Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

One Last Day of Testimony: Pugno Persists


by Brian Leubitz

Well, this should be the last day of testimony, and the defense’s case is looking pretty shabby so far. Unless Blankenhorn’s redirect is simply amazing, he’s also going to be a net loss for their side. But don’t worry, Pugno can tell you how it really is:

The afternoon brought the testimony of our second witness, David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, who provided his expertise on the institution of marriage, fatherhood and the family structure. He rejected the suggestion by plaintiffs that marriage is purely a private construct between two adults. Rather, he explained, marriage between a man and woman is a globally recognized and historically public institution. In fact, it is the only social relationship with a “biological foundation” found in the complementary nature of man and woman and their ability to procreate. Across all cultures and times, no other human relationship has been more closely connected to the ultimate goal of uniting the biological, social and legal dimensions of parenthood for the raising of children.

You’ll be shocked (shocked!) to know that Pugno doesn’t mention Blankenhorn’s cross examination where he goes on to say that “We would be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than the day before.” Pugno argues that their definition is the correct definition, the only definition. But Ted Olson puts the lie to that:

This is the game that they’re playing. They define marriage as a man and a woman. They call that the institution of marriage. So if you let a man marry a man and a woman marry a woman, it would de-institutionalize marriage. That is the same as saying you are deinstitutionalizing the right to vote when you let women have it. It’s a game. It’s a tautology. They’re saying, ‘this is the definition. You’re going to change the definition by allowing people access that don’t have it now, and that would change it so that people who currently have access won’t want it any more because it’s changed.’ This is all nonsense. They are not proving that. This is a syllogism that falls apart. The major premise, minor premise and conclusion are empty.

Pugno responds that voting didn’t really change when women were allowed to vote. History might disagree. The effects of women voting were pronounced and dramatic. The world, and this country specifically, would be a very different place without universal suffrage. But even if we take Pugno’s point on its surface, that the definition of marriage would be changed, it doesn’t take much more than a few google searches or a little time with a history book or two to realize that the concept of marriage is and has been a hodgepodge across the nations. Pugno’s definition, while perhaps true for him, needn’t be given more weight than the definition which excluded miscegenation or the definition of marriage that viewed women as property.

Marriage itself began as a way for humans, who were living in caves at the time, to be sure of paternity. In some societies, it became a virtual indentured servitude to the husband. For example, a simple Wikipedia search for marriage will net you several different definitions. The Comanches and Ancient Greeks used marriage to subjugate, the medieval Europeans saw love as antithetical to marriage, and used it as a means of sealing political bonds. In fact, early Christian rulers almost always forced their daughters and siblings into marriages for their games of political chess. The fact behind all this ranting is that you can only use tautology for so long. Eventually, you need some real facts. And throughout this entire case, all we’ve seen is more empty vessels. Even NPR remarked today that Blankenhorn was the fifth defense expert who ended up giving testimony that favored the plaintiffs.

Today, the dust should settle on the testimony, and the judge will move on to consider the evidence before him. We should get a date for closing arguments soon, but we will definitely keep you posted.


  • 1. Mr. HCI  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:09 am

    Would it be rude of me to call Mr. Pugno a slimeball?

  • 2. David  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:14 am

    Yes, it would, since it ad homonim – still I think the evidence speaks for itself.

  • 3. Ashley Sophia Huxley  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:15 am

    I've been following the blog nearly as closely as the Trial Tracker, and it becomes pretty clear that Pugno is a state of denial! It's quite tragic to read his blog after reading what happened in court.

    Their farce of trying to keep the public away from this matter is reflected by the fact that they do not allow commenting on their blog (perhaps because they know the articles would be ripped to shreds?!)

    Interesting stuff. Can't wait for more :-)

  • 4. ron1008  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:15 am

    Brian,Well spoken. My partner is Canadian,we are married in Ontario. I'm tired of the yearly treck we take. Keeping 2 homes and 2 lives. I'm 61. How long do u estimate this to take? 1yr-2yr- No, Yes, I don't know ? You seem well informed. What's your take?

  • 5. Adam  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:16 am

    Thanks for another great article, Brian. It's amazing the lengths that the Prop 8 side will go to keep people thinking that we're the ones with the hateful agenda, and not them. All so that they can label Judge Walker as an activist when they lose. I wonder if Jesus told them to lie like that?

  • 6. Vast Variety  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:19 am

    I think Andy is watching a version of the trial from Bizarro World.

  • 7. Dave T  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:20 am

    "You’re going to change the definition by allowing people access that don’t have it now, and that would change it so that people who currently have access won’t want it any more because it’s changed. This is all nonsense."

    I can speak to the fact that it's nonsense from personal experience: my wife and I were married in October 2008. We were actually excited to get a married license that says "Party A" and "Party B" (as opposed to "Man" & "Woman" or "Husband" & "Wife" or whatever it said before) since we see that as an important step toward equality. It's a small thing, but we see it as symbolic of an important step that the state of California needs to take (again).

    Incidentally, my wife & I would not fit a definition of "marriage" from 50 years ago, due to anti-miscegenation laws.

    I'm getting so sick of the proponent's arguments, which boil down to "that's the way marriage has always been", not recognizing a) that they're wrong, and b) that tradition is not an adequate justification for denying a class of people rights.

  • 8. David  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:21 am

    Yeah, and completely ignore the fact that Judge Walker was appointed by the first Mr. Bush.

  • 9. MordacP  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:23 am

    I don't think even Bizarro World is that far off the hinges as Pugno is.

  • 10. Felyx  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:25 am

    According to (re-)Pugno in his latest blog…

    "As held by more than 50 experts in the field, the best environment for a child is to be raised by a biological mother who is married to her biological father. "

    Seriously…he really says this! To bad he is not on the witness stand along with his experts…I wonder what the 'peer review' on Pugno would be?!!!


  • 11. Rightthingtodo TX  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:26 am

    the problem here is the transparency issue

    we all know what bull crap it is…but i'm guessing there are some of repugno blog readers who are rational and not totally blinded by hate, religion, etc…these folks can actually understand fact and logic…without transparency (broadcasting of the trial, opportunity to comment on his blog posts), these folks don't get the reality…they just get repugno's lies.

    perhaps a mirror of repugno's blog can be created whereby his actual posts are there but comments are able to be added. if it's named correctly, people on "their" side might stumble upon it and see the truth and possibly come into the light

  • 12. Doug  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:26 am

    From Pugno's blog. His lies are beginning to infuriate me!

    Their theory: that allowing the people to vote for or against ballot initiatives is unconstitutional because the voters on the losing side don’t get their way. So, they claim, Prop 8 violates the rights of gays and lesbians because they couldn’t get enough votes to defeat it at the ballot box. Seriously?

  • 13. David  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:27 am

    Thanks, Dave T, I appreciated your comments verty much and thanks for being here.
    David K.

  • 14. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:27 am

    The funniest thing is how delusional he is…..

    Mr. PUG-NO if you are reading this the truth always gets out….. You tried to hide your videos…..didn't work…..Where else has the truth been brought to light?

    1. Priests who molest boys but do not get thrown in jail.
    2. Governor McGreevy
    3. Bill C. and Monica L.
    4. Jon Edwards
    5. Liza's many gay husbands
    6. Ashley Dupree(now has her own column)
    7. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy…..not real.
    8. Karen Walkers actual age
    9. Meagan Mullally's real voice
    10. Tiger Woods is not perfect
    11. The Earth is round
    12. The Earth is not the center of the universe
    13. Evidence to support evolution

    If anybody has more of the truth that was brought to light feel free to share……

  • 15. truthspew  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:28 am

    Actually as I often like to point out, we're not changing the definition of marriage, but simply making a change to the prerequisites.

    That gets the religious nuts in a lather btw.

  • 16. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:28 am

    Sorry repost….

    The funniest thing is how delusional he is…..
    Mr. PUG-NO if you are reading this the truth always gets out….. You tried to hide your videos…..didn’t work…..Where else has the truth been brought to light?
    1. Priests who molest boys but do not get thrown in jail.
    2. Governor McGreevy
    3. Bill C. and Monica L.
    4. Jon Edwards
    5. Liza’s many gay husbands
    6. Ashley Dupree(now has her own column)
    7. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy…..not real.
    8. Karen Walkers actual age
    9. Meagan Mullally’s real voice
    10. Tiger Woods is not perfect
    11. The Earth is round
    12. The Earth is not the center of the universe
    13. Evidence to support evolution
    If anybody has more of the truth that was brought to light feel free to share……

  • 17. MarkOH  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:28 am

    I read the Protectmarriage blog this AM. No WONDER they have done everything possible to prevent people from seeing what is going on in the court.

    Mr. Pugno is doing his best trying to spin this but, if it wasn't so tragic, it would almost be funny. Its the "Emperors New Clothes" and he keeps telling everyone what a wonderful garment the Emperor is wearing.

    And the analogy to voting I think is brilliant. It is EXACTLY the same thing. Prior to women voting, many men felt that women were incapable of forming logical conclusions and that by allowing women to vote, America would change the basic (traditional) definition of voting. Course, it was also changed when we allowed non-white, non-land owning men to vote as well.

  • 18. rf  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:29 am

    Ashley, you also can't find the trial transcripts on their site. Since they are available, that's the dead giveaway that they know they're wrong.

    In fact, just telling people that AFER has the official transcripts while pm does not should be all the argument anyone needs to prove that one side is fighting honorably and the other is not.

  • 19. Will  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:29 am

    I wonder, what the weather is like on the RePugno planet. This man is unbelievable. I just want to know, how people like him live with themselves. How can they walk down the street, and look into other people's eyes after what they've said and done?

  • 20. rf  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:30 am

    The earth is round? Sherri Shepard might have something to say about that.

  • 21. Richard  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:30 am

    Yes, but then, you know that re-Pug-NO! is going to spin this in any way he can to keep his money rolling i from the LDS church. And it is also telling that in order to make any comments at all, their sheep are having to come to this site. I still wonder whether they got the "attorneys" and "witnesses" at WallyWorld, Big Lots, or a KMart 2 for 1 Blue Light Special? Or are they intentionally trying to throw the case at the 9th District level in the hopes of being able to sway the Supremes?

  • 22. Mike  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:31 am

    YES !!!

    Quite rude

    As a tax-paying and law-abiding heterosexual Republican Christian slimeball, I am quite insulted by being compare to Mr re-Pugno-ant !

    True American and patriotic slimeballs do not twist the facts in order to bend the Constitution to our liking.

    The Constitution is for ALL the People….White, Blacks, Hispanics, Mormons, Christians,Hindi, Muslims, Agnostics, Men, Women, Transgender, Straight, Gay, ect……even for us, the Slimeballs !!!

    If Mr re-Pugno-ant is able to marry (…I wonder how many lies and mischaracterizations he told his bride), then not only should Lesbians & Gays be allowed to marry….but also slimeballs like me !

    Please support us by making a contribution to USAPF
    United Slimeballs of America Patriotic Front.

  • 23. Richard  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:31 am

    No, you would actually be very kind to him. Even slimeballs are a higher life form.

  • 24. Doug  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:33 am

    That's a great idea. I'd do it today but I'm afraid I don't have the resources to defend myself when they decide to sue me (and you know they will)

  • 25. Richard  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:34 am

    You just proved my point that slimeballs are a MUCH higher life fom than Re-Pug-NO

  • 26. Jenny O  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:35 am

    I'm not surprised with how Pugno swung things in his statement. He can't very well tell Prop 8 supporters that their two remaining witness "experts" where thrashed during cross-examination. Doing so would only show them that they have no case and discredit the BS they've worked so hard to feed to us. He has to make it look like there are just reasons for their discrimination and prejudice, when all the facts and real experts show that there isn't.

    I love what you said about the definition of marriage. Marriage has changed in so many ways and saying that it isn't an individualized, adult-centric concept today is just wrong. My sister just married her high school sweet-heart last summer and she didn't do so because they wanted to create children (although maybe someday they will want that), they did it because they LOVE each other and want to spend their lives together in this powerful "institution".

    The Catholic Church are such hypocrites when it comes to marriage. They state that married couples must be open to children (and cite that as one of their reasons against same-sex marriage), yet they allow sterile couples and elderly couples to marry. Not only that, but they actively teach a class called "natural family planning" where they teach married or soon to be married couples how to avoid having children without using contraception. Then, they make the case that marriage is primarily about children. Please…

    Marriage has evolved in so many ways. Today, most people get married for LOVE. Or maybe we should go back to marriage as it was in the bible: polygamous, levirate marriage, where women were nothing more than property to be traded and valued for nothing except their ability to pop out babies- scratch that- their ability to pop our sons. As a women, I will not stand for "traditional marriage".

    My sister and her husband are so happy to be married and had a wonderful and fun celebration. Who am I to deny that to anyone else?

    *whew* long post… i guess i have a lot on my mind this morning.

    Thanks again for all you guys are doing!
    Much Love,

  • 27. James Sweet  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:36 am

    The quote from Olson is very well articulated. Love it!

  • 28. Linda  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:37 am

    if lying were illegal in campaigns- this would all just go away… they'd have no argument at all.

  • 29. David  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:37 am

    Or are they intentionally trying to throw the case at the 9th District level in the hopes of being able to sway the Supremes?
    I dunno, but it does seem odd to most of here too!

  • 30. ZackFord  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:37 am

    Here's my full analysis of Pugno's post:

  • 31. James Sweet  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Yeah, and that would be a winnable lawsuit, actually. Replicating the blog in whole is not fair use, especially since you could just link to the original blog.

    It's a travesty that Pugno — and everybody else on the other side — doesn't allow comments. But copyright violation is not going to get ya anywhere :)

  • 32. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:41 am

    What i wonder is that since the church does not have to pay taxes who is it that they can donate to something that has to do with politics and civil rights….

    If you ask me this whole prop ha8te movement should be deemed illegal and all involved thrown in jail or exiled out of America.

    Do they even pay taxes? you know from what gets donated because they have

    I mean I raised money for the Hyacinth(spelling) Foundation but still needed to deduct taxes wile I was ably to attach it as a right off.

    I don't know this smells fishy and illegal.

  • 33. M_A,B,Cx2,J,L,ox3 gg  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:41 am

    Well, if they have that kind of thinking process our society will be push to to the Ancient, Middle and Dark Ages. Their no progress in that concept or principles. It is like going back to the slavery that they don't have any freedom as individual parallel to the Marriage Equality between same sex couple in a discriminatory and hateful practice if this will not pass in the Supreme Court of SF. Thereby, creating a second class citizen here in the United States of America, which "we advocate civil rights, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the 14th Ammendment."

  • 34. Alan E.  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:42 am

    and c) the bible can't be your only justification if you want to make a legal argument.

  • 35. James Sweet  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:42 am

    As was pointed out to me yesterday (I did not know this), there will be no more witness testimony in the appeals. The appeals must be based on what has already been entered into record at this trial.

    I still think this explains Thompson's and Nielsen's tedious and over-long cross-examinations (who cares if it pissed off Judge Walker, they are just trying to get as much entered into the record as possible for ammo in 9th Circuit and SCOTUS), but as far as "throwing" this trial with unfavorable witnesses?? No way.

  • 36. James Sweet  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:43 am

    Who decides what's a lie and what isn't?

    As much as I would love for lying in campaigns to be illegal, I don't see a way to do it without creating a chilling effect on legitimate speech. Don't think for a second that if lying in political campaigns were outlawed (and it would have to be via a constitutional amendment, btw) that the bad guys wouldn't use that as a mechanism to sue people for telling the truth.

  • 37. Richard  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:44 am

    Oh, really. Andy really has this delusion that being with the biological mother and father is ALWAYS best for the child? If that is so, then why did I just read in the Fayetteville Observer here in North Carolina, that a 38-year-old woman is now in jail under a $5,000 bond (way oo low in my opinion) for beating her biological daughter with an extension cord, and her biological son with a curtain rod, leaving bruises on both of them, and cuts on her daughter? There are times when the people biologically responsible for bringing a child into this world may not have the emotional stability to actually raise the children. On the other hand, I know of many gay and lesbian couples with children whose children grow up to be doctors, lawyers, and other professional careers, and they are totally well-adjusted, happy people who are able to be very productive becaause they were raised in an atmosphere where they knew they were loved. It is love that makes the difference, not the gender of the parents.

  • 38. Linda  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:45 am

    that gives me chills… scary

  • 39. george  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:46 am

    What's the lie?

    Part of plaintiffs constitutional claim is that homoexuals are politically powerless.

    Pugno's saying that the mere fact that the homosexual movement has not been successful in changing the definition of marriage in most states does not mean that the homosexual movement lacks political power. The GLBT movement has shown time and again over the past 3 decades how much political power they have.

    Just because you lose on a specific issue does not render you powerless. That's the argument. Seriously.

  • 40. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:47 am

    Oddjob mentioned this way back on — I think — Day 1, but it deserves mentioning again and again, espcially when we discuss the idea of marriage and 'Biblical sanctions' against it. The society that Leviticus was written for was polygamous (in fact, polygynous, for the most part.) Before you talk with a believing friend, actually read Leviticus 18. and then remind him of the distinctions between 'mother' and 'father's wife' or the warnings about taking your wife's sister as a 'rival wife.' (For those of you who use the KLV, realize — as the NIV shows — that 'uncover her nakedness' means 'have sex with.') For that matter, point out that it is necessary to point out that 'the daughter of your father' and 'the daughter of your mother' are both your sister — explicable only in a polygamous society.

    Then quote the opening of Titus and 1 Timothy when they argue "but that doesn't involve Christians and the 'New Covenant.'"

    Both (which the believer will believe were written by Paul — most scholars argue they are later, but no need to argue that) give 'special rules' for 'elders' — or 'bishops' or 'overseers' depending on the translation, in other words, 'heads of local congregations.'

    And both make — as special rules — the requirement that such 'elders' be 'the husband of but one wife.' It is in Chapter 3 of 1 Timothy, btw.

    Think about it. To use the sort of analogy I love, if you belong to a society of lawyers, you don't have to make a requirement that 'the head of it' must be a lawyer. But if yoy make a requirement for the same club — because you want only the best in leadership positions (an exact analogy to the opening in Timithy and Titus) — that the head must have a Juris Doctor degree, that means that the ordinary member does not need a J.D.

    (A side note that you won't need for your argument, but the small fragment of Josephus' autobiography we have confirms this as true — at least in the upper classes of Jerusalem which Josephus is so proud to belong to. And Josephus was born about when Jesus died so when he makes the special point, talking about his brother, that he is both the son of his father and of his mother, this is very telling.)

  • 41. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:49 am


  • 42. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:52 am



  • 43. Marcia  |  January 27, 2010 at 1:59 am

    And let's not forget those wonderful mom-and-dad Christian parents who throw their underaged gay offspring out to fend for themselves.

  • 44. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:02 am

    George spewed, "The GLBT movement has shown time and again over the past 3 decades how much political power they have. "

    Yeah, look at all that power … with 31 states having discriminatory, anti-GLBT laws on the books and all, and having the right to marry STRIPPED FROM THEM by a bigoted ballot measure.

    Yeah, that's power all right.



  • 45. Alan E.  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:03 am

    Thanks Zach. I have been working my way through your posts about the trial since I discovered it the other day.

  • 46. Felyx  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:03 am

    Point well taken and true enough.

    I was actually commenting that his lack of linguistic skills are implying that children should be the product of a man and his daughter….i.e. incest. I am fairly certain he might not have meant to say that….maybe, but it is disturbing none the less. (The incest as well as his very poor ability to speak!)

  • 47. James Sweet  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:04 am

    Gays are powerful! And Christians are persecuted!

    Well, BIZARRO-persecuted, that is!

  • 48. Marcia  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:05 am

    What kind of a "blog" is protectmarriage running? Every single post I looked at said "Comments off". That isn't a blog; it's just a web page devoted to one person's speechifying.

  • 49. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:08 am

    DING DING DING DING!……….You hit it right on the nose!

  • 50. Felyx  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:16 am

    I live in Burnsville I remember the case. My Hetero parents were the most skilled either for raising children but the Catholic church seemed not to mind. Too bad I couldn't just wish them a fond fairwell and found a set of parents that would have wanted me.

    Thanks for the comment. :)

  • 51. John D  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:25 am

    But someone could start a blog for comments only.

    Each post could have a rewritten (not plagiarized) summary of each of Pugno's posts, followed by a link to the original post.

    Cite his name wherever appropriate, as well as "Prop 8" and the names of whomever is testifying.

    And allow comments.

    They can't sue you for linking to their content.

  • 52. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:25 am

    Can't the public just read the transcripts like WE are????

    If people really care enough to find the truth about this trial, the truth is available.

    This goes to what I was speaking about and got a bit of flack from people about a few days ago.


    All of this 'we're just trying to 'protect' marriage' stuff is simply B.S. This is not now and never WAS about marriage. I would have an ounce of respect if they'd just come clean about that.

    Prop 8 was about showing a group of society that they are 'less than' heterosexuals via the law. It is about implementing different sets of laws for different groups of people in an attempt to keep those people marginalized and disenfranchised.

    Marriage was simply the way they chose to implement that.

    But they forgot to consider the laws of this nation and our Constitution before doing so.

    See, folks. That document applies to ALL. We could have saved 83 million dollars on Prop 8 ALONE had anti-gay heterosexuals done their research on that one.

    All that money spent for anti-gay heterosexuals to ATTACK their LGTB creations. But not a penny of it to actually 'protect the children' so many are screaming their heads off about.

    Kind of sickening.

  • 53. george  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:26 am

    Ronnie said, "STFU…"

    Very nice.

    Look, someone asked whether Pugno was serious, and I replied with an explanation that explains his position.

    It's good for you to know what the other side is thinking rather than just stroking yourselves and believing that the defense lawyers are just stupid. Never underestimate your opponent; you'll just be disappointed in the end.

  • 54. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:31 am

    My biological Dad beat the crap out of me nearly every day and my biological Mom took Valium and slept her life away so she would not have to deal with her husband beating the hell out of her children.

    So, I can see how it's always best for children to 'know and be known by' their biological parents.


  • 55. Irving  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:32 am

    Here's what I don't understand. (Apologies if this has been covered previously.)

    Let's say, for the sake of argument, that same-sex marriage WOULD "de-institutionalize" marriage. Okay. So what? By that I mean, how did that become the criterion on which the matter is judged?

    What if it could have been determined that allowing women to vote would have led to fewer men voting (just as they are saying that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will result in fewer straight people choosing to get married)? Would that have made granting the franchise to women any less fair? Would it have made continuing to exclude them any more constitutional?

    The Constitution requires us to uphold certain principles, not the status quo of marriage.

  • 56. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:39 am

    The fact they they do not even allow comments is proof enough that they are aware that they have performed poorly.

    And by poorly, I am being kind.

  • 57. george  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:41 am

    Actually, the argument is that the IDEAL environment is for a child to be raised by two loving biological parents. Don't interject "always" into the argument; the point is that we should strive for the ideal, not give up on it because some people don't achieve the ideal.

  • 58. Bill  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Dear George,

    Blah, blah, snore. AGAIN.

    Planet Earth

  • 59. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:54 am

    In point of fact, George, that was NOT the argument that Blankenhorn made. Let me refresh your memory. Just yesterday, he opined that even if the child was living in a situation of poverty, neglect and abuse, it was better to be in a home with two-opposite sex parents. Does that ring any bells for you?

  • 60. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 2:56 am

    George, dear, we *know* what the opposition thinks.

    Now, why don't you go color while the adults talk.


  • 61. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:04 am

    George STFU stand for:





    So I was being nice….TROLL

  • 62. E. Thor Carlson  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:10 am

    They are trying to show a "compelling State interest" which is required in order to discriminate against a suspect class of citizens. i.e.: That if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, straight people won't get married. This will lead a whole host of problems, (out-of-wedlock babies, etc.) for society up-to and including the end of the good old US of A.

  • 63. Irving  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:13 am

    And a "compelling state interest" trumps the Constitution?

  • 64. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:22 am

    And there goes the ignorance of George again…. with that logic the orphans and children who have been confiscated my the government from drug addict, alcoholic, and abusive bio parents get left out in the cold….



  • 65. Joe  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Most beautiful is Merriam-Webster's definition of marriage:

    Main Entry: mar·riage
    Pronunciation: ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
    Date: 14th century

    1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

    The definition was never changed. It was merely appended.

  • 66. Richard  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:40 am

    But George, you are not taking into account that this is not the only loss we have suffered. Everytime "THE CHRUCH" gets involved in politics, and uses their mistranslated, Queen James Version to back themselves up with, we lose. It is always like this. Okay, so we have a few elected officials in place. That gives us visiblility. But we have NO REAL POWER> That is what you fail to see–the difference between political visiblility and political power. And as for not giving up on the IDEAl just because a few fall short. If it is only "a few" who fall short of the ideal, then why in the sam hell are so many men in prison for rapping their own biological chilren? Why are so many men in prison for beating their wives and killing their biological children? You can't answer that with your fifth-rate "law" certificate, can you?

  • 67. Richard  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:46 am

    Joe, if you ever get out to the Ft. Bragg area of North Carolina, look us up and we will take you out to lunch at Jason's Deli for that comment. Total brilliance. this is what we have been trying to let people know all along. we have not changed the definition of marriage, just appended (or expanded) it. BRAVO!!!

  • 68. Joe  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:46 am

    If they did, IMHO they really f'd that one up. The only person who tried to make that point had almost zero credibility, could not state anything to the fact, and wouldn't even had been admitted into evidence had it been a jury trial. Indeed any "experts" he quoted were from 40 years ago that have long been refuted by our actual experts.

  • 69. Joe  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:50 am

    Thank you! If you're on Facebook, you should check out my response to last week's "I found it on the Internet" post. :-)

  • 70. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:07 am

    @Richard … paraphrasing Grandpa Joe in "Willie Wonka":

    If George is a lawyer, I'm a vermicious kenid.

  • 71. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:08 am

    @Irving: In order to trump the Constitution, a compelling state interest must be demonstrated. For example (I disagree with this, BTW), states that have the death penalty maintain that it trumps the Constitutional guarantee that no one will be deprived of life, liberty or property because they say that there is a compelling state interest in deterring additional crime by executing criminals.

    If no innocent person had ever been executed, this would make more sense … but that's how the argument works.

  • 72. Pyoung  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:08 am

    I love learning about the varieties of "marriage" and "family structure" in the world now and throughout history. Lets not forget "walking marriages" the Jaintia sub-tribe of the Khasi people of Meghalaya in north-east India and the Mosuo ethnic minority of China. Basically men and women are lovers but a man and woman don't "head the household." Households are headed by women, and men live in the house of their mother and help raise the children of their sisters. Yes, not quite SSM, but just another way to show the varieties of ways humans have adapted to take care of their clans.

  • 73. David in Houston  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:11 am

    "The GLBT movement has shown time and again over the past 3 decades how much political power they have."
    So, George… if GLBT citizens have so much power, then why do DOMA and DADT even exist? Both of these laws discriminate against GLBT at the government level; and trickle down to the state and city levels in most cases. I'd hardly call that GLBT political power.

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

    Thanks, Richard, I'll have to let my law school know that they're "5th-rate." Lots of high-powered lawyers in my city would be surprised to hear that.

    Let's say that HALF of heterosexual parents are bad parents, the ideal is still a child being brought up with his loving parents. What would you say if the murder rate quadrupled? That we should just legalize murder because people obviously can't meet the ideal?

    Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships for gays are not favored by most churches, yet the GLBT advocates have managed to win those fights.

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

    Also referred to as "visiting marriages."

    The American Anthropological Association published two scholarly papers back in 2004. They are referred to on the website but no longer linked. One was called "Marriage: An Elastic Institution" and the other was called "Marriage: The Missing Man." These are out there on the web on numerous sites.

    Check 'em out!

  • 76. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:22 am

    TROLL!!!!! George what we are saying is most heteros are not paragons of virtue considering that the bible says thall shall not judge….which they do…..Do onto others as you would want done onto yourself….you trow out words of hate, prejudice, discrimination but when we return the favor we are the one who are wrong (HYPOCRITES!)

    And if you lawyers such as yourself (which i don't believe) are so high powered then why aren't you helping the defense who so clearly need it.


  • 77. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:25 am

    Told you so!…..George do you see this….or are you going to take the bigot route and see what you want, only the first line………..


  • 78. A  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:53 am

    "They can’t sue you for linking to their content." –JohnD

    Well, they can try (there have been cases!), but they'll lose…

  • 79. Jane  |  January 27, 2010 at 8:54 am

    having head lice makes your head itch, therefore, all people who scratch their heads have head lice….

    that’s what the conclusion MUST BE and it cannot be any other way. Some friends and I sat in a office, talked to eachother about it, wrote papers about it, then read eachothers papers and now we’re all experts and for the right price we’ll testify to it.

    Please don’t cross examine us asking if we’re doctors, lice experts or if we’ve ever seen what a lice looks like.

  • 80. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 10:24 am

    I just made this statement to my mother I felt the need to share it after watching the video together posted by straight ally #3008…….. .

    The people who are against same sex marriage and equality continue to ignore the simple fact that this is about human. EVERYONE!

    It hurts not just LGBT people whose lives are destroyed by these anti-equality laws.

    It hurts our kids, not just teens but babies, infants, toddlers, 5yo's, 10yo's!…… those of who have children…..

    It hurts our heterosexual friends, families, co-workers, neighbors, supporters and their families and kids……

    It hurts us not just those who have been in relationships for years but those of us who are single and do have dreams of finding mr/mrs perfect and be just as committed as others

    We are teens, 20 somethings, Over the hilliers, Baby boomers, Black, white, asian, latino, muslim, straight, gay, transexual, lesbian, bisexual, religious, non-religious, left handed, right handed, brunette, blonde, black haired, red haired, blue haired, HUMAN.


  • 81. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    He said it!!!!!!!! Obama Said it!!!!!
    The Bigots are DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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