Equality On Trial

Liveblogging Day 4: Daily Summary

January 14, 2010

Daily Summary Liveblogging

By Julia Rosen

Well this one was a long one, with Judge Walker continuing the cross-examination of Dr. Meyer well past 5 pm.

As has become tradition here, the compiled liveblogging from Rick Jacobs is below. You can find all of the Daily Summaries here. They will all be categorized and appear there. Same with liveblogging, all of the posts are here. Per a reader’s suggestion, we have added a category cloud on the right side bar. It should make navigating the site easier.

Rick will be back in that hard seat hammering out the live coverage of day five tomorrow morning first thing.

—–

Good morning! The judge just sat down and is talking, but there’s no sound in the overflow room! Mr. Cooper is talking. I have heard that there is going to be further effort to keep the lid on this trial, but let’s see.

A few minutes ago, someone walked in to ask if everyone in this room is from the media.

Sounds is on.

[UPDATE] 8:51 Edwin A. Egan is up now. He’s Chief Economist, City and County of SF, director of the office of economic analysis within the controller’s office of SF. Was and still is Adjunct Prof. at UC Berkeley where he teaches grad students, teaches course “Urban and Regional Economy” to masters and PhD students. Before joining the county in 2007, worked on Toronto economic plan and before joining SF worked on SF plan. Published a series of articles on economic policy and analysis. Has PhD from UC Berkeley.

[UPDATE] 9:03 E: Exhibit 2324 is CV, which represents his academic experience. [It’s placed into evidence.] Describes his work in office of controller wherein they determine economic impact of any proposed SF Board of Supes legislation to insure that Board has full understanding of economic impact on legislation before they act. We look to see if legislation has real regulatory power to affect behavior of individuals, businesses to see how legislation would impact. If greater than $10 million of economic impact, we prepare written and verbal reports.

Reports are called economic impact reports. Reliant on government statistical data from state and federal governments as well as from city departments, information from people who work in the city and private sector sometimes.
We rely on research.

[Witness accepted as an opinion witness in the field for which designated.]

Have you undertaken analysis on the impact of same-sex married couples in SF?

Yes.

Similar to other analysis?

Yes, except we usually do not include state law.

Conclusions fro research?

E: Yes. Concluded negative economic impact on ban of same-sex marriage on SF.

Could this be applicable to other jurisdictions?

E: Yes, but I cannot say specifically.

[Slide that shows Lifetime Wealth Generation: Impact on City Revenue]

E: If marriage for same-sex marriage couples legalized, I believe we’d see an increase in married couples in SF. Married individuals tend to accumulate more wealth than individuals, which means there’d be more wealth in the city. People with higher wealth spend more which leads to higher consumer spending and higher real estate prices. Higher consumer spending leads to an increase in sales tax revenues (more spending, more tax) and higher real estate prices yield higher real estate taxes.

Challenging exercise to project amount of money that would come from increase in married couples. Have not tried to do that.

Other jurisdictions in California would benefit from the SF effect because state gets its share and so do other entities.

[Slide: Healthy Behaviors: Impact on City Revenue]

E: Legalizing same-sex marriage would create healthier behaviors of individuals. A number of articles in economic literature show that married individuals behave in more healthy ways and are more healthy. There’s a well known economic principle of healthy work force which yields higher wages due to higher worker productivity and this leads to higher payroll tax revenue for city.

Healthier behavior yields less reliance on healthcare system including public healthcare system which results in cost savings for county/city.

City’s general fund contribution to public health is $364 million per year.

[UPDATE] 9:08 E: Cost impact of legal same-sex marriage could be estimated, but we have not tried to do so.

E: in other jurisdictions where there is not payroll tax, higher business tax income would be present.

Does Domestic Partnership have same healthy affect on behavior as marriage? Would we still expect to see this impact with domestic partnership as marriage?

E: Some positive impact, but not as great as marriage because more people would marry than domestic partner so more people would have healthy behavior.

[Chart: Reduced Uninsured Population: Impact on Public Health Expenses]

E: Legalizing same-sex marriage would decrease cost of public health. In my opinion if same-sex marriage legal and folks marry and more companies extend benefits to same-sex couples, companies would cover partners who are now not covered. So if people can marry, they get insurance and that’s going to save the county money.

[UPDATE] 9:21[Looking at exhibit that is from Mr. Greg Sass, who is a person on whom Dr. Egan relies. It’s PX 2260. Prop. 8 objects to entering because it was not available to us. Our side says that document did not exist until a few days ago. Prop. 8 (Patterson) says they can’t verify that it’s legitimate. Judge says you were provided copy of document on Sunday evening and since document appears to have been produced on 30 December, hard for you to have had it much before Sunday evening. So let’s proceed and then I’ll rule on objection.]

[Questioning now proceeds on document.

Back and forth about whether Mr. Sass had previously provided E with information in preparation of testimony. Mr. Sass sent this email to me thinking it would help with my preparation for this. It’s the kind of information I would usually rely upon.

Judge admits document for what value it has. It appears to be from that national elevator industry association.]

E: My understanding that this document demonstrates a change in policy by the national elevator industry that used to provide benefits only for opposite sex partners in marriage but now offer to same-sex, but do not offer to domestic partners. Demonstrates that this shows that companies will offer benefits to same-sex married partners than to domestic partners. If more individuals are covered by married spouse’s plan, saves the county money by not having to provide publicly financed healthcare to one partner not covered.

[From Rick: Imagine how this applies to whatever we get finally for national healthcare. Think of Social Security, all the stuff that is provided to married couples, but gay and lesbian couples don’t get anything so they are a burden on the system and screwed.]

E: I think this principle would apply to all jurisdictions. You’d see this reduction in cost to uninsured. Every county in California spends a lot of money on healthcare for uninsured, which costs the state money, too.

[Chart: Reduced Discrimination: Impact on Need for Behavioral Health Services]

E: I believe legalized same-sex marriage would reduce discrimination against LGBT people. Prohibition of marriage against same sex couples is a form of discrimination. If that prohibition is removed, over time less discrimination against LGBTs. When I prepared my report, I spoke with someone in health department who said that use of public health services is disproportionately high due to discrimination. Consequently, reducing discrimination would reduce city costs. Can’t quantify exactly. We also don’t know exact amount gay and lesbians require of behavioral health services. Know city spends $2.5 million on LGTB specific programs, but cost is much broader, because we do not break out all costs. $360 million total spent on healthcare.

[Chart: Costs of Bullying: Impact on Local School District Funding.]

[UPDATE] 9:28 PX 810 shows that more that nearly 109,000 school absences are based on harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. $39.9 million per year in funding from state does not come due to these absences because schools get state money for days attended. To the extent that excessive absences reduce the quality of education, leads to long term negative economic consequences. Additional cost for enforcement.

[Looking at exhibits PX672-676. Prop. 8 says that they cannot use these for testimony on hate crimes because we did not have the chance to depose him on hate crimes because he is not an expert in hate crimes. Our side says these documents will back up what he says. Judge says he can cover topic of hate crimes generally, but not sure it opens door to putting into evidence. Our side argues that these documents were introduced by AG after Mr. Egan’s depo. Judge says the court can take judicial notice of the documents since they are official documents of the Dept. of Justice. Patterson says that he was not deposed on hate crimes. Judge says have to move on, then because you did not cover the subject in his report or depo, say can’t open up a whole new subject. ] ((No way to introduce hate crimes!))

[UPDATE] 10:09 Eagan: 5,100 marriage licenses issued when legal. Some of those were out of state. Weddings have two types of impact on local economy: 1. Event itself, which yields sales tax; 2. Guests who stay at hotels and eat at restaurants.

E: If prohibition were lifted, first we’d see more resident weddings which would be $21 million per year. Non-resident marriages produce event, per diem and hotel revenue. Third set of new economic activity would be out of town guests who come for resident weddings and spend per diem and hotel revenues. All totaled up, the spending effect is on the order of $35 million and hotel revenue $2 mm, $1.7 mm of sales and .9mm for hotel tax. Short-term projection per year. Reasonable to assume we’d see return to this level as soon as legal, but not at this rate forever. Always new people who want to get married, so always new revenue.

E: If marriage for same sex couples permitted, would result in income tax savings for them. They’d spend some of that money in SF which would yield more sales tax. DOMA would have to be lifted before we’d see the effect of this. Average savings per same sex couple (some would have higher tax burden), but average is $440 per couple. If they spent all of that in SF on taxable goods would yield $74,000 per in increased sales tax revenue as would state which gets more than county on sales tax. To the extent that benefits improve if married and do not then have to pay for spousal insurance, they’d have more money to spend.

[Looking at document PX0811 which is municipal code about discrimination and is equal rights ordinance. Admitted].

Human rights commission is governed by this. City’s policy is to actively discourage discrimination in contractor hiring. Ordinance is designed to discourage discrimination by mandating that contractors provide same sex coverage. Costs city $1 million to administer this. City incurred costs in defending the ordinance against legal challenges. [Point: if they are just married, this all goes away. The city saves by not having to deal with a bizarre construct to help prevent discrimination that does not exist with opposite sex couples.]

With same-sex couple marriage, would reduce costs for companies to comply with city regulations. Might be that some low cost bidders are not even in the game because it’s too hard to comply with city regulation, but if the marriage is legal, the costs will go down and more contractors will bid. Overall contracting cost for city is $2 billion so even a 1% reduction in contractor costs is $20 million. If marriage were legal and Supes repealed ordinance, cost for this to city would be zero. [So normal laws are cheaper for society. It’s cheaper to let ‘em marry, as the Economist cover famously proclaimed in the last century.]

[Chart: Summary of Impacts: Quantifiable and Non-Quantifiable]

Total approximate loss to city is $25 million per year or more (check this). Most impacts are not as quantifiable as $2.6 million in sales and hotel tax revenue and $74,000 for loss of local spending from income tax savings. Non-quantifiable include how much healthier you are over your lifetime, how much more wealth you generate over your lifetime.

[UPDATE] 10:01Prop. 8 cross-examine. [Point he’s trying to make is that gays and lesbians have “celebrations” even if they can’t do so legally and if they did so already, they won’t do it again.]

Patterson: You assume that every gay and lesbian couple will spend this amount on weddings. You have based your evidence from 17 June to 4 November 2008. You assume that same rate will apply. You recognize that there was “pent up demand” for marriage.
E: All correct.

P: Rate that occurred during that time frame was inflated relative to some future rate?

E: Yes.

P: You believe pent up demand not satisfied during that time period?

E: Yes. Assume same rate of marriage if legalized.

P: Your assumption that there is pent up demand is based on your living in the city and observation?

E: I did not use the concept of “pent up demand.” Reasonable to assume you’d see same rate as when last legal.

[This is stomach churning. Can you imagine someone saying there is pent up demand for heterosexual couples to marry? WTF. Patterson makes it sound so base.]

P: Goes to depo to show that E said there was “pent up demand” based on observation and based on list of pending marriages at registrar?

E: Yes.

P: PX805 (Plaintiff’s Exhibit) Summary of marriage licenses. P reads off number of marriages before 4 November and then says that because there were only 56 pending marriages from from 5 November.

E: If you are asking me if the number of 1,000 or so marriage licenses issued from October 20-November 4 and then dropped to almost nothing after 4 November is what we would expect to see if marriage is legal, the answer is no. In other words, there is more “pent up demand” even though I did not use that concept in my analysis. E explains that you would not go to county clerk now and make an appointment since it’s illegal. “You would not think that every couple that wants to marry would make appointments for what can’t happen.” E says there is only evidence of “some” demand.

E: Number of marriage appointments when it’s legal and licenses that are issued are measure of actual demand, but the number after it’s illegal is not. [Laughter up here. This Prop. 8 guy is trying to show that everyone who wanted to marry got married in that short window. He’s making an idiot of himself.]

P: Turn to tab 3 in witness binder.

[UPDATE] 10:28 P: Has E look at projections based on Massachusetts weddings. The key question is E’s statement in depo that rate of same sex marriage would drop by 67% in year two of legality. The documents show the entry for every wedding, confidential (private) and public.

E: That’s why there are two documents.

P: Resident weddings v. non-resident weddings. PX 1735 at tab 5 page 42, “Same-sex inside SF.” [So they are orienting the documents so they can each understand at what they are looking.]

[Lots of orienting of documents about weddings.]

2,331 ss marriages in SF in the period. E used .38 as divisor to get to annualized rate since the period in which it was legal was 38% of the year.

P: Puts up charts that shows that 2,331/.38=6,134 marriages in next year and then multiply by two to get 14,599 SF same sex marriages in two years of legality according to your projection.

E: Yes.

P: Admits PX 817 which is census estimate of unmarried male households (7,033) and 2,591 female which equals 9,624 totals which approximates to gay and lesbians. Trying to get E to say there are not enough gays and lesbians who would be in SF to get married to yield the numbers in E’s calculations.

E: I cannot and did not project by length of time that short-term projection of weddings would apply. Not a good predictor of number of marriages because we don’t have information on couple formation and migration.

P: Intro Williams Institute Report [Go Williams Institute!!! Check them out at UCLA. They are one of the best centers for LGBT law and studies on the planet.)]

E: Williams has compared the number of ss couples in Mass who married in first three years with American Community Survey. After 3 years, 44% of ss couples married in Mass.

P: Your projections assume that over 100% of SF couples marry over two years.

E: I don’t believe that this is a correct way to analyze.

P: Not asking if correct way to analyze, just asking if it is fact that outcome is over 100% of ss couples marry.

E: Correct, then.

P: You have not attempted to determine how many out of town guests actually came to weddings during the time they were legal.

E: I can’t imagine a way to get that information. We assumed 10% of weddings had out of town guests. Very conservative as we are for all economic assumptions. Relied on Williams Institute info.

P: Assume that 100% of spending on same-sex weddings is new.

E: Assume that ss couples spend 25% of what op sex couples spend. (So this is complicated, but E said he did not understand correctly how Williams arrived at its conclusions. P did a decent job of questioning some of the numbers, but there’s a missing elephant here: same sex couples do spend on weddings as we see in Massachusetts.)

P: Since 4 November 2008, four new jurisdictions have ss marriage. Would that have an impact on SF?

E: Might have some impact, but SF is a tourism destination as well as a place where people could get married. I doubt it would change much. I don’t consider lots of factors here. It’s fairly simple methodology.

P: If marriage is legal in all 50 states, would that reduce the number who would get married in SF?

E: I see your point, but I’m not sure it would matter. Depends on number of ss couples who want to marry.

[UPDATE] 10:33 [It’s 1030. We’re taking a break. Judge had announced that the court had withdrawn from the pilot program of videoing. Cooper now says that he has submitted a letter asking that the tape recording of the trial cease. He says it is not within the local rule. ]

Judge: I don’t believe so. Local rule permits recording for purposes of use in chambers. That is customarily done when we have overflow courtrooms. I think it would be quite helpful to me in preparing the findings. That’s the purpose for which it will be made going forward. The recording is not for the purposes of public broadcasting.

Cooper: I appreciate that clarification.

[They will do ANYTHING to keep this trial secret. I truly believe they’d rather have this trial in a star chamber (Ken or otherwise) than in public. They are afraid of the truth.]

[UPDATE] 11:04While we wait for the trial to resume, a few thoughts.

1. For most of the world, Haiti is the big news, as well it should be. The level of destruction and human suffering there is unimaginable. As I read the NYT this morning with two front page stories about Haiti, I could not begin to conceptualize what 45,000 possible deaths even means, especially in a country as riven as Haiti. So many Courage Campaign members and other progressives are joining with others around the country to try to pitch in.

2. The news out of DC that Obama is apparently trying to get some of the billions back from the bankers is heartening. We’ll see.

It’s hard to keep up with the world when focusing so intently one piece of it here in this court room. Some might say that in light of the big horror in Haiti and all of the other problems in this country and the world, that we should not focus so much on “the gays.” Well, the above are exactly why this case matters so much. We have to open our society to equality so that all of us can focus our energy and attention on progress, on making our society and country and world better for all, not necessarily something the right wing really wants to have happen (witness Pat Robertson on Haiti).

Okay, we’re back!

[UPDATE] 11:11 11:00AM, we’re back to Eagan.

[P is trying to show that he E used the Williams Institute methodology and not his own.] $2.7 million in annual revenues?

E: Yes.

P: You have not considered additional costs?

E: Costs are offset by license fees.

P: Fees at they are now would reimburse city’s costs if these additional marriages take place?

E: I have not considered that specifically because fees pay for weddings. I estimated the number of weddings to determine the extra staffing needed, not to adjust the size of the fees.

P: If needed, the city would increase fees?

E: City sets fees to cover costs. It’s not clear that fees would need to increase. Each clerk can handle so many during the day. It’s a linear thing.

P: You have not factored in additional costs for printing marriage licenses, changing forms, etc.?

E: Fees cover that.

P: You have simply not accounted for that?

E: Yes.

P: Exhibit 852 (from interveners).

E: Email thread with Margaret Sang in city’s 311 customer service center.

P: Caller had asked what would be financial impact of Prop. 8 on SF.

E: Yes.

P: You estimated $400,000 or so cost, which is quite a bit lower than what you estimated today.

E: Yes.

[Admitted as evidence.]

P: You testified earlier that federal law would have to change before SF benefits from federal tax savings.

E: Yes.

P: You said some same-sex married couples would pay more federal tax?

E: Yes.

P: You base this on plaintiff’s expert Dr. Badgett?

E: Yes.

P: We should ask her about underlying validity?

E: Yes, you may.

P: You have assumed that the percentage of same-sex couples marrying would equal percentage of opposite sex couples who marry?

E: Yes.

P: You have not estimated when that will happen?

E: No. Not necessary for my estimates.

P: You have concluded that the equal percentages would prevail is only based on removal of barriers?

E: Yes.

P: You have not studied what has happened in other jurisdictions and you are not an expert on same-sex marriages?

E: Correct. But as an economist, I use conservative data to make estimates.

[UPDATE] 11:29 [Patterson, the lawyer for the defense is trying to show that the basis of the data for his projections is wrong. He’s trying to show that his economic estimates do not hold. Basically, he’s trying to impeach this witness. The plaintiffs will need to come back on redirect and show that his data are strong. Most specifically, lots of people like to get married in SF, gay and straight. So the more people who can marry, the better for the city, yes?]

P: Williams Institute says that at 17%, SF County has highest percentage of gays and lesbians in the state.

E: That’s what it says.

P: You assume that the net impact of the spending due to savings on federal income tax if they are married is by spending 100% of those savings in SF on taxable goods.

E: Yes. That’s an upper end estimate.

[We’re back and forth with Prop. 8 trying to undermine every shred of his economic forecast. ]

P: Report on five years of SF Human Rights Commission equal rights ordinance. Admitted as evidence.

P: Look at page 12 for litigation update. [Trying to show that since litigation is settled and behind SF, there’s no more cost to enforce.]

P: Long series of questions saying that legalizing marriage will not automatically convert domestic partnerships to marriage and that therefore there will still be domestic partners and therefore the need for the domestic partner coverage under the current SF laws.

[Looks like he’s pushing to show that we’d have marriage and domestic partnership which means there’d be no savings. (P is fumbling through documents. There’s a pause.)]

[UPDATE] 11:41 P: Human Rights Commission also responds to other discrimination-related complaints even if same-sex marriage is legal. “Over 4,500 employers provide domestic partner benefits. “ Do you believe that domestic partner benefits are commonplace?

E: I have no independent means by which to verify?

P: Does California have legal means to provide equal benefits to domestic partners?

E: Not aware of it.

P: A policy may not offer or provide coverage for domestic partner that is not equal to married couples. (He’s showing that no benefit is achieved via marriage so there wont’ be any savings for having marriage.)

[Our side objects. Judge says it’s not a proper area for examination of the witness. But he says, “I understand the point that you are making and I think you have done a good job of making it.”]

[UPDATE] 12:06 P: You believe companies will save money if there is marriage, but you have not studied it?

E: Hard to observe companies when they don’t do something and that would be the case here.

Judge: I know this is an adverse witness. You can cross examine him in the old fashioned way and not take his deposition. (Judge is getting a bit tired of the back and forth, wants him to get to the point.)

P: Cost of healthcare goes from public to private sector?

E: Correct, but better to say that people move from uninsured to insured.

P: Not expert opinion that reduction of discrimination will improve the health of LGBT people?

E: Not an expert, but it’s my observation.

P: IN general, is SF a gay-friendly city?

E: Yes.

P: In light of this, you think gays and lesbians have elevated impact and need for health services, but you have not done your own research?

E: Not my field.

P: Bullying report—you have not verified it and you have not confirmed that for SF?

[Judge: Holds up arm crooked and says, “it’s true is it not…” indicating that that’s how the lawyer is supposed to phrase his questions.]

E: Most of my research predated when same sex marriage was legal anywhere in the US.

P: You have not studied the impact on opposite sex couples?

E: No.

P: True that if opposite sex couple marriages decrease, it would cost the city money.

E: Yes, if same sex marriage had a negative impact on opposite sex marriage rates, that would be true.

P: Looking at months during which same sex marriage legal in 2008 v. 2007. 2008 more than 700 fewer opposite sex marriage licenses issued in SF during the time that same sex marriage was legal.

E: Shows that in one two week period there was an increase in the number of opposite sex couple marriages while same sex were legal, but in the entire period there was a decrease in the number of same sex marriages.

P: Goes back and forth with E saying that he never teaches anything about same sex marriage at Berkeley. Even produces a long report about economic strategy and says that same sex marriage was not part of the economic strategy of SF.

E: It’s true that same sex marriage was not a policy option in 2007. It’s also true that many of the things that I teach and consider are not in that document.

P: Returns to National Elevator Industry of New Town, Pennsylvania.

[Sorry, I had to duck out for a quick radio interview. We’re in redirect.]

[UPDATE] 12:09 Our side is showing now that the other cities that would have to have equal rights ordinances would cost more than making marriage legal. We’re also showing that looking at only four months or so of data is no way to examine statistics. And looking at only one city for four months of same-sex marriage makes no sense.

Next witness is going to be Dr. Meyer.

Adjourn at 1210 and come back at 1:00PM

[UPDATE] 1:32 It’s after lunch and Dr. Ilan H. Meyer, Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health is up. He will testify about the stigma and prejudice gay and lesbians individuals face in society.

He’s being questioned an expert on the question of lesbian gay bisexual and transgender public health issues. He wrote an article for the journal of public health on LGBT health that was the only time the journal has ever sold out in its history. He teaches at Columbia, including Research Methodology (how to conduct surveys, required course); Prejudice, Stigma and Discrimination as Social Stressors and Gay and Lesbian Public Health. He’s a rock star. He just got qualified to offer his opinions.

{UPDATE] 1:27 Meyer: My opinion is on the nature of stigma on LGBT with example of Prop. 8. Second, model of minority stress from social stressors. And third the effects on mental health. This is a topic of my study for the last twenty years. Some of the research I have conducted; other is from doctors in the field that relies on body of evidence that allowed me to write a report.

Counsel: Define stigma.

M: I’ll be very brief because it’s a huge subject. Succinctly, group in society that has a negative attribute that is seen by society that results in their being “devalued.” Gay and lesbian people, the whole person is identified by the attribute that is devalued so the person feels devalued. In other words, the stigma devalues the entire person, not just an aspect of that person.

M: Structural stigma refers to more solid structures in society such as the law and any other institution that is central in our society. Law has a major role in determining the goods that society can provide to citizens. Laws may block or foster access to those resources. Stigmatized groups may be controlled by society from access to those institutions or goods, in this case marriage.

Counsel (Dusseault): Are there stigmas attached to gays and lesbians and what are they?

M: My work deals with the roles assigned by stigma. For example, that gay people are incapable of intimate relationships, don’t desire those relationships and may be incapable of such relationships. This is what society says. Intimate relations means marriage, husband, wife, family and community. In all of those, gay people have been described as pariahs, incapable of having those relationships, maybe even undesirable citizens.

[This is all going to be very, very interesting. Stay with us!]

[UPDATE] 1:36 M: Describes EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK. (I remember furtively reading this when I was a kid. I got it from my parents’ bedroom. It scared the shit out of me. I was sure I was going to be one of those shoe salesmen who has a foot fetish or permanently unhappy.)

Excerpt from book shown:

What about all the homosexuals who live together happily?

What about them?

They are mighty rare birds among the homosexuals flock. Moreover, the “happy” part remains to be seen. The bitterest argument between husband and wife is a passionate love sonnet by comparison with a dialogue between a butch and his queen. Yes. Happily. Hardly.

M: This is strong and clear example.

[Now we move to Prop. 8 as a stigma. This is really good.]

M: Law and constitutional part of the law is part of the social structure that blocks or gates one from attaining a goal. Prop. 8 fits into the definition of a structural stigma.

M: We all grow up thinking that we can achieve goals, but Prop. 8, a constitutional amendment, blocks people from that goal. Domestic partnership does not equate with marriage. I do not refer in stigmatization as any tangible benefit that may accrue from marriage or domestic partners. I deal with the social benefit. Young children do not aspire to be domestic partners; most young people desire and have a respected goal of attaining marriage.

M: Domestic partnerships do not have the same social meaning as marriage. I don’t know if it has any social meaning at all. It has legal value, but that’s not what I talk about with stigma.

[Moving to issue of minority stress.]

[UPDATE] 1:48 [This may sound like stuff you’ve never identified as present in yourself or your friends, but have always felt. Wow.]

General stressors are losing a loved one or a job. They are different than minority stressors. A life event is an acute stressor (beginning and end). Chronic stressor would be the result of losing a job so they can be related. Others are minor stressors such as being in a long line in a bank, if people still go to banks (laughter) or getting stuck in traffic. Other stressors are non-events, meaning nothing happened. It’s something that is expected to happen, but in this case it did not. For example, I have been in a job for a long time and expected a promotion, but I did not get it. That’s a non-event stressor, it’s something that did not happen but was expected. Getting married, having children are such events. If you ask little children, they’d say I expect to get married, have children and have grandchildren. If they don’t happen, people are stressed.

We try to separate the stressor part (the input) and the outcome that resulted from that stressor, in this case health effects.

Minority stress is an extension of this notion of stress that extends from social arrangements. In my model any stress that is related to stigma of discrimination is a minority stressor. Losing a job due to discrimination is a minority stressor of a life event. There are different impacts.

Article that I’ve written about on minority stressors is basis for hundreds of articles on the subject.

D: Does the article cover other minorities?

M: I have to explain how I got to the concept of minority stress. All the research on life events as sources of stress have been going on since the 1950s. I articulated this in the context of LGBTs. The word minority here is sexual minority and it means lgbt. Most of the things in it are quite specific to gay men and lesbians, but the general theories apply to other minorities.

D: Are there specific processes that create minority stress?

M: Yes. My specific contribution is to describe the “processes:”

1. Prejudiced events.

2. Expectations of rejection and discrimination.

3. Concealing which refers to hiding your orientation, not being out.

4. Internalized homophobia.

M: I identified these processes by relying upon work on topics of life events, internalized homophobia. I gathered it all together to explain the experience of gay men and lesbians.

[UPDATE] 2:06 Prejudice events:

M: By definition these events are related to prejudice, so they are different that life events and the like. They will include other types of events people experience, for example anti-gay violence even though it’s not discrimination. Hate crimes—the person is chosen for this crime because of prejudice.

I’ve collected data from 400 gays and lesbians. Have many thousands of life events that they reported. Chronic things such as harassment they felt as a child. If someone jumped on me and attacked me it’s an event.

D: Do prejudice events differ in magnitude?

M: How big are the events? How much adaptation does such an event require? Losing a job is a very big event; waiting in a line is a tiny matter. Another event such as a hate crime has a greater impact on the victim and that greater impact has to do not so much with the characteristics of the event, but with the social meaning of such an event. I don’t want to talk in this room about anything legal, but I understand that the Supreme Court upheld hate crimes as special crimes because of the social meaning attached to them which makes it worse.

D: Who perpetrates?

M: Interpersonal events for example might be the state, by creating certain structures, but also individuals who do something, such as in the case of hate crimes. Unfortunately, often the perpetrators are family members, parents and siblings. The survey results are quite dramatic from the respondents. What was distinctive about it was how many reported family members who perpetrated such crimes such as rape or homelessness.

D: Every day hassles?

M: In prejudice literature we call them every day discrimination events. In ways that hate crimes have social meaning so do these. They are not annoyances when they represent social disapproval. They are felt differently.

M: Examples are plentiful. I read the plaintiffs’ testimony. One of things with which I was struck was filling out forms. Gay people do respond to that. The only way I can explain it is that it’s not about the form, the form evokes social disapproval and rejection and memories of events, including large events that have happened in the past. So it’s this minor thing that people may not even remember, but they have enormous significance. Maybe one was treated in an unfriendly way by one’s partner’s parents. It’s not nice for anyone, but it has great social meaning of rejection and disrespect they have felt in the past.

Judge: What kinds of forms?

M: What I mean by forms is any kind of administrative form, particularly where you have to fill out your marital status. There is no place to put anything, so I say single even though I have been in a relationship for 40 years. I don’t want to get into a long discussion with a clerk in a motor vehicle office. It’s not demanding to cross out a form, it’s not memorable. But it’s memorable to gay and lesbian people because it means social rejection.

D: Type of form is that which you might see at a bank?

M: Yes.

D: Travel hassle mentioned by plaintiffs?

M: Yes, very similar. It’s not so much what happened but the meaning of it. A clerk asking about a king size bed is not a big deal, but for a gay person it has huge meaning.

D: Does the fact that that you draw in a box or get the right bed take away the problem?

M: No. It’s not about the result; it’s about “I’m gay and I’m not accepted here.” Someone might not get a job promotion or might not get married not because of prejudice or because they are being blocked, but for example if you are not married, and you are asked constantly if you are getting married it can be prejudice that creates stress. It has double meaning: the action of the non-event (not getting married), but also for the event that results in the continued daily hassles. Not a factor of their lives, but of the negative way in which they are viewed by society.

D: What is the relationship between Prop. 8 and marriage?

M: Quite obvious that it blocks marriage. It would certainly be responsible for gay men and lesbians having to explain why I’m not married, which includes not being seen as equal. My status is not accepted by my state or country or fellow citizens. In the very definition of structural stigma, it’s a block.

[UPDATE] 2:31 [Dr. Ilan Meyer, Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health is continuing his testimony.]

Why Concealing Who You are because society tells you you must is “a living hell.”

Dusseault (plaintiff’s attorney) reads Paul Katami’s (plaintiff) testimony about having rocks thrown at them in a gay bar.

M: Don’t mean to tell plaintiff it’s not a big deal, but it’s not unique. Laughter. That refers to the registration that I must get used to being gay and treated this way.

M: (Looks at testimony of Stier about forms. Same point.)

2. Expectations of rejection and discrimination.

This occurs in a segment of society in which people who know that they are going to be discriminated against, first they have to guard their safety. A gay couple has to monitor their behavior, such as holding hands, because someone can throw something at them even on a safe street. You have to have a third eye monitoring the environment. It’s stressful.

M: Nothing really has to happen. The persons involved in that environment may not hold any negative attitudes. The expectation is not that this particular person may harm you, but that my behavior may trigger something with someone. Being in a job interview you have to monitor what you are saying. It’s not what they think, it’s that you expect them to think something. It’s the same here.

M: Many times people avoid situations, or swallow those situations of slurs and just move on because they don’t want to get into a fight, but the anticipation causes stress.

[Judge Walker is really interested in this. He’s just watching, with his index finger on his cheek, focused, not impatient as he got with the statistics and that style of questioning.]

M: Prop. 8 achieved the literal aims of not allowing gay people to marry, but it sends a message via the constitution that it encourages prejudicial attitudes.

3. Concealing the stigmatizing identity.

M: The concept of coping is part of the stress process. If you are in the US military, by law you have to conceal your homosexuality. You conceal so that if you are gay and in the military, you don’t get fired. They may conceal because of personal safety such as hate crimes fears, they don’t want people to recognize them as gay, may not want to go to place recognized as gay because they don’t want people to hurt them physicialloy or otherwise. Many ways this kind of concealment are stressful. All of the stress outcome is from mainstream psychological ways that this concealment may be stress.

M: Concealment may be stressful because you have to work hard on it. If you are lying, you have to work to keep lying. It’s very hard. The example of the military: you talk with your comrades about their girlfriends and boyfriends. Gay people may refer to their girlfriend when they mean boyfriend. You have to coordinate with what you said last week. It’s been described as a “living hell.”

[I have never been in the military, but how many stories about this for myself do I have? It screws you up for life.]

M: Hiding something which as a core thing about who you are is very stressful. That’s not all gay people are, but it’s a big part and they have to hide it. There’s a concept of authenticity as well.

D: Does concealment impact a gay man or lesbian’s ability to gain social support?

M: Yes. The ability people have to cope with stress is often through social support. There are also things that happen that lead to affiliation with the gay community. You get benefits from a gay pride or community center, but if you are concealing, you won’t do those things. Many health services are provided to gay and lesbian populations and welcoming environments, but people who conceal can’t benefit from that.

[UPDATE] 3:08 M: Prop. 8 sends a message that it’s very highly valued by our constitution to reject gay people.

D: Introduces testimony from Kris Perry (plaintiff). “I have to decide every day if I want to come out everywhere I go and take the chance that somebody will have a hostile reaction to my sexuality r just go there and buy the microwave… (It’s) exhausting.”

M: Yes, that’s what I was saying. The word that most jumped at me here is the word “exhausting.” Exhausting has a special meaning in stress research done by Hans Selya who studied this in animals. Animals even die from this.

4. Internalized homophobia.

M: This is a term that has been discussed a lot. A very central aspect of treating people who are troubled by whatever symptom that brought them to therapy is internalized homophobia. That means taking in the negative notions that exist in society that they have learned through socialization. It’s not just gay men and lesbians; they are prevalent attitudes. If they read the book by Ruben (Everything you always wanted to know.), then the person realizes later “I am gay.” Then the person would realize that they are that person that Ruben said they’d be. (BOY OH BOY. Did he read my past??? I’ve never talked about that part of my growing up and here it in federal court!)

M: It’s something that is akin to racism or sexism.

M: Possible self is a psychological concept that relates to something very interesting. Whoever we are is also influenced by who we might become. It helps people chart goals and life goals. It’s not super articulate life plan, but maybe just that I’ll be a mother. It’s related to what people feel right now. Having a more optimistic notion of the future makes you feel better. The opposite brings about negative feelings.

M: Internalized homophobia speaks directly to the possible self. Internalized homophobia is informed by social stigma. If you internalize that, you say this is who I will be. It’s not as simple as that, but it’s a factor. Young gay people can have very negative self-views and they can’t imagine a future at all because they have to grapple with “how I will be?” Is it true that homosexuals will be unhappy?

You have to relearn better attitudes about yourself, which is work.

[Reads Kris Perry testimony]:

“Well, I have never really let myself want it (marriage) until now. Growing up as a lesbian, you don’t let yourself want it, because everyone tells you are never going to have it.”

M: Yes, it’s the point.

[And this is what Egan sort of said before about the stats. You can’t measure what’s not possible.]

4. Health Impact on gays and lesbians.

M: Purpose of my work has been to study health outcomes. For gay men and lesbians and also bisexuals, there is a correlation between stressors and anxiety, mood and substance disorders. General distress, such as feeling “blue” or “sad.” Variety of outcomes has been studied. On the other side, we see excess smoking or drinking (for general stress as well as for gay and lesbian populations). So there is excess risk for lesbians and gays because they have the general stressors but also the ones added by being gay or lesbian and disapproved. Also, excess in suicide attempts, particularly in youth.

D: Does stigma yield higher incidence in gay and lesbian population?

M: Yes. Pretty consistent findings show excess disorder in gay and lesbian population than in general population. Not at all saying that being gay or lesbian is a disorder; saying that society’s approach to gays and lesbians, generates excess risk of disorders. Never expected that everyone who is exposed to a risk is somehow diseased. Even in areas of extreme stress such as war everyone does not get PTSD. Wanted to see if this population has more of this risk and disease.

D: Are you saying all gays and lesbians suffer from adverse consequences?

M: No. Analogy to smoking and lung cancer. People who smoke have more probability of lung cancer, but not all get it. Not all gays and lesbians are disordered, but the incidence is higher in gays and lesbians?

D: Would the disorder be less if society changed?
M: Yes. People who have more exposure to this attitude of society have more disorder. People who were not exposed as much to the stressors have less disease so less stressors would have less disease.

D: Are you familiar with two thousand ten?

M: Yes. We refer to it as healthy people twenty ten. [LOT OF LAUGHTER]

D: I stand corrected.

M: Plan for the health of the nation for the decade that ends now.

D: Section from Healthy People 2010 deals with sexual orientation. This book is a huge study and plan for how to make the country healthier. (HHS document.)

http://healthypeople.gov

“The issues surrounding personal, family, and social acceptance of sexual orientation can place a significant burden on mental health and personal safety.”

D: [Chart “A Causal Model: Social Structure and Health” that shows stress and coping resources are not randomly ascribed to people, but are due to social status/stigma.]

[Chart summarizes everything he has been saying. Everyone experiences general stress, but stigma and social status add to the stress. Look for how process affects health outcomes.]

D: Do you have a view if mental health outcomes for gay and lesbian in CA would improve if Prop. 8 were not law?

M: Yes. Consistent with my work and findings that show that when people are exposed to more stress than less stress they are more likely to get sick, consistent with a law that says to gay people you are not welcome here, your relationships are not valued vs. the opposite has significant power. Clearly it’s not the only thing that determines prejudice and discrimination, but it’s a major factor.

Judge: Let’s go a bit past 4:30 today to get back on schedule.

3:00PM –Ten minute break

[UPDATE] 3:56 Sorry had some Internet issues, but I’m back online.

We’re back. 3:15.

Boies: We believe we will finish our case on Wednesday, whether we call Ms. Dia today or not.

Judge: Let’s keep moving.

Al Wilson is up for the Defendant interveners to cross-examine Dr. Meyer.

AW puts up expert report by Prof. Herrick says this 1950s is considered a classic study in the analysis of homosexuality in mental health. The study is by Dr. Hooker. The men were recruited from non-clinical settings. Half homosexual and half hetero.

AW: Is not your conclusion at odds with those of Dr. Hooker?

M: Not at all.

AW: Moving PX 1003 into evidence. Look at page 683 of the article (pagination of journal in which it was published). You write, “Despite a long history of interest in studies about gay men…” studies tried to show that homosexual men were not more often mentally ill than heterosexual men. You wrote that and you agree with that?

M: Yes. I wrote the entire article. [MUCH LAUGHTER]

AW seems to be trying to impeach M’s conclusions. He’s saying that the past view that said that homosexuals do not have disorders in a higher percentage. He tries to get M to answer yes or no. M says I can’t answer that the way you want me to because there are different generations of research here.

AW: Your opinion that now there is a higher prevalence of mental disorders in homosexuals differs from the previously understood studies.

M: Yes. I consider myself a gay affirmative scientist and I certainly advocate for improved atmosphere for gays and lesbians.

AW: You are a gay affirmative advocate?

M: Yes.

AW: You gave twice to Prop. 8?

M: I don’t remember how many times I gave, but I gave because I believed in the cause.

AW: Here’s the SF Chron showing your donations.

M: Okay. I guess that’s right.

[So AW is happy to show how much M gave and when, but his side wants to hide what anyone on their side did. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.]

AW tries to clarify social stress or minority stress model. The minority stress model predicts that individuals who are members of that group will have worse mental health outcomes than those who are not.

M: As a theoretical matter we look at commonality and divergence across difference populations to test our theories. There are commonalities and differences.

[UPDATE] 3:54 AW: Reads from interview that M gave about three groups of blacks, women and gays, that each would experience greater stress. You believe that due in part to social status, LGB population has twice as a high an instance of mental health disease. Higher suicide rates. Less well.

M: Agrees with all.

AW: If one LGB individual in a relationship were suffering from minority stress, it would affect other partner.

M: Not unique to LGB people. If the other person’s loved one is experiencing something bad, it would negatively impact the other. Internalized homophobia might have this affect; more minor ones might not.

Judge: Maybe you can point your questions and the witness can point his answers and maybe you’ll meet in the middle. (Laughter).

AW: Some of the mental health issues can come from other causes.

M: Yes.

AW: At least as a theoretical model, women experience more stress than men?

M: Correct that we’d look for that outcome, yes.

AW: In your interview you found that there is not a difference between men and women in your studies or others?

M: Yes.

AW: Model would show that AA and Latinos would have higher stress than non-Hispanic whites, but don’t have more disorders?

M: Yes.

[AW is trying to show that there is not enough evidence to show that LGBs have more mental disorders and that instead as an advocate, he’s bending science.]

[UPDATE] 4:00 AW is pushing on this word “parsimonious” which he says means simple and that it’s preferred in social science.

M: Says that we are interested in questions of parsimony in way that you have said it. We are interested in seeing if conclusions expand across broad populations, which is notion of parsimony (or universality?).

AW: Puts as evidence an M Journal article. Social stress theories lead us to expect that damaged groups (black and Latino) are more likely to have mental disorders than to white LGB men.

M: Agree.

AW: In study, found that they do not have higher prevalence of disorder.

M: Yes.

AW: Finding was contrary to hypothesis.

M: Yes.

AW: Found that AA and Latino lesbians and gays had far fewer disorders than white LGBs.

M: Yes.

[Lots of back and forth.]

M: We always think that more research is indicated. That’s what we do.

AW: Yes, that’s how you stay in business! Some lawyers think there’s always need for more litigation.

[UPDATE] 4:09 AW: I’m testing the minority stress theory generally.

M: Okay.

[AW and Prop. 8 have to take this guy on because he’s so good and his work is so spot on. I am biased, lest you imagine otherwise. I identify personally with so many of the specific findings that M has delivered up that he seems a soul-reader. But that won’t do any good here. Prop. 8 wants to show that they are the victims and that LGBs are just fine, thank you and should sit down and shut up and just do whatever they tell us. And we’re going to eat their children, so we are lucky to have the “generous” benefits that California bestows (generous is Mr. Cooper’s description of how we are treated in society. I for one do not want to live my life based on the generosity of others. How about a little equality?

I’ve been quiet because AW is reading a lot of stuff from M’s studies and trying to show that his hypotheses are usually wrong when tested.

The judge is standing up with his arms crossed. This much sitting is hard, even for my fat ass.]

[UPDATE] 4:34 M: Lots of methodological problems with early studies. Huge leap forward in epidemiology and means of study in new generation of studies.

[He makes the point that older ways of finding the causes of cancer have been superseded by learning that viruses or infection may be the cause. So too with our new ways of doing these studies has superseded earlier studies. “The old studies contradict the new” rather than what AW wants to say which is that the new studies contradict the old.]

M: Responds to AW’s point that it’s hard to draw conclusions about suicide incidence because in this study, they are only dealing with completed suicides because you are studying people who are dead. There’s a paucity of data.

AW: So you do agree that you cannot demonstrate that in these studies there is a proof of the minority stress theory?

M: Yes, but these are tiny studies. There’s not enough data because the people are dead. You can’t draw good conclusions from them because there is not enough data. I created a selection criteria for which studies to include, specifically community studies that were very large that were community studies.

[Judge is sitting. This is tedious but AW is trying very, very hard to show that M’s studies are not conclusive.]

M: All studies suffer from methodological deficiencies but these (public health studies) are the best we have. General population studies included whomever happened to be gay in the random sample. There have been studies of this nature that use a selective measure they find most relevant to their purpose. I’d be surprised if they all use the same methodology. They do not use the more complex means of study. I used meta analysis because you can aggregate to overcome small sample size.

[I need to go for a swim or a good stretch, at least. I’m cramping up here!]

It’s 4:30 and the judge just said to AW to keep going if that’s what he wants to do. Not ready to stop yet.

[UPDATE] 4:49 [Just for the record, Dr. Meyer is unflappable and a rock star.]

“Here lies the first problem for researchers of LGB population. The population’s definition is elusive.” Quote from M article.

AW: Is this a problem for comparing health outcomes for LGB vs. non-LGB populations?

M: This is always a problem. It’s not specific to LGB populations. It’s just part of what we do when we design a study.

AW: Does it raise a potential problem?

M: I can come up with scenarios, but I cannot answer that question in generic form. All studies start with problem of definition.

[This guy is rock star. He really knows his stuff. ]

M: You’re trying to suggest it’s some big problem. It’s not. The population is elusive in every study. This is the first step of trying to study. If I wanted to study men, I’d have to define the cohort, age, location, etc. What is a Latino? Do you include Mexicans or Puerto Ricans? The first step is to define the general population and then the sampling population.

AW: Is there a correct definition of the LGB population?

M: Is there one correct definition? It depends on the means of the study. It is only correct in that you get to the population you want to study. You have to correctly sample the population of intention. Analogizes to Latino. With LGB, you may only want to sample behavior if that’s what you study.

AW: There is no one correct definition of LGB?

M: For a study.

AW: Definitions of sexual minorities vary.

M: All definitions vary. That’s why there are definitions.

AW: three ways to define sexual identity. Identity labels vary across ethnicity, culture, etc.

M: Yes.

AW: At any point people who answer truthfully that they are not LGB will answer truthfully later that they are LGB.

M: Yes, because of the coming out process.

AW: Some people who have same sex sex may not identify as sexual minority.

M: Yes.

AW: possible that a person who engages in same-sex relations may not identify as LGB.

M: Yes.

AW: Some people would not give honest answers?

M: Yes. I referred to it before as concealment.

AW: Could you ask someone if they were African American ever or were last year?

M: Yes. That does vary. There are people who move into the US as Caribbean, their parents do not describe themselves as black, but after their kids socialize do say they are African American. Identities change and are responsive to the social context, but how people refer to themselves might change.

AW: For LGB population, could vary?

M: That is true for any population.

AW: Size of LGB population might vary greatly depending on definition of LGB.

M: Yes.

[UPDATE] 5:10 M: Study wasn’t done in the way you are saying, which would be as a comparison of California vs. Massachusetts with regard to LGB individuals.

AW: Same-sex marriage has been legal in the Netherlands since 2001; are LGB people more susceptible to mental illness than in California?

M: I have no way to know.

AW: You believe that domestic partnerships reduces the value of same-sex intimate relationships?

M: Yes.

Judge: How are you doing on time? (5:00PM)

AW: fifteen minutes. Trying to separate wheat from the chaff.

AW: Reads domestic partnership benefits list.

M: Good that they offer benefits, but that’s not my point nor has it been. My point is that social benefit is not conferred.

AW: Do you believe that domestic partnership stigmatizes?

M: Yes.

AW: Reads from Jackie Goldberg’s words around AB 205 which is the domestic partnership bill. Bill sponsored by Equality California, with LAMBDA, NCLR, ACLU. Are you familiar with EQCA?

M: I think they ran the campaign against prop. 8.

AW: You contributed to them.

M: I should familiarize myself with them (laughter).

AW: Do you believe that they (and ACLU and LAMBDA) would promote legislation that would stigmatize LGB people?

M: No, that was not their intention. They wanted to improve people’s lives, but they are still stigmatized.

AW: Wants M to read article by Jeffry Redding with which M is not familiar. I won’t question you about that document. Have you read any research that shows that same sex couples in domestic partnerships suffer from more mental health issues than those who don’t have it in other states?

M: No.

[This is laughable. Prop. 8 wants to show that partial rights are fine, that they are make everyone happy. So if you told a slave that she could have Saturdays off and that was the law, would those who sponsored the law be making her life better or worse? Well the answer is obvious. Her life would be better, but she’s still not equal.]

[UPDATE] 5:25 [NOTE: Rick was having some tech difficulties at the court house, but here is the final portion of the transcript as Day 4 of the Prop 8 trial wraps up — Eden w/ the Courage Campaign Institute]

AW: Lists off list of protections based on sexual orientation. Leaving aside the question of marriage, are you aware of any state that has less structural stigma than California?

M: I can’t answer that. I would have to study and look at those other states.

[Apologies. I thought the Prop. 8 guy’s name was Wilson, but I think it’s Nielson, so AW should be AN, but there it is. You get the point.]

Desseaux on redirect:

D: Gets into why African Americans may not have higher mental health issues than whites.

M: African American community support is great. Not equivalent type of support for gays and lesbians. Within families they are often shunned.

Judge: White LGB vs. Black or general population?

[This is very confusing. The judge is also confused and he’s asking good clarifying questions.]

M: Two different test groups: white non-gay vs. black non-gay. Then white LGB vs. black LGB.

D: Line of questioning on which I want to follow is if theory/model is broken, which is what AN wanted to show.

M: There are differences. Blacks are socialized with variety of access to support for their race which counters some effects of racism, whereas gays are socialized with homophobia. So the point is that racism is countered in many ways by strong support within AA community. Within non-gay AA, people have talked about racism as a stressor, but it is not as strong because of social fabric.

M: Term minority stress refers to sexuality minorities, not to all populations.

D: The four categories we discussed this afternoon apply only to LGB? Concealment?

M: Obviously only to LGB. You can’t conceal, nor do most want to conceal, that they are black. At least since 1964 there are no legal types of racism in the US. There is no state endorsement of racism by the state. Racism has not abated, but the law is on their side.

D: Any racial minority not allowed to marry?

M: I don’t think so. I have no doubt in veracity of to what I was testifying about LGB stressors due to structural stigma.

[Key point here: Minority Stress deals only with sexual minorities. AN tried to generalize to all minorities.]

M: Purpose of a study is to learn.

D: AN read out a list of organizations that supported domestic partnership. Is there any doubt that LG are stigmatized by lack of marriage? If no right to marry and no right to domestic partnership, stigmatized?

M: Yes.

D: With domestic partnership?

M: In a sense you make a clearer stigma with dual track because it’s really clear there is stigma.

Judge: Adjourned. Trial resumes again at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, January 15.

###

[I plan to write more later on today’s testimony. Thanks for the excellent comments, everyone! Rick.]

Tags: Al Wilson, Charles Cooper, David Boies, Dusseault, Edmund Egan, Ilan Meyer, Judge Walker, Peter Patterson

This Afternoon Testimony: Homophobia on Trial Our wonderful Trial Trackers and a few links