Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 12: Part III

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

The epic cross of Mr. Blankenhorn by the masterful David Boies continues.

DB: Badgett is someone whose articles I have read, but not sure of this particular article.

BO: Offer as evidence.

Cooper: No objection.

DB: I’ve read several of her articles and I appreciate the integrity of those articles. She’s obviously taken a position opposite of my own on almost every question, but she’s a good thinker.

Judge Walker: You got your answer.

BO: Amato article, move it in?

Judge Walker: Yes.

BO: This is an article in which Amato investigates how children in households with both bio parents differ with children from someone else.

DB: You are reading that from a summary.

BO: You’ve read the whole thing?

DB: Yes.

BO: Do you have current recollection of methodology?

DB: Well he used population survey to compare outcome differences comparing children of continuously married vs. others. Makes policy recommendation at end.

BO: Not asking you to summarize or give book report. Just want two questions. Compares children of bio vs. not.

DB: Not really.

BO: Let me read from very second paragraph of document. Amato begins by comparing children of bio in two parent with one parent.

DB: Well.

BO: Do you see that?

DB: Yes sir (defeated)

BO: He’s putting adoptive parents in same category as bio?

DB: Yes sir

[UPDATE] 11:35

BO: Have you stated that it’s important for unmarried women give their babies up for adoption to married couples?

DB: With respect to teenage girls, I may have been part of a study that made such a recommendation.

BO: May I have just a moment, Your Honor?

Judge Walker: Very well.

(Boies, Boutrous and Cooper conferring)

[UPDATE] 11:40

BO: Your Honor, we agree on documents to be admitted.

Cooper: With exception of one document by Mr. Prentice.

Judge Walker: Do you have a number?

BO: No.

Judge Walker: Very well, we’ll number it later.

[So this means we still may finish today!]

BO: Let me just ask you hopefully just two more quick areas. This is the review article you referred to previously published in Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics?

DB: Lesbian Mothers, Gay Fathers and Their Children?

BO: Yes. Are you familiar with this document?

DB: I don’t believe so.

BO: There’s something here called an abstract. You are familiar with what an abstract is, are you not?

DB: Of course.

BO: Reads that children of ss no different in developmental outcome that hetero. Do you know of this study and such other studies?

DB: Yes.

BO: NO singularly accepted universal definition of marriage. Marriage constantly evolving.

DB: Yes sir. I wrote those words in my book.

Boies: No further questions, your honor.

[UPDATE] 11:43

Cooper: Should be relatively short.

Cooper: Gives him his entire book, which had already been admitted. You recall that Mr. Boies read from your book about ss marriage. Now I want to read from page three of your book.

From his book:

Many thinkers, perhaps most notably Isaiah Berlin, points out that most choices are between good and good rather than good and bad. Concept of goods in conflict is central to my thinking. One good is dignity of all persons. Other is child’s birthright to mother. These goods are at least partially in conflict. Point of this book.

[UPDATE] 11:47

Cooper: Recall colloquy with Mr. Boies in which you would choose customary marriage over same sex marriage although you would be anguished?

Cooper: Page 22 of your book
In case of same sex marriage, one priority is needs of ss couples. Needs for acceptance and respect. Other priority is need for as many children as possible grow up in bio family. To degree we can embrace both in harmony, want to do that.

Cooper: Can these be embraced in harmony?

DB: Yes.

Cooper: Is that domestic partnership?

DB: Yes. That’s my own conclusion.

Cooper: Did you talk of this yesterday about your journey on this that culminated in NYT article?

DB: Yes sir, in which you endorse domestic partnerships and same sex marriage?

Cooper: No further questions. Want to put that article into evidence.

Cooper: And so I have no further questions.

Judge Walker: Thank you Mr. B, you may step down, thank you for your testimony.

Judge Walker: Any more witnesses?

Cooper: No further witnesses.

[UPDATE] 11:55

Thompson: Proffer of documents including official campaign speeches of Protect Marriage. Plaintiffs have not objected.

Judge Walker: Very well.

Thompson: We now have a number for the document under seal we discussed before.

Judge Walker: And that’s admitted without objection?

BO: Yes.

Thompson: Have made counter designations of Mr. Tam’s testimony and depo?

BO: We’d like to review by end of week.

Thompson: No objection.

Judge Walker: Very well.

Thompson: Motions to compel are still in force and if those are enforced from campaigns we may want to admit other documents and call other witnesses.

Judge Walker: We have issued request for response from those three organizations and should have response by Friday.

BO: 2332A by Blankenhorn needs to be in record.

Judge Walker: Hearing no objection?

Cooper: No.

Judge Walker: Very well.

BO: Defendant’s 956 is in evidence, which is already in evidence.

Judge Walker: We’ll simply not that those are same book with two numbers.

Boutrous: Now have official copies of two docs from Library of Congress which was IRS letter of 1971 and letter to Matachine Society. We stipulated they were in Library of Congress.

Judge Walker: Very well.

Boutrous: We’d like to be able to review and supplement documents that we just got that are claimed under privilege.

Judge Walker: Okay.

Thompson: Another document number switch.

Judge Walker: do you intend to call any rebuttal witnesses?

Boutros. No.

Judge Walker: Some loose ends. One is notice to compel that plaintiffs seek. On the way.

Motion to withdraw by Dr. Tam.

Motion by Imperial County to intervene has been briefed .

Both remain to be ruled on by the court.

137 documents.

Boutrous: Do you recall those?

[NOTE] The last liveblog thread of this phase of the trial is now up. Come join us there.

Tags: , , ,

151 Comments

  • 1. Darrell  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:41 am

    to be honest….. i don' tsee were all these books have anything to do with gay marriage… can some one please explain?

  • 2. Neil  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:43 am

    I can't help but be drawn to the parallels between this case and the Dover, PA, Intelligent Design case. In both cases, the defendants built a world view based on inuendo and fabrication – for example, "ss marriage would lead to pedophilia", or "evolution can't be true because the eye is too complicated". In both cases, the defendants tried (and failed) to show their view was not a religious view. In both cases, the defendants arguments were opened to the light of day and they could not support their position with evidence.

    The openness of the court system is perhaps the only mechanism that enables the hidden prejudices of the majority to be seen for what it is – simple prejudice wrapped up in innuendo. Thank you guys for live blogging this.

    Love, Neil.

  • 3. Andrey  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Boies is damn good at ending on a powerful note.

    "BO: NO singularly accepted universal definition of marriage. Marriage constantly evolving.
    B: Yes sir. I wrote those words in my book.
    Boies: No further questions, YH."

  • 4. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:44 am

    I take it Mr. Blankenhorn will be using a colostomy bag from this point further?

  • 5. Ray Harwick  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:44 am

    Boies:"Mission Accomplished"

  • 6. Jason  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:45 am

    BO: NO singularly accepted universal definition of marriage. Marriage constantly evolving.
    B: Yes sir. I wrote those words in my book.

    Okay – so the defense case is that marriage is defined as between a man and woman and we cannot get married because that would change the definition… and then puts someone on the stand who says that the definition of marriage is constantly evolving…. I am so lost on the idiocy of this!

  • 7. John  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:45 am

    I think this guy might have helped our side more than our own witnesses did.

  • 8. jayjaylanc  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:46 am

    I'm sure if Mr. Boies were to literally chew someone a new anus, he would thoughtfully provide a new sphincter, as well. He seems like that kind of guy…

  • 9. Gary S  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:46 am

    I see this Blankehorn in the media as a "star" witness. I've commented wherever possible with URL of this blog so people can see just what a star he is and for whom…

  • 10. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:46 am

    BO: Have you stated that it’s important for unmarried women give their babies up for adoption to married couples?
    DB: With respect to teenage girls, I may have been part of a study that made such a recommendation

    Nice..Real Nice….ASSHOLE!!!!!

  • 11. Richard  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:47 am

    "NO singularly accepted universal definition of marriage. Marriage constantly evolving."

    BAM!
    masterful. just amazing. Boies via Blankenhorn just managed to completely undermine the defense's case using THEIR witness. Wow.

  • 12. Gary S  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:47 am

    Hear! Hear! I second that!

  • 13. Gary S  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:47 am

    No, you're right. They don't.

  • 14. Ray Harwick  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:47 am

    Boies: No further questions, YH.”

    Sort of like Rachmaninov's signature ending of his 2nd Piano Concerto. Simple roar of THUNDER.

  • 15. Darth  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:48 am

    Boies: NO singularly accepted universal definition of marriage. Marriage constantly evolving.
    Blankenhorn: Yes sir. I wrote those words in my book.
    Boies: No further questions, YH.

    You heard it, straight from the defense's expert on the institution of marriage. I think that's the ballgame, if it wasn't over already.

  • 16. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:50 am

    BO: Let me just ask you hopefully just two more quick areas. This is the review article you referred to previously published in Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics?
    DB: Lesbian Mothers, Gay Fathers and Their Children?
    BO: Yes. Are you familiar with this document?
    DB: I don’t believe so.

    First he refers to this article but then he says he is not familiar with it?

    PERJURY!!!!!!! LIES!!!!!!!! LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 17. Andy  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:50 am

    it goes to his expertise which deals with the effects of children being raised without fathers and in other scenarios. this is further delegitimizes all of his conclusions, and most importantly it shows his lack of consistency on the very narrow subject that some would conclude his expertise to be in given his background.

  • 18. Desert Verdin 1 of 1  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:50 am

    BO: There’s something here called an abstract. You are familiar with what an abstract is, are you not?

    *SCHMACK*

  • 19. Jay  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:50 am

    I agree. That really is quite a statement.

  • 20. Tom B.  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Blankenhornsphincter says what?

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

    Wow . . . masterful redirect from the defense!

    I think it would been better for Mr. Cooper to simply feign death.

  • 22. Peter  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Didn't he say that DP would weaken marriage? then say that he'd rather have DP than SS Marriage?
    Really?
    Do they think the judges are stupid? Do they really think that's going to get them what they want?

  • 23. Craig Steiner  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Boies and Olson in 2012!!

  • 24. Tom B.  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:52 am

    Hey, careful there. Remember what happened last time that phrase was used!

  • 25. Becky  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Yeah, I needed a cigarette after that one…….!

  • 26. Lex  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:53 am

    They may not speak directly to the issue of gay marriage, but they erode his flimsy assertions about marriage in general.

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

    Cooper: Recall colloquy with Mr. Boies in which you would choose customary marriage over same sex marriage although you would be anguished?

    Cooper: Page 22 of your book
    In case of same sex marriage, one priority is needs of ss couples. Needs for acceptance and respect. Other priority is need for as many children as possible grow up in bio family. To degree we can embrace both in harmony, want to do that.

    Cooper: Can these be embraced in harmony?

    DB: Yes.

    Cooper: Is that domestic partnership?

    DB: Yes. That’s my own conclusion.

    Cooper: Did you talk of this yesterday about your journey on this that culminated in NYT article?

    DB: Yes sir, in which you endorse domestic partnerships and same sex marriage?

    Cooper: No further questions. Want to put that article into evidence.

    Cooper: And so I have no further questions.

    Judge Walker: Thank you Mr. B, you may step down, thank you for your testimony.

    Judge Walker: Any more witnesses?

    Cooper: No further witnesses.

    i am totally confused…………………. ?????

  • 28. Tom B.  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:54 am

    I'd vote for 'em, if I didn't know the world was gonna end that year.

  • 29. Nikki  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:54 am

    If you read this part from FDL you'll see that DB was instructed to turn to a tab in a binder handed to him by BO. DB is simply reading the "Lesbian Mothers…" title from the tab to confirm it is the correct tab. To much lost in translation, here, I'm afraid.

  • 30. Lex  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:55 am

    That statement alone was worth the time spent on this epic cross.

  • 31. Eddie  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:55 am

    That was the only redirect from the defense on Blankenhorn??? wow.

  • 32. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:55 am

    DP is just as good as marriage, obviously! We should be happy about it and STFU.

  • 33. Tom B.  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:55 am

    Three words: Blankenhorn…got…pwned.

  • 34. Layla  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:56 am

    I think the point is to show that the books/articles that Blankenhorn uses to base his "opinion" of the effect that same sex marriage may have on the institution of marriage have NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Also Boise is pointing out that Blankenhorn hasn't read much, if any, about same sex marriage or the studies concerning lgbt families. He is just discrediting him one more time.

  • 35. ron1008  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:56 am

    STUNNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 36. Denny  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:57 am

    "most choices are between good and good rather than good and bad"

    So the reason that we can't have heterosexual and homosexual is that 2 good make a bad. I get it now!

  • 37. Darrell  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:58 am

    i am totally overwhelmed that they didn't ask him any more questions, they know he hurt the case..

  • 38. jayjaylanc  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Well, unless they've got Ms. Moss acting as their tank, there's nobody for the Judge's aggro to jump to. Maybe Ms. Moss is Mr. Cooper's pet? Or maybe Mr. Thompson? Oh, wait! I think Mr. Blankenhorn is the pet…ooh…given the amount of aggro the Judge already has for him, he's going to be in trooooouble…

  • 39. Jay  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Is there some way of sending Boies the biggest fruit basket in history for this?

  • 40. Wendy  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:00 am

    yeah, inconsitency is the only word that pops up in my head hearing this guy

  • 41. Leslie in Concord  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:00 am

    I think some people thought it was the end of the world already when they got together on this case.

  • 42. george  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:01 am

    This case is not about whether the Prop8 voters' views are religious or not; it's actually ok for people to vote based on their religion.

    The Kitzmiller case addressed a separation of church/state issue.

  • 43. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:01 am

    WOW! I am wondering why the defense did such a blatantly horrible job, they didn't even try.

    I have read so many others who are as confused as I am on blogs and commentary articles about the extremely weak defense on this trial.

    It just seemed too easy for our side. And, like others, I wonder what IS their ultimate goal. Could it have really been to lose? Do they want to ensure this NOT make it to SCOTUS? Is that their ultimate goal, sacrifice California?

    Too many questions. I am glad for the hiatus. I need to get work done!

    Nice to meet you all, see you in a couple of weeks.

  • 44. Pandora  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:01 am

    Forget the basket, I'll send him a whole orchard.

  • 45. Tom B.  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:02 am

    Yeah, we all know Mr. Cooper is a clothbie magetard that nuked the mobs way too much and is now running around screaming for his tank to save him.

  • 46. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:02 am

    "BO: 2332A by Blankenhorn needs to be in record."

    I just misread this as:

    BO: 2332A by Blankenhorn needs to be incarcerated.

  • 47. w11USA  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:02 am

    umm… it's all making sense now why the Proponents didn't want this to be televised!! This level of malpractice should be grounds for disbarment!

    Not to take anything away from Boies, who was absolutely amazing, but this was like Usain Bolt competing in the Special Olympics. Thank God Usain (Boies) was on our team!

  • 48. Tom  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:03 am

    It does seem bizarre that the defense has such obtuse witnesses and they look to be blowing the case for them. It's surreal to see this all playing out in court.

    I'm ignorant to the law, but I read in earlier comments that even if we win, and this goes to the 9th Circuit and wins, the SCOTUS won't need to take the trial? So does this mean it wouldn't affect DOMA in that case?

    Thanks for the help, it's intensely interesting to learn so much from this site!

  • 49. Darrell  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:03 am

    Thompson: Motions to compel are still in force and if those are enforced from campaigns we may want to admit other documents and call other witnesses.

    Judge Walker: We have issued request for response from those three organizations and should have response by Friday.

    BO: 2332A by Blankenhorn needs to be in record.

    Judge Walker: Hearing no objection?

    Cooper: No.

    Judge Walker: Very well.

    BO: Defendant’s 956 is in evidence, which is already in evidence.

    Judge Walker: We’ll simply not that those are same book with two numbers.

    Boutrous: Now have official copies of two docs from Library of Congress which was IRS letter of 1971 and letter to Matachine Society. We stipulated they were in Library of Congress.

    Judge Walker: Very well.

    Boutrous: We’d like to be able to review and supplement documents that we just got that are claimed under privilege.

    Judge Walker: Okay.

    Thompson: Another document number switch.

    Judge Walker: do you intend to call any rebuttal witnesses?

    Boutros. No.

    Judge Walker: Some loose ends. One is notice to compel that plaintiffs seek. On the way.

    Motion to withdraw by Dr. Tam.

    Motion by Imperial County to intervene has been briefed .

    Both remain to be ruled on by the court.

    137 documents.

    Boutrous: Do you recall those?

    ***** ARE THERE GOING TO BE MORE WITNESSESS****

  • 50. w11USA  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:03 am

    we're half pregnant now. It's on it's way to the SCOTUS!

  • 51. Matt in Seattle  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Berlin's point makes sense if the 2 goods are in ACTUAL conflict – i.e, not lying and telling the Gestapo when they knock on your door that you have no idea where your Jewish neighbors are even though just hours ago you offered them refuge in your basement. That's the kind of conflict Berlin has in mind.

    WRT marriage equality and children, there is NO conflict. We are very fortunate that Walker will be able to see through the crap B-horn spews.

  • 52. Rick Heintz  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:05 am

    For giggles I took a trip to the Yes on 8 blog and this is what they have to say about yesterdays cross…

    "Once again, religion was on trial this morning as a lawyer for the challengers to Prop 8 cross-examined political scientist Kenneth Miller. In their desperate attempt to make something of their case stick, the anti-Prop 8 lawyer spent extraordinary time – four hours, in fact – trying to get the witness to concede that the margin of victory for Prop 8 in the November 2008 election was driven solely by “religious” voters. But Dr. Miller’s testimony provided an impenetrable roadblock, establishing that—while religious views were certainly one of many factors that informed some voters’ support for Prop 8—no exit poll or voter study has shown that religion alone determined the result of the election."

  • 53. Roy  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:06 am

    seriously, the yes8 side didnt put up a fight worth a damm because they knew they didnt have a leg to stand on.. how can they fight for prop8 when they know..KNOW..it is UNconstitutional and wrong and based in bigotry & discrimination…even those loons know they cant defend that in court.

    just wish it was televised so all their followers could see what airheads they were.

  • 54. PJOjai  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:06 am

    I am just stunned by the Blankenhorn what a self-righteous jerk. Boies did a great job. I am even more pissed now with the rotten and devious campaign that the Yes on 8 people ran and ashamed of the so called "experts" they had on their side. It's just one pile of BS.

  • 55. Slade  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Me too. I think he was just trying to get one more piece into evidence for the appeal.

  • 56. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:07 am

    George but is it Ok for those "religious Based" folks to resort to outright lies to achieve their goals?

    What about the 9th Commandment????

  • 57. w11USA  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:07 am

    The SCOTUS would take the case – only need 4 justices to grant the writ of certiorari, which means the SCOTUS would hear the case. At the very least, I'm sure Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer would take it up and of course Scalia, and the rest of the bigots would want to try to 'correct' the outcome so they'd probably vote for the writ to be granted too

  • 58. Sean  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:08 am

    Yeah, you know, cuz "separate but equal" always works out so well…

    …wait.

  • 59. Craig Steiner  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:08 am

    This has nothing to do with DOMA in either case. DOMA prohibits fed. govt. from recognizing ss marriage, has nothing to do with the constitutionality of Prop 8.

    If we win here and in District Court, and then if SCOTUS refuses the case, SCOTUS is basically saying the ruling stands.

    A separate federal challenge to the constitutionality of DOMA needs to happen in order to pave the way for federal recognition of ss marriage.

  • 60. Layla  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:08 am

    LOL! I agree with your version. At the very least he needs to be committed.

  • 61. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:08 am

    BO: Have you stated that it’s important for unmarried women give their babies up for adoption to married couples?

    DB: With respect to teenage girls, I may have been part of a study that made such a recommendation

    unbelieving………..

  • 62. Tom B.  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:09 am

    IANAL, but step by step:

    1) We win this case – it technically overturns Prop 8 though a stay will probably be automatically issued pending appeal. No precedent set other than in Northern CA.

    2) 9th Circuit takes it, we win – would basically invalidate all marriage amendments in the 9th Circuit area, and would set at least a minor precedent for future state-by-state cases

    3) Supreme Court denies cert – decision stands, but DOMA could still be on shaky ground.

  • 63. christina  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:09 am

    withdraw by Tam. does that mean what he said in this trial or his withdraw as a defendant witness…im confused. no way would i not want his statements to be counted

  • 64. george  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Marriage evolves, but the essence of it, the man-woman part, does not.

    Arguing otherwise is like saying that there are all sorts of new breeds of dogs, some of which look almost like cats, so we might as well call those dogs "cats" now.

  • 65. Slade  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Oh come ON. This is why they don't link to the transcripts. They want to put their spin and have their followers believe in blind faith. It is so redundant.

  • 66. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Is has scheduled an Anus reconstruction surgery immediately after testifying.

    I believe he has a specialist on speed dial

  • 67. Darrell  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has given the two sides until FEB. 26 to file post-trial documents, and he told the lawyers he will then schedule a date for closing arguments. The judge told the lawyers he will "tee up some questions" for them before closings. At this point, it appears it will at least sometime in MARCH OR APRIL before the trial returns to the judge's courtroom. For now, the trial is on standby.

  • 68. Patrick Regan  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Looks like it's over (according to twitter feeds) Not likely to hear anything until March now :(

    Love,
    Pat

  • 69. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:10 am

    " Dr. Miller’s testimony provided an impenetrable roadblock, establishing that"

    they wrote that? seriously?
    I can't even think of any apropriate response to that………..

  • 70. Jeff G.  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:10 am

    But David Boies is a level 80 Death Knight, and Ted Olson is a level 80 Ret Pally…

  • 71. Rod  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:11 am

    It seems to me that the defense witnesses ended up being better witnesses for the plaintiffs than were their own witnesses. It isn't so much what they said, but that their behavior proves our point.

  • 72. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Jesus on wheat thin!

  • 73. View from Europe  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:14 am

    @67 Withdraw by Tam refers to his request at the start of the trial to withdraw as an intervenor. He got called as a hostile witness by Plaintiffs anyway.

  • 74. Patrick Regan  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:14 am

    new post up at : http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/27/liveblogg

  • 75. george  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Barely makes a dent in the case; it just suggests that people who voted for Prop8 solely on the basis that marriage is static might have voted irrationally.

  • 76. Nikki  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Imperial County. Blechhh. Remind me to never visit, drive through or spend my money in this, the official county of bigots of California, ever again.

    "Lawyers representing the county are watching the case in San Francisco, waiting to report back should the judge make a decision, he said.

    A representative for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, the nonprofit group representing the county, was unavailable for comment as of press time.

    The county made a motion to intervene as defendant in the case Dec. 15, which would allow it to appeal should Proposition 8 be overturned."
    http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2010/01/13/

  • 77. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:15 am

    I think he'd turn it into a "see, even gays think I'm right about saying that civil unions or domestic Partnerships are the best alternative"

  • 78. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:16 am

    Domestic partner? What am I beer?

    Tell me prop ha8ters where's the foam?

  • 79. Alan E.  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:16 am

    Mark Morford posted this on Facebook today, and I thought it was timely:

    There's a certain expression, a look, a deep and radiant glow that can only come from ultimately realizing you have no fucking idea

  • 80. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:16 am

    Actually Society has changed the definition of marriage over the years to reflect modern thinking. It was always a good thing for everyone. Now that is is time to also include a minority that has been discriminated based on lies/distortion/faith it is suddenly not.

    Holding on to the right to discriminate based on faith seems more important to some then being fair minded to fellow citizens. i believe that some are more frightened about loosing the ability to throw stones and judge than anything. Sad. Truly Sickening and Sad.

  • 81. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Talk about Odd couple but hey its working!

  • 82. Tom B.  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:18 am

    His withdrawal was as a defendant, which would basically determine how much weight his statements on the stand would have, whether as an official defendant-intervenor, or just a regular old proponent of the ballot measure.

  • 83. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:18 am

    they couldn't risk more! everything they would try would just make everything worse.

    I am still totally speechless about all this!

  • 84. PM, in the UK  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:19 am

    BO: Have you stated that it’s important for unmarried women give their babies up for adoption to married couples?
    DB: With respect to teenage girls, I may have been part of a study that made such a recommendation.

    Just catching up now – surprised to see there was a lower depth to which to sink.
    I didn't realize that the USA was running at a deficit of orphans & kids in care, and that single mothers were no longer considered to be these all-important biological parents they're always harping on about.

  • 85. george  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:20 am

    How big was the basket that you sent for his representation of Al Gore in Bush v. Gore?

  • 86. Kerrick  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:20 am

    You might check out the book "Same Sex Marriage in Early Modern Europe" by John Boswell.

  • 87. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:22 am

    Everyone is stupid, biased, activist or a lobbyist that doesn't agree with them….Oh or a Sinner!

  • 88. Anthony N  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:22 am

    "Motion by Imperial County to intervene has been briefed ."

    Why is this happening?

  • 89. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Yeah, what Michael said. I don't give a rat about someone's religious beliefs and how it makes them vote or not vote. What I do care about is the utter disregard these organizations have had for my character by spreading blatant lies and then cloaking them in religious belief.

    To lie under the guise of religious belief makes them FALSE PROPHETS!!!

    As a lesbian, I am deeply offended to have my life and my future decided by a parade of lies put forth to ignorant and unaware people.

    And as a gay Christian, I am even more offended that these people have twisted religion to their own nefarious and hateful ends.

  • 90. nightshayde  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:23 am

    Unfortunately, I think it's more along the lines of "they know they're right & that no thinking judge could possibly say anything other than that marriage is obviously between a man and a woman."

    In their minds, I don't think they think they need to produce any sort of "evidence" other than "we're right because we say we're right and because God says we're right."

  • 91. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:25 am

    agreed, that is really really mean!
    I've been raised by a single mother and she did a great job and I don't think adoption parents would have been any better

  • 92. jerek  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Okay, so where do we go to watch Boies in action now?!!

  • 93. george  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:27 am

    No, some changes to marriage were bad (e.g, no-fault divorce laws), unless you think that ending marriages is good for marriage.

  • 94. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:28 am

    So, that's what it looks like to have your ass in your hand.

  • 95. Ron  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:30 am

    Although the Boies and Olson have been masterful and the case for SS marriage has certainly been made here, my concern (which explains why the defense was so bad) is that when it gets to SCOTUS this will not be seen as a trail of fact (by denying the right to video, they also indicated they were happy for the facts to be hidden). What it will come down to is did the people of CA (and all the other states) have the right to define marriage in their constitution. It won't matter that marriage evolves. It's all about the level of scrutiny.

  • 96. george  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:31 am

    In this case, the plaintiffs would have to show that whatever lies might have been spread actually had an impact on religious voters as opposed to the religious voters having voted the way they did regardless of those lies.

  • 97. waxr  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:32 am

    I can't see why the "Protect Marriage" backers would want to appeal a a decision against them to the Supreme Court. Their case is too weak. Why risk DOMA and the success they have had in several states? As it is, a decision by this court would only affect California.

    By not appealing, they could continue to attack a court system which ignores the will of the people.

  • 98. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:34 am

    George STFU!!!!!!!!!!!

    (Show The Funny Understatement)

    You have no idea what you are talking about

    Stop cherry picking like you are at a roman virgin orgy

    You Bigots only see what you want and hear what you want and the rest never happened.

    GROW UP TROLL!

  • 99. Brian  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:36 am

    You're confusing Boies and Blankenhorn, dear.

  • 100. Sarah  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Does the direction the defense took today baffle anyone else? Where is this "choice between two goods" stuff coming from? That seems to go against what they were arguing this WHOLE trial. If you admit that ssm is a good thing for GLBT Americans then all we have to do is argue that it isn't bad for straight ones.

  • 101. Brian  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:37 am

    That's what I was thinking.

  • 102. MikeLT  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:37 am

    BO: NO singularly accepted universal definition of marriage. Marriage constantly evolving.
    DB: Yes sir. I wrote those words in my book.
    Boies: No further questions, your honor.

    And BINGO was his name, OH!

  • 103. Callie  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:39 am

    I LOVE THAT!

  • 104. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Well, shall we start to list all of the lies from the Prop 8 campaign that were aimed at religious voters?

    How about "our church will be forced to perform gay weddings" just for one?

    Gah, George. You are deliberately obtuse.

    Shouldn't you go play with your 12 kids or something?

  • 105. george  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:42 am

    Plaintiffs ran an emotional case; facts might have had impact with the public, but for all the emotion and poor performance by defense's experts, it's all about the level of scrutiny and whether the voters acted rationally or not.

  • 106. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:42 am

    George, I know that facts are not really your strong suit, but do try to keep up with the adults.

    Arguing that you think gay people are icky and therefore marriage is only between a man and a woman not only defies logic, it is in direct opposition to history.

    Google "adelphopoiia rite." I dare you.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 107. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:44 am

    Translation: Who cares if he's beating the crap out of the woman and raping her? She shouldn't be allowed to get a divorce without three eyewitnesses to prove that he's doing those things.

    BTW, George, if you are against no-fault divorce, move to New York. They have the most draconian divorce laws in the country, and do not allow for no-fault. It took my friend three years in court to get out of a two-year abusive marriage, such that she was ultimately married for five years to her abuser.

  • 108. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:45 am

    George, aren't you dead yet?

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 109. Sheila  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:46 am

    I wouldn't really call that the essence of marriage.

    If it is, I feel sorry for couples married under that paradigm, and I'm straight.

    It's a stupid, archaic notion that has less to do with the "essence of marriage" and more to do with strict gender roles, controlling sexuality, and controlling people in general.

    If gender roles are the essence of marriage (which is effectively what one is saying when one says "one man and one woman are the essence of marriage"), then feminism has already done permanent damage to "the institution of marriage" and it's already doomed.

    The real "essence" of marriage probably has something more to do with finances, taxes and rights (things all having to do with the state) than with the above.

  • 110. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:46 am

    George Marriage has changed in 8 countries and 8 states

    you Bigots only refuse to see that because you only see what you want and hear what you want

    How naive and ignorant of you to say it hasn't changed when it has.

    GROW UP and step into the real world not your delusional PUG-NO world

  • 111. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:47 am

    I was raised by a single mother too….we are one in the same.

  • 112. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:49 am

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Let me fix that for you, George.

    "Defender/interver couldn't find their backsides with two-hands and a flashlight. They relied on emotion and dishonesty to make an imipact with the public."

    There you go.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 113. Up&Adam  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:50 am

    Can someone help me??
    when Judge Walker said "We have issued request for response from those three organizations and should have response by Friday." which three organizations does he mean?

  • 114. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:52 am

    Oh george not only was it voted based on religion but it was primary funding by religion and since religion or churches do not pay taxes it is illegal to do so.

    BAAAAA! BAAA! sheep

  • 115. Dolores  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:55 am

    So so true, Neil.

    If you haven't already, do get a copy of the DVD documentary "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial."

    Very similar to this trial circus by the Religious Right: Lots of bombast, few facts, and most of those pretty silly and easily discredited.

  • 116. waxr  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:58 am

    I agree. An appeal by the defense would be too risky. It would be easier for them to just take their lost and blame it on a court system which ignores the will of the people.

  • 117. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:06 am

    I don't get this whole will of the people crap…

    All involved in this trail are the people, the judge is the people, the lawyers are the people, the judge is appointed by a politician that was elected by the people, the plaintiffs are the people, the witnesses are the people, the defendants are the people so the outcome is still the will of the people.

    We the people is not just the majority its everybody!

  • 118. Lymis  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:07 am

    it is also (in a weird way) important to get some of these books in evidence not for what they say but for what they don't say.

    After this level of the trial, no new evidence can be submitted, but if these authors or their studies were cited during the trial, or if at future appeals, an amicus brief references them, they are in evidence and can be used to prove that they don't say anything like what it is claimed they say.

    People are less likely to be able to slide some slick misinterpretation of the material by if it has already been brought up as NOT saying what people commonly announce it says.

  • 119. Lymis  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:11 am

    Ending marriages that people don't want to be in is certainly good for marriage.

    Unless you think that the only measure of success for marriage is its longevity, and the only measure of success for "the institution" is the sheer number of people in it, whether they want to be or not.

    Many people feel that an institution is strengthened by having people in it who actually want to be part of it.

  • 120. Lymis  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Domestic Partnerships for straight people would weaken marriage for straight people by giving them another option to choose.

    Doesn't really affect their opinion of whether its good enough for gay people. But it does blow the "just as good as marriage" argument out.

  • 121. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:20 am

    No its that the good thing for gays is not near as important as what is viewed as good for heterosexuals.

  • 122. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:24 am

    @Ronnie: The "will of the people" thing is cited constantly by those who do not understand the simple facts: we do not live in a direct democracy, but in a constitutional republic. This means that we have checks and balances to prevent "the will of the people" from trampling the rights of the minority.

    /preaching to the choir

    Of course, they are more than happy to piss and moan when "the will of the people" goes against them, but at the same time want to tell others to "shut up, move on and get over it."

    Hypocrisy is their watchword.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 123. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:25 am

    Internal campaign documents were demanded of the ProtectMarriage folks, and they are trying to keep them back.

  • 124. michael  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:25 am

    I think they want the stuff from the noh8 campaign. You know they want all the stuff that they waited to turn over to our team or the details that they still refuse to turnover.

    Basically they plan on saying that they never had the opportunity to defend this properly because they didn't get any information. It is a way to further push the poor me victim card.

  • 125. Lymis  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:28 am

    Not true that it doesn't affect DOMA. A SCOTUS decision that gay people are a suspect class and reaffirming the Loving decision that marriage is a fundamental right would by definition call DOMA into immediate question.

    Even if SCOTUS didn't cert the case, the appellate decision could still invalidate DOMA, as it applies to its Circuit..

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

    No, they obviously meant that Miller was an impenetrable blockhead.

  • 127. Lymis  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:33 am

    If ProtectMarriage decides they had their collective ass handed to them and decides not to appeal, and the state itself has already chosen not to get involved, there would potentially BE no appeal.

    By getting added as an DI, the county could appeal the decision even if the current defendants didn't want to.

  • 128. Kendall  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Since we'd probably lose at SCOTUS, it would be folly for the liberal justices to vote to grant cert. if we win at the 9th Circuit level. I'm just sayin'!

    But yeah, the conservatives on SCOTUS would vote to grant cert. anyway, just so they get to overturn our win (if we win, I mean ;-)….

  • 129. waxr  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:40 am

    Fine, but what was the rational reason given by the defense which was not countered by the defenses own witnesses?

    Remember, that so far the "Protect Marriage" proponents have had great success in the ballot box, but little in the courtroom. They would be wise to take a loss at this level, and then blame the loss on a court system which ignores the will of the people.

  • 130. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:49 am

    The courts are the people so the outcome is still the will of the people. The judge is appointed by a politician that was elected by the people so he/she represents the will of the people.

  • 131. Frijondi  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Joining this thread a little late, but fiona64, I also watched a friend go through hell trying to divorce an abusive husband in a state without no-fault divorce. He contested it, and did not give up easily. I remember several conversations I had with him in which he bleated about "what's happening to maaaarriage in this country." Always with a little upward whine on the word "marriage." Ugh.

  • 132. A  |  January 27, 2010 at 7:05 am

    @Rick, there's an unclosed bold tag at the end of this post, which makes the whole rest of the page (including comments) bold as well…

  • 133. David John Lawrence  |  January 27, 2010 at 8:00 am

    I have been engaged in teaching my afternoon class from noon until 4pm Central Time. Since then I've been catching up on the liveblogging.

    Being gay, I've been following this very closely. However, the one thing that has stopped me in my tracks more than any other question to Blankenhorn from his time in the witness box is the following:

    "Have you stated that it’s important for unmarried women give their babies up for adoption to married couples?"

    The question was at the bottom of my screen and I just sat there for minutes looking at it before I got up the courage to scroll down to his answer: "With respect to teenage girls, I may have been part of a study that made such a recommendation."

    I am just stupefied by this.

  • 134. Michael B  |  January 27, 2010 at 9:00 am

    It may look like a cat, but it is still a dog. First time making an analogy?

  • 135. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 9:11 am

    uuuups didn't intend to do that ^^ 😀 *SMILE* think I just read so many "We should thank these Experts for advocating our side" that I read no further than the B in the name 😉
    I'ts really late over here for my excuse…..

  • 136. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 27, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Judge Vaughn Walker even reminds me of John E. Jones III from the Dover trial. Both are conservative Republicans (Walker was appointed by George H. W. Bush, Jones by George W. Bush) who, fortunately, aren't beholden to the Religious Right. The Prop 8 side is already gearing up to brand Walker an activist judge, like the ID proponents did to Jones. I can only hope that Walker doesn't get death threats like Jones did. To paraphrase Lewis Black, the opposition is stone. cold. f–k. nuts.

  • 137. Steffi  |  January 27, 2010 at 9:12 am

    uuh Fiona that was mean. we wanna be nice to little kids, won't we? :)

  • 138. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 9:19 am

    I hope he doesn't get death threats either; however it can only help our cause……..sad but true.

    There was already a show of force yesterday by the religious right ha8ters…..granted it was just a shout out with the bible in hand …..but it will only get worse.

  • 139. George  |  January 27, 2010 at 9:59 am

    The real key is that the ballot measure took away an existing civil right. Under the CA constitution that can only be done if the moving party can show that there are significant ACTUAL damages. The CA Const. even spec ifies that they cannot be theoretical damages. So basing them on religious belief, rather than actual damages wekens the defense case. This shows that the defense is claims to damage if the gay marraige "experiment" continued are baseless.

  • 140. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 10:33 am

    George nobody believes you…you have been discredited just like Dr. Blank and Mr Miller(Light)

    Prop Ha8te was primarily funded for by the churches in America who do not pay taxes therefor it based on religious beliefs which is illegal….Thats is why defense has no case, no evidence, and only lies that they tried to hide but couldn't…..

    Baah Baah sheep!

  • 141. Richard  |  January 27, 2010 at 11:00 am

    They are including adoptive parents in with bio and tryng to passs that off as legitimate science? No wonder they are coming across as incompetent! This is absolute gross negligence.

  • 142. Terri  |  January 27, 2010 at 11:09 am

    well it was good for mine! And my children are fine by the way.. son in college and daughter on the way to being a doctor by the age of 26. Heck, I even talk to my ex on the phone now and at this point we get along better than we ever did when we were married!

  • 143. Liveblogging Day 12: Part&hellip  |  January 27, 2010 at 11:36 am

    […] [NOTE] A third thread is now up. […]

  • 144. Skemono  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    it’s all about the level of scrutiny and whether the voters acted rationally or not.

    Since even you admit above that the main reason for denying same-sex marriage–that marriage has a single, ages-old definition that must be upheld–is irrational, I believe we can conclude that no, they did not.

  • 145. cheapest tires&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 6:42 am

    How to car repair…

    […]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[…]…

  • 146. Alteril Review&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 7:36 am

    Steve’s Blog…

    […]underneath you’ll find the links to numerous sites that we believe you should really visit[…]…

  • 147. manboobs&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 9:25 am

    Mens Health and Fitness…

    […]although the sites we link to below are completely unconnected to ours, we believe they are deserving of a scan, so have a look[…]…

  • 148. porn&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    Watch it…

    […]Interesting info[…]…

  • 149. Free online games&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Check it out…

    […]while the sites we link to below are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look[…]…

  • 150. shadowgun madfinger apk&hellip  |  November 5, 2011 at 8:42 am

    shadowgun madfinger apk This is very interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your wonderful post. Also, I have shared your web site in my social networks! Best Regards Lawrence…

    This is very interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your wonderful post. Also, I have shared your web site in my social networks! Best Regards Lawrence…

  • 151. stress relief evangeline anderson pdf  |  March 7, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    To begin with, the system does not work for all people.
    Unknown to most people this issue is gaining more sufferers every year
    and around the world it is just a growing medical
    concern. It has helped more than 136,000 patients with its
    10 years of service.

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