Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Liveblogging Day 5: Part V


By Rick Jacobs

Finally on redirect of Dr. Michael Lamb.

G: Do you need a break?

L: See the end in sight. My eye is on the door.

G: Let’s get in a time machine and go back from before that cross all the way back to when you first said that kids are better off with a father, back before I was born.


Judge: (Laughing) He’s your witness!

G: Has fatherless family term ever included lesbian mothers?

L: Some, because we want to see what happens without men, but in main it’s children being raised by hetero women without hetero father/man.

G: Conclusions about lesbians based on these fatherless studies?

L: Studies provide one way to see how kids do without male figure? Cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever on fatherless family studies as they relate to lesbian mother families.

G: Any conclusions to draw from divorce studies re: g and l families?

L: No. Not looking at sexuality of parents.

G: Who is Dr. Marks?

L: Expert on other side.

G: Did you review Dr. Marks’s depo? May I play clip?

Prop. 8 objects to it being in evidence but not to it being played.

[Video of handsome, dark haired guy in white shirt with tie.]

“Married lesbian couple that adopted child after birth. No bio connection. Like hetero family, need separate category and I did not use that this in my report.”

G: Do you agree?

L: Yes.

G: In course of T’s examination of you, you mentioned study by Rosenfeld.

L: Important because it’s only study we have, compares all children in country with respect to family environment in which reared. Couple of thousand children raised by lesbian, couple of thousand gay couples, compared with hetero couples against index of kids being held back at school. Shows no difference whatsoever among kids.

G: Is a sample based on US census of adequate size?

L: Yes.

G: Why need to maintain as control group for gay and lesbians as heteros raising kids.

L: Unmarried and married in all groups (debunks completely Thomas’s idea that you have to use married hetero couples compared with g and l couples vs. all who have kids.)

L: Children adopted into two-parent family often included with children bio parents. Would include some of parents who have no genetic relationship to child.

[UPDATE] 3:10 Longer clip:

Prof. Marks again. Lawyer reads to him “teens living with both bio parents significantly less likely to use illicit drugs, alcohol and tobacco. “both bio parents.” Why?

M: Going to point that bio is important in marriage.

Lawyer reads out: Data from National Council on Drug Abuse, teens living with both bio parents are less likely to abuse than parents.

M: I don’t know if researchers use term bio parents in same way as I do, but there are always exception.

Lawyer: If researchers in this report define bio parents differently from authority they cite, wouldn’t that mean their conclusions are not correct?

M: Yes, I’d say that’s a mistake then.

[The video is erratic up here. Maybe Rush got hold of the signal. The sound is scratchy and the video in and out, but we can here and this guy does not have a leg to stand on.]

Lawyer: What is Johnson’s (researcher’s) conclusion in this study 1996 study?

M: Don’t recall.

Lawyer: Most studies do not distinguish between bio and adoptive families. Did you read footnote before signing report?

M: I don’t recall reading that report.

M: I will delete the word biological from my definitions.

G: Was Marks correct to withdraw his emphasis on the word bio?

L: Yes, he was. The word biological is not supported in this context.

G: Take judicial notice.

T: We object to taking notice without report in totality.

Judge: We’ll take it up when we get to evidentiary admission phase. What I’d like right now is the page and line.

G: Right now?

Judge: Of course not!


G: Fatherless in America—Blankenhorn’s book.

L: Concerned that Mr. Blankenhorn had not properly used gender. Confused issues of correlation and causality. Misrepresented data and studies available of that time.

L: Reads excerpt from review of book: “Blankenhorn’s tendency to paint alternative visions in absurd or ridiculous terms in order facilitate his dismissal of them undermines his own conclusions.”

L: Not a favorable review. (Laughter).

[This undoes Mr. Thompson’s effort to say that L favorably reviewed Blankenhorn’s book.]

G: Anything else you wanted to say about Seranticos study that T brought up with you?

L: Key problem is noted by Seranticos himself. Groups of two hetero and two same-sex parent groups not appropriate. Children had experienced parents’ divorce and moved home and all factors that affect their adjustment as well. In many ways more illustrative of effects of divorce than on same sex parents. All of data gathered by interviewing teachers. Seranticos acknowledges that teachers had homophobic views which biased their reports. Finally, not good ways of getting study samples. While results are out of step with rest of research literature, understanding context makes clear why results are outliers. Results have never been duplicated. Expect to find local variations with large body of literature. No other study shows same results of Seranticos. Published in Children Australia. I don’t think it’s peer reviewed, not on electronic data bases that appear in my field. None of my colleagues have never cited this study and have same concerns about study that I do.

L: The hundred or so studies I have cited and used in my work show consistency in the healthy raising of kids. Also consistent with other research. Children of conflictual lesbian parents are less well adjusted than children of conflictual hetero families. So data are consistent. Having a gay or lesbian parent does not make children more likely to be mal adjusted than children of hetero parents.

L: I think that I feel comfortable opining about gay parent children because we look at totality of research. We can see that gender or sexual orientation of children not important. Growing number of studies that look directly at children raised by gay parents. Overall body makes confident that children raised by gay fathers and lesbian mothers and hetero parents all similar.

G: At outset of cross, Mr. Thompson said you are a member of ACLU, NAACP, Nature Conservancy, and even PBS. Did CPB influence your opinion in this case? Did anything other than your own findings guide you?

Lamb: No.

3:00PM Totally unimpeached and unflapped, Lamb steps down.

[UPDATE] 3:18 Prop. 8 opposed to having witness author Helen Zia. Think we just want to put her up to counter Dr. Tam. She’ll only testify regarding messaging and her own feelings about discrimination.

Danny Chu: (City Attorney) She will testify to her own discrimination experiences during Prop. 8 and how it affects city of SF.

Prop. 8: We’ve had four experts on this. For one person to come off the street to speak is cumulative. Her opinion is not probative and she is not an expert. Her experience with same sex marriage is not probative.

Danny Chu: She has actually gotten married. She demonstrates that marriage does change things for people. She’s the only in the case who has gotten married. That’s the point of this whole case.

Prop. 8: That kind of testimony is for experts. Need to provide sample size. One single person cannot do.

Judge: One advantage of a bench trial is that evidence can be submitted and weighed. Defendant-interveners have made point that it’s not weighty. It does appear that witness can speak to issues relevant. I’ll allow witness to testify and decide how much weight to give. She’s being offered on issues overall pertinent.

[Once again Prop. 8 wants to stop stories and the truth from getting out.]

Z: 57, from NJ, in CA 18 years five sibs, four alive, mom in bay area. JFK HS in NJ. College at Princeton. Graduated with Bachelors of Arts. Honorary Doctor Laws from CUNY School of Law. Writer. Written two books and edited a bunch. “Asian American Dreams: Emergence of an American People” about Asian Americans and civil rights trials and tribs over last forty years. “MY Country Vs. Me” about Wen Ho Lee who was falsely accused of spying at Los Alamos for PRC. I co-wrote. Was exec editor for Ms.

C: Lesbian all my life.

C: When did you come out?

Z: Coming out is process. Lots of ways to describe. First became aware might be lesbian in college when I first learned term lesbian. Look back now and see clear signs of what team I was on at 6 or 7 (laughter).

Z: 6, or 7 or 8, at school, neighbor lady asked me what I wanted to do when grow up? Want to get married when grow up? No, I don’t want to get married. Lady was very surprised. Here I was little girl and didn’t ‘t want to get married. Could not imagine getting married to a man. Not in my worldview or imagination.

C: When did you come out?

Z: I guess clearest way to say was had first relationship with woman in 1980s, twelve years after college.

C: Why did it take so long?

Z: There were many social pressures to …

[UPDATE] 3:33

[READ THIS. Just do.]

Z: Well society did not want me to come out. I had a lesbian trial. I went to med school, but for a time was community organizer like our president. Trying to help get women into construction trades. One day, called to meeting and all of my friends in movement asked me to sit down in middle of semi-circle they had formed. Was also involved in work in women’s movement.

“We’ve noticed that you seem to be working with a lot of women and lesbians. In our community of color, Asian community, we don’t have lesbians, homosexuals. We would not want to have a homosexual work with us because homosexual said homosexuality is petty, white bourgeois. African American woman said same. If you are homo, we don’t want you. So Helen tell us, are you a lesbian?

“I was about 23 then. Looked at people I trusted who said that. I knew lesbians. I knew that I had attractions to women, didn’t have girlfriend, didn’t have membership card, toaster over saying welcome to lesbianism. So I said no, I’m not.

“Meeting disbanded. Trial over. I had stepped into the closet and slammed the door.

“I got the message very clearly that I thought I was not a lesbian. Work in women’s movement. Lesbian not okay. Stopped seeing all of my friends in women’s movement in Boston. Stopped all contact. Really did shut the door.

[I’m about to cry again. That thing my stomach, ‘cause I did this too.]

“Kept diaries. Had written down thoughts that maybe I’m a lesbian. I find so and so attractive. I have these feelings. After trial, I was going to leave Boston for Michigan and I was going to drive. Worried that I’d get into accident and someone would see that I thought I might be a lesbian, so I burned my diaries in a construction fire.

“Was discriminated against. Was invited to give speech in early 1990s at Notre Dame where lots of anti-gay stuff going on (in country, too). Person who invited me asked if I would say anything about being a lesbian? Well I said now that you have asked, I might. So she rescinded invitation.

“When I was delivering a lecture in NY area, I have cousin out there. Interested in books I had written. Came to my lecture. Talked about discrimination people of color give toward lesbians. Small part of my talk. Tried to talk to him. Won’t talk to me at all now.

“I feel constantly aware that my sexual orientation could for whatever reason provoke violence toward me or my loved ones. As I walk through life, especially when with my wife, I feel very aware of whether we hold hands in public, show affection. My wife is very affectionate. There are times at movie or other times when Leah wants to show affection and I push her away and say look where we are. Even in my own neighborhood I feel fear.

[I’m truly having the tear thing now. Have you felt this? I have and do, even here in this courtroom now. My partner is a few feet away, but should I kiss him here? Of courses, but I feel self-conscious.]

“Prop. 8 messages were that I am an abomination, that my relationship to Leah is wrong. When we were out on street on Oakland working to get no votes, people would come up to me and say, excuse my language Your Honor, “you fucking dyke.” To read the literature of the Yes side and see that my marriage to Leah would cause the end of the human race, lead to bestiality, more polygamy. People would look at our literature and say, “No more people. You end human race.”

“Said essentially we are so offensive, we are not worthy of same rights of every hetero to be married, that we’d end human race. What do you do when someone is going to end human race, harm your children, what do you want to do? You want to stamp them out. It all made me feel endangered.

[NOTE:] The thread was getting a bit long so, I moved to another one for the rest of the day’s proceedings.

Tags: , , , ,


  • 1. BMc  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Houston. We have LOGIC. Prepare to Launch.

  • 2. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:52 am

    BMc – chuckles!

  • 3. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Not just logic, but short and succinct logic.

  • 4. Kathleen Wiemans  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:52 am

    I support equal rights.

  • 5. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:54 am

    I would love to read this study by Rosenfeld..

  • 6. Ray  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:54 am

    My god. The tedium of Thompson's questioning just about blew my fuses. Since he came across so oafishly (and knew he was) he was just rapid-firing questions to try and get some agreement with his perspective. I think he failed miserably and that Dr. Lamb was simple too formidable an intellect for him.

  • 7. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:56 am

    Yes, I concur – as I see it Dr. Lamb is the sun today!

  • 8. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Hey, where is everybody?

  • 9. abbe  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:57 am

    all passed out with relief that the cross examination is finally over.

  • 10. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:02 am

    good one 😀

  • 11. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:57 am

    I'm sitting at work, not getting much done since all my time has been spent here…

    Need … more …. testimony!

  • 12. Jason R  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:59 am

    glad we may possibly see a different witness… weren't there going to be 3 today? fat chance at that b/c of the cross-examination

  • 13. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Same here. When I say that I couldn't do ANY work for my study-preparation I am not exaggerating!!!!
    I am glued to this screen the whole 8 hours each curt day lasts and longer! I am literally addicted!!!!
    And I am gonna pay for it since I need to get my study prepared! I wanna go abroad on the 8th of feb….

  • 14. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Wait…we're supposed to get stuff done at work? I'll just claim that I am emotionally compromised if someone says something (which they wont). Although breaks between F5 hits are good for getting a little bit in.

  • 15. Pandora  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Ya, I'm not getting much done this week, since I'm obsessively hitting "refresh" all day.

  • 16. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:51 am

    there are no breaks for me to be honest 🙂 since I am working at home…. uuuh this has got to change…

  • 17. lisa  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:03 am

    same. supposed to be studying, instead drinking beer and following trial, which is not something i usually do (following trials, that is). strangely fascinating. maybe just procrastinating. but hey, it is friday night.

  • 18. Ray  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:06 am

    I here for the DURATION. With nighshayde (tee hee)

  • 19. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Hee hee!

    *pours chocolate martinis for all*

  • 20. BMc  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:57 am

    I am imagining Lambs Testimony in Ian McKellen's voice. It makes me feel good.

  • 21. Ray  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Excellent characterization. Just watched Gods and Monsters night before last. I'm in love with Ian. (swoon)

  • 22. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:03 am

    Just don't let him near your kids lest they catch the gay!

  • 23. John  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:14 am

    I think a staged reading of much of the testimony will make a good movie someday. Titles?

  • 24. Pandora  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:15 am

    I get Morgan Freeman, myself. (Possibly because I just watched Shawshank Redemption). Thompson sounds like Steve Carrell on "The Office" in my head.

  • 25. Charles  |  January 15, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Yes! Yes!

    *total celebrity crush on Sir Ian*

  • 26. Ray  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:58 am

    I think Rosenfeld is from Stanford

    Here's what I found on him:

    2008- Associate Professor, with tenure, Department of Sociology, Stanford University

    2000-2008 Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Stanford University

    2009 • Winner of the Teaching Award from the Stanford Urban Studies class of 2009
    2008 • Winner of the 2007-2008 Stanford University Dean’s Award for Distinguished Achievements
    in Teaching
    2006 • Winner of Roger V. Gould memorial prize, for “Exchange Theory in Mate Selection,” judged
    the best paper in the AJS in the previous year.
    2009- • Consulting Editor, Social Forces
    2006-08 • Consulting Editor, American Journal of Sociology
    2002-03 • Hellman Faculty Scholar ($10,000 award)

  • 27. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:02 am

    what's his/her fist name? so I can go search the study

  • 28. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Thank, Ray, hey it's all Greek to me! LOL

  • 29. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:07 am

    Re: Rosenfeld

    Liberal! Socialist! Elitist!


  • 30. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:09 am

    5 bucks says the D-I calls him a liberal.

  • 31. Mykelb  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Educated, open-minded, cultured, peaceful, loving, caring. Everything that 80% of Americans are not.

  • 32. pearlheartgtr  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:03 am

    LMAO! I'm following tweets on other sites (NCLR, Advocate, etc) and ProtectMarriage is in there somehow. I went to their twitter page and they are just making sh!t up! It's hysterical.

  • 33. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:05 am

    Look at the links to other blogs page on the protect marriage site:

    I'll give you a hint. It's blank.

  • 34. pearlheartgtr  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:06 am


  • 35. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:14 am

    oh have you already read their blog?? THIS Is hilarious!

    "gays and lesbians have their feelings hurt because society does not see their relationships as marriage. The testimony has been replete with complaints about public attitudes: sideways glances as gay men walk together down the street, upraised eyebrows when a gay couple checks into a hotel and asks for a room with a king bed, disapproving looks from a bank officer when opening a joint account, etc. Today we heard that gays and lesbians are susceptible to stress and depression over negative public attitudes, and that the passage of Prop 8 elevated their stressful feelings."

    sideway glances?
    upraised eyebrows?
    disapproving looks?

    what about bulliyng and harassment?
    what abour upraised fists?
    losing ones Job?
    they have their feelings hurt???? well I'd say it's more that feelings that get hurt and those sissy whitnesses? – look who's talking!

  • 36. Ray  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:03 am

    Wow. Rosenfeld has some cred!!!!

    Check it:

  • 37. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:04 am

    yeah, I'd say so – thanx for the link.

  • 38. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:04 am

    you realize that we became kind of a family here reading all this?
    at least this is how I feel. big new family with guys from the US. (is there another person from outside of the US?)

  • 39. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:06 am

    I've seen quite a few people mention it. I wonder if the France people are staying up all night again.

  • 40. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:57 am

    I am from the same time zone as france and I am certainly going to stay up late again 😀

  • 41. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Yes, I agree – too bad we can't all get together after this trial and meet each other! I live in California, but I don't drive any more d/t cancer.

  • 42. lisa  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:12 am


  • 43. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Are you on Facebook Steffi? I'd like to keep in touch.

  • 44. Raven  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Ooo, maybe we should start a Trial Trackers group on FB…. You people are awesome and you've been making me laugh all day.

  • 45. Steffi  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:56 am

    if you start a group be shure to invite me.

    and my twitter:

  • 46. VoxCanaille  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:49 am

    This is my first comment. I'm just catching up on reading. I'm from Canada.

    I'm hoping the U.S. will soon catch up.

  • 47. Calvin  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Here's a facebook group I started 🙂 Just for us crazy prop8 trial trackers 🙂

  • 48. Nicki  |  January 15, 2010 at 10:10 am

    i just joined it, omg reading also on FDL Zia made me cry – what a description.

  • 49. Greg  |  January 15, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Yes Steffi,
    I'm in Australia and am reading the transcripts every day.
    I'm lucky in a way, because of the time difference, I get to read them all in one hit (altho, like others here, I aint getting much work done!!) and can cross reference to other blogs at the same time, so I;m getting quite a good picture of what's going on.
    Gotta say tho that this blog is one of the best – along with all of the commentary that you guys are posting. Rick et al are doing an AMAZING job!
    I only hope that someone is keeping a record of not only the transcripts from the trial, but the comments here too. I have been moved to tears soooo many times reading them, and I feel that they are priceless contributions to the GLBTI experience!
    I may be long way away, but I too get the feeling of a new 'family' being born in this process, and it si so heartening to see it.
    Good luck with this trial – even if you dont get the right result, I feel that this trial HAS advanced the cause already with what has come out in the court.

  • 50. allanj  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    oh yes, there are people from across the UK watching this too, some of my friends and I have been chatting about whats going on.

    my work colleagues noticed this up on my screen at my desk, and when i told them what it was they all wanted to know what was going on – they are all very supportive

  • 51. Warren  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:05 am

    Hmmn. so they're making a big deal of biological connections. Thus the state has no interest in promoting adoption. Therefore parents who wish to adopt should be called domestic partners? Or perhaps we should not allow adoption? And is adoption the best alternative to abortion? So maybe Prop 8 wants to argue for more abortions?

  • 52. Ray  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Warren. Good point. It just gets weirder and weirder.

  • 53. Craig  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:50 am

    They have no choice but to make a huge deal of bio connections, because when it gets right down to it, that is literally the only difference between gay and straight couples: while in many straight couples, BOTH can be biologically connected to their children, it is pretty much impossible for both members of a gay couple to be biologically linked to theirs. It is the only tangible, concrete difference, so it is paramount that they try to prove how vastly important it is, otherwise they can't justify their bigotry. BTW, I am a divorced gay dad raising my kids on my own, and I get REALLY wrankled at the spurious notion that my sexual orientation has anything at all to do with my ability to parent. And the kicker is, all of us gay parents suddenly become totally acceptable as parents – merely by marrying someone of the opposite gender. In other words, take me and any lesbian: we can get married, and suddenly no one is trying to declare our family abnormal, dysfunctional, or anything else. Because we "look normal." The plaintiffs should ask the defense how they feel about gay men marrying lesbians — because it would further puncture their whole argument. Are they against gays marrying lesbians? Is a couple consisting of a gay man and a lesbian woman also considered inherently inferior in the rearing of children? Or are they automatically assumed to now be adequate parents? I'd love to hear them answer that one!

  • 54. Jan  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Ah, so the Defendants just interrupted Helen Zia, saying that her testimony that is to begin regarding effects of being able to marry, is irrelevant.

    LOL isn't this trial specifically about gay marriage? Not how gays parent, or the homosexual psyche, but about marriage, and Zia's testimony about marriage is irrelevant to this trial.

    I hope everyone else sees just how moronic these proponents are..

  • 55. pearlheartgtr  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:12 am

    Ah, but the judge just rejected the defendants testimony that her testimony is irrelivent.

  • 56. pearlheartgtr  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:14 am

    did that sound right? that didn't sound right.

  • 57. Jan  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:24 am

    I understood perfectly. 🙂

  • 58. pearlheartgtr  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:15 am

    "Walker: The advantage of a bench trial is the judge can decide how much weight to give any testimony, and it does appear that her evidence is being offered on issues that have been raised by experts so far in this trial."

  • 59. Jen  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:18 am

    I heart this site so much.

  • 60. pearlheartgtr  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:20 am

    I've posted more in the last 2 hours than I have posted on blogs and forums in 2 years. I'm liking this site.

  • 61. Robert a.  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:23 am

    McGill: Did the corporation on public broadcasting affect your opinion in this case?…..

    Lamb: No,

    THAT is hilarious!

  • 62. Jan  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:25 am

    I know LOL

    Is everything but Fox liberal to these people? PBS!!? Come on!!!!

  • 63. Colt  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Is it just me, or are ALL the witnesses for our side rock stars? 🙂

  • 64. pearlheartgtr  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:26 am

    Not just Rock Stars, they are confident and unflappable. They're not letting the defense get under their skin and stay face during their attempts to discredit.

    Our side made some very wise choices and took the field with a solid game plan.

  • 65. sugarbritches  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:38 am

    So far this is going extremely well for the plaintiffs, with extremely strong witnesses and seemingly flawless trial prep. But it's honestly a bit early to be exchanging high-fives and attaboys. Remember we've only heard one side (well, part of one side). What really matters is what the other side has to offer when it's their turn. And we have to evaluate that not by whether we think it's credible (can't imagine how it could be), but whether others will think it's credible. Litigation is ALWAYS a crap shoot, to some extent.

  • 66. Warren  |  January 15, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Yeah but who would rather have cross examining? This Thompson clown or David Boies?

  • 67. Ann  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Go, Judge Walker for letting the testimony in.

    We need a FB group for all our new friends here, huh?

  • 68. Jan  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:30 am

    I just added the Courage Campaign fan page yesterday, not as active as here though.

    If someone makes a group, post it here!

  • 69. Calvin  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:52 am… There we go 🙂 lol now we just all need to join!!!

  • 70. Ann  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:58 am

    Thank you, Calvin! I'm there!

  • 71. Ann  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:25 am

    All "committed" liberals here, please raise your hands.

    {raises hand high in air}

  • 72. nightshayde  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:34 am

    *climbs on desk to raise hand as high as possible*

  • 73. Morrigoon  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    Actually I'm a libertarian.

    Have previously identified conservative… that is until the fundies redefined conservative to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean. Back when I decided I was conservative it meant, primarily, MINIMAL GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN OUR LIVES. You know, like thinking the government has no freaking business telling me who we can or can't marry.

    So while I don't consider myself a liberal, per se, there are many neocons who would consider me as such.

    What I am is an independent thinker who uses logic, not tribal loyalty, to decide my position on issues. And this independent thinker thinks Prop 8 is a load of crap.

  • 74. Michael Herman  |  January 16, 2010 at 1:17 am

    I consider myself a Moderate. I'm socially mostly liberal, but fiscally conservative. I do agree with many conservative ideals (gun rights, tougher criminal punishments), but find the "right" to be far too hypocritical for my tastes.

  • 75. Chana  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:31 am

    some issues with this craziness:
    1-how are they defining "bio" parents? let alone 2? If a woman has invitro by someone other than her husband, is her husband a "bio" parent? If a woman is a surrogate and keeps the kid? In both cases the parents would probably be recorded as bio, but are not.
    2-Do we prevent single (straight) parents from being foster kids/adopting?
    3-If an individual gets divorced and their household is thus "lacking a father," do we take their kids away from them? If an individual's spouse dies?
    4-What about kids living with grandparents? Aunts and uncles? the childcare system makes a huge effort to keep kids with relatives. Why do that if the only really good situation is for a child to live with one man and one woman? Or bioparents? shouldn't we then take them away from their parents and put them with oneman-onewoman households, ideally? What about straight couples who adopt? are they 'good parents'?
    5-DO WE INTERROGATE THE ABILITY OF INDIVIDUAL STRAIGHT COUPLES TO BE GOOD PARENTS BEFORE WE LET THEM GET MARRIED? Why has this trial turned into a trial about whether or not we are good parents????
    6-if they're really concerned about children having all the resources they need and getting raised well, I have three words for them. COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED. Which of course they are against, I'm sure.

  • 76. Jan  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:35 am

    It's really amazing to me how much they've complicated such a simple thing.

    In order to show that "bio" parents, man and woman, are the only fit parents, you have to show that all others are unfit. This includes soo many people, not just homosexual parents.

    I just don't understand any of it at all, other then they're brainwashed bigots.

    Logical thinking to them is, well, we must outlaw all abortions, but only a household run by a man and a woman are fit to parent. If they got their way, half the world would be childless, and all heterosexual married couples would have 500 children a piece.

  • 77. lisa  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:43 am

    don't the yes on prop 8 people realize that having less offspring in total might actually save the world instead of ending it, since earth is immensely overpopulated?

  • 78. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Number 5 should be used, but they need that one to be able to show (in NY at least) that accidental babies are best raised in marriages.

  • 79. JefferyK  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Gosh, the Prop 8 defense seems to be arguing that the discrimination experienced by the victims of Prop 8 isn't pertinent to the trial.

  • 80. Ann  |  January 15, 2010 at 9:15 am

    I think they're actually going to use the discrimination and stigmatization of LGBT folks against us, by saying it is bad for kids of SS couples. Jeez.

  • 81. Jan  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:41 am

    I know why they didn't want her to go on the stand.

    They'd rather have witnesses be all academics rathern than real people affected by Prop 8. Obviously all experts have danced in circles around their pathetic attempts to distort facts, but it's easier to try and accuse them of biases then to deal with those directly effected.

    Placing someone on stand who has been directly effected by Prop 8 (and silly to me that this woman not an expert despite prestigious schooling, being a published authored, and lesbian directly effected by Prop 8), it is harder to try and discredit her hardships due to their bigotry. You really can't at all. You can't try to claim bias in a personal story.

  • 82. Mark 'RikerBear  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:44 am

    I was just reminded by my boss to try and actually get some work done LOL
    She understands how inmportant this is to me/us…I just love supportive people!!

  • 83. Ray  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Mark, I sympathize with you. I'm retired and get to sit at home and give my husband updates. I'd be going nuts if I had to work and try to sneak peeps at the trial blogs.

    I'm totally Addicted to this trial.

  • 84. Holcombe  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:53 am

    I WISH i had a boss cuz this is ruining my self-employedness!!!! loving loving loving this site…

  • 85. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:45 am

    Helen Zia rocks.

  • 86. Jan  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:47 am

    I know I keep commenting all over the place, apologies if it bothers anyone. Her testimony has made me cry. How horrible to go through such stigmatization just because you love someone of the same gender. Just shameful that people are so cruel.

  • 87. Daniel L  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:48 am

    As moving as her testimony is, do you think it'll get much (if any) weight at all?

  • 88. Ray  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Wow!!!!! Helen Zia ROCKS! Prop 8 called her "not weighty enough".

  • 89. Chris  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Remember that translated into 8-ish, "not important" means "highly relevant, provoking, and likely to make us look bad".

  • 90. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:49 am

    As I write this, the tears are streaming down my face so much – it is hard to see what I am writing – great witness.

  • 91. Chris  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:51 am

    It's easy to downplay someone else's rights when your own are intact.

    Interesting that they're sneering about oversensitive gay people being bothered by disapproving looks, and then claiming that the Tam guy's life is in danger because somebody tried to steal one of his yard signs and said mean things about him on the internet.

  • 92. Alan E.  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Exactly why it should be viewable!

  • 93. Nick  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:56 am

    I would join a facebook page-for sure…not many of "us" up here in this part of the Sierra.

  • 94. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Not many here in Ridgecrest, either.

  • 95. Ann  |  January 15, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Calvin created one! It's here:

  • 96. Tom  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:58 am

    I think her personal story will have a huge impact. When you put a face to the information, it humanizes it. While people can hate you to your face, and harm you as well, when you tell others your personal stories, it can at least move a hater or someone in the middle to think even just for a moment. While it seems small, all those little nudges move people from "Get the fucking queers off this earth" to "perhaps I need to think about this in a different way." I was somewhat lucky when I came out in 1985 that my immediate family was somewhat supportive – has taken me 25 years of constant work to get them to think that I should get the same rights and not just civil unions. But it is constant. I have always tried to be honest but have curled right back up into my shell when I felt my safety was in question. BTW – while this doesn't affect this trial at all, the most incredible book I have read on discrimination and personal suffering for the community is "Crisis" by Mitchell Gold. Contains 40 stories like the one we are hearing today. Amazing how similar our experiences are. Now if only the law will recognize this.

  • 97. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Thanks, I agree – have read that one!

  • 98. Brett  |  January 15, 2010 at 9:08 am

    As of this past summer, I'm engaged to my boyfriend, and I hope that this could change things so that within a few years, we could have a REAL wedding instead of a "commitment ceremony."

    Even people who know us well won't view a ceremony the same as a wedding. It doesn't seem as important or as real, and doesn't carry the same weight. I think that's why the people who know us support same sex marriage, because they want us to be able to have what they have, and want our union to carry the same weight and meaning as theirs. Every time the LGBT community loses in another state, my heart breaks just a little more. I keep trying to believe our time is just around the corner, but with defeat after defeat, it can be hard to keep up the hope at times. I really feel like our only hope at being able to get married in the next decade rests on this case, and rests on justice prevailing. I'm a big believer in the principles of the Constitution, and I hope they come through for us all.

    Sadly, my boyfriend won't hold my hand or kiss me in our yard because we live in the south, and he fears that someone might see us and attack us or damage our property for it.

    We haven't adopted yet (and probably won't for awhile), but I long for a future where I won't have to worry whether my child is gay or straight because it won't matter. With equality and non-discrimination, we'd just be people who are in love with other people.

    The thing being left out of the conversation: Children being raised by gay families are often children that might otherwise be being raised by foster care. A stable home with 2 parents, gay or straight, will be VASTLY better than bouncing around from foster family to foster family.

    I think if more people in this country actually took the time to talk to and get to know a gay person, all of this wouldn't even be an issue. People have such unjustified preconceptions about homosexuality without spending the time to become informed.

  • 99. michael  |  January 16, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    I'm here in the South and sometimes it hard to even imagine living in SF where being worried about being in your own yard wouldn't be a problem. I with you on your comment.

  • 100. Michael Herman  |  January 15, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    I'm damn glad she was able to testify. All these bigots that think that they're going to be attacked for testifying to keep Prop 8 aren't the victims. The real victims are those affected by Prop Hate. This is one of the most important messages that needs to be put out there. Public awareness of the persecution of LGBT people needs to be commo knowledge. These stories need to be on mainstream media, not just the internet. Television and radio ads are a MUST. It's time to spread the truth. It's time to stop talking politics, and talk people. I'll be the first to donate $50 to put a statewide ad on primetime television to raise public awareness of just how much LGBT people suffer from the hate and discrimination they face every day.

  • 101. Kate G  |  January 15, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    Okay, anyone else find themselves confronting people they know who oppose same-sex marriage in trial form? I'm talking to an old boyfriend (from my closet days) who is super conservative christian, and pretty much trying to lawyer him into saying that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. i feel so powerful and armed with facts! thank you so much for your work, bloggers! <3

  • 102. Liveblogging Day 5: Part &hellip  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    […] Liveblogging Day 5: Part V […]

  • 103. Natural Colon Cleanse&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 10:07 am

    Colon Cleanse Review Site…

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

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