the religious layer, it always comes out the same. I think Olson & Boies slam dunked this one.

  • 47. Alan E.  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:20 am

    HAHAHA it all fits!

  • 48. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:20 am

    You spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round!

  • 49. Ozymandias  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Dave I was thinking about that angle as well… but it all boils down to this –

    Them – SS Marriage is better for Gays and Lesbians and their children, and probably even for society, but it will harm the institution of marriage.

    Us – Where's the proof that backs up your belief?

    Them – … well it will harm the institution of marriage!

    Us – Prove it! Where's the research that shows this to be true?

    Them – … well it will harm the institution of marriage!

    And 'round and 'round we go. As others have pointed out, this is not a belief supported by evidence – it's just a belief. The evidence (and more of it all the time) is coming out on our side.

  • 50. Dave T  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Was he?

    He is the Chief Judge for the district – I assumed that he looked at this case, thought "this is going to be a big deal", and took it on himself in order to a) spare his subordinates the headaches and b) make sure it's done right.

  • 51. Jane  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Ditto. good + good = bad. Wut?

  • 52. ron1008  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:20 am

    F5 F5 F5

  • 53. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:21 am

    Can anyone explain what these 23 points are?

  • 54. cc  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:21 am

    Wow, where did you come up with that?

  • 55. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:21 am

    OMG, I thought the same thing!!!

    But isn't this the crux of their issue? Both are good (at least for the parties involved), but we'll never be quite as good as them; therefore, we have to get the shaft.

  • 56. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:21 am

    AHHHHH!!!!! It's the end of the world!

    Make sure to pop some popcorn and watch the fireworks!

  • 57. Linda  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:22 am

    LOLOLOL perfect!

  • 58. Lisa  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Which, incidentally, will also be the day the LHC at CERN produces antimatter.

  • 59. Jane  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:22 am

    lol, listening to NPR in the background. Being in Iraq is wrong, leaving Iraq is "wronger." What a world we live in…

  • 60. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Jenny join the facebook page thatCalvin started that way we will not lose anything when this trial is over.
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43024709571

  • 61. Lymis  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:23 am

    But you can't prove that it WON'T harm the institution of marriage! Nyah, nyah.

    And places that already have gay marriage don't count, because, umm…, because….. well, they just don't. Probably because of liberals. Yeah, that's it. Liberals. And pandas.

  • 62. Will  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:23 am

    How could BLANKENDOUCHE not know or agree with what he wrote? It's almost laughable…

    Did you write this? I don't know.
    Do you agree with what you wrote? I don't know.

    Unreal!

  • 63. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:23 am

    LMAOROTF….That is some funny sh*t there my friend…

  • 64. rf  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:23 am

    on twitter and FDL it looks like they are talking about maggie gallagher as a scholar.

  • 65. Lymis  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:24 am

    Random draw. And they say God is on THEIR side. Hah!

  • 66. Jenny O  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:24 am

    yeah, that makes no sense. Marriage was 'deinstitutionalized' a long time ago and it had nothing to do with same sex marriage. That argument is flat and frankly, wrong. Maybe allowing anyone, regardless of gender, to marry the one they love, regardless of gender, is exactly the pillar marriage needs to support itself. All those new loving couples able to marry: how could that hurt marriage?

  • 67. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:24 am

    But I though I already got the shaft?

    DOAH!

  • 68. Happy  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:25 am

    I'm sure they'll be explained at some point. Rick is probably waiting for a lull in the excitement to have a minute to write it all down…. but seriously, I hope that's soon! I needs my updates!! LOL

  • 69. Jane  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:25 am

    Itty bitty facepalm…

    .-´¯¯¯`-.
    ,´ `.
    |
    |
    _
    , _ ,´¯,/¯)
    ( q ,´ ,´ ,´¯)
    `._,) -´,-´)
    / ,´/
    ) / /
    / ,´-´

  • 70. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:25 am

    Of course!

    You know we pervey gay men *like* getting "the shaft," so it's appropriate. We just drag you poor lesbians down with us; guilt by association and all that.

  • 71. rf  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:25 am

    BLank calls her an intellectually serious person. I think Boise disagrees.

  • 72. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:25 am

    They are a list of the Con's for adopting SSM. He listed them in one of his "studies"

  • 73. Lymis  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:26 am

    Can we just have the Rapture first and get these clowns out of our hair?

  • 74. Happy  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:26 am

    BLANKENDOUCHE!

    :)

    :D

    :D:D:D:D:D

    LOL LMAOROTF

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

  • 75. Jan  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:26 am

    AmerEqualRights on twitter just listed a plethora of POSITIVE (!!) things that would happen if gay marriage were legal. HUH!?

    So the defense witnesses so far have done two things.
    1) Be completely incompetent
    2) Basically come out stating something or another which is supportive of our side; not their own view necessarily but stating facts that support US.

    So uh, yeah, alright. We win.

  • 76. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:26 am

    GOOD GOD MAN!……hehehehe

  • 77. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:26 am

    I mean Pro's sorry

  • 78. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:27 am

    in davids book he lists 23 positive points for same sex marriage and 24 negative points.

  • 79. Jaye  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:28 am

    Man, it seems to me the anti-SSMers are just throwing this trial to our side…almost on purpose.

  • 80. Jan  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:28 am

    Oops, meant to say that they listed a plethora of positive things that Blankendouchen said in court just now.

  • 81. Sam  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:28 am

    Yeah, admittedly, my 'ouch' was a bit understated. =D

  • 82. Matt in Seattle  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:29 am

    From FDL:

    A: One of the leading opponents of gay marriage today, writer and organizer on gay marriage, leading a campaign making public arguments against gay marriage.
    Q: Consider her a scholar as you have used that word?
    A: Yes she is an intellectually serious person?
    Q: And that’s what you mean by scholar?
    A: Well if you want to quarrel over the meaning –
    Q: NO, I DON"T EWANT TO QUARREL — I want to know whast you mean.
    A: No, the definition of scholar is not an intellectually serious person.
    Q: So when you use the word scholar what do you mean?
    A: Someone who is able and equipped to engage seriously with intellectual competence with one or more bodies of evidence and to make rigorous argumnets about one or more bodies of evidence. THe ideals are to be — to have integrity, to want to seek the truth of the matter.
    Q: Is one attribute objectivity?
    A: Objectivity meaning trying to see and treat opposing points of view respectfully, you might call those aspirations objectitivity. Maggie has a dual role – she is a writer and scholar, and an activist and leader.
    Q: Has she published peer-reviewed articles?
    A: yes
    Q: What ones?
    A: (really snotty now) I don’t have her CV in front of me!
    Q: Can you recall one you have relied on?
    A: I read them, they have shaped my views.
    Q: What was the most recent peer-reviewed article by MGallagher you have relied on that was objective scholarship.
    A: You are putting words in my mouth –
    Q: Alright let me ask: What peer reviewed articles of Maggie Gallagher’s have you relied on?
    A: That I have relied on here today?
    Q: well that’s not my question, but why don’t you answer that first?
    A: No, none of hers.

    I was wondering when Maggie was going to rear her ugly head

  • 83. Alan E.  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:29 am

    over at http://www.firedoglake.com/prop8trial, they are ahead of Rick. Blank is getting reamed hard.

  • 84. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:30 am

    OMG he calls Maggie G a Scholar….WTF

  • 85. Lexi  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:30 am

    Damn Pandas!

  • 86. Matt in Seattle  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:30 am

    Left off Boies' question:

    Q: Another is number 24, by Maggie Gallagher. Who is she?

    It goes at the top of the list.

  • 87. Jan  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:30 am

    Though, think I missed reading the comments on this post, but yesterday didn't Rick say he heard, whilst on break, Blankenhorn say he is actually FOR same sex marriage?

  • 88. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:31 am

    You'd think they'd be encouraging us to get married and trying to speed this process along so they can FINALLY meet their Messiah and have their holy war against Lucifer and teh gays.

  • 89. Darrell  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:31 am

    i am confused… is he trying to have it both ways… sounds like he is for / against gay marriage…..

    makes me laugh.. LOL

  • 90. JefferyK  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:31 am

    "B: Scholar is someone who is able and equipped to engage in serious discussion with one or more bodies of evidence and make rigorous arguments with one or more bodies of evidence. Good scholars operate with integrity and try to seek the truth of the matter."

    Under this definition, just about anyone could call himself a scholar.

  • 91. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:32 am

    Q: So when you use the word scholar what do you mean?
    A: Someone who is able and equipped to engage seriously with intellectual competence with one or more bodies of evidence and to make rigorous argumnets about one or more bodies of evidence. THe ideals are to be — to have integrity, to want to seek the truth of the matter.

    according to his definition – he is not a scholar

  • 92. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:32 am

    Shoot they will all be here looking at each other in shock when the rapture happens wondering why all those people that they just knew they were better than are all gone.

  • 93. Stacy  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:32 am

    It's making me really nervous that their case is going so badly. Either they really couldn't find any expert witnesses to back up their case, or they are trying to lose so they can win the appeal in the higher court. Either way, I hope the judges see through it all and realize that they don't have a good case because there is no good case.

  • 94. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:32 am

    It's always a random draw from those judges with space on their dockets.

  • 95. MordacP  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:32 am

    And this is after he had a good night's sleep (or maybe not after yesterday).

    Can you imagine putting up with him after a long day?

  • 96. cc  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:32 am

    the thing is he can say that while it is positive to us the minority it is negative to hetrosexuals the majority. So therefore it does more harm then good.

    Its a weird way to go around it, but all in all he is still helping us!

  • 97. ron1008  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:33 am

    Will I Just Picked Myself Up ! LOLOLOLOLOL

  • 98. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:33 am

    That seems to be what he's saying …

  • 99. Jane  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:33 am

    The Large Hadron Collider FTW!

  • 100. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Oh, I figured it out!

    We all know two wrongs don't make a right, right?

    Well, the inverse is true: two rights do make a wrong.

    It's all so obvious now!

    Jus like how education is good for white children and good for black children is, but educating black and white children together is bad.

  • 101. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Except Maggie G

  • 102. jerek  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:35 am

    It's amazing that the defense doesn't know that their experts need to be experts at being a witness as well as experts in their fields.

  • 103. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:35 am

    Maggie's a scholar??? Oh yeah, and black is really white, and no really means yes. Gotcha!

    I told my professor last night that I wanted to be a scholar. If she's an example of that, I take it back.

  • 104. David John Lawrence  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:35 am

    I may just have to go shopping at LeatherMasters to find an appropriate thank you gift to send the judge for these very kindly worded instructions to the witness. Something from the Whips & Paddles Department……..

  • 105. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Thanks Michael-and RECENT CONVERTS (I don't like that term!), -umm-recently enlightened! please join us too!

  • 106. rf  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:36 am

    boies forgets blankenhorns name?

    A: The issue is always ‘likely’ Mr Boies, you are asking me to predict the future.
    Q: I accept that, Mr uh
    A: BLankenhorn
    Q: Yes, I;m sorry Mr Blankenhorn.

    unlikely

  • 107. Ozymandias  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Shawn, thanks for posting and hanging out with us!

    Love ya,

    Ozy

  • 108. JefferyK  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:36 am

    I guess academic credentials are meaningless?

  • 109. Kendall  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:37 am

    "better for … their children"

    – ZOMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!1!!

    ;-)

  • 110. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Btw, if anyone belongs to questia.com (an online academic library that costs $99 a year and should be much better known) you can do a search (ideally first search "Blankenhorn" then — in the results — search 'David Blankenhorn' and read some of his writings, and some of the articles contradicting him. Particularly look at the article he co-wrote with Maggie Gallagher, and the response to in included in the same article. Most of the pieces are simply his argument that 'kids' — he seems to mean 'boys' need fathers. As I've argued elsewhere, seeing how frequently damaging attitudes get passed on from fathers to kids — and the passing on of abusive family structures — I am *ahem* not sure this is irrefutable.

  • 111. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Note that he never could say that Maggie as a "scholar" has dealt with an issue or topic respectfully or objectively. 'Cause he CAN'T!!!

  • 112. jayjaylanc  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Shorter Blankenhorn: "Yes, we provided this material. But you weren't supposed to read them like THAT!"

  • 113. JefferyK  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Scholar Blankenhorn seems to have trouble with language comprehension.

  • 114. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:41 am

    Yep, Michael! My mom used to say "you'll be surprised who you'll meet in Heaven." That is, until she found out I was gay. Apparently, I was already judged as not being worthy of Heaven. Sure wish I had known before submitting to years of spiritual abuse! :/

  • 115. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:41 am

    Only in the most negative use of the word.

  • 116. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Can anyone slip Boies a note telling him that Blankenhorn has actually co-authored an article with Maggie Gallagher (American Prospect July 1997)?

  • 117. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Jay, let me fix that for you:

    "Yes, we provided this material. But you weren't supposed to read it."

    There you go.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 118. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:42 am

    "Or ask questions about it….I mean I'm an expert after all.."

  • 119. Will  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:43 am

    The name is DOUCHE. BLANKENDOUCHE! Again…

    What a creep. If his ego, his size was to hit the Earth, life would seaze to exist on this planet. I am in awe of this man's attitude and a complete disdain for the judicial system , and the topic in discussion. WOW!

  • 120. JefferyK  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:43 am

    I am certain he knows.

  • 121. Darrell  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:43 am

    this guy is helping us more than he is helping the other side… i have to fall down laughing… can't believe what comes out of his mouth…. they should ask to remove from the the stand…. totally helping us…. they should keep him up there all day… no wonder what he might say next… laugh out loud…lol

  • 122. Kendall  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:45 am

    LOL, that's just what I was thinking, Mr. HCl. ;-) Everything my mom told me was wrong…up is down…etc.

  • 123. Will H  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:46 am

    who's playing Boies when this becomes a movie?

  • 124. Ozymandias  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:46 am

    BWAHHAHAHAHAAA! *cough* *sputter*

    Will, you owe me a new keyboard… and a fresh cup o'coffee!

    Love,

    Ozy

  • 125. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:47 am

    Yes but if they lose this trial what will God be trying to tell them again about GLBT people? And will they listen?

  • 126. Darrell  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Blankenhorn concedes that gay marriage would lead to more stability and "happiness and well-being" for same-sex couples, as well as more commitment in relationships and a lessening of promiscuity. He also called gay marriage in his writings a potential "victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion," and an "expansion of the American idea."

    which side is he on again???? LOLOLOLOL

  • 127. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:49 am

    DB: Historian.
    Boies: Not an anthropologist or
    DB: One is by Maggie Gallagher. Who is Maggie Gallagher?
    Boise: Who is Maggie Gallagher.
    DB: Writer and organizer whose principal focus for the past four or five years has been to oppose gay marriage.
    Boies: Do you believe she is a scholar?
    DB: I do. She is an intellectually serious person.
    Boies: Do you define scholar as intellectually serious?
    DB: If you are quarreling over terms…
    Boies: I’m not quarreling. You use term scholar a lot. What is it?
    DB: Scholar is someone who is able and equipped to engage in serious discussion with one or more bodies of evidence and make rigorous arguments with one or more bodies of evidence. Good scholars operate with integrity and try to seek the truth of the matter.

    Holly coocumunga!

    Ashley Dupree is now a journalist (has a column) ….does that make her a scholar?

  • 128. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Did the dude just flip his sh*t? Tell me he's not yelling.

  • 129. Ozymandias  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Exactly michael!

    Had to fight the gag reflex pretty hard when I read that.

    Love,

    Ozy

  • 130. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:50 am

    I think that they are going to really surprised when they are surrounded by all their friends in that place they keep telling us we are all going. It's kind of sad really. But they will have brought it all on themselves.

  • 131. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:51 am

    From Merriam Webster:

    Scholar

    Main Entry: schol·ar

    Pronunciation: ˈskä-lər

    Function: noun

    Etymology: Middle English scoler, from Old English scolere & Anglo-French escoler, from Medieval Latin scholaris, from Late Latin, of a school, from Latin schola school

    Date: before 12th century

    1 : a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : pupil
    2 a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field b : a learned person
    3 : a holder of a scholarship

    Hmmmm . . . doesn't sound like Maggs to me . . .

  • 132. Nathan  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:51 am

    This. Is. Painful. No wonder PM.com doesn't offer the transcripts or allow comments. I can't believe it….all that money and preparation and this is their final (of two) witness?
    I do have to say, though, I'm still worried about wether we will win the case or not. The anti-gay side might be pathetic, but have we proven what needs to be proven?

  • 133. jerek  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:52 am

    Lithgow?

  • 134. 109  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:53 am

    DB: Do you wish me to stop my inquiry? I’ll stop if you want me to. I’m going for clarity.

    Was that a threat?

  • 135. jayjaylanc  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:53 am

    Boies peed in 'em.

  • 136. Ozymandias  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Maybe Mr. Boise was reading some of the more… colorful… names showing up here and nearly made a slip!

    A: The issue is always ‘likely’ Mr Boies, you are asking me to predict the future.
    Q: I accept that, Mr Blakendouche…
    A: BLankenhorn
    Q: Yes, I;m sorry Mr Blankenhorn.

    Yes, that would be pretty… oh who am I kidding – that would be HILARIOUS!

    Love,

    Ozy

  • 137. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Wait wait wait……
    1sy he said, under oath that, that he used Maggie Gallagher as a ref…..then he said no he did not.

    PERJURY!

  • 138. Will  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:54 am

    I am picturing James Woods.

  • 139. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:56 am

    Perjury is OK if it's for the sake of the children.

  • 140. Tom B.  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:56 am

    Here's the deliciously evil part…the defense can't pull him off the stand during cross-examination, only the judge has that right.

  • 141. Tom B.  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:56 am

    I second that!

  • 142. jerek  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:57 am

    Okay, not I REALLY conflicted. Yeah, I want marriage equality, but I don't want this trial to end!

  • 143. Up&Adam  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:57 am

    Blankendouchen called Maggie Gallagher a "partisan," dictionary.com defines partisan as an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.Synonyms:biased, prejudiced.

  • 144. Will H  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:57 am

    wI can see James woods. Jeremy Piven?

  • 145. Richard  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:57 am

    Yes, that is perjury. It is also piss-poor planning on the part of the Prop 8 DI "team" and yet they will want everyone else to declare an emergency. I don't thin so. Again–where did they get this guy? WalMart? Big Lots? KMart Blue Light Special? Oh, wait! They got him at the Circuit City Bankruptcy sale!

  • 146. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Michael, don't you know? The failure of prayer just means you weren't praying hard enough.

    And of *course* the angry, pissy god of the Fundamentalists would *never* say anything good about GLBT people.

  • 147. Darrell  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:59 am

    tell me that its acting crazy and dancing round the court room…. judge rule today….. tell Mr. Cooper that he has shown nothing to stop gays from marrying.

  • 148. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:00 am

    That's OK, though, 'cause they're the defense.

    Remember how the defense accused each of the plaintiff's witnesses of being advocates for same-sex marriage. See, that's bad.

  • 149. Will H  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:02 am

    I feel the same way. Its exciting watching (reading) history as well as the camaraderie!

  • 150. Darrell  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:03 am

    The main rules of the game for the rules for marriage are three.

    what does this mean, i see that it was asked.

  • 151. Sideon  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:03 am

    Blankenhorn is channeling his inner Pugno.

    Smoke and mirrors.

    Smoke and mirrors.

  • 152. Francis  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:05 am

    why on earth do they have less witnesses? if they are defending the ban, they should put a whole lot more witnesses on there. im against the ban, but looking at the trail, it looks like they are hoping that it would go to the Supreme court! if that happens they could rule either way, thats prolly where they will bring in the big guns. But its intresting to see how this is playing out. no cameras? to protect people? only two people!

  • 153. Will H  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:06 am

    In the closet still? Torn by his own feelings and peer pressure.

  • 154. Felyx  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:06 am

    My Birthday….you are all invited to the retreat center for the all night big party bash!!

    (P S If the world doesn't end you will all be expected to help clean up afterwards LOL)

  • 155. Tom B.  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:07 am

    If Maggie Gallagher is a scholar, I'm king of the Universe, more powerful than (insert deity here)

  • 156. Alan E.  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:09 am

    WALKER: HE IS NOT LAUGHING AT YOU

    But we are!

  • 157. Lymis  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:10 am

    Insert Deity? Kinky.

  • 158. Will  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:11 am

    I AM A SCHOLAR! I KNOW EVERYTHING! YOU PEOPLE ARE BENEATH ME! KNEEL BEFORE BLANKENHORN!

    Turd!

  • 159. Andrew  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:12 am

    I think it was said correctly in the blogging.

    Tam sickened me just in the sense of how someone can so mistakenly believe what he does in such a naive way.

    This guy is worse. He sickens me because he knows what he's doing, and he's trying to sit there playing games of semantics and verbal sparring. He knows what he says/writes don't add up as a whole, but he wants to defend it under the "benevolent" cover of simply having to make a tough decision between "two goods."

    Too bad his own testimony doesn't show that to be the situation.

  • 160. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:12 am

    NO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES allowed at Supreme Court Hearings. Only things allowed are the record pf the trial, lawyers' briefs, amicus briefs, and (usually, time can vary) one hour of oral argument for each side.

    This is defense's ONLY chance to produce evience, no further evidence allowed in later hearings.

  • 161. Lisa  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:13 am

    The first rule of marriage is, you do not talk about marriage!

  • 162. nightshayde  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Liberals and pandas, huh?

    *falls over, laughing, thinking of rainbow-colored pandas*

  • 163. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Martin Short or Mel Gibson…both good very sarcastic

  • 164. Felyx  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:16 am

    It would have to be Robbin Williams….the movie should reflect the actual court event. It would have to be a comedy!!

  • 165. Tom B.  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:16 am

    @Lymis – "Insert Diety to continue."

  • 166. Bx2216  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:17 am

    Wow. Just wow. This "expert" is so combative and egotistical, not to mention incredibly intellectually lazy and sloppy. He thinks Maggie Gallagher is a scholar?!?!? OMG.

  • 167. nightshayde  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:18 am

    Michael — God will be telling "them" that they can't count on the darn commie pinko liberal gay-loving judges in this country, and that they need to raise funds like never before to elect good upstanding Christians to every elective office possible. How else will they get women & GLBT & atheists & progressives & all the other heathens under control?!

  • 168. Ryan Blazer  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:18 am

    What big guns could they bring? At the SCOTUS level they cannot introduce new evidence. That's one of the reasons why Pugno & Co. fought so hard to have the case not brought to trial, and to have evidence brought in (most of which, if not all, favors our side) is certainly damning to the D-I.

    I know I read somewhere, but I am no expert as to where that Scalia could not even uphold Prop 8 being that he's a "strict Constitutionalist".

    Any lawyers or others with JDs care to comment.

    I will add I only had 1 semester of law school, but that's it.

  • 169. Ryan Blazer  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Oh ya!

    Love,
    Ryan ;)

  • 170. Alan E.  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Anyone else find that p8tt.com is a little slow right now?

  • 171. jerek  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:19 am

    NOOOOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

  • 172. Felyx  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:19 am

    It would have to be Robin Williams (at least for the judge or something), the movie would have to accurately reflect the actual trial proceedings. This is after all a comedy!! LOL ;)

  • 173. Ozymandias  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Boies: I want to know what his words are, not what you think they are.

    DB: That’s not what he means, but if you don’t want to know, that’s okay. (Pouting)

    …seriously? SERIOUSLY?

    GOOD GOD MAN!

  • 174. Linda  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:21 am

    It doesn't matter if it benefits us if it can be proved to NOT benefit them. That's why Boies wants to know if anyone has data that shows that ssm will harm hetero marriage and families.

  • 175. James  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:21 am

    I couldn't help myself! I had to copy and paste that in an e-mail to all my family/friends!

  • 176. Happy  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:22 am

    I'm now, officially, a BLANKENH8ER. I'm making a T-shirt.

    2 T-shirts, actually:

    1) Lesbians Love Boies
    and
    2) Blankenh8er

  • 177. Ryan Blazer  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:22 am

    I know I posted this on the last witness, but just the same it applies:

    [youtube =http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY8uzqNi4sA&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hd=1]

    Love,
    Ryan

  • 178. David  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:22 am

    They've stopped following the trial to bask in the warm glowing warming glow of Steve Jobs introducing the iPad.

  • 179. Frank  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:22 am

    yes, slow — hop over to
    http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/26802

    I bounce between the two – the guys are actually sitting next to each other in the overflow room.

  • 180. Felyx  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:23 am

    Prejudice is ok…it is afterall for the children. (Not the gay ones though.)

    :P

  • 181. Lisa  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:24 am

    @protectmawwiage tweeted:

    Pro #prop8 witness tries using Avada Kadvara curse on lawyer! Lawyer deflects, fires back with Confundus charm!

    LOL!

  • 182. Frank  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:24 am

    LOL – thank you for that posting – made my day!

  • 183. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Sometimes, you just want to destroy something beautiful.

  • 184. nightshayde  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Of course academic credentials are meaningless. They're mostly granted by liberal institutions under homosexual control, don'cha'know?!

  • 185. Happy  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:25 am

    Yeah, but I stick with it because Rick has been with us throughout this thing. Firedoglake is on hold right now too. There must be something going on in the courtroom…

    On a separate note, I hope some maniac doesn't take a shot at Boies in the courtroom, or on his way out. They're very invested in this, these anti ss marriage people. I wouldn't put it past them… Remember Harvey Milk.

  • 186. Roger  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:25 am

    If that's that case then then yes on 8 is pretty much screwed especially when their primary witnesses all basically say "gay marriage is definite good and maybe have some vague unproven drawbacks" then that's what they are bringing into the supreme court.

    Unless Justice Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts won't read the case that is.

  • 187. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:26 am

    I feel SO sad for Maggie's children.

    They will be the ones who end up paying the price for the sins of their mother.

    (They will also be responsible for purchasing Maggie's retirement supply of Ben & Jerry's when she's an old lady, so from my view, they are socially AND financially SCREWED!)

  • 188. Happy  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:26 am

    Puke. Another money grabber.

  • 189. Felyx  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:27 am

    (Just not the gay children. This is afterall, Partisan Parenthood!)

    :P

  • 190. J. Stone  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:27 am

    If I remember correctly, Ed Begley Jr. played Boies in the HBO film about the Florida Recount in 2000.

  • 191. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Winner!

  • 192. Allen  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:28 am

    This is fascinating to read. Because video of this is not being made available…I truly hope that *someday* there will be an HBO documentary about this…using the actual official trial transcripts.

  • 193. Darth  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:29 am

    I don't think he's any kind of happy at all right now.

  • 194. Alan E.  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:32 am

    Violence has been a fear of mine when the judge makes his decision. I posted a thread about it on the Trial Trackers Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/#/topic.php?topic=11512&a

    Please respond! (or join the group if you havent done so yet)

  • 195. Jenny O  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:32 am

    HAHAHAHAHAHA I love it :D

  • 196. Alan E.  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:32 am

    http://www.marriagetrial.com

  • 197. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:33 am

    This is why we can't have nice things …

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 198. Tom  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Another online poll to vote on marriage equality — http://www.kitv.com/family/14021259/detail.html.

    Share this, get our numbers up!

  • 199. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:33 am

    I want the iPad….I want it I want it I want it!

  • 200. Steve  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:33 am

    My understanding is that the trial IS being filmed, but that it's not being broadcast. Is this correct?

  • 201. David  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:34 am

    Have we moved to a new place? There has been nothing new here for almost an hour?

  • 202. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:34 am

    The appeal in a higher court can only use evidence, exhibits, and testimony from this trial.

    I do not know what the defense thinks they have accomplished here.

    It occurs to me that it simply never occurred to THEM that their entire position on the issue is BOGUS and does not hold water in a court of law.

    Doesn't speak highly of any of them as 'scholars,' though.

    We really need to send Pugno a fruit basket or sumpthin.'

  • 203. Sideon  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:35 am

    Lisa – you had me howling – thanks for the chuckle :)

  • 204. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:35 am

    That would be horrible.

    :-(

    It would also be extremely damaging to their case, as it would make animus all the more blatantly obvious.

  • 205. Frank  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:36 am

    NEW STUFF……..they are back at it!
    http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/26802

  • 206. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:36 am

    "My Brain Is As Empty As Dr. Blank's!"
    and on the back "I came here all the way from NY"

    another t-shirt idea!

  • 207. David  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Yes, but film for Judicial review only.
    Love,
    David

  • 208. J. Stone  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:36 am

    I've worried about the same thing.

  • 209. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:37 am

    Blankenhorn lives in Norval Glen's brain and can, therefore, explain how his written words do not mean what he actually means.

  • 210. Will  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Folks, FDL is running, new feed now!

  • 211. randompro42  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:38 am

    lesbians love boies… BRILLIANT!

    i would obtain one (despite neither being a lesbian nor female)

    TRO

  • 212. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:38 am

    I am beginning to doubt that the case will be appealed by the Defendants. They might take the Dover route of knowing that an appeal could only make things worse and 'cut their losses' which would legalize ssm in California, but not be as binding on other states as it would be if they appealed.

  • 213. Mouse  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:40 am

    It was marked on the Mayan calendar.

  • 214. paulo  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:41 am

    I really do regret that Blankenhorn does not work at a University. I would have him up on charges of Academic dishonesty in a heartbeat.

  • 215. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:42 am

    I said the same thin that they will not stop at criminalizing same sex marriage…..next they will go for re-criminalizing homosexuality…not sodomy because lesbians would still be fine…so it would definitely be homosexuality in general…..They will start to build all the tools they will need to start a witch hunt.

    I mean it was already proven in this court that hate crimes against LGBT people rose after prop ha8te was passed…

    Be prepared for a war!

  • 216. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:42 am

    This is a FED Court-it's rulings are FED not State….

  • 217. Felyx  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:43 am

    It dawns on me, from what I have read, that it may go to Appeals. But if we win in appeals and SCOTUS does not want to hear the case (or if the defense won't bring it) then CA will have legal marriage but the rest of the country will have to wait for another chance to overturn Federal DOMA. Part of me says….damn! If this is all they got then what better time to go to the Supreme Court! Thomas et. als. will have to jump through serious legal hoops to overturn this one!

    (Of course, the other half says maybe stopping short of SCOTUS would prevent further damage considering Thomas has already shown that he can do such tortuous mental gymnastics without flinching.)

    :|

  • 218. MordacP  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Q: With respect to the rules of marriage –
    A: BY the way I am not saying these are the rules of all marriage, they are the three essential structure, that’s where we get into the –
    Q: So, the three ESSENTIAL STRUCTURES of marriage, is that better?
    A: yes much better
    Q: So, the first is the rule of opposites?

    Bitchslap!

  • 219. Mykelb  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Or the definition of marriage where the wife is chattel to be bartered.

  • 220. Phantom Voter  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:45 am

    Bears! Colbert was right all along!

  • 221. inMA  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:46 am

    "She [Maggie G] is an intellectually serious person."

    This is one of the funniest and most false things I've ever heard. If that's all it takes to be a scholar, then I think I shall be one too.

  • 222. Mykelb  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:47 am

    That's because he lifted almost everything from somone elses work.

  • 223. Jason  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Yes but the case is challenging the constitutionality only of Prop8, not the DOMA or bans in other states so its rulings will only have an effect on the california laws being disputed. Other then that it will only set a president by which others can use to challenge their respective state laws.

  • 224. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:47 am

    voted yes…GIT EM!!!!!!

  • 225. Will  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:48 am

    This man's parents should have never encouraged him to speak. This is just plain embarrassing.

    Gag him & Bag him. He's done!

  • 226. Mykelb  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:48 am

    You think he wasn't taking advantage of being in SF? Maybe the local baths?

  • 227. P-dee-tee  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:48 am

    3. Boies-scoutin'

  • 228. inMA  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:48 am

    DB: Do you want to know what he is saying?

    Boies: I want to know what his words are, not what you think they are.

    DB: That’s not what he means, but if you don’t want to know, that’s okay. (Pouting)

    Passive agressive much?

  • 229. DM  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:49 am

    this guy is a prick.

  • 230. Alan E.  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:49 am

    I have a meeting to attend. I really don't want to go! If only someone could read me the liveblog into a receiver in my ear…

  • 231. Mouse  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Sure! It's just like on the SATs

    David Blankenhorn : Expert Witness :: Maggie Gallgher :

    a) Scholar
    b) Intellectual
    c) Safety
    d) Open-mindedness

  • 232. DM  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:49 am

    could/would a judge ever be like "i've had enough, you're done?"

  • 233. Mykelb  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:50 am

    What marriage really needs, is a an age limit: 85% OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN PERSONS BELOW THE AGE OF 25 ENDS IN DIVORCE. Stop marrying the incompetent and the immature.

  • 234. Balu  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:51 am

    BO: Go to third rule, sex
    BL: That is an interesting subject
    BO: I don’t want to fall into the trap of making sex boring
    BL: May be together we can make it interesting
    (COURTROOM DOUBLED OVER IN LAUGHTEER)

    I fell off the chair laughing …. and I am at work … lol.

  • 235. nightshayde  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:53 am

    #3 – Safety!!!

    *squeeze*

    Wow — reading Blankenhorn's testimony on FDL is rather amazing. What a petulant little brat!

  • 236. jerek  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:53 am

    Wouldn't SCOTUS not hearing the case be tantamount to setting precedent that barring ssm is unconstitutional? So while we'd have to wait for an explicit case, we'd have a much better shot?

  • 237. inMA  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:53 am

    I love Boies (for boys)

  • 238. Soundboy_Jeff  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:54 am

    ya know… I always look to Nobel winning economists when trying to define marriage.

    especially in view of how well these types have predicted the economic signals that have led us to our current economic state.

    yup, makes perfect sense.

  • 239. Steve  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:55 am

    I hold hope! : )

  • 240. Mykelb  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:55 am

    Too bad they didn't put our Hadron collider under Salt Lake City.

  • 241. Mykelb  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Well, we would have to Rapture them the way Jim Jones did it, since there really are no gods.

  • 242. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Hate crimes against LGBT are reasonable, though! We're just horrible, disgusting people who need to be taught a lesson or killed.

  • 243. Alyson  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:57 am

    I was thinking something similar to this. During the prop 8 election I was trying to engage ANY of these Yes on H8ers in a conversation and they all clam up and claim it's none of my business and get uncomfortable and wouldn't engage in debate. Could it be true that they were so interested in preaching to the choir and manipulating the truth ..like a cult … controlling all information that went in that might challenge the power structure ..that they seriously ..until THIS trial …never had any experience actually debating their positions and their arguments with anyone who disagreed with them? If they had – they might have more experience and less shock about how it all works. They just function in a different paradigm when it comes to social control versus open dialogue and seeking truth based on fact – they are truly shocked and in a foreign enviroment.

    apparently fox news did a piece recently suggesting that the system of peer reviewing articles is overrated and bias also..so the spin doctoring and the dumbing down of america continues. ostrich meet sand.

    alyson

  • 244. Mykelb  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:57 am

    What? Did he look into his crystal ball or did he consult Nancy Reagan's astrologer?

  • 245. View from Europe  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Don't know what the witness is really like, but from the reporting he sounds just like Kenneth Williams doing one of his camp, pompous characters in an old "Carry On" film.

    That will probably mean nothing to non Brits, but then I don't know who this Maggie character is that seems very (in)famous over there!

    Anyway, many thanks for all the great (and entertaining) live reporting, which is keeping me glued to the computer till 2 am every night. Good luck guys!

  • 246. Mykelb  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Well, if you count 3 brain cells still working after her religion got through with her, then she's an intellectual.

  • 247. nightshayde  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:59 am

    You owe me a keyboard … and a new iced tea.

  • 248. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:59 am

    Oh.
    My.
    Goddess.

    I just finished reading over at FDL.

    Blankenhorn opines that marriage requires a sexual relationship — despite incarcerated persons without conjugal visitation rights being permitted to marry. I guess that any quadraplegic or paraplegic person who is not already married is SOL.

    (He also misquotes Malinowski, again, and Boies called him on it.)

    He is also, I kid you not, by his own admission unaware of any SCOTUS ruling that states marriage is a fundamental civil right.

    Oh.
    My.
    Goddess.

  • 249. James Sweet  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:00 am

    DB: I have not read this article in years, but this is more about the debate.

    Um. This is an article that his team introduced into evidence. Why didn't he, you know, brush up?

    It's one thing if the opposing attorneys drag up some article you have written or should know about from 10+ years ago and you don't remember. It's another thing entirely to just not even bother to brush up on stuff you know you will be asked about!!

  • 250. Wolfinlv  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:00 am

    Q: Go to third rule, sex
    A: That is an interesting subject

    Q: I don’t want to fall into the trap of making sex boring
    A: Maybe together we can make it interesting

    From firedoglake. . .

    Did the witness just proposition our lawyer?

  • 251. Mykelb  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:00 am

    If she were my mother, I'd just have her committed.

  • 252. Elizabeth  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:00 am

    I emailed it to everyone too!

  • 253. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:01 am

    Yes, in cases of contempt …

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 254. Happy  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:01 am

    OMG! I had an epiphany…. maybe the defense attorneys really ARE trying to lose the case, because Schwarzenegger and Brown, the named defendants, have stated that they do not oppose gay marriage!

  • 255. Mykelb  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:02 am

    She's just a hate profiteer whose only goal in life is to make LGBT miserable based on her religiofascist ideology.

  • 256. Russ C  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:03 am

    Had to get an idea of what this guy actually spoke like. Man I wish this trail were being televised!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87qgZdU0v_0

  • 257. Joe  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Thank you, I did!

  • 258. Joe  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Yes, the "we broke it, you buy it" argument!

  • 259. Caleb  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:07 am

    oh hai, /b/

  • 260. Mykelb  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:08 am

    So is Sarah Palin on the Faux News. And she doesn't even read.

  • 261. Alyson  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:12 am

    I read the decent that scalia wrote in the romer case that someone posted the link to in an earlier comment. Scalia just plain didn't believe we were not straight people acting immoral – so I don't think he will take anything from our sides testimony. I told my Fox news loving yet gay daugheter supportive dad that I would actually vote for one of his people if any of those four justices (scalia, alito, thomas, or roberts) actually makes this decision based on fact and therefore decides in our favor.

  • 262. Alyson  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:13 am

    anybody know what happened to Ken Starr and why he didn't take this case? He did argue for them in the CA court?

  • 263. View from Europe  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:44 am

    Quite camp then.

  • 264. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:59 am

    He looks at the floor a lot….and I'm glad they stopped him from making a speech because….

    keyboard meet face

    BOAW BOAW BOAW!!!

    I have a bluetooth keyboard (love it)

  • 265. Marcos Delgado  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:39 am

    I had to laugh when I read your commentator's refer to Tam as an "inflexible old guy". I would have though that someone writing for this organization would have evolved beyond the use of the word old as a pejoritive term. An apology is owed to us gay old folks.

  • 266. GraciesDaddy  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:41 am

    I've read/been told that "to answer a question WITH a question is either a sign of a weak mind, or the respondent doesn't know what he's talking about." Touché!

  • 267. Andrew  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:08 am

    But what book, exactly? I want to get a copy and print out these 'pro' points that the defense's star witness has so graciously given us. Maybe in nice rainbow colors with their Prop8 logo at the top and a note at the bottom 'what Prop8 REALLY is against'

  • 268. Frijondi  |  January 27, 2010 at 7:30 am

    I'm a bit late to the thread, but Ronnie, lesbian sex does in fact meet the legal definition of sodomy.

  • 269. Lymis  |  January 27, 2010 at 9:28 am

    The 23 points are a list from one of his books that was a group exercise to point out 23 likely of possible benefits of gay marriage. He doesn’t agree that all of them are likely to happen, but apparently he does agree that the majority will.

    It appears that it was an attempt in the book to list all the good things associated with gay marriage and then (guessing here) showing why just because they were good, they weren’t compelling enough to inconvenience straight people over.

  • 270. Ed-M  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    Exactly, Jenny O! Except I call traditional marriage the broken-down old cathedral that's been through several earthquakes and the addition of same-sex marriage the outward expansion with flying buttresses needed to stabilize and renovate the old cathedral. :)

  • 271. Ed-M  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    They want a US Constitutional amendment. They are deliberately throwing this so they lose at the Supremes 6-3. Then they start their nationwide superstorm. We better be ready!!!

  • 272. Ed-M  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    They want a Federal Marriage Amendment. They'll seek to lose all the way up to the Supremes.

  • 273. Ed-M  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    We are… the Knights Who Say… NI!

  • 274. Ed-M  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    And if they get the chance to recriminalize homosexuality, they'll probably use a method that scientists used to determine if homophobic self-identified straights were more homosexual than the straights who are secure in their sexuality: showing leabian, heterosexual and gay porn while a penile circumference/engorgement metering is secured around the penis. But they'll use this method on the whole male population. NO PLACE TO HIDE. :(

  • 275. NOM’s Brian Brown g&hellip  |  August 2, 2010 at 10:16 am

    […] the full liveblogging coverage of the epic cross-examination from Prop8TrialTracker by clicking here, and see here as […]

  • 276. Prop 8 trial pre-decision&hellip  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:46 am

    […] old time’s sake, here’s the epic Boies vs. Blankenhorn cross-examination again (parts 1 and […]

  • 277. Nashville TN top locksmith company  |  February 5, 2014 at 7:00 am

    Hello there! Do you use Twitter? I’d like to
    follow you if that would be okay. I’m absolutely enjoying your
    blog andd look forward to new updates.

    Also visit my blog … Nashville TN top locksmith company

  • 278. Josephine  |  March 3, 2014 at 10:33 pm

    Magnificent goods from you, man. I have understand
    your stuff previous to and you’re just extremely wonderful.
    I really like what you have acquired here, really like what you’re saying and the way in
    which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it wise.
    I can not wait to read much more from you. This is really a tremendous web site.

  • 279. Optimizepress 2.0  |  March 3, 2014 at 10:49 pm

    Everything is very open with a precise explanation of the issues.
    It was really informative. Your site is extremely helpful.
    Many thanks for sharing!

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