Equality On TrialLiveblogging Day 3 Part IV: Therese Stewart Rocks ...

Liveblogging Day 3 Part IV: Therese Stewart Rocks …

January 13, 2010

By Paul Hogarth

By Paul Hogarth

More of SF Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart’s redirect examination of Professor Chauncey.

C: In 2004, I had written optimistically that marriage equality was on the way … but since then, with the number of states passing constitutional amendments I am less inclined to believe this.

S: Mr. Thompson talked about religious organizations that supported marriage equality. What were some of the churches against marriage equality?

C: Baptists, Catholic Church — a whole range of religious groups that represent far more people than supportive churches.

S: [Quoting from a Vatican document re: recognition of same-sex unions.] Please read this:

C: [Reading Vatican statement] “There are no grounds to believe homosexual unions are equivalent to God’s plan to marriage and family. Homosexual unions” [more on how homosexuality is sinful and immoral]

S: Please read the Vatican statement re: allowing children

C: “Allowing children being adopted by gay couples would do violence to these children. Their condition of dependency would stunt their full human development.”

S: Please read the Vatican statement of legal recognition of gay unions:

C: “Legal recognition would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior — but would obscure basic values that …”

S: Are these statements more “moderate” views of homosexuality?

C: Compared to some statements, they are. But they express the fundamental view of gays being inferior.

S: Dr. Chauncey, this is a resolution from Southern Baptist Convention re: same-sex marriage. Please read fourth pargagraph:

C: “Whereas legalizing same-sex marriage would be societal approval of homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible calls sinful.”

S: Read the next resolution. [She asks him to quote from various excerpts of Southern Baptist REsolutions.]

C: “We oppose all media efforts to mainstream homosexuality … Whereas legalizing gay marriage denies the fundamental sinfulness of homosexuality … We urge all Christian pastors in California to speak out against homosexuality, and the urgent need to protect Biblical marriage. We pray the people of California to right this terrible wrong that the Supreme Court imposed.”

S: Are all these consistent with the religious beliefs voiced in support of Prop 8?

C: Yes.

S: Assume religious beliefs in favor of Prop 8 are sincere. Would you say they derive from stereotypical views of gays?

C: Yes.

S: When religious people supported segregation and opposed interracial marriage, was that also rooted in prejudice?

C: Yes. These beliefs, though sincere, are shaped by the culture that they believe. I don’t question the sincerity of people in the South who believed that interracial marriage was against God’s will.

S: Has there been significant progress? Is there still significatn discrimination against gays?

C: Yes and yes.

[Stewart wants to show video of Mr. Tam, a Prop 8 supporter. Thompson objects, because Chauncey had not been deposed on this subject. Stewart says Thompson opened the door on the subject by trying to argue there are non-bigoted reasons for supporting Prop 8. T says that Mr. Tam had “nothing to do with the campaign” (although Mr. Tam was an official proponent of Prop 8.) S vigorously disagrees with Thompson’s assertion that Mr. Tam had “nothing to do with the campaign.”]

This must be some pretty explosive stuff — if they’re objecting so strenuously to this.

Judge appears to agree that, given that Tam was an “official proponent” it should be viewed. Moreover, Stewart points out that Thompson opened the door, by asking Chauncey to comment on Prejean’s earlier comments. Judge agrees to view it.

BEGIN DR. TAM VIDEO:

So far, nothing too exciting. This is a video of Dr. Tam’s deposition in the lawsuit (12/01/2009.) Tam says he became an official proponent of Prop 8, because ProtectMarriage.com invited him. As an official proponent, he dedicated substantial resources. He organized several rallies — attended by thousands of voters (aggregate) — coordinated volunteers from Asian American community and raised a lot of money. Tam says he communicated with Ron Prentice, Frank Schubert and Andrew Pugno. Tam is explaining the dissemination of info to churches about the “Yes on 8” rallies. Various pastors spoke at the rally. Mentions that Ron Prentice spoke at several of the rallies. Tam also says he authored a lot of writings for the passage of Prop 8, and sent it to Chinese newspapers.

Tam is now being asked to read one of the flyers he wrote.

[INTERRUPT VIDEO]

Now, Stewart is asking Chauncey to read the same flyer. [JUDGE WON’T LET HIM READ IT OUT LOUD.]

S: Do you believe that this flyer reveals more hostility towards gays than what we’ve talked about?

C: No. It talks about the right to marry leading to prostitution and having sex with children. And gay marriage is a product of San Francisco government run by homosexuals. This “repeats the theme” of a long history of “anti-gay demonization.”

[RESUME VIDEO]First paragraph of Tam’s flyer: “SF city government is under rule of homosexuals. After legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What next?” Dr. Tam confirms that he wrote that. What does gay agenda mean to you, Mr. Tam?

“Do you believe that part of the gay agenda is the legalizing of sex with children?” Yes, says Mr. Tam. Tam is the Executive Director of the Traditional Families Coalition — which advocated the passage of Prop 8.[INTERRUPT VIDEO]

Now, Stewart wants Chauncey to look at the second paragraph of that “Message from Bill Tam.” It says the education curriculum in Alameda County will “brainwash” children into supporting gay marriage.

[RESUME VIDEO] Dr. Tam says he participated in three public debates on Prop 8. He was asked by ProtectMarriage.com to take part in that debate. Now, they’re asking Tam to look at a news article about the Prop 8 debate — Tam was quoted that children would be harmed if Prop 8 fails, because they would be “exposed to homosexuality.” Tam agrees with that statement.

Tam says: “If same sex marriage is legalized, every child will grow up thinking they can either marry John or Jane. That would cause a lot of problems for the parents. I also talked about the problem of 1st graders attending a wedding of two lesbians.” [INTERRUPT VIDEO]

S: Regarding whether children can think they can grow up gay. What do you think?

C: It’s consistent with the major ads in the Prop 8 campaigns — it reinforces the deep fear that simple exposure to same-sex marriage will lead children to become gay. The phrasing here is that the issue here is not just marriage itself — but overall acceptance of homosexuality. They’re not afraid of just gay marriage. They’re afraid of kids learning about gay people.

[RESUME VIDEO] Dr. Tam: “We believe civil rights to be about skin color — something you can’t change. My concern is that if homosexuals will define themselves as another minority. That to me is a concern.”

Lawyer now quotes Tam saying “gay marriage will encourage kids to expeirment with the gay lifestyle — which carries with it all sorts of disease.” Tam confirms that he said this, and then says it means “that kids will be able to have an option. That they will be able to choose who they can marry. My daughter told me kids in her school that girls who had problems dating boys, can just go ahead and try girls. So children did experiment.”

What do you mean by diseases? “I meant sexually transmitted diseases.” Tam says it’s very easy to “find reports” online that gays have a “higher proportion” of getting AIDS and syphillis than straight people. [INTERRUPT VIDEO]

Stewart asks Chauncey — How does the messaging relate to prior messaging of antipathy towards gay people?

C: It’s pretty consistent we’ve seen in earlier campaigns. The theme that homosexuality is a choice. That children are exposed to homosexuals in any form are likely to become homosexuals — deep fear of instability of children’s sexuality. It’s premised on a notion of inequality and a strong hostility towards homosexuality. [References Anita Bryant]

[RESUME VIDEO] Tam is being shown Traditional Families Coalition newsletter, and he agrees he had editorial control over this document. The newsletter speaks out against Brokeback Mountain for disseminating the notion that homosexual affairs are “more noble” than traditional affairs. In Scandinavia, said Tam in newsletter, gays teamed up with liberal politicians to lower the age of consent for sex and legalized prositution — which demeaned marriage. [INTERRUPT VIDEO]

Thompson objects the relevance of submitting the next document. Judge sustains the objection.

[RESUME VIDEO] Mr. Tam’s columns are published in Chinese Christian Herald. And he wrote a book called “America, Return to God.” In these columns, Tam said that “children would benefit the most” if Prop 8 passes, because the children would then have “both sexes” as parents which is “good role models.” Kids adopted by gay couples (which will happen if Prop 8 fails) do not have “two genders” as parents. Now, plaintiffs’ attorneys are showing Tam columns he wrote about “parenting.” [INTERRUPT VIDEO]

Thompson objects, because we don’t know when those columns were written – and that Tam’s first language is not English. Judge tells Stewart that we have “exhausted this topic.”

[UPDATE] 12:06 Stewart asks Chauncey if there’s any messaging that Tam has mentioned tha ..

C: It re-inforces for me that, while gay marriage was the topic at hand, the arguments being made for Prop 8 were really about gay rights. It expressed the kind of hostility of homosexuality, and draws on the long history of hostility and fear.

S: Based on your knowledge of history, has there been a gay agenda?

C: That term was used to support referenda that overturn gay rights measures [Anita Bryant, et al].

S: In Mr. Thompson’s questions, he asked about Christian teachings that “everyone is a sinner.” Have there ever been efforts that try to forbid adulterers of the right to marry?

C: No, I’m not aware of that.

S: What did you mean in your books about “erased”?

C: For a long time, there was no real study of gay history. It was actively discouraged, even within my career. I found when I wanted to write a dissertation on gay history, it would be “career suicide.” When I got a professor job in 1991, I was only the second in the country to get a tenured-track job in LGBT studies. There’s very limited literature to study on that.

[LUNCH BREAK — WE WILL RESUME AT 1:40 PM]

Tags: David Thompson, George Chauncey, Terry Stewart

Liveblogging Day 3 Part III: Even More on... Lunch Break: They Write Letters, Haiti Edition

326178 Comments2010-01-13+19%3A01%3A54Paul+Hogarth

1. Brian | January 13, 2010 at 4:04 am

This is wonderful. The real test of her mettle will be in cross-examination of defense witnesses… I'm sure we will all be sending her our best vibes for that!
2. Mary Lee | January 13, 2010 at 7:38 pm

For those of us that have wondered what the other side is saying look below.

National Review Online: Prop 8's Hurtle: Judge's Bias

Prop 8 was not passed by Protect Marriage; it was passed by 7 million voters. What's really on trial is the rationality of their decision.

by Maggie Gallagher
Here's my column on the Prop 8 trial. As Ed Whelan ably points out, the trial judge is in the tank for gay marriage, judging by the one-sided burdens he has imposed on the supporters of Prop 8, which make no constitutional sense.
Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled that the private intentions — which were never communicated to voters — of Protect Marriage campaign members could be the legitimate subject of a trial. Dozens of people I know in California have had all their e-mails and personal correspondence subpoenaed in an exercise that raises considerably the costs of participating in the democratic process, and for no constitutional purpose: Prop 8 was not passed by Protect Marriage; it was passed by 7 million voters. What's really on trial is the rationality of their decision.

And why is the trial being televised, given that so many Californians have already been subjected to what the Heritage Foundation calls "harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry"?

Who will stand up for the core civil rights of the people of California and the rest of the U.S. to participate in democracy without fear? Not Judge Walker. Copyright 2010 The National Review. To see more, visit http://www.nationalreview.com/.

© Copyright 2010, NPR
3. Mary Lee | January 13, 2010 at 7:40 pm

Yes it was passed by 7 million voters. All of which were lied to and manipulated by fear and bigitry.
4. Patrick Regan | January 13, 2010 at 4:04 am

Paul… you are a wonderful man.
5. RW in LGB | January 13, 2010 at 4:10 am

Now THIS is powerful stuff. It makes Thompson's cherry-picking and straw-grasping look completely ridiculous.

Thérèse Stewart, go in there and kick ass for all of us!!!
6. sean Flanigan | January 13, 2010 at 4:13 am

dear lord the catholic church is commenting on the safety of children really?
7. Patrick Regan | January 13, 2010 at 4:16 am

I know… the irony is just dripping.
8. GT | January 13, 2010 at 4:17 am

Seriously, when is someone going to call them out on that!
9. Alan E. | January 13, 2010 at 4:19 am

They would, but it's not relevant to the case. All they wanted to show was the official opinion and the vitriol behind it.
10. JoeInOakland | January 13, 2010 at 4:13 am

I want to marry Therese Stewart. Pun intended.
11. Calvin | January 13, 2010 at 4:15 am

Thanks so much Paul!! Your transcriptions are wonderful. I'm getting Twitter updates, but they're all bits and pieces. There's much more here. Thank you very much.
12. Dr. Lao | January 13, 2010 at 4:18 am

"Judge appears to agree that, given that Tam was an “official proponent” it should be viewed. Judge agrees to view it." HOT DAMN!
13. Warren | January 13, 2010 at 4:19 am

Yes! They opened the door to let the hate be admitted into the record!!! That testimony just showed the anti-gay animus behind prop8. I don't know if they need to do more!?! (though I'm sure they will!)
14. Irvine, CA | January 13, 2010 at 4:20 am

Marriage isn't about love.
You can be in love and not be married.
You can be married and not be in love.

Marriage isn't about sex.
You can have sex and not be married.
You can be married and not have sex.

Marriage isn't about children.
You can have children and not be married.
You can be married and not have children.

Marriage isn't about religion.
You can be an atheist and be married.
You can be married without a preacher.

Marriage isn't about vows.
You can make vows without being married.
You can be married without vows, only an "I Do".

You don't need rings to be married.
You can wear rings without being married.
You can be married without exchanging rings.

Marriage is about property, kinship and inheritance. The marriage license is an application for State and Federal benefits granted a specific class of people. All arguments about love, romance, reproduction, religious dogma and family values are PERSONAL BAGGAGE and cultural ignorance of the legal reasons for marriage. Arguments that aren't about property, kinship and inheritance are moot and it's upsetting that those points are being allowed in court to the virtual exclusion of the law and the spirit of the law itself.

Denying US Citizens benefits granted other US Citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Denying gays benefits because they offend the sensibilities of bigots is no more valid than denying the bigots the same benefits because "I" am offended by them.
15. gabe g | January 13, 2010 at 4:31 am

Thank you! I second that.
16. Helen in Ireland | January 13, 2010 at 4:46 am

Irvine – civil partnerships are to be debated here in Ireland, with the Iona Centre (an anti-gay Catholic mouthpiece) ready to pull all the usual stunts. This logical diatribe is a perfect rebuttal – may I forward this (with credit given) to one of our marriage equality groups?
17. Irvine, CA | January 13, 2010 at 6:17 am

Please do! Erin go bragh!
18. Brad | January 13, 2010 at 4:51 am

"Denying gays benefits because they offend the sensibilities of bigots is no more valid than denying the bigots the same benefits because “I” am offended by them."

Wow! That's succinct and powerful.
19. Kristina C | January 13, 2010 at 4:56 am

Thirded! Well stated.
20. Catherine | January 13, 2010 at 5:13 am

Exactly. Thank you very much for this.
21. Brad | January 13, 2010 at 5:15 am

I just posted that one quote to my Facebook page because I found it so stirring. Thank you, Irvine.
22. Sarah | January 13, 2010 at 6:00 am

Couldn't this be used as an argument for civil unions and against marriage? If it isn't about any of those things won't they say a civil union would suffice?
23. Irvine, CA | January 13, 2010 at 6:21 am

Thanks for the critical thinking, Sarah!

At that point you get into the separate-but-equal issue which has already been found repugnant to the Constitution in the same way black and white drinking fountains are. So no worries. 😛
24. keithincali | January 13, 2010 at 2:48 pm

I read that Judge Walker was intrigued about how the government was in the business of marriage and said that maybe they should get out of the business all together and then this argument would be moot. I couldn't agree more. Everyone should be issued civil partnerships and make that the only legal way couples are recognized. If anyone wished to get a religious marriage they could in their church but it would have no legal standing. They could keep their own church from marrying same sex couples so their marriage would remain "special" to them.
25. jack | January 20, 2010 at 10:44 am

SNAP!

You're my new favorite person. Couldn't have phrased any of this better myself.
26. Daniel | January 13, 2010 at 4:22 am

What is the Tam video? Is it on youtube?
27. Rachael | January 13, 2010 at 5:09 am

I can't find anything except Mr. Tamborine Man…
28. James Sweet | January 13, 2010 at 4:22 am

Some interesting background on Mr. Tam:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14150…
29. Alan E. | January 13, 2010 at 4:28 am

Wow. The case was taking up too much personal time? Oh boo fucking hoo. If what Jamie (below) said is true, then who would want to put their face to those comments today?
30. Sarah | January 13, 2010 at 4:32 am

WORD, Alan E. The phrase?

"Tam also says the case has been more time-consuming and more intrusive into his personal life than expected."

More intrusive into his personal life? The irony is making my teeth hurt!
31. Theresa | January 13, 2010 at 6:29 am

i am with you on this one.
you want to talk about being INTRUSIVE ON PERSONAL LIFE?!

are you effing kidding me?!
32. jack | January 20, 2010 at 10:53 am

Especially considering it was his personal choice to make himself a part of this fight. If you feel that way Tam, you should have stayed home and kept your effing mouth shut. Dumba$$.
33. Steffi | January 13, 2010 at 5:38 am

"Tam's lawyers say the trial will bring him unwanted publicity and expose him to retribution from gay marriage supporters."

thats what these yes on prop8 always argue. but they were in the public speaking for and promoting prop8 so how could the attention be unwanted? they're just too coward to actually defend what they said in front of the court
34. Mary Lee | January 13, 2010 at 7:07 pm

they're so stupid, do they eally think they can bully someone and then say i don't want a fight when they get back up?
35. jack | January 20, 2010 at 10:59 am

Funnily enough, their promoted hatred of us homos brings us unwanted and unwarranted attention by people who single us out every single day. I'm not on TV telling people I'm a homo, yet I get (at the very least) looked at funny by at least one person per day….He put himself in this position and wants to whine when people have something to say back to him about it.

HE promoted HIS OWN publicity, and by doing so exposed US to retribution from anti-gay marriage supporters. Wonder what his response would be if someone pointed that out to him? As I said before…. total dumba$$.
36. Brian | January 13, 2010 at 4:23 am

OMG OMG OMG whats in the Tam video… I'm struggling to stay in my seat over here, lol.
37. Mary Lee | January 13, 2010 at 7:04 pm

same crap different language. he was in charge of RECRUITING the asian vote.
38. Rebecca | January 13, 2010 at 4:24 am

this line of questioning is making the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. I can't believe I am actually hearing these subjects being addressed in a court of law. I wish the world could watch this! C'mon SCOTUS….do the right thing!
39. Cy Guy | January 13, 2010 at 4:25 am

I hope they follow up on the Biblical definition of marriage argument since it is really a clear argument on the evolving nature of marriage.

Clearly the Bible is not the model for modern marriage. If churches want to pick and choose, they can find support for many types of marriage that the government does not sanction.

How many wives did King David have?

Why did God command Lot's daughters to sleep with him to conceive children?

Why didn't Jesus marry?

Why Jesus believe we shouldn't stone adulterers to death?

etc.
40. Calvin | January 13, 2010 at 4:34 am

They brought that up yesterday and the day before with the historian of marriage, Professor Cott. It was great testimony about how ancient Jews and Muslims (and Muslims today as well) practice(d) polygamy. And she pointed out that Monogamy is a Christian view and is very recent as a definition of marriage.
41. J.Random | January 13, 2010 at 4:34 am

I totally agree with you, but one small correction: God didn't order Lot's daughters to sleep with him. It was totally their own idea.

A better question to replace it with is: why was Abraham, the patriarch through which God blessed all nations, married to his own half-sister?
42. Rev Byrd | January 13, 2010 at 6:38 am

Actually, i have always had problems with the story of Lot's daughters. When I read the story, it sounds very much like some of the stories I have heard from sex offenders, trying to justify what they did. I suspect that story was not written by women, but rather from a justification pont of view on what Lot did.
43. jack | January 20, 2010 at 11:10 am

As a believer in God and many principles of the Bible, I'd still like to point out one thing.

The Bible was written by MEN…and for who knows how many years prior to the actual writing, it had been passed down the same way all stories were….by mouth. MEN were given free will, and the ability to form their own opinions. So while I definitely believe in the majority of the principles of the Bible, and find the majority of Its images both beautiful and moving, I do also think that those same people probably interjected their own opinions. Ever played the game "Telephone"?

To paraphrase a statement by comedienne Margaret Cho, I'm pretty sure if God came back right now, he would say to the bigoted Christians, "That's not what I meant!"
44. JefferyK | January 13, 2010 at 4:25 am

It is beyond fascinating to watch the Prop 8 side finally be called on its homophobic BS. The media was so soft on the pro-Prop 8 people during the campaign.
45. Jamie | January 13, 2010 at 4:26 am

In the run-up to the Prop. 8 vote, Tam told supporters that if the measure didn't pass, "Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex" and that the "gay agenda" included "legaliz[ing] sex with children." He also warned about each state falling one by one into the hands of Satan.
46. Cy Guy | January 13, 2010 at 4:36 am

Background on Tam
http://www.palibandaily.com/2010/01/11/prop-8-pro…
http://www.palibandaily.com/2010/01/11/prop-8-proponent-...
47. James Sweet | January 13, 2010 at 4:26 am

Marriage isn’t about religion.
You can be an atheist and be married.

Make no mistake, some of the supporters of Prop 8 wish this weren't the case.
48. Irvine, CA | January 13, 2010 at 6:23 am

S*ucks to be them. It works great for me. 😛
49. Alan E. | January 13, 2010 at 4:29 am

I am getting chills today. Yesterday I was in tears when reviewing the history, but Stewart is just nailing those talking points of the opposing side just fine!
50. Michael | January 13, 2010 at 4:41 am

i'm with you! i was reading the last of yesterday's posts through tears! my husband walked in and asked what had happened because i was so emotional. just the history of discrimination and abuse, and the feeligns of inadequacy it has created amongst our community is so devastating!

today is very empowering!
51. Chana | January 13, 2010 at 4:31 am

oh, Biblical marriage gets even better. Check out Biblical proscriptions on when and where you can have sex with your wife. I grew up in a community that observed these restrictions. Has Tam had sex with a woman during her menstrual period?? Has he had sex with a woman on the Sabbath? He's just as liable as I am, according to the Bible. In fact, more so, since the Bible is completely silent on lesbian sex.
52. Calvin | January 13, 2010 at 4:42 am

Well women are property and don't matter, so why should anyone care about lesbians?

(I'm kidding, I'm kidding; those are the bible's beliefs, not mine)

The bible says nothing about transexuals either, just crossdressers. So I'm sitting pretty as an FTM 🙂 Much moreso than Mr. Tam.
53. Steffi | January 13, 2010 at 5:20 am

and if one'd carefully check it doesnt even say sth about men giving too much attention to shallow stuff and pure pleasure…. again check Wouldjesusdiscriminate.org on that
54. Steffi | January 13, 2010 at 5:40 am

damn: in my posts were bits missing. here's what I wanted to say: and if one’d carefully check it doesnt even say sth about crossdressers but about men giving too much attention to shallow stuff and pure pleasure…. again check Wouldjesusdiscriminate.org on that
55. jack | January 20, 2010 at 11:17 am

As one transman to another- AMEN! (Pun intended, lol)

At my own wedding, the pastor read a verse from the Bible which is, ironically enough, normally read at straight weddings.

"But Ruth replied, "Don't ask me to leave you and turn back. Where you go, I will go; where you lie, I will lie down with you. Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God."- Ruth 1:16

Ruth was speaking to Naomi.
56. The Golem | January 13, 2010 at 4:46 am

Chana,

While Rabbinic law forbids various forms of sexual intercourse, according to B Talmud, Makkot 7a, the parties are not judged as liable unless there are two witnesses who "saw it enter like a brush into a flask.," according to both Rava and Abaye. ( two central Sages of the Babylonian Talmud)
57. Mary Lee | January 13, 2010 at 7:20 pm

So a treesome is ok just don't ave another witness lol
58. Pandora | January 13, 2010 at 4:49 am

I thought it was considered a mitzvah to have sex (with your spouse, presumably) on Shabbat. Is there a later prohibition against it?
59. Marlene Bomer | January 13, 2010 at 5:50 am

Not completely silent, Chana… there's a bit in one of the Pauline texts where the guy (of course!) assumes that all women are attracted to men, claims they "go against their nature" when they're attracted to other women.

Of course, the nanosecond you start explaining to the religious reicht that ol' Paulie does a TON of assuming in his writings, and the fact you need to take his writings in their historical, cultural, and sociological context, they start howling about they're being "oppressed" and "persecuted".
60. gero | January 13, 2010 at 4:34 am

Sweet Flaming Nora!!!! but this TAM guy is a real P.O.S isn't he?
61. robert wright 1 of 1 | January 13, 2010 at 4:37 am

could you expand on the Prejean thing? I did not notice any mention of her in you blogging, until you said they had allowed some questions about her earlier. I did not see where you noted that they mentioned her prior to that.
62. Michael | January 13, 2010 at 4:42 am

that raised an eyebrow with me also. i hadnt heard her name brought up, but wondered if it would. i'm curious.
63. Nicki | January 13, 2010 at 5:54 am

The judge did not let the NOM video "the Gathering Storm" to be shown yesterday however i do believe it is entered in as evidence. Someone will correct me if i am wrong hopefully. Teddy Partridge in SF has got a blow by blow transcript. at his blog the seminal part of Fire Dog Lake 🙂 i have been flipping back and fourth. The decision by the Supremes is due by 4 pm as i understand it.
64. Warren | January 13, 2010 at 4:38 am

"San Francisco government run by homosexuals."

The mayor is not gay
The AG is not gay
The city attorney is not gay
in 2008 there was only one gay BOS member

LOL
65. Rachael | January 13, 2010 at 4:45 am

I'm joking when I say this, but…

Yesterday Dr. Chauncey said, "They (homosexuals) in turn had to pay bribes to police or to organized crime, which meant that gay life was enmeshed in criminal activity."
So, maybe they aren't gay, but they're getting paid by the freshly organized gay political machine!
Who knew that a minority group of citizens could be so powerful!
66. Warren | January 13, 2010 at 5:03 am

How ever the fire chief is a lesbian and we know that is where the city is run from!
67. Rachael | January 13, 2010 at 5:06 am

Scandal!!!! haha
68. Alisa Whitfield | January 13, 2010 at 4:38 am

Hi Paul!

It is great to see you on this website, which I have been following avidly the past few days. Wish I could be there too, and keep up the great work.

All the best,
Alisa
69. James Sweet | January 13, 2010 at 4:38 am

I really wish this was going on YouTube. The worst possible outcome for the bigots is for their actual arguments to be broadcast to the world. (Cuz you know, if they tried to present to a federal judge the same lies they tell in those despicable TV ads, that's not going to go over very well…)
70. Rachael | January 13, 2010 at 4:39 am

Paul, you are doing an excellent job keeping us updated! Thanks so much!
71. M S | January 13, 2010 at 4:40 am

Does anyone know if there is some way to help directly with this case and/or benefit the plaintiffs? I'm not interested in supporting the big (and mostly generic) gay-rights/pro-equality organizations, I'm talking about taking up a collection to help with these couples' legal fees or hotel bills or whatever other equally important and concrete contribution to their well-being during or after the trial we can think of.

If I thought I could save them undue expenses or substantially promote their peace of mind by flying to SF and making photocopies for them, or feeding quarters to the parking meter all day, or bringing them a home-baked casserole each night for dinner, I would.
72. JoeInOakland | January 13, 2010 at 4:43 am

@ M S — I like your line of thinking, and would agree. Let us know if you find a way to help out in the manner you mentioned.

These folks are doing EVERYONE a great service and deserve our support, financial and otherwise.
73. Nicki | January 13, 2010 at 6:23 am

srsly maybe he is ice fishing with Darth or something.
On the issue of the video recording and broad casting – Say it ain't so , no way in hell the recordings of this trial EVER get destroyed. No way, that cannot be legal ?? Objection. lawyer peeps ? Even if the Supremes say no broadcasting , that cannot include using technologies to preserve the visual and audio record this Trial – right ? It would be like destroying evidence, no ?
74. robert wright 1 of 1 | January 13, 2010 at 4:48 am

It is my understanding that Rob Reiner and friends are footing the bill for the legal fees. So I do not think they have legal fee needs. Someone can correct me on that if I am wrong…I think it was mentioned by the blogger on day one.
75. j | January 13, 2010 at 5:09 am

You can contribute to AFER here:
https://npo.networkforgood.org/Donate/Donate.aspx…
76. David Kimble | January 13, 2010 at 5:29 am

I have been donating to this website for sometime now and really appreciate their efforts on our behalf. I dunno, I guess I missed some of the blogging on Day 1 – I was fascinated by day one of the trial and still am!
77. sarah | January 13, 2010 at 4:40 am

No wonder why tam wanted to pull out of the trial. That is some faulty faulty reasoning.
78. Marlene Bomer | January 13, 2010 at 6:00 am

The f*ing bigot, as is typical of his kind, didn't want his bile to be exposed in public. It was designed only to be played in places where there is iron control of the message, and where anything said by an "expert" in these areas are touted as "fact" and is blessed by their saviour.

Tam's little hate messages are exactly like the propaganda film "Gay Rights, Special Rights" from those loving "christians" at the Traditional Values Coalition!
79. Pandora | January 13, 2010 at 4:40 am

@Chana I thought it was a mitzvah to have sex (with a spouse) on Shabbat. Is there a prohibition against it?
80. RW in LGB | January 13, 2010 at 4:51 am

Pandora, isn't any kind of work prohibited on the Sabbath?

I imagine that getting the interest up to have sex with any of these pro-H8 asshats would be considered "hard-to-impossible work" by any reasonably outside judge.

Can't you just imagine some rabbi looking at the Tams and saying to the wife: "G-d made the world in six days, but even He couldn't summon the juice to get it up for you two meeskeits! Too much work on the Sabbath! Go sit in the dark and contemplate G-d's punishment!"
81. Christopher in San F | January 13, 2010 at 4:41 am

Way to go Paul! Your coverage and thoughts are just as fantastic as Rick's have been. You are doing a wonderful job! Keep up the great work!
82. JoeInOakland | January 13, 2010 at 4:43 am

@ M S — I like your line of thinking, and would agree. Let us know if you find a way to help out in the manner you mentioned.

These folks are doing EVERYONE a great service and deserve our support, financial and otherwise.
83. Lincoln | January 13, 2010 at 4:45 am

This liveblog is doing something wonderful, and the plaintiffs' side is doing amazing. Stewart is powerful and Chauncey is obviously brilliant.
84. Lincoln | January 13, 2010 at 4:45 am

I wish I could help out as well.
85. Anu | January 13, 2010 at 4:51 am

Hi Paul,

This is great, you're doing a great job. I'm so glad that even though I'm not there I feel like I am. You rock!

Many thanks,
Anu
86. JPM | January 13, 2010 at 4:52 am

“Do you believe that part of the gay agenda is the legalizing of sex with children?” Yes, says Mr. Tam. Tam is the Executive Director of the Traditional Families Coalition — which advocated the passage of Prop 8.

Now we know why they were vigorously objecting…
87. Marlene Bomer | January 13, 2010 at 6:08 am

See my comment above (re "Gay Rights Special Rights"). NOW I know why Tam's bigotry sounded so familiar!
88. Steven | January 13, 2010 at 4:53 am

Wow…

I agree…NO wonder ole' Mr. Tam didn't want that garbage widely shown…what a bafoony-loony!
89. Kevin | January 13, 2010 at 4:56 am

Here's what Maggie Gallagher is saying about the trial:
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kuar/.artsmain/…
90. James Sweet | January 13, 2010 at 5:03 am

heh, she misspelled "hurdle". Nice.

Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled that the private intentions — which were never communicated to voters — of Protect Marriage campaign members could be the legitimate subject of a trial.

I can understand why Ms. Gallagher might think this is irrelevant — but as Paul has illuminated for us, establishing homosexuals as a "suspect class" is key to this lawsuit, and the private intentions of the Protect Marriage campaign members are relevant as such.

So basically, Gallagher is going off half-cocked without a deep understanding the legal issues (or, apparently, a dictionary, for that matter)
91. Warren | January 13, 2010 at 5:07 am

No. she knows the facts full well. Her contributors and the ignorant mass of people who think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President of the USA have not even the faintest idea of what a secular constitutional republic is don't and Maggie has a very strong interest in continuing to have them believe her faulty logic.
92. evenevan | January 13, 2010 at 5:39 am

I think someone is worried that her side is going to lose…
93. Boston | January 13, 2010 at 4:57 am

Great job, Paul! Thanks for all that you're doing!
94. Lincoln | January 13, 2010 at 4:59 am

Tam is an incredible sleazeball.
95. Doug | January 13, 2010 at 5:03 am

Thank you for keeping us updated. This is by far the best way to keep track of what is going on that I have found!
96. Steven | January 13, 2010 at 5:05 am

"Scandinavia, said Tam in newsletter, gays teamed up with liberal politicians to lower the age of consent for sex and legalized prositution — which demeaned marriage."

What's this crap? A change in the age is all the gays fault? Let's see the proof of that!

And lower the age of consent demeans marriage?!?!

Again, Mr. Goofy, eh Tam, proof? And how?
97. Mr. HCI | January 13, 2010 at 5:15 am

Where is this country Scandinavia?
98. Steven | January 13, 2010 at 5:08 am

Oh and this Gallagher looks to be a Right Winger?
99. Daniel | January 13, 2010 at 5:08 am

Here's America, Return to God – looks like it's available as a free e-book.
100. MJFargo | January 13, 2010 at 5:09 am

Tam's points of view are posted daily by Prop 8 supporters on SFGate on any news story about SSM.
101. gero | January 13, 2010 at 5:13 am

I always said that the proponents of Prop H8 were their own worst enemy with their ignorance, hatred and lies…and this guy Tam is no exception to that. I know why the attorneys for the defense did not want this guy seen. He is truly despicable.
102. Alex C. | January 13, 2010 at 5:19 am

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I cannot express how grateful I am that you've continued the liveblogging of this trial.
103. Rebecca | January 13, 2010 at 5:20 am

"Truth always originates in a minority of one, and every custom begins as a broken precedent."
Will Durant
104. ron | January 13, 2010 at 5:22 am

Go Team! I'm 61, 3yrs Married to a Canadian in Ontario and am tired of 6 mons here and 6 mons there. Please win and let us live our lives at our real home here.
105. Marty | January 13, 2010 at 5:24 am

I find it interesting how cultures not steeped in Christian values (i.e., Africans, Chinese, other Asians) take on some of the most rabid anti-gay feelings — It seems as though their personal demons, not exercised by spirituality native to their culture, have sought Christianity as a "cure" for their mental illness (subversion of gay feelings, social anxiety, depression, psychosis, etc).
106. Yaira | January 13, 2010 at 5:24 am

Thanks for doing this, I've been following your updates on my phone at work during breaks. Crossing my fingers everything turns for the best!
107. Kevin | January 13, 2010 at 5:24 am

Could the supreme court be any slower??? tick tock tick tock … … …
108. Christine | January 13, 2010 at 5:24 am

Paul, really great job covering this. Honestly, I don't know how you are able to maintain your composure hearing some of the nonsense coming from the Yes on 8 side, but I'm glad you're able to keep typing on for our benefit! Thanks so much.
109. Steffi | January 13, 2010 at 5:27 am

Hy guys I just came bake to this side after a day of work without internet access and just finished to read all previous posts.

“Do you believe that part of the gay agenda is the legalizing of sex with children?” Yes, says Mr. Tam." — SHIT! people actually eat that?????

Oh and by the way: did ANYONE bother to notice that according to WHO statistics the group currently at highest risk to get infected by HIV are HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN?
just saying….. (because of the arguments of the guy in the vid…)
I am actually thinking about doing my dissertation about Blood donating and Homosexuality to prove that concerns about HVI infections due to gay men are unjustified and to subsequently make them FINALLY scrap that discriminating ban of Homosexuals on blood donating.
110. Korbinos | January 13, 2010 at 5:39 am

a similar thing happened to me when I applied for sperm donation. despite the fact that they do thorough tests before taking sperm, I was in a "high risk demographic" for HIV and thus ineligible (as deemed by the FDA somehow). I wrote back saying that I hadn't even ever had a relationship before and was still a virgin. They told me that didn't matter
111. Steffi | January 13, 2010 at 5:51 am

really? WOW I'm speechless! and it is sooo clear from reading scientific paper that risk factor for HIV is unprotected sex (UNPROTECTED male male sex more than unprotected hetero sex) and not homosexuality!! and every "evident" that found that homosexuality (only male) was a risk factor for HIV was clearly visible confounded by unprotected sex. if this confounder was adjusted for, all that was left is that gay man who had unprotected sex were of more risk getting HIV than straight ppl. simply due to the fact that anal sex is more risky.
I bet if anyone'd bother to study whether there's a difference in HIV risc for straights having anal sex compared to gays. I would bet a lot that the additional risk would vanish almost completly!
112. straightfromsacramen | January 13, 2010 at 5:55 am

that's unbelievable. just goes to show you how ignorant and deep-rooted gay stereotypes are.
113. Ben LeRoy | January 13, 2010 at 5:38 am

Tam says: “If same sex marriage is legalized, every child will grow up thinking they can either marry John or Jane. That would cause a lot of problems for the parents. I also talked about the problem of 1st graders attending a wedding of two lesbians.”

Prop 8 supporters worry that gay marriage will cause more children to become gay. I predict that populations of children who grow up in legalized gay marriage states will report a higher level of identified homosexuality, numbers that Prop 8-ers will use to bolster their claims.

However, this will be due to the more open and accepting environment created by such laws, forcing fewer children to hide in the closet. These increased numbers will not represent "more children being gay" but rather "more children being comfortable enough with being gay that they don't hide it."

Please remember this argument 10-20 years down the line when the homophobic bigots try to show how gay marriage has made the country more homosexual.

Thank you to everyone who is supporting this fight, and good luck to the legal team!
114. Steffi | January 13, 2010 at 5:56 am

yeah I guess you're right.
I was also astouned by the phrase "children would just "try out" homosexuality if they were dissapointed in an opposite sex partner.

but to me it sounded like a good thing. that they finally have an option. that being allowed to marry, more kids might be comfortable with being gay and that they now no longer think that they'd have no other option that to marry someone from the opposite sex even though they are gay.
then they would not feel like it was the only way that would work and actually had a new tolerant way or in other words they'd have an option!
115. Rebecca | January 13, 2010 at 10:56 am

Yes, but eventually it'll all be put in perspective. Remember that in the case of child sexual abuse, reporting numbers have dramatically gone up over the last century, but this was once again not due to the increase of CSA, but the increasingly open and validating society we live in which has let the truth about abuse come to light, so survivors feel safe coming forward, and bystanders are free to report on abuse. It's all about an atmosphere of validation.
116. AB | January 13, 2010 at 5:41 am

It's almost 4 in D.C. If the SCOTUS doesn't decide by 4, when the stay expires, what happens? Can the court start taping?
117. Jeff | January 13, 2010 at 5:53 am

They've been taping all along; at the beginning, they decided to go ahead and tape so that if SCOTUS lifted their objection, they'd have the record (and if they didn't, the recordings could be destroyed.

I would guess that if SCOTUS says nothing, the stay expires and they could start posting immediately.
118. Paul | January 13, 2010 at 5:44 am

SUPERB TRANSCRIPTION!!!!!

Paul, I think you (and CC) have hit your stride. Your unique reporting makes me feel that I’m sitting in the courtroom — something that nobody else is doing — and something that is so terribly important in terms of documenting the proceedings, not only for now, but for the future as well. If the others in the reporting pool aren’t using your work for their own reporting, they’re missing out on an invaluable resource.

THANK YOU!!!!!!
119. Mike | January 13, 2010 at 5:47 am

Gallagher's own son writes and performs in musicals in NYC…his most notable appearance being in the parody, "Sodom:The Musical." I wonder how he feels about his mother's demonization of pretty much everyone he works with (if not himself).
120. Jim Meehan | January 13, 2010 at 5:48 am

I'm so proud of George Chauncey, a friend of mine from long ago, back when he was a graduate student of John Boswell. I love how he answered their questions with depth. (Q: "When religious people supported segregation and opposed interracial marriage, was that also rooted in prejudice?" A: "Yes. These beliefs, though sincere, are shaped by the culture that they believe. I don’t question the sincerity of people in the South who believed that interracial marriage was against God’s will.")
121. Rhonda Ross-Brooks | January 13, 2010 at 5:51 am

Any news on the issue of Youtube? We're down to minutes before the expiration of the stay by the SCOTUS.
122. Dr. Lao | January 13, 2010 at 5:53 am

I just came from the Pro 8 website and they reported on their blog that yesterday , the proceedings were a victory for them. (???!!!)
123. AB | January 13, 2010 at 6:04 am

I bet they think: "well, since there's no video, we can say what we want and people will buy it."
They're in a bit of trouble if taping is eventually allowed.
124. Steffi | January 13, 2010 at 12:59 pm

yeah I heard of such tactics 😀 just don’t admit any (possible) defeat. as long as you persuade yourself enough it is surly gonna come true 😉
125. Marlene Bomer | January 13, 2010 at 6:18 am

The reicht does this al the time. This way in the event they lose (which in all likelihood they will!), they'll lean on the old standard "We're victims of an activist court, being oppressed and persecuted for our sacred beliefs!" canard.
126. Mr. HCI | January 13, 2010 at 5:54 am

Referring to Mr. Tan's assertion that age of consent laws were lowered in the country of Scandinavia (HA!), I just researched all countries with legal same-sex marriage.

The age of consent was lowered two years ago in South Africa, but only for homosexual activity. It had been 19 but now is 16, and in-line with the age of consent for heterosexual activity.

No other country with same-sex marriage has lowered the age of consent.
127. Steffi | January 13, 2010 at 6:19 am

I just googled ab bit about how it is here in germany.
– no sexual action is allowed for children under 14 years (with the exception of children's "playing doctor" and things alike this is not culpable)

– between 14 and 16 it's ok to have sex with someone of the same age but no adult must actively "help" them finding opportunity.

-basically sex is ok from the age of 16 onwards as long as it is not between partners who are of too age difference and as long as no one is exploiting the other sexually

the laws are 100% the same for gays and straights, no distinction is being made.

oh and for the exposure to homosexuality: you can see gays having sex in day time tv as well as strights having sex. not too expicit but with naked ppl. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDjX3_uAa-U) and I am not aware of kids wanting to become gay 🙂
128. DonG | January 13, 2010 at 6:06 am

There is a blog that covers the US Supreme Court that is really great. It can be found at: http://www.scotusblog.com/
At 1:05, I checked and they had nothing up there about the YouTube recordings. So I guess Justice Kennedy's stay expired at 1:00 pm PST. I guess we'll see when Judge Vaughn gets back from lunch.
129. AB | January 13, 2010 at 6:09 am

oyez.org is usually pretty good too.
130. Wade MacMorrighan | January 13, 2010 at 6:07 am

BTW, were you aware (according to the book, "What is Marriage For?" which analyzes the history of the institution), that marriage was NOT solemnized by the Church until the year 1250 CE, which means that before that period marriage was entirely a Civil/ Secular matter! I hope this gets discussed, too. it's quite damaging to the pro-Prop 8 side.
131. Mr. HCI | January 13, 2010 at 6:11 am

Whoa . . . that's pretty earth-shattering to their side.

Unless they try to claim that when it was purely civil, it was always one man/one woman, which is, of course, not at all true.
132. Steffi | January 13, 2010 at 6:22 am

hmm sometimes I think lawyers would need some assistend checking all internet forum about their topic so they would get a lot of valued input they might not think of their own 🙂
133. Janet | January 14, 2010 at 2:15 am

Not really damaging, since they don't pay attention to little details like Christian history. The bible of choice these days is based on what King James of England decided it would be back in the early 1600s. I'm sure the Aramic and ancient Greek translators were more plentiful then, but really, it was 1600 years before Christ. In fact, the bible…oh let me not start.

After all, some of them think the world began in the Garden of Eden about 6000 years ago.
134. Janet | January 14, 2010 at 2:25 am

Sorry, this little historical note is not really damaging to the other side, since they don't pay attention to little details like Christian history. The bible of choice these days is based on what King James of England decided it would be back in the early 1600s. I'm sure the Aramaic and ancient Greek translators were more plentiful then, but really, it was 1600 years before Christ. How could they possibly know what was said, let alone meant? In fact, the bible…oh let me not start.

After all, some of them think the world began in the Garden of Eden about 6000 years ago.
135. Jon Evans | January 13, 2010 at 6:10 am

I am a little worried that our community is being so confident. Do you remember what happened on Election day?

Learning about the history of discrimination tells us that our Government condones this- why do we think that they would allow televising a history of abuse and our "day in court".

I am very worried that we are setting ourselves up to be disapointed again.

Obama and the Democratic party are totally silent about this. There are no statements of support and there is not history of it either.

Even our own GLBT groups had to have this case taken away from them by American Foundation for Equality.

Just sending a message of warning- we need to organize further and send a message to the White House that it is criminal of our Government to not televise the hearing of all of our lives.

We need to call in sick for work and gather outside the courthouse. Every GLBT American needs to stand up unite and gather.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH- and being passive once more is not going to change anything.

I am sick of living under intimidation and not being equal and having to manage under the expectation that I am ungreatful for wanting equal rights!

Okay- someone humble me know. After years of putting up with this shit- I am fed up with it!
136. AB | January 13, 2010 at 6:15 am

Just consider the other side of the coin, Jon. Yes, we are being confident. And yes that has gotten us burned before. But, the alternative is to sit around and say "well, we can't ever win, so why try." I'd rather us buck up, be strong, and be confident, instead of turn into Eyeore from Winnie the Pooh.
We'll be fine. This is just one early part of the struggle. Everything will be ok in time.
Besides, I remember being confident about Lawrence v. Texas, and that turned out well for us.
137. Jon Evans | January 13, 2010 at 6:17 am

Thanks for the gentle words- just scared. I want this to be right you know! It is totally distracting and is so important.
138. Jon Evans | January 13, 2010 at 7:00 am

SCOTUS ruled in favor for the Defense- There is for sure a storm coming!
139. Steffi | January 13, 2010 at 6:25 am

So IF you fail you stand up and fight on! but never let your hope down. never surpress confidence until the very end! cause it's what keeprs strong I think
140. Marlene Bomer | January 13, 2010 at 6:25 am

I'm confident, in the fact there's a top-notch legal team skewering the bigots at every turn.

The Anti-Prop 8 leaders took too many things for granted and sat on their collective asses (including taking a vacation to Costa Rica fer chrissakes!), and assumed racial minorities would automatically gravitate to their side.

I'll go back once again to the propaganda videos the bigots spew, targeted to the racial minority community. They make the claim since we've never faced Jim Crow, or the Klan or had to sit in separate schools, we aren't allowed to call ourselves minorities, ad nauseum.

What's totally ironic in this whole thing is that these hate groups like TVC, FRC, ad nauseum got their origin in these *same* faith communities which OPPOSED integration and SUPPORTED Jim Crow!
141. Tim | January 13, 2010 at 6:13 am

I really find it hard to believe that the average conservative American is so uneducated as to believe what people like Tam and his puppets believe!
Paul: GREAT JOB!
142. Mykelb | January 13, 2010 at 6:15 am

The lawyers should also question these people on the current 39 Senators/Congress Critters who signed an amicus brief with the radical right wing religious zealot "Bishop" Harry Jackson, to stop gay marriage by putting it to a referendum in Washington, DC.
143. Kelviin | January 13, 2010 at 6:15 am

Thanks for this website – being in NYC, I wondered if I'd ever know the whole story and was especially curious after the pro-prop 8 side wanted evidence kept from the public. Tam's opinion is very clear – and even found here at some of the churches in the burroughs. No wonder he wanted to be removed from the case.

My father is the associate dean of a law school and when I was growing up he would ask my brother and I to debate issues over dinner – with both of us taking opposing sides. After a while he would ask us to switch so we could argue the merits of the other side. His point was that we should understand people who we disgreed with and not demonize them. The lesson we learned was that having good reasons to believe something mattered the most. Based on what I've been reading, the pro-prop 8 side has failed so far, although some of the arguments they're using are interesting. I think the merits of the case for marriage are more consistent and compelling – thanks for this website. Great job!
144. James | January 13, 2010 at 8:23 am

I just want to say you have a great dad! I'm sure you already knew that, but still – WOW!

What a great way to raise a child – tell him – nicely done pops!
145. Kelviin | January 13, 2010 at 9:40 am

Hey James – thanks!

Growing older I've realized how lucky I was to have my dad. When I came out to my parents, I found out years later – from my mother- that my father accepted me more than my mom – who told me she was afraid gay people (and me) meant growing up alone. My father was never the one I talked to – I later learned he felt upset because I never confided in him about my relationships.

I've told my father many times over the last few years – especially now that he's getting older – how lucky I was to have him as my dad. I really believe the way he raised my brother and I could get over the animosity that issues like this entail. Perhaps raising kids to understand instead of fear could pave the way for more happiness in the long run.
146. julie | January 13, 2010 at 6:28 am

the value of your blogging can not be over stated. thank you for being there for us. one of the primary methods used by the majority to suppress the minority is to control access to information and access to others of the same minority. your blogging kicks the crap out of that. we all owe you thanks. this is living history folks! :):)
147. sean Flanigan | January 13, 2010 at 6:43 am

waht is going on about the live media coverage?
148. Nicki | January 13, 2010 at 6:45 am

that is what we are all waiting on. They should just be getting back from lunch Pacific Standard Time.
149. Billy | January 13, 2010 at 6:48 am

Thanks, Paul. You are doing a great job.
150. Becky | January 13, 2010 at 6:53 am

Rick, Thanks so much for doing this. We're all out here with you, and you're doing a great job. Thanks!
151. s | January 13, 2010 at 7:03 am

The Supreme Court banned cameras indefinitely (per SF Chronicle)
152. remix | January 13, 2010 at 7:08 am

Thank you Paul – this coverage is awesome. I'm riveted!
153. Brad | January 13, 2010 at 7:16 am

Ok, so how quickly could we get a transcript of the trial and arrange a dramatic reading of the text that we could run on YouTube? Surely we could find talented actors/actresses from Hollywood who would record the text.
154. James | January 13, 2010 at 8:19 am

How quick can you call William Shattner?
155. Rebecca | January 13, 2010 at 11:36 am

I say we do it with puppets. Puppets always get a point across.
156. Rebecca | January 13, 2010 at 11:38 am

We could have Statler and Waldorf play the defense, and Sam the Eagle could be Ted Olson….
157. straightfromsacramen | January 13, 2010 at 7:26 am

Here is a pdf of the SCOTUS's ruling on the stay:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010…
158. Carla Grande | January 13, 2010 at 7:27 am

Rick and everyone covering the trial

what happened to free open speech. They can televise OJ Simpsom murder trial so many years ago and this they oppose?? What is this? Blatant homophobia
Keep blogging.. we are supporting this! Thanks

Carla Grande
159. Linda Gray | January 13, 2010 at 7:33 am

Pro-8 Alliance Defense Fund is tweeting that Twitter has blocked its tweets from #prop8 searches. So, just to be clear — they DO want maximum exposure of their updates on the trial; they DON'T want maximum exposure of the trial itself. Got it.
160. ron | January 13, 2010 at 7:38 am

Are they still eating lunch. We have a mission here
161. James | January 13, 2010 at 7:47 am

I get really angry when they talk about the DADT issue.

As a recently retired Navy Veteran, I spent 20 years, 1989 – 2009, fighting for the rights our country believes in and protecting our civil liberties for the majority.

It's truly bothersome to know that I gave 20 years of my life to a country that doesn't see me as equal.

Not only did I give 20 years, now, retired, I'm a contractor at sea int he Persian Gulf, still working for our country!

My home is in Chula Vista, CA and in my own state I don't have the same rights as the men and women fighting to keep me from equal rights who most likely never served our country.

Shameful!
162. Womyn2me | January 13, 2010 at 7:51 am

<<>>

I was dying for him to lighten the topic with an answer like "Are you kidding me, we can barely agree on a place to do Sunday brunch., much less plan the overthrow of heterosexuality"
163. Womyn2me | January 13, 2010 at 7:51 am

S: Based on your knowledge of history, has there been a gay agenda?
164. Liveblogging Day 3 Part I&hellip | January 13, 2010 at 11:09 am

[…] Liveblogging Day 3 Part IV: Therese Stewart Rocks … […]
165. Clif | January 13, 2010 at 5:34 am

To see how good Stewart is live, since we are getting only a written report of her examination, go to this YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbQ4b8RpCXc
166. AB | January 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm

Does anyone besides me think that Scalia is sitting in his chambers right now going: “Hmm… wasn’t there something I was supposed to do today? Seems like there was something I had to do…”?
167. Prop 8 trial – Exlp&hellip | January 13, 2010 at 2:25 pm

[…] – from VIDEO- Per Tam’s flyer -: “SF city government is under rule of homosexuals. After legalizing […]
168. SUPREME COURT BLOCKS VIDE&hellip | January 13, 2010 at 2:37 pm

[…] buy Melanie Nathan – San Francisco – We have Courage Campaign We can see exactly what is going on and it is being covered in mainstream press. Let us make sure […]
169. Janet | January 14, 2010 at 12:32 am

Thank you for this live blog. I've been alerting people to it. I send prayers for your eyes, ears, and especially hands and wrists!

I sat through 2 trials on this issue, and this blog is good, perhaps better, because of the commentary you and the others provide.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
170. Robin | January 14, 2010 at 4:35 am

This is excellent. Thanks for keeping us informed as things develop.
171. Lou | January 14, 2010 at 10:37 pm

This stuck out to me:

Thompson objects, because we don’t know when those columns were written – and that Tam’s first language is not English. Judge tells Stewart that we have “exhausted this topic.”

It's hard to tell what was meant without the full context, but… WTF? English isn't his first language, so what he said isn't relevant? Seriously? His English is good enough to get published, apparently.
172. John | January 15, 2010 at 1:37 am

Interesting line. My first grader (summer before second grade, technically) attended his aunt's gay marriage here in CT (where we're not so backward as CA, and quitely passed our own legislation rescinding civil unions and establishing full gay marriage), and was delighted. Interestingly, for months bofore the wedding, he was coy about calling her wife-to-be "Aunt", but as soon as they were married – – he was the ring bearer — he hugged his new "Aunt." He and his 4th grade sister spent a week with them at their place in DC later that summer.
173. Evelyn Dehais » Blo&hellip | January 15, 2010 at 11:41 am

[…] of couples, I don’t know if you are following the live-blogging of the Prop 8 trial, but it’s really […]
174. Prop 8 Trial: the SCOTUS &hellip | January 15, 2010 at 2:01 pm

[…] of the LGBT community, or the motivations of the proponents of Proposition 8, such as this particularly odious video of the bigoted and homophobic rationale of one of Proposition 8’s key backers. And the […]
175. “Home Court Advanta&hellip | January 16, 2010 at 5:01 pm

[…] trait cannot be changed – like race. One thing I found interesting about Dr. Tam’s video testimony was when he was asked about civil rights: “I believe civil rights to be about skin color — […]
176. Prop 8 Trial « Obey&hellip | January 17, 2010 at 5:47 am

[…] trait cannot be changed – like race. One thing I found interesting about Dr. Tam’s video testimony was when he was asked about civil rights: “I believe civil rights to be about skin color […]
177. jack | January 20, 2010 at 10:39 am

"Lawyer now quotes Tam saying “gay marriage will encourage kids to expeirment with the gay lifestyle — which carries with it all sorts of disease.” Tam confirms that he said this, and then says it means “that kids will be able to have an option. That they will be able to choose who they can marry. My daughter told me kids in her school that girls who had problems dating boys, can just go ahead and try girls. So children did experiment.” "

Wake up Tam! Kids experiment! You can't stop that! And like 90% of the women I know that have ever kissed or messed around or slept with another woman are still completely STRAIGHT. Hence my personal addition to the phrase "Don't knock it til you try it"…I always like to add "Don't buy it til you try it either."

Legalizing gay marriage gives us the option to marry legally, it doesn't give you an option for how you really feel or who you really are. I was an FTM transman who still identifies as lesbian before gay marriage was legalized, and after I got gay married….surprise! Still an FTM lesbian! There is only one choice in this matter; be who you are or be what everyone wants you to be. And even that has no bearing on this case whatsoever; this case is about the constitutionality of discrimination based on sexuality. Actually, at its core, it's about the constitutionality of discrimination, period. Funny how they seem to skip right over that with their Save the Children smear campaign.
178. tire ratings guide&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 7:49 am

Blog Browser…

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