Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Liveblogging Day 5: Part III Lamb cross continues


By Rick Jacobs

[(Scopes Monkey Trial, Day 5, returning from late morning break.]

Prop. 8 tries to use early studies to show that L agrees with Prop. 8 on early father absence studies of Blankehorn. In other words, L puts stuff in his 1997 book in context.

L: It is true that children in hetero families do better when they have good relationships with fathers and might have negative consequences of bad relationships.

Prop. 8: Our expert wrote a book Fatherless in America. You reviewed?

L: You said easily the most provocative social commentary on 1995. He thought I was negative, but I’m glad I couched it in those diplomatic terms.

Prop. 8: Well you said it deserved to be read and widely discussed. Probably beneficial for children to have relationships with people who are different.

L: The more different people you have intimate relations with, the better.

Prop. 8: Relevant for boy to have role model?

L: Both boys and girls copy people in some ways.

Prop. 8: Not irrelevant for boy to have role model. Yes or no?

L: Society is replete with role models so it’s good.

Prop 8: Yes?

[Prop. 8 keeps pushing for him to say that man and woman are necessary. L used the word “any” in context of statement that there isn’t any evidence that foster parents need to be man and woman.]

L: Yeah. Whenever I hear the word “any” my antennae start to wiggle. When children do have father, important to have him involved. Having an important relationship with those who raise you is key. There are some circumstances in which children do perfectly well when raised by someone other than biological mother.

Prop. 8: Is there rich and empirical literature in your field showing that mothers are irrelevant in a child’s psychological well-being?

L: Need to define “mother” in that context. Person who raises but who was bio mother? Child needs good relationship with mother if she’s involved. We know the gender of that person is not crucial to child’s development.

P: You define traditional family as usually married bio mother and father?
L: Usually refers here to stay at home mom, bread-winning father as traditional.

P: Evidence that show this is best?

L: Some in society believe. Consensus in the field is that family structures like those are not causally important for a child’s well being.
P: Genetics. Personality under genetic influence?

L: Can be, but with two bio parents, common for child to be like one parent and not like another. Not always that child is similar to parent in temperament to bio parents. If there were similarities between parents and children, might influence child’s outcome. Could conceive of situation in which someone’s temperament might affect a child’s adjustment.

P: Going to depo. Believe that marriage is correlated with child outcomes, ways in which they affect are complicated.

L: Yes.

P: Look at reconstituted family structure, i.e., addition of step father into home is negative.

L: Yes.

P: Don’t think family structure affects family process?

L: In that case, yes. Entry of stepfather will change dynamics with resident mother and children, for better or worse.

Prop. 8: 1977 edition of L’s book. [They only use old editions of stuff. I think they don’t use globes either, because those show that the earth is round.]

[UPDATE] 11:29

[THEY NOW SAY THEIR WITNESSES WITHDREW BECAUSE THEY FEAR FOR THEY SAFETY. This is the same team that is trying to shut down this website. And they just heard a week of testimony about how gay people have literally been killed for being gay. And now they think they are victims????]

P: Goes to COLE depo from five weeks ago. Looking at P. 93, but L can’t find it. Now found it.

How does married bio family structure than cohab couple. “I don’t think family structure affects family processes.” In Depo.

P: If we randomly select 1,000 each gay and homo families, we’d find differences?

L: Yes.

P: Goes to Trans Resources Group. She won ASA distinguished research award?

L: I was not aware, but certainly deserves it.

(Objection by our side.)

Judge says witness can be asked about the article.

P: We withdrew two of our experts because they were extremely concerned about their personal safety so they did not want to appear with any recordings whatsoever. We ask you take judicial notice.

Judge: Put before witness and get reaction.

[UPDATE] 11:58 P: Now going to show article from Dr. Amato whom L respects. Research currently demonstrates that children growing up with continuously married parents are less likely to suffer from cognitive disabilities, even through maturity.

L: Yes, but it’s study of hetero parents.

P: Better if they are happily married.

L: Yes, he accurately summarized literature as I testified.
P: Marriage for African Americans, a Comprehensive Review.

(We object. Judge says okay to have judicial notice and ask questions.)

“Af Am married parents receive better infant health, fewer behavior problems, have moderately better ed outcomes. Marriage itself appears to be contributing strongly for betterment of AA children.” Generally reflect research?

L: It’s on shaky grounds if it suggests more than possible correlation. Not enough data.

[This lawyer is trying every which way to conflate studies of hetero populations with studies of homo populations and to blur the lines. Prop. 8 hate science.]

P: Prof Dougherty article. He’s well respected (L agrees).

L: Accurately summarizes literature for heteros raising families. Again, it’s about heteros.

P: Report from Institute for American Families. “But marriage matters. Children in average intact married families due better than children in step families.”

L: On average, it’s true.

Judge: Is that statement based on evidence based on opposite sex couples? So it does not include same sex couples?

L: I believe yes. Institute for American Values is a lobbying group that promotes a particular view of marriage between hetero couples. Most of their research is of hetero according to what I see here.

P: This team includes William Dougherty, Brad Wilcox, Norville Glen. P tries to debunk that this is lobbying firm because these are eminent scholars.

L: Glen is highly regarded, but quite ideologically committed. I’m not a sociologist, but I think he’s highly regarded.

P: “Progressive Policy Institute.” As we will see, a large body of evidence shows that in the aggregate intact two parent family is best suited to raising children.” Agree?

L: It depends. Children raised by two hetero parents than with single parent of hetero.

P: Sarah McLanahan wrote the next article.

L: Familiar with study, based on very large data set. Know and respect McLanahan.

P: Children who grow up in household do better with both parents than with one bio parent.

L: Accurate summary of different family configurations for children of heteros.

P: Adolescent Well Being of Children of Single Parent Families, by Kathy Lamb, no relation to our Lamb.

L: 13,000 was sample size of whole of that sample. Not that many in step families.

P: Adolescents do better when child is bio offspring of both parents in a hetero family.

L: All research gives same conclusion.

P: Sarah McLanahan and Cynthia Harbor: Father Absence in Youth Incarceration.

Results from longitudinal event history analysis, sizable portion of risk of father absence could yield early motherhood, etc. Prison highest risk. Highest risk still for prison is stepfather.

L: True, but same qualifications.

P: Another article. Very large sample size.

L: Drawn from large sample size, but small group actually studied.

P: Is that a potential problem?

L: No, just being clear.

P: Another study shows that adolescents do better with two parents.

P: Paul Amato study on Parental Absence and Depression in later life.

Whites and African-American, male and female, score higher on depression scale than single parent families.

L: Yes.

P: Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Higher Risk for Teen Pregnancy? (article)

Impact of father absence on early sexual activity and early pregnancy studied in US and NZ, totally of 762 people studied.
Father absence highest risk factor.

L: Interesting one for you to raise. Most recent issue of Child Development brings about one weakness that authors acknowledge because they could not control for genetics. So this study is proven to be wrong.

P: Prevalence and Seriousness of Incestuous Abuse, Stepfathers v. Bio Fathers, by Dianna Russell.

[This is the same thing. They want to scare people to show that gay men are child molesters.]

P: One out of 17 were sexually abused if in stepfather relationship, but 2% in general population.

L: Much more new research. None of it contradicts the conclusion that daughters in stepfather relationships are more often abused than not, but numbers are different.

P: We’re half way home your honor. (It’s noon).

[UPDATE] 12:07 [Now, we’re in gay parenting attack. Hang onto your hats.]

P: No study draws on random sample of all gays and lesbians in US?

L: I’m only interested in those who do have children.

P: But no study that shows ability of gays and lesbians to raise children?

L: I don’t think so.

P: No random sample of children’s adjustment with gay and lesbian parents?

L: You don’t have a random sample when you sample the entire population. We use census data, which is better.

P: Do you know of a study that purports to be random sample of all gays and lesbian parent children?

L: Don’t mean to be argumentative, but we have one that is all gays and lesbians raising children so it’s not a sample, it’s a population analysis. There’s another study of lesbian mothers which is a sample.

P: Do you know the number of same sex male couples that have children?

L: I think around 20%, but not sure.

P: APA policy statement on sexual orientation parents and children. Many lesbians and gay men are parents. In 2000, at least 20% of male same sex couples reported a child under 18.

L: Yes.

P: Most of studies focus on lesbian mothers, not gay fathers.

L: Yes. Gay fathers more difficult to locate.

P: Lesbians tend to better off than average?

L: I don’t know about that.

P: Who’s Gay Community…from Sociological Quarterly, pg. 454.

[Prop 8 is going after the idea that there is not enough data to know if gay fathers are good at being fathers. And not enough data about lesser income lesbians.]

[UPDATE] 12:10]

P: If the ability to mobilize is one of the incentives for identification, than the individuals we observed from invisible groups likely to be more politically active. Thus it’s self-selecting because sorts of individuals who come forward are activists.

L: I have no idea about this literature. It has nothing to do with my field of studying children. Yes, people who choose to have children in these relationships are more likely to identify themselves.

(Prop. 8 is trying to prove that the people who were studied are self-selecting wealthier folks who do not represent the entire population of gay and lesbian parents.)

[Broke for lunch until 1:00PM at 1210.]

Tags: ,


  • 1. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Quick note. This is part 3

  • 2. Calvin  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Isn't this part III ?

  • 3. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:32 am

    [They only use old editions of stuff. I think they don’t use globes either, because those show that the earth is round.]
    – thank I needed that one! LOL

  • 4. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:34 am

    4 of the 6 Prop8 "Experts" (Har D. Har II) dropped out of the courtroom for fear their faces would be broadcast and they'd be subjected to scrutiny/harassment/death

  • 5. fiona64  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:37 am

    'Cause people who are LGBT and/or supporters aren't subject to any of that?

    Gosh, I guess I'd better call back the policeman who took my stalking report (was talked by a Prop 8 supporter), pretend that I was never threatened by a neighbor when I refused to take down the "No on 8" sign from my lawn, and pretend that none of us were verbally and physically harassed (including an attempt to hit us with a car) during a silent "No on 8" vigil.

    Good grief. I am so over the "victimized majority" thing …

  • 6. Mykelb  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Maybe for fear their feces would be broadcast LOL

  • 7. Paul S.  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:35 am

    I'm finding today's live-blog summaries much harder to follow than the last few days' were, either because information is being left out or there are a lot of typos. For example:

    "Prop. 8: Our expert wrote a book Fatherless in America. You reviewed?

    L: You said easily the most provocative social commentary on 1995. He thought I was negative, but I’m glad I couched it in those diplomatic terms."

    Should Lamb's response begin "I" rather than "You"? This kind of thing is happening a lot. I'd rather have the blogger acting more as a court stenographer and less as a color commentator. Better yet, I'd love to watch the whole trial on TV…

  • 8. Louis  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:39 am

    I must agree. Today's proceedings are rather difficult to follow and comprehend. Thank goodness that there are several other people twittering about it, so I am somewhat getting a much better perspective.

  • 9. Richard  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:41 am

    if you want the whole dry stenographic kind of reporting, you'll find it over at Firedoglake. but be warned, they pepper it with commentary as well.

  • 10. Paul S.  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Thanks – I'll be reading both sites (and getting even less work done!)

  • 11. Paul S.  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:41 am

    "P: … How does married bio family structure than cohab couple. “I don’t think family structure affects family processes.” In Depo."

    Again, this is totally unclear: that first sentence seems to be a question, but lacks a verb. Is the answer from Cole's deposition, or Lamb's comment in court?

    Sorry to be critical; I'm thrilled that this site even exists.

  • 12. rpx  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:10 am

    I know what you mean about hard to follow, but honestly do you think you could do a better job? What he is doing is hard and I know for certain I coudl never in a million years do it. Just get your thinking cap on and concentrate, I am able to figure it out.

  • 13. Kelly  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:39 am

    [They only use old editions of stuff. I think they don’t use globes either, because those show that the earth is round.]

    Rick, you are so sassy. 😀

    But he has a point with this comment! I'm am so glad Lamb mentioned that a 'traditional' family is breadwinner/homemaker. It is! There's so many different types of families now. How does the defense get off on this?

  • 14. Juliet  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:41 am

    Exactly how many prop 8 supporters have been bullied to the point of suicide, raped, beaten, abused and killed simply for being prop 8 supporters? Yeah, NONE.

    How many gay people have experienced or know someone in the community who has been the victim of hatred…?

    I wish the court would allow the submission of the names of every gay person that has been the victim of a hate crime or pushed to suicide. Unfortunately it would be a long list. I am sure it wouldn't teach the prop 8 side the meaning of the word 'victim' but it sure would make a point.

    If the prop 8 side is so concerned for their witnesses safety, when (to my knowledge no one has threatened their safety – just their intellect and bigotry) try being treated like a gay person for a week.

  • 15. Mr. HCI  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:44 am

    Oh, come on! It would be soooooo unfair to people who spread hatred, lies and filth to have to actually defend themselves against those they defame!

  • 16. Tim  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:46 am

    I don't know if I believe that the yes on 8 witnesses are leaving the courtroom because they truly fear being harmed. I think it is an act put on for no other than Judge Walker.Its part of the game the that the defence counsel is playing. I can't say for sure, but It would not suprise me in the least!

  • 17. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Wel, if they allowed that – I would certainly be there with my deposition or testify in person! I used to be Mormon and was beaten 3 times by them!

  • 18. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:49 am

    Wait for the testimonies of Helen Zia, (Ms. Zia is an Asian American author who has written about the
    struggle for Asian American civil rights. She is also a lesbian. In 2008, she married the woman with whom she had been in a committed relationship for nearly two decades. She will testify about her sexual orientation, her experiences with discrimination, the effects of being denied the right to marry and the importance to her
    and her family of ultimately being able to marry) William Rogers (Mr. Rogers is a gay man who in 2008 married the man with whom he had been in a committed relationship for more than a decade. They have two sons. Mr. Rogers will testify about his sexual orientation, his experiences with discrimination and the importance of being able to marry to him, his spouse, their children and other close family members and friends.) and most interestingly Ryan Kendall (Mr. Kendall is a gay man who was subjected to “conversion therapy” in his youth. He will testify about how sexual orientation discrimination and “conversion therapy” affected him.)

  • 19. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:59 am

    I can't wait for the conversion therapy survivor. That is a bad experience. My close friend was sent to one of those "gay be gone" camps. Terrifying experience. Glad that is going to see the light of day!

  • 20. Mykelb  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:56 am

    Yeah, I have personally been attached three times by hetero men just for walking down the street. The last time had ribs and jaw broken in two places.

  • 21. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:19 am

    shit! and they say that gays just do fine and are accepted in society…

  • 22. Mykelb  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:09 am

    And that was in Washington, DC in my gayborhood

  • 23. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:21 am

    what I found from my own little questioning and talking to people is that in the end most violence and homophobia actually happens when the hating person encounters some kind of homoerotic feelings from himself. I could track down one cause for homophobia (not violence just an inexplicable aversion towards gay man – not lesbians though) to ONE incident where the guy (my ex) had in his youth an exoerience where his and his friend kinda gave each other a handjob. He enjoyed it and afterwards felt terribly afraid for enjoying it. this subsequently lead to his homophobia. It would have been another thing if he would have had learned that homosexual experiences are normal and that it does not neccessarily mean that you are gay but if you were everything would be just fine as well, he'd have developed differently

  • 24. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:43 am

    I laughed out loud reading some of the questions 😀 honestly, they withdrew their experts cause they didn't stand a chance facing science 🙂

  • 25. Will  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:44 am

    What is the significance of "judicial review" concerning the witnesses that withdrew?

  • 26. Tea Dough  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:44 am

    P: We withdrew two of our experts because they were extremely concerned about their personal safety so they did not want to appear with any recordings whatsoever. We ask you take judicial note.

    are you kidding me?!

    Lucky you have the luxury to "withdrawal" for your safety while gays around the world are KILLED for being gay. Hello, Ugandan government's murderous campaign to jail and execute LGBT citizens???

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

    I almost wish we could talk to the two experts and say, 'Welcome to the club.'

    What about all of the LGBT people who would like to testify against this heinous ban but were killed for saying they were gay?

    This is just getting ridiculous.

  • 28. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:06 am

    The difference is that we are actually attacked regularly. Not hypothetically. And it is the result from their own propaganda! The real issue must have been that evidence had been found against them that they did not want anyone else aware of. Certainly not Main Stream America, their bread and butter. Convenient excuse to cry "wolf". They look the victim and we look the villain. Hopefully we can still call them from the witness lists and still get the info included. These people are throwing dirt hoping anything will stick.

  • 29. Lymis  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:49 am

    "…any recordins whatsoever."

    They do know that there's a court stenographer there, right?

    They just wanted to be able, as an expert witness, to make stuff up and get away with no record of it at all? Probably.

  • 30. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Like the Bush White House saying certain people in the administration could testify about mistreatment of prisoners, but only if they weren't under oath and if the testimony wasn't recorded in any form.

    "We'll only testify if we can lie and nobody can prove a thing. Then we'll hold our collective breath until we all turn blue."

  • 31. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:50 am

    I think we should bring all the GLBT Ugandans to the US — we can send the religious right wing here to Uganda as a trade. We could even just have them swap houses, so no infrastructure would be involved.

  • 32. Tea Dough  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:00 am

    best idea I've heard in a very long time!

  • 33. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:09 am

    I agree. They would be so happy living in a gayless utopia of ignorance and misinformation (just the way they like it)

  • 34. gin  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:12 am

    Haha! They would be happy until their first gay son/lesbian daughter was born…

  • 35. Abbie  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:44 am

    How will/could the defendants witnesses withdrawing affect the overall outcome and appeals?

  • 36. Warren  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:49 am

    It dawns on me that since the SC accepted the argument of retaliation for TV if they can show their witnesses were too intimidated to testify in open court that the defense may try to show their case was improperly prejudiced and move for either mistrial or to overturn any favorable ruling on appeal. Given the overwhelming scientific evidence against them and the quality of their 'experts' Nicolasi, Cameron, Blankenhorn (all considered quacks by mainstream researchers) this is their best shot on the scientific aspects of the case.

  • 37. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Didn't the commentary here yesterday say that the witness intimidation thing wasn't the actual reason that the cameras were pulled?

    IIRC, the issue was more of a procedural one about how the cameras were brought in in the first place. It doesn't actually have anything to do specifically with the trial.

  • 38. Paul S.  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:54 am

    Good, scary point: if their witnesses are too "intimidated" to testify they can ask for a mistrial, right?

    Any chance they'd get it?

  • 39. Mykelb  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:59 am

    Don't think they can ask for a mistrial since they are defending the state's position. If the state has no position or evidence, we win.

  • 40. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:12 am

    I agree with they are the defenders. And must prove their own defense regardless. This is not a mafia trial.

  • 41. ron  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Unreal- They can't even get maybe a priest to stand up for their side!

  • 42. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:07 am

    ~ But priests are men and men drink and gamble and molest children, therefore we don't want them to testify. ~

    (since there's no "sarcasm font," I'm using the tildes to denote sarcasm)

  • 43. Brian  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:47 am

    With the history of gay bashings and beatings and murders in this country…. they have witnesses withdrawing that fear for their safety? Seriously?

  • 44. ron  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:48 am

    No one will come out of their closet for them

  • 45. Adam Easterling  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:49 am

    Can the other side make any comment on the defense saying that witnesses withdrew for fear of their safety? (E.g., That their names would have been known ANYWAY?)

    And can they come back in, now that SCOTUS has ruled that none of this will be broadcast?

  • 46. B  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:49 am

    I'm confused. Now the Prop 8 side can submit the reports of their "fearful" dropped-out expert witnesses for judicial notice and not be subject to OUR side's cross-examination?

  • 47. BMc  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:51 am

    That sounds like the strategy. It's lame.

  • 48. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:14 am

    If that was being allowed then we would also submit the finding against the reports.

  • 49. Scott J Bouza  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:49 am

    I wish they could get tis to te lawyers. So the Prop 8 side says that we are accepted now and discrimination no longer exists.

    Well take a look at this cartoon that was printed in Notre Dome's student newspaper just TWO DAYS AGO.

    The "joke" of the cartoon is, "What's the quickest way to turn a fruit into a vegetable?" A baseball bat.

    Click on the link below to see the post in full on Joe My God. I am outraged! Even with an apology, the poeople that let tis be printed in the paper need to lose their job and the author trown out of scool!

  • 50. Bill  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:59 am

    The original joke was to be:

    “What’s the quickest way to turn a fruit into a vegetable?


    But the cartoonist thought that was in bad taste. (True story)

    Apparently violent gay bashing is more palatable to heterosexuals than deadly disease.

    Morality indeed, heterosexuals.



  • 51. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Well, at least they didn't draw a picture of Mohammed… Then they'd be in real trouble!

  • 52. Urbain  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:19 am

    Sick cartoon! And here's another example from this week, where a Christian group advocates "Hate the Sin and the Sinner, calling for the death penalty for homosexuals under "God's civil law."

  • 53. ron  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Maybe Jesus will speak for them

  • 54. Kelly  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:52 am


  • 55. BMc  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Wow, That is infuriating. They're trying to out do the violence against GBLT people by playing the martyr themselves. I wish the judge would not allow Thompson to state the reasons those witnesses "withdrew" as if they were fact. It sounds like a pack of lies.

  • 56. Theresa  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Didn't you know? Gays hang around outside straight bars and beat them up when they come out.

    This is utterly insane. What a bunch of wusses. I thought they believed in standing up for their values?

  • 57. Bill  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:25 am

    A group (heterosexuals) with even the CAPACITY to treat their LGTB children in the vile manner they do really shows that heterosexuals HAVE no values.

    Truly. What kind of species CHOOSES to treat their own offspring in such a vile manner?

    Only the human heterosexual.

  • 58. MKrumm  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Whoa, Bill, please realize that so many people that support the right of all people to marry are heterosexuals. I think you would agree that sexual orientation does not correlate with evil.

  • 59. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:39 am

    I'm guessing Bill was attempting satire? I hope?

  • 60. Mykelb  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:52 am

    "P: We withdrew two of our experts because they were extremely concerned about their personal safety so they did not want to appear with any recordings whatsoever. We ask you take judicial notice."

    They withdrew for tactical reasons. My they just keep lying!!!

  • 61. gskrptr  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:53 am

    they probably withdrew them because their testimony was strong and this is a good scapegoat plus it builds the argument of why they didn't win.

  • 62. gskrptr  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:53 am

    sorry meant to say wasn't strong

  • 63. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:13 am

    They were taught abstinence only — apparently they don't know that withdrawal doesn't really work.

    Oh. Wait. That's something else entirely.

  • 64. PJOjai  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:54 am

    Are you kidding me. There witnesses withdrew because of fear of their personal safety. I've been fearing my personal safety as a gay man for 40 years!

    Cowards…if you are going to take a stand than I think you need to own up to it and back up your beliefs regardless of what people may say. Only wanting to testify "if it's not recorded" is just plain being a coward. It equates to "I don't want to be held responsible with what I say." pure BS. Don't you think that makes your side look like you have no leg to stand on?

  • 65. amanda  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:54 am

    Everyone knows how prop8's website won't allow us to leave comments? Well, how about we bombard them through their "contact us" web page. You can leave any message you want.

  • 66. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:28 am

    quite a good idea, just be careful to NOT write any stuff like you're bigots or sou deserve to burn in hell. it would only strengthen teir hilarious argument of fear from harassment!!!
    instead try to be especially kind and compassionate 😉 you annoy them with it more anyway 😉
    Like "isn't it a bit cowardly to not allow comments on your page? since you seem to get totally wrong what has been said in court it would be good to have people put it right. we love all our neighbours so that includes you and doing so, we DEARLY hope you're not going to burn your entire after life in hell living through the most unbarable agony imaginable for deviating so far from Jesus commands of love!!!!! yeah we do hope so…

  • 67. Bill  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Don't encourage that. We are better than they are. They will print those letters and present them in to the media against us.



  • 68. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:20 am

    I agree with you on that Bill. They seem to do well enough without any facts to support their claims, armed with facts what could be possible?

  • 69. Mykelb  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:12 am

    Done. I used the Mormon Temple's address and phone number in Salt Lake city.

  • 70. Justin Matthews  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:56 am

    If they are strictly saying that marriage is solely for "pro-child," does that mean that Prop 8 is also going after barren couples, women who have gone through menopause, couples who choose to have no children? That means that all these couples should have no right to marry as well, correct. And why aren't the lawyers bringing this up? As stated in yesterday's blog proceedings, it was stated that NY passed a statuet stating that because gays could not "accidently" have children, and straights can, that the state is more invested in having straight people married. If that is so, why is it not being brought up to the Prop 8 side asking why they are not attacking these other groupd (barren couples, women over menopause). Because according to them, a traditional family is strictly one that can procreate. I find this very frustrating being a gay man who has had to travel to Mass with my partner just to get married and cannot enjoy the same luxury in my own state.

  • 71. ron  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:58 am

    I want those witnessess waterboarded until they talk

  • 72. Terri  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:59 am

    I have read the other blog and can see the questioning back and forth but I am confused. Biological parents are the only good kinds of parents? Step-dads are negative? What exactly is the defense saying. This line goes well beyond SS marriage and into divorce, adoption, and fostering or am I reading this wrong?

  • 73. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:11 am

    ~ As long as straight male virgins marry straight female virgins & procreate only within the bonds of marriage — and if they stay happily (or not so happily) married forever and ever as the good lord intended, we wouldn't have any of these problems. No premarital sex, no pesky non-straights, no abortions, no feminists, no problems! ~

    (again – tildes denoting a post absolutely dripping with sarcasm)

  • 74. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:22 am

    You forgot only in the missionary position with the lights off!

  • 75. Callie  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:00 am

    What cowards!!!

  • 76. ron  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:00 am

    George Washington was barren take away his and Marthas marriage license

  • 77. R Zeke Fread  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:01 am

    Prop 8 supporters persist in spewing the same old rhetoric, oozing with deceit, misinformation and blatant lies. With 50% plus of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, adultery rampant, teen drug abuse/pregnancy at epidemic proportions, and all the poor children living in single parent households. They're so blinded by homophobia, they miss the true meaning of "Marriage" it's about "A Lifelong Commitment to Your Spouse, Compassion and Most of All Love". Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender couples have a abundance of these values, as well as have and will continue to be caring, nurturing and loving parents. Why should we be denied the right to share in the happiness, and benefits, that marriage offers them. Especially considering they've destroyed the sanctity of marriage themselves, with no help from us. If these anti-same gender marriage opponents are truly faithful people as they claim, they know in their hearts "God Loves All His Children Equally", which includes not just his Heterosexual, but, his Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender children too. I only hope the decision is based on the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which demands equal protection under the law for all citizens.

  • 78. Charles  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:03 am

    Is it me or is this trial going badly?

    The witnesses are doing good for now etc., but in a general view – from the restrictions of recording / airing to now the emphasis on witnesses who "OMG!! FEAR FOR THERE LIVES CUZ THEIR LYK SO OPRSSED N STUFF OMG ELEVENTYONE!!!", the general atmosphere is totally not on our side?

    This trial *is* 10 years too early methinks. God I feel depressed.

  • 79. FishyFred  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:10 am

    The trial is going about as you'd expect for both sides. The plaintiffs are hitting all the legal points they need to and the defense is pushing back exactly where they need to for their specific legal arguments. The defense started out with an advantage because LGBTs are not a suspect class (yet).

    The environment is uncertain right now, but following this trial is probably skewing your perception because the defense is so virulently anti-gay.

  • 80. fiona64  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:42 am

    I thought the CA Supreme Court determined that LGBT was a suspect class??

  • 81. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:17 am

    The CA Supreme Court did, but the US Supreme Court hasn't — and this is in Federal court rather than State Court.

  • 82. Jason R  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:11 am

    I actually feel like it's going a lot better than I anticipated. The cross-examination of the witnesses is starting to feel very redundant… It feels like our case is being made fairly well, while the other side is trying to use outdated science to wiggle their way out of respecting the current state of psychology and sociology.

  • 83. Todd in NYC  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:13 am

    I think this trial is going great. All they have is a bunch of rehashed stereotypes and 30 year old studies – like they think science ended in the 70's.

  • 84. DonG  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:16 am

    Charles: Actually, the trial is going extremely well. Our witnesses are great, and the cross-examination is pathetic. I am a retired law professor, and believe me, I think we're going to win this one.

  • 85. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:30 am

    thanks for sharing that perception and keep updating us with such kind of comments all you law-persons

  • 86. Mykelb  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:16 am

    Thanks DonG. I would like to know your opinion about the witnesses withdrawal. Doesn't that bode ill for them that they won't face their accusers? Isn't that why we have trials? What kind of defense doesn't put up witnesses, especially when the witnesses are substituting for the state because the state refused to defend this Proposition?

  • 87. PJOjai  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:18 am

    I think the trial is going fairly well.

  • 88. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:21 am

    This trial *is* 10 years too early methinks.

    Unfortunately, that's about right. Even if the good guys win this round, it will almost certainly fail at SCOTUS.

    The best we can hope for is a PR victory as the other side has to make their best arguments in a court of law in front of a federal judge who won't fall for that "kindergartners will be taught teh buttsex!" bullshit.

    I have read other commentators that I respect say they think this lawsuit is a strategic blunder, for exactly that reason :/

  • 89. FishyFred  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:26 am

    I've read the same commentators, and I supported that view until Maine Question 1 passed. At this point, I don't care how these discriminatory policies end. They just have to end.

  • 90. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:45 am

    Yeah the Prop 1 victory was so freaking depressing.

    We've gotta just keep remembering: [Those] guys don't understand. [They've] already lost. Every time I'm ranting about this, my wife reminds me of that. Time is on our side.

  • 91. Calvin  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Maybe I'm just too optimistic, because Iowa's reasons for permitting same-sex marriage were brilliant and well expressed. But this trial is going great and I have to have faith in the Supreme Court.

    After all, the Supreme Court has stood behind minorities (think of the atmosphere around Brown v. The Board of Education or Roe v. Wade for those times).

    It sounds more like people are looking at this as "well the conservatives dominate the Supreme Court so we're going to lose" and that's just not how to look at things. Doing that, we're putting people in the exact same small-minded boxes that proponents of Prop 8 put us into all the time.

    1. The ruling of not showing the trial live can have multiple reasons. And it's not just this trial they aren't showing; it is ALL federal trials. They're instituting a no exception rule.
    2. Judge Walker could very well find that gays and lesbians are a suspect class and deserve special protections (if ENDA passes, this carries more weight and let's not forget the hate crimes law that passed recently)
    3. We're assuming this is POLITICS based, which is exactly what the prop 8 people are throwing out in court. Judges are to look BEYOND their politics to the law, and SCOTUS is not any different.
    And finally, 4. Who says the Supreme Court will even take the case? They choose which cases they take and they could always side with Judge Walker or the appellate and just leave it at that.

  • 92. Mykelb  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:19 am

    Calvin, you are right. Every year about 3000 cases are submitted to SCOTUS and less than 100 are heard.

  • 93. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:19 am

    If this Federal trial goes our way, but the SCOTUS doesn't take up the matter, laws banning ss marriage in other states would still stand, wouldn't they?

    Wouldn't it take a ruling from the SCOTUS to say that bans on ss marriage are unconstitutional and no longer valid? Would the precedent set in this courtroom be enough to overturn the bans in other states?

  • 94. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:29 am

    I agree with Calvin. I also think that it is good that they can now not claim that because of the camera's they were not given a fair trial. Frustrating for us now, but this will get our and now when we have these ads and nonsense we have the information available to refute without a doubt all their lies and homophobia.

  • 95. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:32 am

    Plus if the Highest Court could have already sided with all this nonsense legally they would have done so. By dodging the issue they are just as responsible for allowing this to continue. If they take do take the case, there is only one conclusion as outlines in our charter of governance.

  • 96. FishyFred  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Sarah McLanahan wrote the next article.

    I read that as Sarah McLachlan and thought, "The singer?"

  • 97. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:08 am

    P: Sarah McLanahan wrote the next article.

    I read it as Sarah McLachlan at first.

  • 98. Michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:21 am

    lol Ditto!

  • 99. kerri  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:09 am

    i love it … now they think they are being victims????? how caddy and lame of them. we are the victims here people, the lgbtq community because of their fear-based assumptions … hatemongers

  • 100. Bryan Baker  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:11 am

    Poor hetros!!!! Leave them alone!! Lmao, without the church money they lost their voices!!

  • 101. Terri  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:13 am

    The trial is going weird. I am still reading testimony on another blog and am really confused.

    What does this line of questioning mean:

    "Stepfathers do not develop authoritative relationships with chidren. Children whose parents are divorced. Many gay fathers have children in hetero relationships before coming out. Difficulties involve coming to terms with sexual orientation. Lesbian couples have them in hetero relationships, true?"

    Where are they going?

  • 102. PJOjai  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:21 am

    They are trying to say that the only valid families is one that has a biological mom and dad. Basically tells all other family is not worthy.

  • 103. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:24 am

    The data about stepfathers is, sadly, well supported.

    Which, if we were in the business of letting the government dictate people's personal lives, would be an argument against heterosexual remarriage (and maybe both-male remarriage?), not an argument against gay marriage. Duh.

  • 104. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:53 am

    I think they try to say that when a girl lives with her gay father and another (male) partner is entering the family chances would be high for the kids to suffer from the new step father. also if the girl lives with her lesbian mother she would miss her father as a role model and engage in premature sex and things alike, then again if a boy lives in a lesbian home and misses his father he'd miss a male role model and if he lives with his gay father – well child molesting and violence by step father again….
    See they wanna bend these studies to their purpose (though it's scientifically not valid to make such far fetched assumtions)

  • 105. Lymis  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:39 am

    But again, the assumption is that the "stepfather" entered the child's life at some point after the birth (heterosexual) parents split up – likely by divorce, and often a messy one.

    Even if the birth father died, the stepfather is "trying to take someone's place" in the eyes of the child.

    The shell game they are playing is that all gay couples are composed of 1 parent and 1 stepparent.

    That no doubt applies if a man marries another man who has kids already, or a woman marries a woman with kids, but it has no applicability if the gay couple either gives birth to or adopts an infant.

    A lesbian couple who have a child are not 1 parent and 1 stepparent, they are two parents, and in the case of lesbians, they are parents from birth (and before).

    This is exactly like claiming that a heterosexual couple who uses a sperm donor isn't two parents, but a mother and a stepfather. Biologically, that may be true, but hardly socially.

    And besides, even if stepfathers are worse for kids than birth fathers, they don't ban heterosexual remarriage because of it, so why would it even apply?

  • 106. Mykelb  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:20 am

    This may also be true of fathers who take no interest in their children to begin with. My father was a military man and he didn't even talk to us like humans until we left home.

  • 107. Kenny Contreras  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:14 am

    even hetero fathers can be bad at being a father

  • 108. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:55 am

    honestly so sad as it sounds… I haven't encountered many good ones….
    but to say this: my step father is a SOOOO much better father than my Bio father!!!!

  • 109. FishyFred  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:15 am

    [Prop 8 is going after the idea that there is not enough data to know if gay fathers are good at being fathers. And not enough data about lesser income lesbians.]

    I propose that there is not enough data to know if heterosexual men make good fathers. Nor is there enough data to know if Hispanic men make good fathers.

    The jury is still out on whether or not polar bears make good fathers.

  • 110. Les Late  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:08 am

    ha ha! many posts have made me laugh, but this one really did! Polar bears….
    Hey, how about attacking the straight parenting that kids receive when straight parents screw up so bad that the kids end up in the foster care system? How many gay families lose their kids to foster care? Probably miniscule. The parents who screw up that bad are hetero…

  • 111. abbe  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:16 am

    this is infuriating because people are listening to/reading the defense's argument and thinking "yes, this makes perfect sense." UGH!

  • 112. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:21 am

    I've stopped focusing on half the questioning, stopped making a lick of sense to my sleep-deprived brain an hour or two ago now I just know they're Baawwwwwwing about something and trying to make Psychologists look bad…. And not doing a good job at it at all. Frankly it's starting to annoy me.

  • 113. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:03 am

    yeah, they could come up with some better stuff. like studies contradicting the findings (resent studies) but since there are non what is left if not to say they are all wrong and biased.
    And after all it's evident that if I am the only one saying same sex marriage is bad for children all others are saying differently they clearly must all be wrong, mustn't they? I mean honestly wasn't science always wrong? (it actually often was, that's the nature of science. to eveolve and find more evidence that sometimes contradict earlier studies) so it is a reason to dismiss science completely and replace it with religion. since religion per definition never fails – does it? 😉 (and the thing with the priests and the boys…. well just close your eyes tight)

  • 114. PJOjai  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:23 am

    i think people are reading and thinking the defense still lives in the dark ages.

  • 115. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:43 am


  • 116. Todd in NYC  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:16 am

    So everything that they've said is "best" for raising a child, mother, father, stayed married, mom stayed home. I still turned out gay. go fig.

  • 117. PJOjai  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:26 am

    my parents have been married for 42 years. I'm still gay did not turn hetero at all (must be because my parents are Filipino and defense probably does not consider them to be effective parents). I've been with my "husband" for 18 years and we are raising a wonderful kid who thinks he is the luckiest kid in the world to have two dads.

  • 118. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Oh my god, there must have been a gay-vampire somwhere in your environment recruiting you. or you encountered homosexuality sometime during your youth and started fantasizing about marrying a same sex person…
    bet you heard someone saying that maybe some day somewhere a man could marry a man and you went just: "Oh my god, this is what I wanna become! I wanna marry a man, get harrassed, maybe beaten up, I wanna have people spit at me and defend my live and most private happenings in my bedroom at a daily basis. THIS is what I wanna achieve in life. cause clearly the guy said as a man one might eventually even marry a man! thats the only reason I wanna marry a man, cause I was exposed to homosexuality and just thought it would be fun trying…. OF COURSE I would never marry a guy only out of the fact that I love him, how could I ever…

  • 119. Terri  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:17 am

    In reading the line of questioning it does seem to say that heterosexual men make bad step-fathers so therefore gay men will be bad fathers because they aren't biologically connected to the child? Is this their argument?

  • 120. Mykelb  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:23 am

    That's what they are getting at. Ignorance abounds.

  • 121. Miles  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Sorry, I'm late on this question, but I'm a little thrown by the term "homo" in the thread, as I'm not sure if it's being used in the courtroom or is just shorthand for homosexual. It seems to be used in conjunction with "g" and "l" sometimes within the same sentence, so I'm not sure of the context.

    My issue, I know, but it does stir up some of those stigmatizing demons that were discussed so eloquently yesterday. I've never been referred to as a "homo" in a positive context. Natural impulse is to prepare for an onslaught of hate.

    Just asking.


  • 122. Todd in NYC  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:20 am

    I would think it's an abbreviation of homosexual. He's transcribing this in the courtroom.

  • 123. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Heh, yeah, I'm heterosexual but had a similarly uncomfortable reaction at the word "homo" being casually thrown around like that. However, given that Rick is clearly having trouble keeping up to begin with, I think asking him to append six extra characters to a frequently-used word in this trial, when we all know what he means anyway, is probably unreasonable.

    Maybe he could keep "sexual" in his copy-paste buffer? heh… homo[ctrl-v], hetero[ctrl-v]. ;D

  • 124. BMc  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:20 am

    OK- this is my translation.. please tell me if I'm correct here.

    Lamb: Recent science says that oranges are sweet and have valuable nutrition. Vitamins C, Thiamin, etc.

    Thompson: But it was once believed that Apples should be carried on ships for the sailors…

    Lamb: Um… well yes.

    Thompson: Apples are good for you are they not?

    Lamb: Um… well yes.

    Thompson: studies show that Apples are sweet and have good nutrition.

    Lamb: Well, yes that would be accurate, however My research is on Oranges. They are both fruits–but–

    Thompson: This study show that GALA Apples are sweet and have good nutrition.

    Lamb: Well, yes — but It's still not an Orange…

    Thompson: This other study show that Granny Smith Apples are also sweet and have good nutrition.

    Lamb: still not an Orange…

    Thompson: This other study did a sample of 5000 Macintosh Apples showing 95% were are also sweet and had good nutrition.

    Lamb: Those are a lot of apples but not an orange…

  • 125. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:24 am

    Yeah that appears to be what they're saying, thank you for summing that up I haven't been able to follow it after he started mumbling about Homer Simpsons and Straights being perfect in every single way while Gays can suck Rock Lobsters. I got tired of trying to keep up with all the studies the other side cited because they're all from the 70s or so and therefore fall under the "Dark Side" of Psychology. Back when we could be electroshocked for being who we were.

  • 126. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:33 am

    OH MY GOD I so had to laugh tears at that!!!! I am gonna include this in my copies of all the live-blog threads made of this trial!!!

  • 127. Mr. HCI  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:33 am

    That is beautiful, BMc!

  • 128. Jan  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:12 am

    hAHAHahh Beautifully put. Shows just how absurd this cross-examine is.

  • 129. Matthew S.  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Ha ha ha… Brilliant analogy!

  • 130. Yvette Smith  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:30 am

    Ahhh, this is maddening! I think we would agree that its great for kids if they have two parents too. That's why gay folks who want to have kids usually partner up and settle down, just like straight folks. In a way they are making our argument for us (and this is Olson's point too) but of course in a court trial it can be difficult to back up out of the details of this line of questioning to point this out.

  • 131. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Update from the Tweeters:

    FedcourtJunkie Ssex lawyer Boutrous: #prop8 witnesses wrnt withdrawn b/c cameras, but b/c they didn't want to be cross examined by David Boies

    Looks like our assumptions were right

  • 132. Sean  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:31 am

    If they really feel a concern for their safety, then of course they should feel free not to attend the trial. But I agree with the above comments…prop 8 supporters have little claim to the area of fear for what they believe, especially when it comes to threats of harm possibly becoming more. The things some of them have said, the ideas some of them have perpetuated, they have contributed to a culture where real, actual harm and real, actual violence has happened to those they speak against. And last time I checked, no one has ever been killed specifically for NOT being gay. Everyone has a right to an opinion, and to safety, and of course any who threaten that on either side should be vigorously denounced, but the Pro 8 groups need a little perspective.

  • 133. PJOjai  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:32 am

    I just don't get why raising a child has anything to do with SS Marriage? Why bring up this BS. It's about marriage!

  • 134. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:39 am

    Someone mentioned earlier that our side isn't refuting them for a reason, because it prevents them from using this argument ever again in the future.

    So they get the satisfaction of "WON'T SOMEONE PLZ THINK OF TEH CHILLINS"

    And we get the satisfaction of finally showing in front of a huge court how little water their "Teh Gays ='z Pedophile, Bad Parent, Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad" holds.

  • 135. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:46 am

    Their argument is that heterosexual marriage exists first and foremost for the purpose of procreation, so they don't believe that gay or lesbian couples (who can't create a child in their purely monogamous relationship*) "need" marriage.

    Of course, they completely ignore the fact that GLBT parents can have children from previous heterosexual relationship, or that they can use surrogates or sperm donors or adoption if they want to have children. They also ignore that saying "marriage is only for procreation" leaves straight couples who can't or don't want to have children in a bit of a lurch.

    It really does sound like their side is saying people should only have children who are biological products of a current relationship. Stepfathers are bad. Non biological parents are bad (which by extension means that adoption is bad).

    Of course, I'm pretty sure they're also anti-abortion — so girls/women who get pregnant need to marry the father & stay married to him forever even if he's a worthless piece of slime. Can't give the baby away to someone else (i.e. a ss couple) to raise because then the kid would be away from its biological parents.

  • 136. Tavin  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:36 am

    I thought yesterday was tough to get through regarding the stigmatization of LGBT community, but today's line of questioning, regarding sexual predation and parenting is making me physically sick to my stomach.

    I think the most ironic part is that the defense keeps pointing out that two parents are more stable than one. Yes, dear, that's what we're fighting for. :-p

  • 137. Ray  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:36 am

    I think the judge is on to the defense. He asked specifically of the studies being cited included analysis of gays and lesbians. In most of the studies the defense has mentioned, they were studies of HET parents and the judge realized that studies of heterosexual parents being just comment on the ability of homosexuals to parent were like comparing apples and elephants.

    As a parent I have participated in a couple of studies done by the Univ. of Virginia. I haven't seen the name of that professor come up yet (and I can't seem to remember it until I see it) and the studies were about how gay parents felt about their experience as parents (rewarding? difficult?).

    My husband and I raised a daughter from infancy (she's now 32) and we STILL find it rewarding.

  • 138. Anne  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:38 am

    so if kids of married parents do better…then same sex couples should be allowed to get married, right? to get those same benefits for their kids?

    Not like people will stop having kids …

  • 139. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:40 am

    exaclty since there'll always be children in same sex relationships the best thing to do for the children is to allow their parents who raise them to marry so they can provit from this marriage

  • 140. irishgal  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:38 am

    much luck to you all. If you don't win here, you will win federally.

  • 141. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Unfortunately I think even IF we WIN here, we'll LOSE federally… Our Supreme Court is kinda filled with 4 idiots.

  • 142. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:47 am

    Filled with 4 idiots is relatively ok. The problem is when it's filled with 5 idiots.

  • 143. Bill  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:07 am

    guys, guys, guys…

    This trial isn't about 'Win' or 'Lose.' I am afraid if you have set your hearts on that, you will be disappointed.

    This is the first of MANY trials to come. Regardless of who 'wins' or 'loses' this one.

    What is most important in this trial is that Judge Walker is compiling enough testimony, data and research so that a broad base is covered on this issue.

    This isn't 'The Big One' for us, guys. Not even close.

    More important for us to understand that this is step 1. What matters here is the quality of the evidence that is presented, and what is recorded on the record with witness testimonials. Not that we 'win.' Most certainly, we eventually will, but I fear many of us are looking for this trial to be something that it simply isn't going to be.

    This won't be our great vindicator. That is coming, for sure. But first, the groundwork MUST be laid.

    That is what this trial is. The groundwork.

    We WILL be vindicated. Of that I am certain. But this trial will not provide us with that, so I am just encouraging people to understand that.

    As someone who has lived through over 40 years of being abused by heterosexuals, both in society and via the law, I do not want young LGTB citizens to feel disappointment and hopelessness over this trial. We have a long way to go. Not trying to discourage anyone, but try and guard your hearts a little, lest you feel personally and emotionally destroyed at the outcome.

    Morality and God and Justice and Right are ALL on our side.

    Those who seek to marginalize us and imprison us via unjust laws will one day be held accountable.

    I know it is hard to be patient, but we must be in order for this to be done properly. The courts are a slow, tedious process. But it is exactly where this issue must be handled so that our civil rights are never again left up to the voters, who seek to oppresses us.

    And never forget that WE have the moral high ground here. Not THEM. We must never concede that.

  • 144. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Morality and God and Justice and Right are ALL on our side.

    As well as the godless! Don't forget us! 🙂

  • 145. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:39 am

    wait wait wait guys….
    So married Parents are good for children, yes?
    and having divorces is bad, yes?
    and living with both parents is good, right?
    so this are all arguments FOR marriage eqity!

    allowing their parents to marry would include them on the benefits of married parents.

    apart from that, children upbringing has in that direct sense nothing to do with allowing ss-marriage. I guess the intention here is again to show that the arguments for prop8 has at least one rational explanation not purly animus…

    But reading a 2004 study I learned that children of ss-parantage fare the same as from opposite parantage, so the rational basis to allow prop8 is – well non existing

  • 146. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Unfortunately, to them, "two parents" means one man and one woman. The fact that other people interpret "two parents" to mean "two adults regardless of gender" doesn't compute.

    I have a feeling that their side's takeaway from this testimony is going to be limited to "Hey – he said his own research was wrong — I can't believe those (insert rude term here) put such an idiot on the stand!" If you're basing your beliefs on a book that's "perfect" despite being written 2000 years ago, they can't quite imagine why anyone could consider something written within the past millennium as being outdated.

    When the Prop8 attorney said something about the role of fathers in the 20th century, I really wish someone would have pointed out that we're now in the 21st century.

  • 147. Matthew S.  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Maybe they DID mean 20th Century since they keep pulling all their data from outdated studies from that far back. Ha ha ha… morons!

  • 148. Lymis  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:40 am

    They are also pulling out the favorite trick of studying heterosexual families without a father and trying to extend that to lesbian families, because they don't have a father in them either.

    But by definition a heterosexual family is a single parent home, (though there may be other adults, like grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc).

    A same-sex couple is still a couple.

    All the studies show that the negatives are far more associate with single-income, single parent has to work longer hours and not be with kids as much, often tries to have a social or dating life (so again, less time with kids). It isn't the lack of a father, it is the lack of a second parent, but if you are only looking at single heterosexual mothers, the second parent is by definition a father, so you can use the terms interchangeably.

    As far as any contention that there aren't enough studies to show whether gay people make good parents – first, the trial is about whether gay couples can marry, not whether they have kids. They are putting gay parenting on trial inappropriately, since we can be parents (or not) regardless of marital status.

    Assuming that we do choose to have kids (whether that makes us the best parents or not) surely getting married is good for those kids.

    They're acting as though gay people can only have kids if we are allowed to get married.

    Second, there are plenty of studies showing all the horror shows that happen in some heterosexual marriages. How come those aren't being used to strip the rest of the heterosexuals from marriage?

  • 149. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:43 am

    I guess they wanna show that their arguments were not purly animus…

  • 150. Lymis  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:57 am

    No, just pure BS.

  • 151. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:43 am

    I see the comment over and over and over whenever the "infertility" question comes up, (in a similar vein to your question).

    Their response is that even though one or both partners is sterile, because they are MANZ AND WOMANZ they "Have the ability" and therefore they are protected. Gays "Do not have the ability" and therefore, are not.

    It's a riddiculous response, too creative for a 5-year old, but that's the mentality present there.

  • 152. ron  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:41 am

    George Bush 2 was going to testify with Cheeney and that daughter of his but she is too busy on fox, the ex vp is in an undisclosed place and george could'nt get paid enough

  • 153. Nick  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:47 am

    The witlessess for Prop 8 are afraid of going to Court for fear they might be hurt?

    This isn't a Court in TUOLUMNE County-(CA)—there they shoot the accused in open court, and become famous for doing same -(Ellie Nesler, in case you want to google it-shot and killed a man she thought had sex with her son IN COURT-she killed him while he was appearing to defende himself against the charges!

    It even made a TV Movie, fer gawds sakes. US is getting sicker and sicker in the name of some God?

  • 154. julie  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:52 am

    hi you are doing a great job- one comment-if there is any way you can let us know that you/they are taking a break it will save the refresh button on my phone. 🙂 thanks!

  • 155. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:54 am

    They're on a lunch break until 1:00pm PST.

  • 156. Jeremy Cole  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:54 am

    The opposition is – oddly – making a case FOR same-sex marriage. Priceless.

  • 157. Lymis  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:55 am

    "(Prop. 8 is trying to prove that the people who were studied are self-selecting wealthier folks who do not represent the entire population of gay and lesbian parents.)"

    And yet, earlier, they were claiming that gay people can't accidentally have kids and have to plan for them, which would indicate that on average, gay and lesbian parents might actually BE self-selecting wealthier folks, and therefore the study was more accurate than a random sample might be.


    No stick is so small you can't use it to bash the queers.

  • 158. Ray  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:02 am

    Adoption agencies have much to do with who gets to be a parent so if gays and lesbians are adoptive parents and wealthier, that probably means they were SCREENED to be economically prosperous as a condition of their adoption. Poor people probably don't even consider adopting based on the costs involved in the selection process. Just speculation on my part.

  • 159. Yann  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:22 am

    Actually, financial wealth is not considered a factor (professional and social stability, yes). But I can tell you that the agency that helped me and my husband to adopt our 2 wonderful sons is very pro-gay. I think the difference (and I don't want to generalize here) is that most heterosexual couples that go for adoption do it after they've exhausted every way to get a kid biologically. For a lot of gay people (at least gay men), that is not a very available option, so adoption is not seen as a plan B, but rather a plan A.

    My two cents…

  • 160. Lenny Young  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:56 am

    So let me get this straight, as it were. They want to punish gay couples by not letting them get married, because 40 year old studies say that gay couples aren't as good of parents as straight couples? Despite it being clear that that will be detrimental to the children of gay parents? So really they only care about "protecting" the children of straight couples. Sick.

  • 161. Jenny  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:58 am

    What on earth does all of this parenting stuff have to do with gay marriage? You can be a parent without being married.

    And like a pp said, so marriage is GOOD for kids – well then we should let gay couples be married, because it is better for their kids.

    This line of questioning is so annoying.

  • 162. Nick  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:58 am

    Julie: At the last of the live blog was
    [Broke for lunch until 1:00PM at 1210.]

    They don't usually get to blogging right off the bat, either, of course….

  • 163. Petr Tomeš  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:05 am

  • 164. julie  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:08 am

    never mind- i see your break note now- so much info. keep up thd great work!

  • 165. sara jaramillo  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:16 am

    My straight parents were horrible parents. I find it so silly that they are presumed to be better just because of their sexual orientation. My children have two wonderful parents who actually WANT to be parents. We chose to be parents and it is the focus of our existence.

    Why aren't the Protect Marriage people hurt by the straight divorce rate, straight people getting married on a TV show or, for goodness sakes, Britney Spears?

    I can't even believe we have to fight so hard to prove our case. America should be embarrassed by Yes on H8ers.

  • 166. Jan  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:17 am

    I think the trial is going really well. All testimonies have been great, especially Dr. Meyers' yesterday IMO, and all cross-examinations by the defendants have been absurd and laughable.

    I still fear that it won't turn out the way it should, though, seeing as how our Constitution is constantly spat upon by those in power, and how the Religious Right MINORITY dominates the loudspeaker they shouldn't have. I just have little faith in this polarized nation of actual justice and equality winning.

    I just really, really hope I am wrong. Praying and hoping very hard here, and following with immense intent.

    Keep doing what you're doing, plaintiffs. Doing a wonderful job, that will hopefully be recognized.

    (Sorry this comment is BiPolar LOL)

  • 167. pearlheartgtr  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:17 am

    After reading the pre-trial transcript, it's evident that the Prop 8 idgits don't have a leg to stand on.

    It's a fun read.

    I'm also waiting for the Defense witnesses. That should be fun. I'd love to see it when one makes the blunder and mentions god, jesus, or the bible.

  • 168. John B.  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:18 am

    Wait a minute… wasn't the whole point in the first place of the Prop. 8 side protesting the televised trial was because they were supposedly concerned about the safety of the witnesses?

    Maybe all these people are simply realizing what bigots and kooks they will look and sound like if we can actually see and hear them.

  • 169. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:31 am

    In their minds though, WE are the kooky ones who don't know right from wrong. If we're kooky enough to think that gays are fit to marry and to raise children, we're certainly kooky enough to harm the people who are simply trying to "protect" marriage and "protect" the children.

  • 170. scott  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:30 am

    I have a gay friend who was bashed in San Francisco. They beat the ever living shit out of him while hurling anti-gay epithets, leaving him with permanent brain damage. Now at any time of the day he can fall over into convulsions, foaming at the mouth.

    I have another friend who I loved dearly. He was thrown out of his house at the age of 16 by ostensibly religious parents and struggled with it constantly. He killed himself at the age of 36. I miss him very much.

    It goes without saying that I don't have the slightest bit of sympathy for spineless prop 8 dipshits who claim a fear for their safety.

  • 171. Matthew S.  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Ahem… Every straight, married couple in America… may I have your attention please? If you have NOT procreated, are not ACTIVELY procreating, or can NO LONGER procreate, your marriage is hereby invalidated. The Breeding Police have determined that the only reason for marriage is procreation. All other arguments and considerations are irrelevant. Please relinquish your marriage certificate immediately. That is all.


  • 172. Mykelb  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:40 am

    I hate that word pro-creation. We should say breed. They continually use the words homosexual. Why don't we get down in the dirt with them and call it as they do?

  • 173. Audrey Smith  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:32 am

    I was married to the father of my children for 12 years before I was able to admit that I was gay. My marriage SUCKED, and the kids' dad did not spend any time with them, so our family situation was hurting the kids.

    After getting divorced, I started dating a woman who is now my (not-legal) wife. She is a natural parent, gives the kids a lot of attention, and my kids love her! They are *visibly* healthier and happier since they have had 2 moms! To say nothing about how much healthier and happier *I* am since coming out and finding the love of my life! 🙂

    My evangelical mother hates to admit that my kids are better off with me and my wife than they ever would have been with me and my ex-husband; but even she must admit that fact.

  • 174. Mykelb  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Dear Audrey: Always nice to hear. Success is the best revenge.

  • 175. Russ  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Generally the cost of adoption means that those who adopt are in a different financial position than those who are unable to adopt.

  • 176. Jenny  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:01 am

    Hey! I've been reading this site all week and just wanted to say how glad I am to have it! I am so disappointed that the Supreme Court will not allow them to post the trial on YouTube- people need to see this case and the hear the testimony of the plaintiffs. Anyway, thank you so much! I know it must be hard to sit there and listen to some of the awful things the defensive is pushing (and then have to type them). I can barely stand reading the notes at times. But the Plaintiffs are putting up a strong case. You all are so brave to go there and do this for us! Thank you!!!

  • 177. Michael Herman  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:04 am

    Cherry-pickers accusing others of cherrypicking? Correct me of I'm wrong, but isn't that the DEFINITION OF HYPOCRISY?

    I'm a child of a divorce and remarriage. I am actually much better off since my parent's divorce, mostly because of my stepmother pushing me to do better in school. She helped me to get where I am today- a Mechanical Engineering student at Oregon State University.

    Damn, I would love nothing more than to be a witness in this trial. I'd really piss off the Prop 8 lawyers. XD

  • 178. Daniel L  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:11 am

    "my antennae start to wiggle" … need to use that phrase more often

  • 179. Stephanie  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:14 am

    Prop 8: Children raised with their biological parents do better that children living with step-parents.

    Last I checked, LGBT's weren't into adopting children who ALREADY HAVE FAMILIES! Thank God we don't have people adopting children right out of their stable homes! Good job, Prop 8!

  • 180. Tim  |  January 15, 2010 at 9:07 am

    I wonder if Judge Walker reads any of these comments at the end of his day?

  • 181. Womyn2me  |  January 15, 2010 at 10:13 am

    what a bizarre line of questioning, as if gay people will not have children if they are not married. its saying that we do have kids and studies show that having a married set of parents is better for kids.

  • 182. Liveblogging Day 5: Part &hellip  |  January 15, 2010 at 11:34 am

    […] I’ve moved to a third thread after the break, where Michael Lamb’s cross-exam […]

  • 183. Michael Thomas  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    I think it's funny that their witness' are withdrawing due to fearing for their lives, when we have had gay and lesbian couples and supporting witness' (gay and straight) proudly sit up there and testify without any fear whatsoever when our side has SO much more to fear from those close minded bigots. I really hope the Judge takes note that our witness' are willing to risk their lives to stand up for what they believe in and the h8ers would rather crawl in a hole and hide like the rats they are.

  • 184. Ryan  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    I think it's important to remember that the bigots are constantly trying to make themselves seem like the victims of our crazed, irrational, homosexual rage. Naturally it's a poorly founded endeavor.

  • 185. A Small World Getting Sma&hellip  |  January 17, 2010 at 8:31 am

    […] be that the Supreme Court overturns Prop 8. That’d be great. But, as the testimony unfolds, Rick’s point that this is the “Scopes Monkey trial” becomes increasingly salient.  In that case, […]

  • 186. On Monkeys and Marriage &&hellip  |  January 23, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    […] around on both sides of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (including a couple of mentions on this site, see Rick’s Jan. 15 post and the LA Times). Likewise, over on the right, Perry has being derided as a “Scopes-style […]

  • 187. car maintenance schedule&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    Tire ratings guide…

    […]we like to honor other sites on the web, even if they aren’t related to us, by linking to them. Below are some sites worth checking out[…]…

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