Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 12: Part II

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

We are on break until 1050. I cannot adequately transcribe or describe what is going on. Mr. Blakenhorn is much more interested in winning small debating points than he is in being a good witness for his side, or for anyone. The judge admonished him gently by saying that his testimony will be weighed by his conduct as well as his expetise. He did not understand that. This is not good for them and it is good for us, but it’s bad for society to have a guy like this out there acting as a sanctimonious keeper of the truth on marriage. He wants to have it all ways; at end, he says he’d sacrifice the happiness and health of gay and lesbian families to maintain what sees as the essential institution of marriage.

Boies: Who are the principal scholars on whom you rely?

DB: Let me take a moment to make a note to myself as I collect my thoughts on that question.

[Walker stands up for a stretch, drapes arm over beige judge’s chair. Today is red tie with a sort of white polka dot pattern on a blue shirt.]

(Blankenhorn is left-handed, just FYI.)

DB: Would it be against procedure for me to consult a copy of my book to look at the index?

Boies: Putting on the record that you have not consulted your book and you don’t have a photographic memory, are there any writings or scholars on whom you rely?

DB: Malinowski and Fortis have influenced me deeply.

Boies: The three rules of the game….

DB: You keep saying that is my quote. It’s a Nobel-winning economist’s term.

Boies: No sir! I am not referring to the Nobel economist or anyone else. I am referring to what you said.

DB: The first is what you might call the rule of opposites, the customary man woman relationship.

Two, marriage is between two people.

Sexual relationship.

I want to clarify that these three rules do not constitute the definition of marriage. I am saying that these are the essential structures.

Boies: Okay, structures. Are you aware of structures in other societies that have not been limited to opposite sex?

DB: I am certainly aware of assertions in the popular society and in some scholarly literature that such examples exist. I have not studied this, but I have troubled myself to look at this. Of course, Massachusetts.

Boies: Spain and Iowa and Sweden…

DB: Certainly in the localities of the last months and years. That’s what brings us here today.

Boies: Let me ask you if you are aware of any that violate your rule of opposites prior to the last 50 years?

DB: Two or three or four hard cases that require explanation, there are no or almost no exceptions to this rule, that marriage is between a man and woman. For me to be on the safe side, there are no or almost no exceptions to this structural feature of marriage.

Boies: You say no or almost no.

DB: I’m trying to account for the two or three hard cases.

Boies: And you probably know I’m going to ask you about that.

DB: Yes. (ha ha). Form of question is different. There are cases that prefigure traditional marriage. Which question do you want me to answer?

Boies: Repeats question.

(Everyone laughs.)

DB: Mr. Boies, this is not a laughing matter. It’s very serious to me.

Judge Walker: Mr. Blankenhorn, Mr. Boies was not laughing at you. He was amused by the back and forth between you and many of us are.

DB: Okay. Let’s go!

Boies: Are there any that

DB: I can think of one instance in a human group that has been studied that some scholars believe and others disagree and it’s a hard case and there has been argument on both side, one case that is exception to this rule. I’m not saying no one else has asserted something. My view is that I know of one instance in a society in which there may have been, there…according to some scholars, may have been exception to this rule.

Society in Africa, it no longer happens this way, the men of this group lived in military barracks and the adult men would have sexual relationship with a young boy. Anthropologists translated this to marriage. The man would give gifts to the parents and the boy would be servant and sexual partner. The boy would outgrow this and then marry a woman. Period of time in warrior society, the males, as I say would like in a military type of barracks, the men would have a relationship with an adult child. Not viewed as deviant. Kinship groups accepted. Evan Richman (?) translated this as man-boy marriage, but said he uses word advisedly. Others talk about this in Ritualized Homosexuality, but it’s a phase of life that has marriage-like quality to it. Transitory and men go onto marry women.
This is a hard case. If we are searching out for an exception over time and space, this is most robust ethnographic example.
Boies: Anywhere else? Let’s pick ancient Greece.

DB: That was not marriage. Marriage-like relationships. Prominent anthropologist has found small society in Papua New Guinea where for period of time boys had sexual relationship with males. These people believe that a boy having a sexual activity with a man contribute to his virility and manliness. Runyon Kelly wrote about the Etoro Social Structure, although Kelly makes clear that this is not marriage. He understands that this has some mimicking quality of marriage for a period of time. Two or three years. He’s the finest scholar working in this field.

[His voice turns up, he’s so sanctifuckingmonious.]

Boies: Did you happen to run across Dr. Young in this case?

DB: Do I know her?

Boies: Expert in this case.

DB: All I know about her status as an expert is the thirty things you listed yesterday that I don’t have such as affiliation with university and so on.

Boies: What percentage of marriages over the last 300 years have been limited to two people, in your judgment?

DB: The way that I and many other scholars have looked at this, almost all marriage is limited to two people. If I may cut to the chase, I believe that perhaps…I’m sorry I thought you wanted me to pause. If you want me to cut to chase and talk about polygamy and polyamorie.

Boies: You are aware that there have been far more polygamous marriages than marriages of two people?

DB: 83% of societies permit polygamy. Very different issues as to how many marriages are polygamous. Still have marriages between two people.

Boies. Is it your judgment that prior to the last 100 years in China and India there were many polygamous marriages?

DB: Yes, but I need to answer with another statement.

Boies: Keep it short.

DB: In those societies, men would still marry one woman at a time. A rich man would then marry other women, but each woman is a separate marriage, so it’s still one man and one woman.

[This is unbelievable.]

Boies: Are you aware of any marriages that take place with one man and more than one woman at the same time?

DB: No.

Boies: Is it your testimony that the only instances where woman marries more than one man is when woman marries two brothers?

DB: I can’t answer yes or no.

Boies: I’m just asking you if that is your testimony?

DB: If you’d let me answer instead of arguing, we’d be done. I just need 15 seconds.

DBoies: Go! (Looks at watch)

(Everyone laughs)

(Thirty seconds later)

DB: How’d I do?

Boies: Not bad!

Boies: If you have a man who marries five wives…

DB: He marries them one at a time. If he marries one wife, he has one. If he marries two he has two.

Boies: And if he marries five and all of his wives live, he has five.

DB: Yes.

Boies: Is that consistent with your rule of two?

DB: Based on the studies of the finest anthropologists, this fits the rule of two.

Boies: But you are just a transmitter. You don’t do the work.

DB: I am not a transmitter! Stop putting words in my mouth!

Boies: (Puts transcript of depo in front of him.)

DB: Gotcha moment! You are right! I did say that seven months ago in a deposition! Gotcha moment!

Boies: Not trying to get you, just addressing that you said I put words in your mouth.

(Reads more of depo that says

Boies: The third is sex.

DB: That’s a good subject!

Boies: I don’t want to fall into the trap of making sex boring.

DB: Maybe we can do that together!

[The biggest laugh of the whole trial. Even the judge blushed. This guy is just too much. He thinks he’s performing; he does not do his cause any good at all. He makes our cause good, but he’s such a strange man.]

Boies. Are there any cases of marriage without sexual relations?

DB: You mean are there people who marry and don’t have intercourse?

Boies: I was not going to ask that, but since you did, let’s. That’s easy. The answer is yes?

DB: I was going to say no. Hypothetically possible that a prisoner could marry and not have sex because he is incarcerated. And maybe there are couples who do not like to have sex. It’s not a pattern (He yammers on and on.)

Boies: You are aware that there was Supreme Court case that allows prisoners to marry even though they cannot have sex?

DB: Don’t put words in my mouth! I am not aware.

Boies: I had thought you were aware of that court case that said it is not constitutional to deprive a prisoner of the right to marry.

DB: I’m not a constitutional scholar.

Boies: Reads depo that says that “law has changed a lot on this. There is now law that allows” prisoners to marry. Not court case. The law on this has changed in recent decades and now there is growing law that allows prisoners to marry without sex.

DB: I did not know about specific court case. (Whining and whining). I know there is tendency on the part of some courts to allow marriage.

Boies: You know such marriage is not hypothetical?

DB: never said it was hypothetical!

Boies: The record will show what it shows. I’m just asking you a question.

DB: I have never read any court document that specifically focused on this topic. If I ever have, I have forgotten it. I don’t think I have. I have had conversations with lawyers. I believe there is a tendency to allow prisoners more freedom to marry than heretofore allowed.
Boies: In your study of marriage have you come across cases of the Supreme Court that discuss marriage as a fundamental right?

DB: By come across, do you mean read?

Boies: Let’s start with that.

DB: To the best of my knowledge, no.

Boies: Has anyone summarized for you cases of the Supreme Court that discuss fundamental right to marry?

DB: I believe the answer is yes because if you or someone else asked me if it had happened, I would say yes. I’d be happy if it were true.

Boies: Has anyone talked to you or have you read that Supreme Court said that prisoners have a fundamental right to marry.

DB: To the best of my knowledge, no.

[UPDATE] 11:08

11:00AM:

Judge Walker: Shall we continue?

BO: Marriage Movement: A statement of Principles. Put out by Institute for American Values?

DB: Three orgs, but one was Inst.

BO: Did you read before trial and agree with it?

DB: Read it, but would have used different words if I had written it, but I agree with substance.

BO: Says marriage is in crisis?

DB: Not sure, but not surprised if it does.

BO: Shows that is says crisis and admits.

BO: Reasons given for marriage in crisis do not include homosexuality?

DB: 2000 document, but to best of my memory, does not mention homosexuality.

BO: Says marriage has at least six important dimensions. Do you agree with that?

DB: That marriage has six dimensions? Oh my goodness. (Sigh) Do you want me to day on word-by-word basis that I agree with everything in the following two paragraphs I’d have to re read it. I signed the document, but I’d have to reread it.

BO: Do you as a signatory of document that marriage has six important dimensions?

DB: Useful way to describe marriages dimensions.

BO: First is that marriage is a legal contract. Taking the current discussion of hetero and homo marriage, contract is same?

DB: Yes.

BO: Second important dimension is that marriage is a financial partnership.

DB: Same for hetero and homo.

BO: Sexual union, personal bond and commitment.

DB: All same.

BO: Sixth is family-making bond. Does this mean that the family-making bond only when two people or is this a way of establishing children?

DB: Pauses, and sighs. Could you repeat the question?

[UPDATE] 11:13

BO: Can both opposite and same sex raise children?

DB: yes. Important word there is “raise.”

BO: Yes. In that connection, let me ask you to turn to tab 9. Plaintiff’s 2898 Same Sex Marriage and Negative Externalities.

DB: Looking at article for the first time.

BO: Not familiar with either of the two authors?

DB: Sitting here right now, I don’t recall them.

BO: We ask that you take judicial notice of 2898.

Cooper: Makes a comment (inaudible up here).

Judge Walker: Fine.

BO: Objectives, Conclusions: The argument that ss marriage poses a negative externality on society cannot be rationally held. Many pols use rationale that ss marriage does pose a negative threat”

DB: Yes, I am aware of scholars that agree that ss marriage poses no threat as above. But many say the opposite and does not have to be tested because it is obvious on its face that marriage is between a man and a woman. They just know that.

BO: Have you looked at what associations of scholars have said about ss marriage?

DB: Not all ,but some.

[UPDATE] 11:18

BO: Do you know what American Psychoanalytic Association has said about same sex marriage?

DB: I am aware of what their lobbying organization says.

BO: Their lobbying organization?

DB: Their leaders, what their leadership says.

BO: Goes to what they say. APA in 1997 endorsed the following resolution, resolved that the state should not interfere with same gender couples who want to marry.

DB: Yes I was aware. I perfectly understand that many scholarly groups, the leadership, have endorsed same sex marriage as a policy matter.

[UPDATE] 11:24

BO: Asks him to indicate which articles in APA he’s read:

Bradford, Chan, Amato, Faulkner, Green I don’t know, Herek, House (no), Kirtzner (no) Glazer (I think), Kim (no I don’t think although I’m not sure), Meyer (no), Patterson, (I think so, I have read many of her articles), Peplow (?) (I don’ t think so), Williams (No).

BO: You did read Wake and Gallagher article and Patterson and pretty sure you read Peekolt/Glazer and Amato, Bloomstein and Schwartz.

DB: That’s the best answer I can give you right now.

BO: American Psychological Association?

DB: I know of endorsement. I have read excerpts, believe I read document when it came out in entirety but can’t say with absolute certainty.

BO: Have you read most of these?

DB: You mean more than 50%?

BO: Trying to figure out if faster to ask you ones you have or have not read?

DB: I think I have not read more than 51% of these documents.

BO: Which have you read?

DB: Most of these have not read. Some of these are duplicative of other list.

DB: Read: American Anthro Association. Estrich, Goodridge, I think Johnson. I think those few are it on this page.

BO: Both of Estrich articles that are here?

DB: No sir. Just his book. I’m sorry, it was a law review article. I’ve also read his books, but what’s listed here is article.

BO: You would have read four or perhaps five of the references here?

DB: I think that’s fair, yes sir.

[NOTE] A third thread is now up.

Tags: , ,

134 Comments

  • 1. Balu  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:55 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.

  • 2. Jane  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Just dumbfounded that this just gets better and better. Amazing!

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

    Keep up the good work, everybody!

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

    I tried not to, but I laughed out loud so loudly that co-workers poked their head into my office.

    Sweet, sweet, irony.

  • 5. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:00 am

    So, according to what he says, marriage as it currently is (since it's one man and one woman) could already allow for polygamy, as long as separate ceremonies are performed. That this is perfectly acceptable.

    Oh, and loved how he tried to show the New Guinea and other examples as marriages between boys and men. There are already laws in place about "age of consent" so tribes that allow kids to marry adults no matter what their gender is/are is not applicable here.

  • 6. Smack Down  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:01 am

    I seriously doubt that there will ever be an appeal of this case. The idiocy of the defense is tantamount to a court simply rejecting the case out of hand. There's so much evidence of fraud, lies, rumors and serious oppression that a Fed Court would have a very tough time reviewing this mess. I think somebody was right on the other blogs that they may let it stand in CA to avoid it going through all 50 states. They have shot their presentations, their expert witnesses and their public opinion for the most part. This is going to be one of those classic cases taught in law school as a "how you don't do a trial or choose an expert" courses

  • 7. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Boies: In your study of marriage have you come across cases of the Supreme Court that discuss marriage as a fundamental right?

    DB: By come across, do you mean read?

    Boies: Let’s start with that.

    DB: To the best of my knowledge, no.

    Sooooo, he doesn't know about Loving vs. Virginia??? And he's supposedly a scholar on marriage?

    Dude, why didn't someone tell me that hell froze over?

  • 8. Wolfinlv  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Ummm I think the witness just propositioned our lawyer… isn't that against the rules?

  • 9. James  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:03 am

    that might result in some youtube hits.

  • 10. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:04 am

    I was wondering if it sounded flirty. I thought it was just me.

  • 11. James  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Polygamy, as long as there is sexual intercourse. Sequentially, not simultaneously, of course.

  • 12. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Yeah, that shocked me when I read it on FDL. Hello, you are posited as an expert witness on marriage, and you are unaware of Loving v. Virginia?

    Where is that sad trombone sound when you need it?

  • 13. Anne  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Polygamists are going to love that argument….

  • 14. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:06 am

    This trial for the defense is like getting a spanking in public with your underwear down. Just downright humiliating!!!

  • 15. Pandora  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:06 am

    Sweet baby Jesus, I wish they would televise just this part of the trial. This guy is a riot. (For all the wrong reasons, of course, but still, this is better than Law and Order.)

  • 16. Balu  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:06 am

    My team mate calls him "Blakenhorny" … We can now classify this trial under Court room comedies.

  • 17. Ann S.  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:06 am

    This guy is such a clown. He complained that Boies was laughing, saying "This is a serious matter!", and then he cracks jokes about sex?

    And I've never heard anyone try to defend polygamy (not that I have anything against consensual polygamy) by saying each marriage was still only 1 man 1 woman.

    Is that really what anthropologists say? Not that it is related to the subject of marriage equality, no matter what Pugno and Gallagher say.

  • 18. Anne  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:07 am

    Beginning to think you're right… they must think SCOTUS will allow same sex nationwide, so better to blow this case and stop.

    but oh my, their reputations after this!

  • 19. PM, in the UK  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:07 am

    What a horrid little man he is turning out to be.

    The one-man five-wives = 5 marriage 'argument' is just nonsense: how does anyone break his rule then?!
    Marrying multiple partners simultaneously while shouting from the rooftops: I AM MARRYING MULTIPLE PARTNERS AT ONCE NOT EACH IN TURN?

    And the sex 'rule' – how little imagination does this guy have?
    Serious disability/injury.
    Marrying on death bed.
    Asexual(s).
    Separated/killed on wedding day.
    Etc.

    He's not even intelligent in his ignorance.

  • 20. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:08 am

    It would appear that Mr. B has also never heard of the term "marriage of convenience."

    Then again, only people of the same sex would have such a sham marriage, that's why we need to prevent s-s marriage.

  • 21. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Palin & Blakenhorn on the GOP ticket in 2012!

  • 22. Wolfinlv  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Question oh great and knowledgeable persons –
    If Judge Walker rules that we are a suspect class and therefore are protected minority. I realize that Prop 8 would go byebye… But since this is a Federal Court would that have any effect nationally since we would then be deemed a suspect class nationally by the federal courts?

    In other words if he rules us a suspect class would any of the other laws against us fall.

    This question is asked in the hopes that this case goes for us and the SCOTUS doesn't want to get their hands dirty…

  • 23. nightshayde  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:09 am

    I'd follow the trialtracker for that one. ;o)

  • 24. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:10 am

    Yes, polygamy is fine, but a polygamous orgy would, of course, be unethical and would never happen.

  • 25. nightshayde  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:10 am

    ♫ Waa-waa-waa-waaaaaa

  • 26. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:11 am

    He wants to have it all ways; at end, he says he’d sacrifice the happiness and health of gay and lesbian families to maintain what sees as the essential institution of marriage.)

    doesn't that constitute as a threat?

    I don't know but that sentence WILL be the slogan for hate crimes against LGBT people!

  • 27. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:11 am

    Case still has to be considered in 9th Circuit court before SCOTUS will even look at it.

    If we win here and 9th Circuit rules in our favor, I believe we are looking at a very different America for LGTB citizens…

  • 28. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:11 am

    No, that is not what anthropologists say.

    Malinowski, Levi-Strauss et al. discuss polygyny and polyandry separately. Levi-Strauss addresses the structure of resulting kinship, not how many marriages take place simultaneously. Malinowski discusses the cultural mores of the ethnic groups he studies.

    Argh. Now they're cherry-picking anthro and twisting it just like they do the Bible. This is really ridiculous.

  • 29. Richard W. Fitch  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:11 am

    It almost seems as though they could have brought "Everyman" off the street and gotten more intelligent answers than DB is providing!

  • 30. DonG  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Some of our friends are taking the actual transcripts and doing a re-enactment of the trial. They are still in production, but they can be found at: http://www.marriagetrial.com
    The re-enactment of David Boies doing cross-examination of the 2 defense witnesses should be mandatory viewing at all law schools..

  • 31. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:12 am

    I know, I thought…oh wow, this is going to help polygamists! Then it just occured to me, maybe that's what the Prop 8 side wants. Act like they're inadvertently throwing a bone to the polygamists out there, and have the polygamists refer to THIS case as proof that they have a right to marry, then the Prop 8 side can say, "See?!! Didn't we tell you this would happen?"

    OMG, it's all a conspiracy!!! O.O LOL

  • 32. Richard  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Again, I ask–where did they get their witnesses? At a fire sale?

  • 33. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:13 am

    Dr Blank is saying that because a man marries 1 woman then marries another woman separately and so on…Is ok because it is between 1 man, 1 woman

    That is Bigamy…. and is Illegal!

  • 34. obsidianraine  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:13 am

    Stunning …

    Boies. Is it your judgment that prior to the last 100 years in China and India there were many polygamous marriages?
    DB: Yes, but I need to answer with another statement.
    Boies: Keep it short.
    DB: In those societies, men would still marry one woman at a time. A rich man would then marry other women, but each woman is a separate marriage, so it’s still one man and one woman.
    [This is unbelievable.]

    WTF?

  • 35. Linda  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:14 am

    'Good God, Man!'

  • 36. Joe  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:14 am

    DB: Yes. (ha ha). Form of question is different. There are cases that prefigure traditional marriage. Which question do you want me to answer?

    Boies: Repeats question.

    (Everyone laughs.)

    DB: Mr. Boies, this is not a laughing matter. It’s very serious to me.

    Judge Walker: Mr. Blankenhorn, Mr. Boies was not laughing at you. He was amused by the back and forth between you and many of us are.

    Ouch!!

  • 37. James Sweet  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Up until today, I would have told you you were entirely full of it. But now I wonder…

    I still think the defense has given Scalia enough ammunition to write an opinion opposing gay marriage. A rational basis has been established (some studies showing problems with "fatherless" children, even if a reasonable person looking at the totality of research would have to conclude that this is the result of an absentee parent rather than something magical about parents with penises) and there is enough smoke about the classification (problems with definition, argument over mutability, definition of political power) to allow Scalia to make a reasonable-sounding (though wrong) argument for employing the rational basis test.

    But the defendant-intervenors did such a lousy job, I could almost see them panicking about how Kennedy will rule, and deciding to cut their losses. California is probably less than a decade from recognizing same-sex marriage electorally anyway, so a loss here might be the safe outcome.

    If I were betting, I'd still bet the bank on an appeal going all the way to SCOTUS. But I'm not nearly as sure of that as I was a week ago…

  • 38. Smack Down  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:16 am

    and if they don't choose to appeal, this is still a landmark case that can be used for other states as well? Also, 9th Circuit can refuse the case and simply affirm decision. It's not a given at this point that the 9th would take this case on given such blatant insanity of the defense witnesses and no proofs. May simply affirm and be done with the mess so they don't risk 'making decisions'

  • 39. Felyx  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:17 am

    Hands down our best two witness so far have been Miller and Blankenh8er…I mean Blankenshaft…er whatever.

    So far we have learned the following:

    Gay marriage would be good for society,

    Gay marriage would benefit the children,

    Only heterosexuals should be polygamous.

    Am I missing much here?

    😛

  • 40. Ann S.  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:17 am

    They'll appeal. They're building a very weak record, but they'll appeal because they'll rant about Walker's supposed bias and the threat to kids and that Satan will take over and they'll raise oodles of money.

    I'm beginning to wonder if Pugno and some of the other Yes folks are all in it for the money. Maggie Gallagher makes a living from it, doesn't she? (Or am I wrong there?) Pugno is milking it for all it's worth. These "experts" probably get fees for their testimony.

    If they lose, appeals will go out and donations will pour in.

  • 41. Michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:17 am

    This witness is weird. I hope he continues to destroy himself (politely, of course).

  • 42. Rebecca  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:18 am

    "BO: Sixth is family-making bond. Does this mean that the family-making bond only when two people or is this a way of establishing children?

    DB: Pauses, and sighs. Could you repeat the question?"

    Classic example of a person trying to buy time to formulate an answer.

    This guy is really bad for the defense and I couldn't be happier.

  • 43. 109  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:18 am

    . . . does not have to be tested because it is obvious on its face that marriage is between a man and a woman. They just know that.

    WHAT THE HECK

  • 44. Oinky the Shabbos Pi  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:18 am

    BO: Mr. Blankenhorn, could you please describe Maggie Gallagher's qualifications as a scholar, your term?

    DB: Well, I _personally_ believe that some U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as in, uh, South Africa and, uh, the Iraq and everywhere, like such as, and I believe that they should, uh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children.

  • 45. Linda  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:18 am

    "marriage is between a man and a woman, they just know that"

    exactly, Mr.B.–everyone on your side 'just knows that', so there's no need to bother with silly research.

  • 46. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:19 am

    They already HAVE been sacrificing not only our happiness and health, but our very lives.

  • 47. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:19 am

    DB: That marriage has six dimensions? Oh my goodness. (Sigh) Do you want me to day on word-by-word basis that I agree with everything in the following two paragraphs I’d have to re read it. I signed the document, but I’d have to reread it.

    Okay, what kind of idiot puts out a brochure or whatever that has his and his organization's name on it but is not sure if he agrees with it?

    Isn't that like example one of what NOT to do in "Running your own business 101" class?

    I don't sign off on anything unless I agree with it! I have my own fanfiction writing group and I don't let stories go out that I'd be embarassed to see my groups name on, and that's for fun!!!

  • 48. Joe  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Yeah, that really is unbelievable. That's should end up in the papers.

  • 49. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Brilliant!

  • 50. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:21 am

    I agree with you Anne. The have stated that they never thought that they would win at this level. They stated that the goal was to take this case higher.

  • 51. Hugo  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:21 am

    I'm hugely curious about the reactions of the Prop (h)8ers in the court and the overflow room. Are they as embarrassed by/for Blankety-blank as I am?

  • 52. Joe  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:22 am

    Don't forget the U.S. Americans!

  • 53. DM  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:22 am

    but i thought he was WORRIED about polygamy!!! now he says it's ok????

  • 54. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:23 am

    waa-waa-waa-waaaaaaaahhhhh redux …

  • 55. Oinky the Shabbos Pi  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:24 am

    They're too busy to be embarrassed, blogging about how the biased judge is railroading their star witness, who nevertheless has just made a crushing, brilliant speech proving that marriage is between one man and one woman because marriage is between one man and one woman.

  • 56. Keegan  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:25 am

    You've essentially just hit the nail on the head with the gay marriage debate.

    He truly is defining the… give or take 1000 year old catholic definition of marriage, which is what anti-equality people say "is marriage". Obviously, there are many more definitions, but that's the one they're going after.

    That also happens to be a definition, that very quickly leads to polygamy and pedophilia being "acceptable". Notice that the marriage equality people say "marriage is between two consenting adults" and anti-marriage folks say "marriage is between a man and a woman", notice the two words missing from the "traditional" definition? Consenting, and adults.

    This is because this marriage definition is about the ownership of women (Catholics have never treated woman equally, and generally saw them as property). Since it is nothing but ownership, then multiple wives really isn't any issue (if you can buy two cars, why not two wives?). And since woman are property, by extension so are girls, and further since they are property and their sole purpose of existance is to birth children, then the sooner they get married and started, the better.

    Obviously, I disagree with the anti-marriage people, I find it absolutely villianous to attempt to regress society to what is now considered a "dark time". But none the less, it is nice to finally have all this truth about "traditional" marriage being thrown all over a courtroom like it was vomit.

  • 57. Joe  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Yeah, but this is their only chance to put things in the public record. It's the "burn the house for the insurance money" legal strategy.

  • 58. Peter  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:25 am

    [UPDATE] 11:18

    BO: Do you know what American Psychoanalytic Association has said about same sex marriage?

    DB: I am aware of what their lobbying organization says.

    BO: Their lobbying organization?

    DB: Their leaders, what their leadership says.

    BO: Goes to what they say. APA in 1997 endorsed the following resolution, resolved that the state should not interfere with same gender couples who want to marry.

    DB: Yes I was aware. I perfectly understand that many scholarly groups, the leadership, have endorsed same sex marriage as a policy matter.

    That's a weird distinction to make. Does that mean that the leaders forced that on the association? that individuals don't agree?
    That's the type of distinction that makes me nervy and wonder if the Yes on 8 people have another agenda… or if DB is just that paranoid…

  • 59. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:26 am

    DB: Yes I was aware. I perfectly understand that many scholarly groups, the leadership, have endorsed same sex marriage as a policy matter.

    I LOVE how they try to put off what they see as "radical" policy on the leadership. I've studied psychology and counseling and been members of both the APA and the Am. Counseling Assoc. (does that make me a scholar too? lol), and trust me, it's not just the leadership. Any psychologist, counselor, even social worker, worth their letters agrees with this. There are some rogue members that refuse to acknowledge or work with the GLBT community, but it's pretty few and far between.

  • 60. Choinski  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:26 am

    So, according to what he says, marriage as it currently is (since it’s one man and one woman) could already allow for polygamy, as long as separate ceremonies are performed. That this is perfectly acceptable.

    Not only acceptable, but a marraige worthy of defence from nontraditional threat. And it wouldn't confuse the kids.

  • 61. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:26 am

    B: Yes, I am aware of scholars that agree that ss marriage poses no threat as above. But many say the opposite and does not have to be tested because it is obvious on its face that marriage is between a man and a woman. They just know that.

    "Obvious"?….for someone who hates when people put words in his mouth he sure does a lot of it himself.

    I don't know that…do you know that?

    Does Merrium Webster or dictionar.com know that or Canada, South Africa, Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal and the rest….

    Does Mass, Iowa, Vermont, and the rest know that?

    Jacknut!

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

    If they chose not to appeal (which is still a long shot despite the defense's poor showing the past three weeks) then this case would be "landmark" for sure, but not precedent-setting outside of California. Or even outside of Northern California, I don't think… It's conceivable that other judiciaries might look to Walker's decision for inspiration, but it's not a slam dunk win.

    Highly unlikely to go that way anyway. I could almost see the Prop 8-backers panicking at this point, but not likely.

  • 63. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:27 am

    I can't believe this!!! I mean Rick, you're hoaxing us, right?!?

  • 64. J. Stone  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:27 am

    exactly

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

    My partner put it perfectly. "Oh yeah, and 'we're' the freaks!"

  • 66. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:27 am

    He's parsing his words to make it look like the leaders of these "radical" organizations are doing all the maneuvering and those who don't agree are just left to twist in the wind. They're victims after all. Don't you know that by now? /snark/

  • 67. Choinski  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:27 am

    So I'm taking bets: any speculation on how Pugno will spin this tomorrow? My guess will be the witness was bullied and laughed at.

  • 68. Darrell  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:27 am

    I don't think this guy knows what he believes……

    He will say anything to be seen and heard.

    I think however, that he has helped our case more than he has hurt it.

  • 69. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:28 am

    At heart, what he is saying is that as long as penis and vagina are both involved, all is well with the world.

    But if a booby touches another booby, or a pee pee touches a bum bum, well, the gates of hell have opened.

    To me, after this trial and all the info that has been exposed, it seems even more like sexism than homophobia.

    (Not that there isn't a sickening amount of homophobia, but the defense's arguments are VERY sexist. Very discriminatory in the gender sense.)

  • 70. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Ding, ding, ding…I think you already won that bet!

  • 71. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Same reasoning Protect Marriage was trying to use. we paid for it and allowed them to use our name but we don't know what it says and don't necessarily agree with it.

    Yeah. Un-huh. OK.

  • 72. nightshayde  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:28 am

    … and there's the crux of the trial for the Pro-H8 side.

    "Why do we need evidence? It's obvious that marriage is between a man and a woman – it's not our fault that other people are too dense to see that."

    (insert eye-roll here)

  • 73. James  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Seriously, he's never heard or read of a Supreme Court case that discusses the fundamental right to marry???

    For real? Where has he been since 1963?

    Gobsmacked!!!!!

  • 74. jayjaylanc  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Do you know how much fun watching this next season of The Amazing Race is going to be? Because SHE'S ON IT! I can't wait to watch her try to navigate to other countries…

  • 75. Ryan Blazer  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:30 am

    I only had 1 semester of law school just to be clear.

    From what I remember based on the fact pattern, if Judge Walker finds for the plaintiffs, Prop 8 is deemed invalid.

    That would leave grounds for the D-I to appeal to the 9th Circuit (the most liberal Circuit). If D-I chooses not to appeal and take the loss, then Sec. 7.5 (correct me if I am wrong on the amendment #) of CA's Constitution would be overturned, thus ssm would resume in CA. The decision would not be binding on any other state, but can be used as persuasive authority and would most likely be cited in other federal challenges across the nation. Much like the state – by – state method at the state level as waged by HRC, et al.

    If D-I appeal (sure they will), then the 9th Circuit will look at the court record to determine if any errors occurred in applying the law to the facts. They cannot exclude the facts brought in as evidence unless there is some sort of procedural error. They will either affirm Walker's decision (leaving it in tact) or overturn it. Based on the 9th Circuit's liberal stance, it would uphold the ban on ssm (assuming Walker rules for P). Note that new evidence cannot be introduced, this is why Judge Walker is letting in as much evidence into the record as possible. It makes it much more difficult for the Appeals & SCOTUS to overturn a decision when there is a large amount of evidence and fact patterns (as in this case). Walker even said he expected the case to go beyond his court.

    If the 9th Cir. affirms / says Prop 8 is unconstitutional, then it's not only binding in CA, but also the other states with state constitutional bans in its jurisdiction would be overturned, i.e. AZ (Sen. McCain's turf), NV, ID, OR, WA, MT, AK (Palin's turf), HI, Guam (US Territory), & Northern Mariana Islands (US Territory).

    I do not forsee the SCOTUS ignoring this and they would have to address this. It only takes 4 justices to grant cerotiari. My guess is that the 4 justices who dissented on the YouTube decision would grant cert.

    Hope this helps.

    Any lawyers or JDs want to clear anything I muddled up?

  • 76. James Sweet  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:31 am

    Does Merrium Webster or dictionar.com know that

    Who cares? The culture warriors are already trying to get Merriam-Webster's pulled from schools

  • 77. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:32 am

    The funniest thing is that he pointed out that Boies was laughing at him when it was everybody.

    ANd he really said don;t laugh at me or something like that

    What is he 10yo?…….Stop laughing at me!….while he wipes tears off his face.

  • 78. Layla  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:32 am

    I think he helped the case for the polygamists too. Where did they find this guy?!

  • 79. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:32 am

    "Yes sir…no sir"

    WTF?! What happened to the belligerent little ass we loved to hate?! Did his mommy show up and yank his ear and tell him to respect his elders or something?

  • 80. Ann S.  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:32 am

    Thanks, Fiona. Granted that a lot of what I think I know about polygyny comes from novels and movies (and Krakauer's non-fiction book, "Under the Banner of Heaven"), but there is definitely a relationship between the wives and the children that is very different than that implied by "one man one woman". It's far more complex, a web of relationships.

    This guy has said next to nothing that gives me any confidence that he knows what he's talking about.

  • 81. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Where's Ashton Kutcher?

  • 82. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Three bags full

  • 83. Craig Steiner  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:33 am

    People keep asking if the Defense is consciously TRYING to lose. In my opinion, this is impossible. Remember, these people have GOD on their side. Everything else pales in significance to their self-righteous determinations on what is "right" in god's eyes.

    Blankenhorn does not NEED scholarship because in his very core he already KNOWS what is truly right and if Boies would just give him a chance, Blankenhorn will quickly enlighten all of humanity to the truthfulness and superiority of his cause. This attitude is consistent and pervasive throughout the multiple 'yes on 8' coalitions and groups.

    This is also exactly what allows them to give such bizarre and reality-deprived assessments of the trial in progress.

    When you filter everything you encounter through your Ultimate Truth Meter given you by Infallible God, you really do believe this stuff. The anchor of their beliefs is stronger and more valid than anything that actually happens in any courtroom. And of course it has no choice but to ultimately triumph.

    I think the Defense has to know things are not looking great for them, but they also "know" that it has nothing to do with the idiots they keep parading in the courtroom and way more to do with evil activist judges and satanic homosexuals who are trying to destroy god's kingdom.

    These people, literally blinded by their own rhetoric, actually believe they are winning — because god simply does not ever lose. And of course they are the ones with a corner on god and all things true and correct.

    To those of us with an ounce of self-awareness, it's just painful and pathetic.

  • 84. Jane  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:34 am

    DB is a controlling, narcissist

    Runs his own organization – wonder if he's ever worked for anyone else. He calls it a think tank, yet he didn't get the right education for it.

    He writes what he wants, takes sound bites from things that he agrees with, repeats them enough times that people believe he's smart and his "facts" are true.

    His answers and attitude in a federal court shows lack of respect for truth or justice.

    Just imagine what HIS marriage is like.

  • 85. R Lavigueur  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:35 am

    "it is obvious on its face that marriage is between a man and a woman. They just know that."

    It's kind of like how we 'just know' that women are irrational, and voting has been and should alway be restricted to men. But hey, he's in good company, Aristotle himself 'just knew' that women were colder than men and couldn't produce semen, and therefore were inferior and belonged in the household.

    See, a 'smart' person said it so it must be true, and we should never, ever question things that we 'just know' to be true. Hence the huge list of credible witnesses coming forward in this trial to defend the traditional definition of marriage.

    Oh… wait…

    Who needs logic let alone science when we already know the answers and they ever so conveniently line up with what we already wanted in the first place.

  • 86. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:35 am

    DB: Don’t put words in my mouth!

    This is cross-X, right?

  • 87. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:36 am

    And Andy Pugno as the Press Secretary…

  • 88. Darrell  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:36 am

    76. James

    I don't think this guy has read or watch much tv

    He can't even till the true on the stand and goes back and forth from supporting gay rights to not supporting gay rights….. i even think the judge sees him as a loser.

  • 89. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:38 am

    ROFL

  • 90. Soundboy_Jeff  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:38 am

    "scholarly"…. to quote from The Princess Bride, "I do not think that word means what you think it does"

    this guy thinks everyone is a scholar doesn't he? isn't the definition someone of learning? meaning, they have a degree in the area you're basing their knowledge on?

    I don't know how scholarly a BMW mechanic would be if you're talking about brain surgery.

    he sure loves the word though.

  • 91. Curt Rowlett  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:39 am

    My attempt to coin a phrase: To Blakenhorn – an arrogant expert witness who refuses to answer questions while performing a song and dance routine on the witness stand in a Federal court.

    Example: "Wow, he really Blakenhorned during his testimony today, didn't he?"

    Love,

    Curt

  • 92. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:40 am

    Does that mean they are going to have the website shut down as well?

    "GOOD GOD" they are stupid…just because the book is not in school doesn't mean they don't have access to it.

    Hey culture warriors if you are reading this…. there is this new thing called the internet…yeah you can reach it from just about anywhere….

    Cell phones, internet cafes, library's, home comps, kindles,…..ect. ect.

    Good luck with that!

  • 93. David A  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:40 am

    DB: They just know that.

    *ahem*
    B: Logic, yes logic, Tam? Logic?

  • 94. Catherine  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:41 am

    This was one of the points that just leaped out at me. Heaven forbid we should apply research techniques or science to this question. No way! We know it's this way because it's obvious and if you don't know it then you are just stupid. Nanny nanny boo boo. What a dunce. If we all operated like that we'd still think the world was flat.

  • 95. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:42 am

    OH MY GOD this seems to be all I can say over the last two days. in fact Im shouting it out loud, hands over my face, laughing hard! Oh my god! Fuck! he's not for real. OH MY GOD (on all of what he says not only the sex-rule though this was best)

  • 96. Karl  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Or maybe they secretly ENJOY getting spanked in public with their underwear down. Hmmmmm..

  • 97. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:43 am

    @Balu: Blankenhorny? how great is that!

  • 98. Tom B.  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Losing Horns

  • 99. Chris in Chi  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:44 am

    If this is their best….. wow! what a freakin' idiot!!!!

  • 100. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:44 am

    I think he is going to pull a "Carrie" in a minute…."Their All going to Laugh at you!"

  • 101. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:44 am

    I like that statement :)

  • 102. Alyson  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:45 am

    this guy defines marriage as 'something I recognize as marriage' and everything else is a 'marriage equivalent'. he should also be prevented from using the word scholar – it is so insulting – glad Boise made that point.

    can't wait for my 'Good God Man!' T-shirt from the courage campaign! 😉

  • 103. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:45 am

    As I said above, as long as pee pee and gina are involved, ANYTHING goes.

    That truly seems to be their only requirement.

  • 104. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:45 am

    I know I've vacillated on the "are they throwing it or are they not" fence. There are moments where I think they are so they can scream foul and hype up their supporters and therefore beg for more money.

    The other part of me, the part that's from a very religiously conservative (read: Southern Baptist) family and has talked the anti-gay talk to avoid my own sexuality, sees your comment here as perfectly possible and viable.

    God is on their side so there's no way to lose, and even in losing, it is part of the path to righteousness to face the slings and arrows of your enemies. Losing is actually a prophetic fulfillment in Christian dogma and it ties in with being persecuted. The persecution only gets worse and more pronouced the closer to the End Times we come. So they expect and hope to be villified and martyred for their cause because that means that the Lord will be returning to Earth soon.

  • 105. MikeLT  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:46 am

    "DB: Yes, I am aware of scholars that agree that ss marriage poses no threat as above. But many say the opposite and does not have to be tested because it is obvious on its face that marriage is between a man and a woman. They just know that."

    Doesn't that sum up the anti-gay-marriage folks' argument? "They just know that". No need to back their thoughts up with proof.

    The defense is pathetic!

    Love,
    Mike.

  • 106. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:47 am

    LOVES it!!!!

    Maybe SHE should have been a defense witness!

  • 107. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:47 am

    Yep, that pretty much sums it up and pretty much sums up every "conversation" I've had with a anti-gay person.

    They just know the truth and we're stupid for not seeing things as they do.

  • 108. Andy  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:47 am

    So I've been wondering…let's assume that no on 8 wins. Let's further assume that the ruling applies in the 9th circut only and does not address marriage equality nationwide. If the Supreme Court does not hear the case, it would mean that all locations within that court's jurisdiction would have marriage equality. Would that mean that the federal government would also have to recignize marriage equality for marriages in that part of the country?

    As one half of a bi-national couple, changing the marriage laws at the federal level before we are forced to leave the country is of utmost importance. I appreciate any info that can be provided.

    -Andy

  • 109. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:51 am

    ON The Internet!!!

  • 110. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Maybe hiding under the judge's robe?
    I mean he just CAN'T be serious, can he?
    thid is not REALLY happening, is it????

    I mean if this were a scene in law and order everyone would shout that it was f**ing unrealistic, more even than would be reasonable for a tv show……

  • 111. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:57 am

    or when someone is making a statement that unintentionally indicates that he want's to some kind of intercourse with a same sex person or any statement that is somehow unintentually suggestive (sexually) we could refer to it as a blanken-horny statment ;D

  • 112. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:59 am

    I pitied Miller but I just laugh at this guy!

  • 113. Andrew  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:00 am

    Indeed they have… When you are not considered a human being worthy of compassion like any other on any continent, it is simple for them to treat you as not being of any concern whatsoever. Second class tax paying citizens.

    I spent my high school years attending funerals of friends whom died to AIDS while watching evangelists on TV saying that it was god's judgement. Familes rejected them – mothers and fathers rebuked them, disowned them. They died slow deaths all alone in this world except for those within our community whom had big enough hearts to provide dignity to those who's life was coming to an end.

    Religious individuals travel the world to help the sick and dying, but forget stepping one foot into an AIDS hospice at the end of their block because having a photo with an AIDS patient is not the same as a small malnourished child in Africa when marketing to people to cough up donations!

  • 114. Sideon  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:02 am

    Curt, you're HYSTERICAL!

    New favorite word: Blakenhorned.

  • 115. Craig Steiner  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:03 am

    This case has to do specifically with Prop 8 in CA and whether or not it is consistent with the US Constitution.

    A whole separate case would need to address the federal recognition of ss marriage, currently banned under DOMA. A direct constitutional challenge of DOMA is what you need to have happen.

    I believe it's in the works, but has not gone to trial yet. Anyone?

  • 116. Urbain  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:05 am

    I am completely blown away by this. Rick, you're amazing for posting all of this … and not smacking your laptop shut with disgust.

  • 117. Adrenalin Tim  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:08 am

    DB: Hypothetically possible that a prisoner could marry and not have sex because he is incarcerated.

    (…)

    Boies: You know such marriage is not hypothetical?

    DB: never said it was hypothetical!

    Priceless!

  • 118. PM, in the UK  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:10 am

    BO: Do you know what American Psychoanalytic Association has said about same sex marriage?
    DB: I am aware of what their lobbying organization says.
    BO: Their lobbying organization?
    DB: Their leaders, what their leadership says.

    This exchange makes kittens cry.

  • 119. MikeLT  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:30 am

    Boies: But you are just a transmitter. You don’t do the work.
    DB: I am not a transmitter! Stop putting words in my mouth!
    Boies: (Puts transcript of depo in front of him.)
    DB: Gotcha moment! You are right! I did say that seven months ago in a deposition! Gotcha moment!
    Boies: Not trying to get you, just addressing that you said I put words in your mouth.

    I'm NOT a transmitter, I'm NOT, I'm NOT, I'M NOT!!! Oh, I said I *AM*?! Gotcha Moment! You sure are a meany!!

    Mommie?

  • 120. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Of COURSE this is about $$$$$.

    This IS never and HAS never been about marriage.

    It has always been about bigotry.

    And, of course, people's ability to make money from that bigotry. Maggie Gallagher and her cronies are laughing all the way to the bank, getting rich off of poor and uneducated and backwards thinking people's hard-earned dough.

    It's the American way.

  • 121. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:41 am

    I can't define marriage, but I know it when I see it!

  • 122. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:44 am

    If the 9th Circuit is 'liberal' as you state, then why will they UPHOLD the ban?

    Did I misinterpret you?

  • 123. Andy  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:51 am

    But if it is not consistent with the US Constitution, doesn't that defacto mean that the federal government must recognize it?

  • 124. Loren  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:52 am

    Thumbs all the way up.

  • 125. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:29 am

    I am sure that Pete Burns will be delighted to have the income from the campaign theme song …

    You spin me right 'round, baby right 'round
    Like a record, baby …

  • 126. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Homophobia is rooted in misogyny. It's all about the strict gender roles, and Blankenhorn brought that up repeatedly in his comments.

  • 127. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:31 am

    I hope no one gives her a map. Because in some countries they don't have geography or maps.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 128. Darina  |  January 27, 2010 at 10:40 am

    *dies laughing* Wow, is this Blakenhorn guy for real?

    Here I am following the Prop 8 saga from Eastern Europe. Thank you for giving me this opportunity!

  • 129. Terri  |  January 27, 2010 at 10:43 am

    So if it wins here, then it goes to the 9th Circuit and if it wins there doesn't that mean that in all the states that are under the 9th Circuit that SS marriage becomes legal? That would be Arizona, Nevada, CA, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Washington.. is that how it works?

  • 130. Terri  |  January 27, 2010 at 10:46 am

    am a tad confused about what exactly the 9th circuit would rule on.. 14th amendment protection for GLBT, protected minority status.. or just repealing prop 8

  • 131. Liveblogging Day 12: Part&hellip  |  January 27, 2010 at 11:01 am

    […] Liveblogging Day 12: Part II […]

  • 132. Dolores  |  January 28, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Wow, Keegan, REALLY good point about the "traditional" definition of marriage excluding "adult" and "consenting". Wish I'd thought of that!

    And your observation is bourne out by the fact that European royalty often married off girls as young as 6 or 7 to create political alliances, tho no sex until puberty. So much for the "third principal."

    (Must have been a real treat for those barely pubescent girls to be raped by some old goat on their "consummation night." Apparently this history doesn't disturb the "traditional marriage" crowd.)

    But then, facts and history are irrelevant to them unless they are misconstruing both.

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

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

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

    […] For old time’s sake, here’s the epic Boies vs. Blankenhorn cross-examination again (parts 1 and 2). […]

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