Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Liveblogging Day 7: Part IV Power and Protection


By Brian Leubitz

David Thompson (T): Of ten largest cities, how many have protections for gays and lesbians

Gary M. Segura (S): About 8 or 9

T: You gave money to Prop 8?

S: Yes

T: You participated in a course with Simon Jackman at Stanford?

S: Yes

T: You said you believe very strongly in marriage equality?

S: Yes

T: When you hear the term gay or lesbian, what does it mean. It may be sexual behavior, It may be identity, etc.

S: Yes, it could be a limited range of options

T: Definition of power, the exercise of power is moving people from fence-sitting into your column?

S: Yes, that could be it, it could be getting people to stand down.

T: If the group had power, it could cajole the Legislature to produce outcomes that were not ordinarily

S: Yes, that’s part of it, also means securing it

T: You believe there are allies, that the LGBT community has to rely on political power, and allies

S: Yes, some are more or less reliable.

T: You believe the NAACP has political power, even when Newt Gingrich was speaker.

S: yes, they had power, but a little less than when Dems are in power.

T: Shows HRC materials stating that the National Journal called them very effective. You don’t believe that gays have a meaningful power despite that.

S: No, they don’t

T: Goes through a list of powerful people who are gay: Speaker-elect John Perez, other LGBT leaders. Not politically powerful?

S: No, they aren’t.

T: Looking at domestic partnerships. LGBTs won over bibilical literalists, correct?

S: Yes.

T: Again, in 2003, AB 205 expanded DP rights. LGBT win, right?

S: Yes

T: If a group has achieved a great deal of legal protection, that would be a positive element in political power?

S: yes.

T: Can you identify any state w/ more political power for LGBTs than California?

S: No.

T: Can you ID any examples of Latinos using political power?

S: Yes.

T: New Hampshire allowed marriage equality by legislation, as did Vermont. Do gays and lesbians not have power there?

S: It would be difficult for me to say, b/c I don’t know the full situation. I would point out that my issue of political power as a national issue, but also across layers of government.

T: Massachusetts. Able to defeat a measure to repeal it?

S: Yes, gays and lesbians did, but to the extent that they cannot travel with their marriage. They don’t have power. (And Iowa)

T: DC?

S: No gays and lesbians

T: Houston has a lesbian mayor. Power there?

S: No. They do not. No DPs there.

T: San Diego. Mayor Sanders is a supporter, any power there?

S: No. LGBT community isn’t sufficiently powerful to change power.

T: New York Times article about LGBT leaders. Goes through elected leaders who are gay, and asks about each city about whether they have power.

S: No, they live in Wayne County, Michigan, and the United States.

T: Charles Pew in Detroit didn’t face many attacks. Doesn’t that mean there’s political power?

S: I would look to the City of Houston, where the Mayor’s sexuality was a big issue in the campaign.

T: Story in Atlanta J-C: “Gay votes can make a difference.” Interview with Georgia Equality, he says that the LGBT vote was a powerful effect. But gays and lesbians don’t have power in Atlanta?

S: Yes, this claim has a number of problems. This is being made by an advocate of an organization, and this was something of an ad here. They would always aggrandize their power. Atlanta was one of the locations that doesn’t have protections.

T: Money is a political resource?

S: Yes, but the power varies by groups. Money is the power of trade groups, but in others votes are more important.

T: Some groups have power b/c of their financial resources?

S: Size of the group is an important factor, as is financial resources?

T: Yes.

S: No on 8 outraised Yes on 8, 43-40, right?

T: That’s my understanding

S: Total revenue of HRC (about $45 mil) is greater than that of NAACP

T: You don’t have an opinion about the income of gays and lesbians? And gay men are less likely to have children, and children absorb resources, meaning gay men have more resources.

S: Seems reasonable

T: Goes through economic resources. The number of gays and lesbians that give money are quite high?

S: Yes, I think gays and lesbians are more likely. A very small group of people though would have to give

T: You believe the internet has made it easier for gays and lesbians to organize? And particularly for people that might want to stay private.

S: Yes, for all groups. But also makes a difference for private people.

T: No on 8 was able to send out a message on TV.

[This guy is speaking fast. Very fast.]

[UPDATE] 4:12

T: You believe access is important for political power. You believe that access shows that a politician favors someone? You believe that access shows power?

S: No, because LGBT

T: You can’t identify a single issue that gays and lesbians were refused to speak about gay issues.

S: I don’t know the workings of Pelosi’s office, but she is resisting bringing some things to vote.

T: You talk about the feelings of the public towards a group, you have a “feelings tmperature.”

S: Yes

T: In 1984 the mean temperature was 30 degrees. Recently, it was around 49 degrees. There is a trend

Yes, I would want to analyze the

T: Allies can be a source of power?

S: yes, depends on the time. Some allies are more helpful, more often.

T: An ally is somebody who repeatedly embraces the gay position?

S: I would say it is somebody who expands political power for the group.

T: Looking at a chapter of a book that S wrote. The value of coalition building is not lost on the LGBT groups, and have been working for years to build coalitions.

S: That’s true.

T: HRC Annual Report 2009. “Finally, with strong allies in the White House and in Capitol Hill” Would you agree that the Obama administration is more favorable than Bush?

S: Yes, but I wouldn’t say Obama is a strong ally.

T: The president increased HIV power. That’s power

S: No, but Bush did a good job at HIV prevention, but it’s not necessarily a big step.

T: HRC wants to eliminate HIV travel ban.

S: Scientific community and LGBT wanted that.

T: That’s a sign of LGBT community?

S: Not really. A letter writing campaign isn’t that big of a deal. There was also a lot of public pressure from the scientific community.

T: We advocated for the administration to ban gender identity discrimination

S: LGBT community did seek it. I’m not sure if it will survive this administration.

10 minute break

And, we’re back from the break

T: We’re going to play a speech from Pres. Obama

Judge: Well, it is the 20th of January, isn’t it.

(Obama): Story of HRC. I’m here with you in your fight. Goes on to talk about HRC’s checklist.

T: Using your definition, does Obama count as an ally?

S: I think President Obama is an ally who cannot be counted on. An ally whose rhetoric goes further than his action.

T: You believe Obama is lukewarm, even indifferent?

S: Yes, he has defended DOMA. ENDA isn’t law. OFA sent emails to Maine for New Jersey, but didn’t mention Question 1. Most gay activists feel that President Obama has been particularly disappointing. He did sign the hate crimes legislation.

T: You would look to whether Obama has spoken publicly?

S: President Obama is a very good speech maker.

T: You would look at what legislation he’s introduced.

S: Well, strictly speaking, the administration doesn’t introduce legislation

T: Sen. Feinstein is only a soft ally?

S: Yes.

T: you would describe a true ally as somebody who will put other goals aside for the goals.

S: Well, yes.

T: You would describe ACLU as an ally?

S: Well, they do sail into stiff winds.

T: We were looking into the definition of reliability in your deposition.

S: Yes, ACLU is a probably ally.

T: Pelosi?

S: She is a decent ally, but not very reliable.

T: That could be a sound strategy?

S: Perhaps. But there is evidence that “living to fight another day” loses your base.

T: The importance of the media. Television news could be important?

S: Yes

T: John Zawler, the nature of mass opinion. The thesis is that the public responds to lead cues. The media leads on issues

S: Yes, there is a correlation, it’s not perfect, but generally, media reports matter.

T: “Minority group interests and political organizations” You considered this article.

S: Yes

T: Look at p. 575, article states, “Gay political support isn’t as important as Elite support for marriage.” You would agree that gay and lesbians media coverage has increased. And saliency on that issue has increased

S: Yes, on that dimension.

T: 2005 HRC report showing 90 % of population has seen quote.

S: Well, 90% don’t read newspapers, well below 50%. Areaas where 90% of the population have been reached, but not 90 % of the nation. I think we have the HRC advertising its own work.

T: You don’t recall SF Chronicle and NY Times advocating against LGBT causes?

S: NO, I Don’t.

T: HRC Says that their opinions as “common sense.” ?

S: I would say that newspaper editorial boards generally favor LGBT rights. I would think there would be variation by issue and by region.

T: Editorial from NYTimes: “Preserving California’s Constitution” Third sentence strongly opposed Prop 8. Is it fair to state that the New York Times ferverently supports gay marriage?

S: I would think that they support marriage equality across the states in the absence of an editorial.

T: LA Times, Prop 8 added discrimination to California Discrimination

S: It would show that the LA Times opposed Prop 8. And that newspapers are too fond of the word “ferverent.”

T: Cohesion and size of the group?

S: There is a broad scholarly disagreement on the size of the LGBT community. It is my opinion that between 4-7% are openly gay.

T: Bisexuals?

S: 2% or even less. There are some problems with definition on bisexual.

T: 23% of gays and lesbians are estimated to have voted for GW Bush, less cohesive than African-Americans?

S: Yes, African-Americans are the most cohesive group.

T: A small group can be political powerful?

S: Depends what you mean.

T: The Jewish community has political power

S: My initial opinion shows that the Jewish community has a lot of representation.

T: In close elections, small groups can make a difference

S: yes, that’s true

T: Both Obama and Clinton paid attention to LGBT community in the primary?

S: I don’t that they were more focused on the LGBT community than just anyone on the street.

Both Sen. Obama and Clinton, actively courted all the groups. The term special appears to suggest that they paid more attention than to other constitutency. Gay and lesbians are majority Democratic consitutency

T: Persuasion?

S: Persuasion is more than saying please pass our legislation. Persuasion means that you can point to a deeply held norm. Persuasion means how much they hold deeply held norms and then how much they are willing to act on them.

T: You believe that a group could change a legislator by making claims on norms of fairness?

S: yeah, they usually do that?

T: You think that abolitionists used the norms of fairness?

S: Yes, it was one strategy. They engaged in strikes, boycotts, freedom rides, far more than just appealing to the norms of fairness.

T: You’ve read press reports that the No on 8 people didn’t feel that they did a good job of reaching out to blacks and latinos.

S: yes, I’ve read that.

T: Let’s talk about violence?

S: It’s usually frowned upon.

T: And it isn’t very effective?

S: No, it’s not very democratic.

T: Sympathy?

S: Sympathy isn’t really a tactic that isn’t used very often.

If a group is trying to engage norms of fairness, do they lose that when they engage in violence?

S: To an extent. Not always true, look at civil rights struggle.

T: You said in your depo: that you lose appeal when you engage in violence

S: yes

T: One resource you have is good will?

S: yes.

T: Disenfranchisement of gay and lesbian voters?

S: Not recently, maybe in the 1950s.

T: Recently?

S: Nothing off the top of my head.

T: Let’s talk about the indicia of political power. One reflection would be to allocate funds that are important to the group.

S: Yes, if the group brought their resources to bear.

T: You would also look at the presence of statutory protections? And to elect candidates of their choice?

S: Yes

T: Not only gay candidates would be first choices.

S: yes

T: 4 out of 120 legislators

S: Ok

T: Equality California is a big gay rights group?

S: yeah, probably.

T: 2009 legislative scorecard for EQCA. Despite a tough legislative session, this has been one of EQCA’s best years. We passed 11 pieces of legislation. Is it true that 11 pieces of legislation were passed?

S: Ok. Some of them were non-binding resolution.

T: Would a legislator getting an EQCA rating of 100% mean they are supportive?

S: Depending on

T: Can you point to one of the 100% rating is not an ally of the LGBT community?

S: I cannot. There are a lot of zeroes, so if the majority lost control, much could be reversed.

T: Senate

S: I don’t know all the legislature’s activities

T: Can you identify where the LGBT community supported the Republican rather than the Democrat?

S: No

T: Can you identify a Democrat who won the nomination without the support of the LGBT community?

S: I lived outside the state, so I don’t know all the primary politics

T: You would call Boxer an ally?

S: yes

T: What about labor unions?

S: I can’t say. I don’t know how labor members voted in 2008 just because the union opposed Prop 8.

T: EQCA press release citing UNITE-HERE donation of $1900


  • 1. Pete  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Strangely enough, I was saddened by hearing how little power we have politically by the good guys. Now the bad guys are making me feel a bit better that we do have some protections! Strange and YAY!

  • 2. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Unfortunately, that has been their "mantra – chant" all along – well, they have the same rights as we do!

  • 3. James  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:01 am

    Is his name pronounced pug-no or pun-yo? No audio here.

  • 4. Glenn I  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Rush Limbaugh assured me that President Obama would never forget the gays – that Obama would allow gays into the military and Obama would dismantle the Denial of Marriage Act!

    Rush Limbaugh, here to put your doubts to rest.

  • 5. StaceyB  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:17 am

    I'd like to know what HRC did with that $45m they supposedly raised.

  • 6. Pete  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:27 am


  • 7. Daimeon  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Duh, they threw a black-tie party honoring our "Fierce Advocate-in-chief's" win.

  • 8. pearlheartgtr  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:09 am


    "T: Here’s a document about the feeling thermometer for LGBT community. Mean score was 30 in 1984, now 49%?

    S: Looks correct.

    T: So more warm feeling toward LGBT in US?

    S: Correct, but there could be a secular trend in favor of warmness.

    Walker: You’re in favor of global warming?"

  • 9. proudprogressive  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:17 am

    This trial is shining the disinfectant of truth on these people, that hide their hateful systematic organizing to hate on the gays docs and stuff in shoeboxes ? The judge must be biting his tongue hard not to laugh at the lack of lawyerlytude of defense. But hey he got pugno's name right.

    Really when you see it in black and white like this – its a wonder any of us survive at all. Vast right wing conspiracy , no tin foil hat needed – its all in this transcript. If the H8'ers could only ….know how much they harm people or do they know and they just do not care. my guess is the latter.

    Great Job team CC !

    That shoe box thing has got to get into the re enactment..Dieter you reading here and FDL – its rich !

  • 10. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:18 am

    They don't care who they hurt, because they aren't affected and lack the empathy to understand that they are talking about the lives of real people.

    That's the only explanation I can divine.

  • 11. Rebecca  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:17 am

    What does any of the defense's questions have to do with having Political Power?

  • 12. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:19 am

    The defense is trying to prove that because LGBT people have all of this alleged political clout, they are not a suspect class.

    It's kind of blowing up in their faces, though …

  • 13. Liz  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:23 am

    The witness is holding up fairly well, but it's still making me nervous. I hate to admit it, but he made good points on the funds raised for HRC and states with gay marriage.

    Loved the point on how, for example. residents of Detroit are also residents of Michigan and the US, where they do NOT have representation.

    Looking forward to redirect on this one…

  • 14. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Yes, I agree – it will be interesting to see on re-direct.

  • 15. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Yeah, I agree. What's even more assinine is the way they twist the definition what the law "defines as "suspect class"

  • 16. Rose  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:22 am

    If we had true political power……then Prop 8 would have NEVER made it onto the ballot in the first place.

    If we had true political power……then DADT would have already been repealed.

    If we had true political power…….then DOMA would have already been repealed.

    We are lucky to have what we have and even the hate crime bill could not stand on it's own………it had to piggy back on the Defense Budget Bill.

    So, please tell me exactly where our political power truly is?

  • 17. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Great point, Rose!

  • 18. Andrea  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:34 am

    GLBT are a powerful political bargaining chip, to be traded away by so-called 'allies' in exchange for them getting something that they want. So sorry, now's just not the right time, we aren't ready yet. Next time for sure. BTW, can we count on you for another donation?

  • 19. Sandy  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Yep, the old we are on your side, then…
    Oh, we didn't have the votes for that….
    DOMA is a major obstacle to this. Please tell me there is a host of lawyers looking into how to reverse that.

  • 20. Marlene Bomer  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:27 am

    I'd like to have some of that "wealth" the opposition says we all have.

    The most I made per hour was $8 when I worked for an AIDS Service Agency and was able to go on a vacation for the first time in my life.

    I was nearly ready to start the wheels on applying for Section 8 when they fired me *over the phone* for a trumped up charge when I knew it was because I was trans.

    I want to see more studies done of TLBG folk in the service and blue collar industries, 'cause the claims that we're all rich and better educated, and have higher disposable income is nothing but a lie.

    In fact, it was this myth that was spewed by Lou Sheldon's hate group in the propaganda film "Gay Rights, Special Rights" sent to black churches to make it seem we never faced bigotry.

  • 21. Liz  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Completely agree, Marlene.

  • 22. Loren  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:50 am

    I'd like to see that as well. And speaking of the invisibility of LGBTs in certain circles, how about hip-hop? It's an immensely powerful cultural force with practically nobody that's out.

  • 23. StaceyB  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:22 am

    I'm with you Marlene!
    As a bisexual in a "lesbian" relationship, we automatically disadvantaged simply because we're female and do not have four year college degrees. Most of my adult life was dedicated to raising my son and making sure he "wanted" for nothing. We have NO savings, we have no retirement, and at the moment, I'm unemployed (thanks to the economy). So our resources now, even as "single" women are limited even further by surviving on only one income.

    I'd like to know where all my "Gay" wealth is, because somehow I must have forgotten where I placed it.

  • 24. Sara  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:28 am

    I thought that the point about political power is that a group's political power has to be measured against everyone else's political power. You could be the best little league team in the country, but if you play against a major league team, there is no contest.

    I don't think there is any question that the LGBT community has *some* power, the problem is that it is minuscule when compared with, say, the Catholic Church.

  • 25. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:31 am

    That pretty much covers it.

  • 26. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:45 am

    I concur, but hey you gotta give 'em credit for the effort. It has been their ploy from the beginning to discredit witnesses and belie the truth. I am really happy we have this bog to get the truth out!

  • 27. Liz  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Well, it's good that we're talking about it here but we're not really "getting it out" per se.

    Now if we all go talk to someone who's either anti-gay marriage or indifferent THEN we'll be getting it out there. 🙂

  • 28. Lo  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Religion is always a factor that comes up in everything, esp. when it comes to the Prop 8 side. Can anyone please tell me if the judge is keeping in mind that there should be a separation of church and state?!

  • 29. Nick H  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Wait, the argument is that GLBT people shouldn't get married because they have the gumption to organize and stand up for themselves? This seems to further illustrate the underlying martyr complex of the defense: GLBT people are terrifying because they won't accept their status as second-class citizens, and will fight for their right to equality.

  • 30. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Gotta watch folks that get uppity …

  • 31. Bruce  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:37 am

    I'm sick reading this. I'm reminded how far we have to go for truly equal rights. At times things feel like they're ok, then something like this trail hits you upside the head and forces you to see things for how they really are.

    But I refuse to be beaten down by the bigots and bad news. I let it fuel my resolve to keep on fighting and do even more for equality.

  • 32. Alan E.  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:43 am

    It's worse than I, and probably others, previously thought. This whole trial is putting things into perspective for me.

  • 33. Rayfo  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:50 am

    It is pretty depressing but I think the bright spot is that these experts have provided us with a whole lot better argument than we had.

    That whole exchanged about the Human Rights Campaign "aggrandizing" our power just made me want to sue HRC for my fucking money back. All the hell they are really good as is begging for more money. When they had the President speak a few days before the Hate Crimes bill was passed, they just KISSED HIS ASS and gave him a great big pass.

    Oh No! HRC wouldn't DARE use the opportunity to hold President Obama's feet to the fire, push him to actually DO something. In return Obama does NOTHING and, hey. He's no worse than HRC.

    All we hear from HRC are updates on how much further back on the back burner any action on DADT and DOMA are put. Sorry, not now. Too busy. Got more important issues on the plate.

    As Segura testified, "That is not a reliable ally".

    And obviously neither are Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. Every time the open their mouths and say they support us but don't support our marriages, they CUT OUR THROATS.

  • 34. Bob Donahue  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:16 am

    I like the idea of telling the HRC when they call for more $$$ "I'm sorry, but you're not a reliable ally."

    It's time that we spend out time and money going beyond sending people to high-price galas.

  • 35. proudprogressive  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Not to mention willingly through the Transgender people under the bus, the HRC is useless as tits on bull. too many back room deals, too much money. I urge you not to give to them until joe solomese resigns at the very least and they themselves implement an affirmative action hiring programs for Transgender people. the history of their betrayals is quite extensive. And unfortunately many gay youth are not aware of these back room deals and often see their logo – their well branded logo and think this is the place to send my 25 bucks. In the meantime , in all things lgbtqueer the hrc is an epic fail. imho. Not an illustration of our power AT ALL ! Its an illustration of our lack of power. just callin it like i see it – my pov.

  • 36. Rayfo  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:47 am

    @ Proudprogressive. I'm already on board with severing HRC from the feed trough. Their logo speaks for gay people but it doesn't BUY a damn thing from the HRC organization except shit like, "Wait until WE decide what's right and then we'll tell you what you should think."

    Fuck that. I'll be dead and buried waiting for the HRC "Elites" to stop kissing the asses of their slave masters.

  • 37. James  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:08 am

    I truly dislike the HRC. A bunch of Gay, Inc. and nothing else.

  • 38. erasure25  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:58 am

    I know, right! I think we are too used to living like second class citizens. So many times I shun away from embracing my partner in public because of what I think could happen. Then later, I regret and stress out over doing that.

    Of course, I did go to a restaurant in Downtown Disney in the lovely Orange County and the host asked my party if we were going to Disneyland for any special occasion. I yelled out "Hello, Its GAY DAY!" and the host quickly turned her back to me and led us to our seats and gave me a scared look.

  • 39. Rose  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Thank You David:)

  • 40. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:46 am

    You are of course, very welcome!

  • 41. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:44 am

    (formerly known as just Nick-I see another Nick now) No need to hide, as my name is all over our Facebook group, right?

    I was thinking while waiting for the break to be over-why not just make the non-profits pay taxes BUT provide accounting for every penny taken in and spent, and allow them deductions similar to what the Govt gives the working REAL person on the taxes they have to pay???

    Continue the deductions for taxpayers, but tax the non-profits (why would they have profits to tax anywise, right-and NO fancy buildilngs and holdings allowed!)

    This shall be my kingdom..:-)

  • 42. JC  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:49 am

    I like this idea very much–make the not-for-profit orgs account for their spending and get to deduct their mission-driven charitable work. Great idea! (An aside: It's not that not-for-profits don't make money. They have to stay solvent and grow to keep serving their purported mission. It's just that they are supposed to take those profits and plow them back into their programs, salaries, etc., rather than distribute them to shareholders, etc. That's a sorta-kinda explanation; I'm not a CPA or attorney 😉

  • 43. Rose  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:45 am

    I'm sorry……but if we have President Obama as a ally……can we give him back to the other side……..just asking.

    He made a lot of promises, but so far hasn't delivered on any of them.

    Sorry, I don't see President Obama as an ally…….JMHO

  • 44. Sandy  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:40 am

    "As a candidate, Clinton also appealed for the votes of gays and lesbians by promising to overturn the ban on homosexuals in the military. As president, he agreed to the miserable "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which led to an increase in the number of men and women discharged for their sexuality. And to add insult to injury, Clinton signed the bigoted Defense of Marriage Act that outlawed same-sex marriages."

    Now that he is not running for office and his wife seems to be over her presidential bid, Bill Clinton has changed his mind about gay marriage, now OK with it.

    This is totally predictable behavior, the candidate makes promises, then reality sets in.

    I have cut off my donations (partly because I have less money now).

    Not that I would vote for the other party of the two. They bank on that, just as much as the R's bank on abortion and gun folks.

    I like the candidates that say they are for gay marriage when they run for office. They never seem to get far (Dennis Kucinich).

    The religious right should also awaken to the fact that they are also being used for money and votes to elect the Corporate, Warmonger/profiteers, Wall Street folks etc. They will say anti abortion, family values, anti gay marriage, then get busted in a bathroom or snorting coke/meth off a gay prostitute.

    I am just tired of all this, the old lesser of the two. They count on us giving up. Just remember that they are trying to get everyone's money and vote, prepare for disappointment. Try to find candidates that are more progressive, stop thinking GOP will be cutting your taxes and never run up debt or spend (cough)

    They play us all for fools, but I hold out hope that the disappointment in Obama Health Care does not totally derail the entire agenda. Plays right into the hands of Republicans that pretend to be on the side of the taxpayers, tell everyone to buy more stuff, buy a house, doesn't have to be a lousy house. Banks then deregulate and allow Wall Street to run amok, then taxpayers bail out the banks that did what Bush said, loan money to anyone that asks for it, cut taxes, then borrow to bring debt to record high. You know, starve the beast, then we have to make huge cuts.

    How much populist anger does it take and why is gay marriage such a hot button to some of these churches?
    It gets conservatives to donate money and vote for Republicans. Seems that these things are kept alive for milking the cow.

    I've been around since Harvey Milk and Prop 6 days. Gay marriage never seemed possible in those days. We had bar raids near election time, so we have gone from police raiding the bars to anti gay marriage statements.

    Very slow progress. I think the youth going into elections and elderly moving out of elections will make headway. This court case will make progress, but like Obama being the magic wand for all change and hope is a bit over the top.

    It will come, just don't give up and don't expect politicians to single handedly make change. Obama said he needed his voters. It is true that he is a politician, seeing a vote in every camp.
    The problem is staying home and not voting doesn't help make progress, but how can we hold those we send money and vote for accountable?

    We'd do well to have a fund that is results dependent. Perhaps we should find some philanthropists willing to set up such a fund that only pays dividends when the promise is realized.

    Maybe we should get organized again and have large rallies in DC. Time to rekindle the fire and get active for our causes.

  • 45. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:47 am

    I agree, Rose, during the campaign he made many promises to our community, yet we have yet to see any of those promises materialize.

  • 46. JC  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:50 am

    I don't even seem them peeking over the horizon in the far-off future, even….

  • 47. proudprogressive  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:27 am

    The democrats know we lgbtqueer are desparate for our equality , they also know that we tend to vote. Personally at almost 53 , the Clinton admin is a vivid memory.. Promise us , pander to us, then let us hang out to dry. I was a kennedy kid so , really grasping that so much of what i thought about the democrats is mythical – truly we live in an Oligarchy. Hot button issues make politicians money. Abortion , lgbtq rights generate thousands of dollars , they are invested one might imagine in making sure the cash cow of our LIVES hanging in the balance does not dry up. Not a pleasant senerio – but like Bruce and others rest assured we have NO intention of ever giving up. EVER.

  • 48. Rayfo  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:53 am

    " No on 8 was able to send out a message on TV."

    But NOT the most important trial in our lives!!!!! It we had had this trial to show during Prop 8, Oh Happy Day is what gays and lesbians would be singing right now.

  • 49. Rayfo  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Is today's session over with?????

    I haven't seen an update in nearly 40 minutes.

  • 50. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:59 am

    I don't think so, but there have been no updates at either, so I dunno! Anybody?

  • 51. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Someone messaged on Firedoglake to me that they have been back in session for 30 mins
    but the feed seems to be down to me..hmmmm god smote us…LOL

  • 52. Liz  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:59 am

    I don't think so, but apparently none of the blogs are updating right now. Maybe they're having connection issues?

  • 53. Bry  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Unfortunately the vile scum have been updating quite a bit, I'm following both ends on twitter

  • 54. Bry  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:05 am

    And the two feeds aren't "connecting" – ADF claims our side "conceded" that the newspapers support us.

    I don't see the No On 8 twitter feeds mentioning this yet

  • 55. ron  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Boy following this requires more than switching on a lite.

  • 56. Rose  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Has anyone heard anything about the re-enactment video on youtube, yet?

  • 57. pearlheartgtr  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:09 am

    The site says to keep checking.

  • 58. straightfromsacramen  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:10 am

    firedoglake has switched threads.

  • 59. straightfromsacramen  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:12 am

  • 60. DonG  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:14 am

    FireDogLake has a new thread at
    and they seem to be currently blogging

  • 61. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:19 am

    foredpglake came back on for a bit on a new thread, but I haven't updated much in a while…the thread they came back to is

  • 62. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:20 am

    I guess i am not the only one tired this afternoon, sorry about the spelling…LOL…firedoglake that was supposed to be….

  • 63. Bob Donahue  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:24 am

    WRT the GLBT community supporting a Republican, in the MA governor's race when it was Weld (R) vs. Silber (D), we were DEFINITELY behind Weld as Silber was extremely anti-gay and Weld was pro-gay.

  • 64. Grant  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:53 am

    I recall reading a number of GLBT supported Dede Scozzafava (R) in NY as well, but don't have any numbers for that.

    And here in San Diego, Mayor Sanders (R) gets wide support (and votes) from the LGBT community – and has been awared the title "Supporter of the Year" last year or year before by the Gay & Lesbian Times.

  • 65. Rayfo  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:35 am

    "Ok. Some of them were non-binding resolution."

    Like Harvey Milk Day. It's right up there with Vietnam Vets Appreciation Day in the amount of political skin it takes to designate a day to recognize a person, idea or group. It imposes ZERO responsiblity on citizens or government other than to just acknowledge it if they are inclinded to do so.

  • 66. Grant  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:54 am

    And even that was vociferously opposed by the religious right (and Republicans in Sacramento)!

  • 67. Clark  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Listen, guys, I'm all for "gay people" being able to live in the same world as me and get to breathe my air and stuff, but if we legalize gay marriage then we're gonna have to legalize interspecies murder, cannibalism and murder, and then the terrorists will have one.

    Once you take a look at the plain and simple facts you can see that it's not hate or prejudice, it's just common sense.

  • 68. Clark  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:54 am

    wow, I need to lay off the fever, it's disrupting my ability to type. Let's pretend I didn't just have to break character, and try this again:

    Listen, guys, I’m all for “gay people” being able to live in the same world as me and get to breathe my air and stuff, but if we legalize gay marriage then we’re gonna have to legalize interspecies marriage, cannibalism and murder, and then the terrorists will have won.

    Once you take a look at the plain and simple facts you can see that it’s not hate or prejudice, it’s just common sense.

  • 69. Sandy  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Sorry Clark, I have seen some pretty mean things and didn't recognise the "faceteous-ness" right off.

  • 70. Sandy  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:14 am

    Well, now here's the shining example of slippery slope and this is truly what we are up against.
    How do we counter this?
    There is the snide I will ALLOW you to BREATHE MY AIR. Then denial of hate or prejudice.
    We need to get the point across, what specifically is unequal, then wait to get smacked down by the all powerful folks like Clark, who thinks himself to be a reasonable guy, he likes us and all but…..

  • 71. Clark  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:42 am

    It's important to remember god's laws of the universe, though. As the elegant philosopher-warrior-poet Zach Weiner put it:

    1.) E = mc²
    2.) Fg = G [ (m1 x m2) / r² ]
    3.) NO HOMOS

    I don't really have the stomach to keep this up. Nobody loves a good bit of snark as much as I do, but the fact that the things I'm saying are really thought by real people hurts me to my very core.

    Screw singing, I'd like to teach the world to apply critical reasoning skills in conjunction with a philosophy of tolerance and mutual protections.

    P.S., it is worth noting that Mr. Weiner was being just as facetious as myself.

  • 72. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:56 am

    It is really regretable that Harvey Milk is not alive to witness this.

    He really started all this b.s., the bastard! ; )

    He would have loved the hell out of this.

  • 73. Charles  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:09 am

    IANAL but…

    Methinks the defense is really stupid to insist on blocking the LDS documents from being read out. I mean, once or twice ok, but once Walker estblished the fact that he REALLY wanted to hear them, trying to object every 5 seconds
    1. Only serves to piss the judge off
    2. Draws attention to what they want to hide

    I mean, are they really that stupid? I really don't understand what this defense is trying to achieve.

  • 74. Chana  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:41 am

    I think they know they've already lost this trial-they're just playing it out until they can get to the Supreme Court, where they will not have to argue the case on its merits because 5 of the justices are conservative. At this point they may be just trying to be nasty and rack up talking points for their base.
    (I mean, Walker is clearly not sympathetic on the basis of the arguments they're offering, to begin with-which is to say, none. He's not stupid and he's not conservative. It would be very surprising to me if he decided for them).

  • 75. Boston  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    I think they also want to paint the judge as an activist for the "other side" and themselves as victims in the aftermath of the trial. The more objections that are overruled… the more excerpts that can be taken out of context… the more they can spin it into something other than their own bigotry and/or incompetence.

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