Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Liveblogging Day 8: Part I


By Rick Jacobs

I’m back up in the overflow room on 19, where I’ve been for the entire trial. Sitting behind me in the jury box are the folks from Prop. 8/Protect Marriage. I’m at what would be the plaintiff’s table in this ceremonial courtroom. In the front row, which is like a big church pew (yes, I have been into a church!) are Andrew Harmon from Regent Media/Advocate and Dave Dayan from Firedoglake. There are only a couple of others in here today even though I think Mr. Tam will be up today, which should be fascinating.

The news just delivered from DC that Citizens United won its Supreme Court case is a jolt, but in this bubble of the Prop. 8 trial, it carries two messages. The first, which is very scary, is that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money for election purposes. As Eden James, Courage’s Managing Director just said, welcome to California, brought to you by Chevron. But there’s a twist. Ted Olson argued the case on behalf of Citizens United. And he won. Again. Ted has an amazing success rate with the Supreme Court. Let’s just hope that he his odds continue in our favor on this trial.

We should start any minute with Prof. Gary Segura being cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. Prof. Segura was up nearly all day yesterday. If you have not caught up from then, take a look. It was a revealing, powerful day in which we learned about the difference between political power and simple influence. By Prof. Segura’s definition, with which I wholeheartedly agree, LGBT people are powerless in the political context.

And that’s what this case is all about. Are gays and lesbians a “suspect class” worthy of protection under the Constitution? So far, the plaintiffs have made an incredibly powerful case that we are.

[UPDATE] 9:24

0840: Judge: Very well. Any matters to take up? If not, I remind Prof. Segura you are still under oath. Mr. Thompson, your witness.

T: May I approach the witness?

Judge: More binders, eh?

T: Just one.

T: Sen. Feinstein[he says Fine-steen, which is not how she pronounces her name. Thompson loves talking about Jews. Loves it.] opposed Prop. 8. And she is very popular.

S: Yes, although her popularity waxes and wanes.

T: And Boxer.

S: Yes.

T: And Schwarzenegger?

S: But he vetoed same sex marriage twice.

T: Because it contradicted Prop. 22?

S: I don’t know.

T: And President Obama opposed the passage of Prop. 8?

S: Yes, but his support for that was muted by other things he said.

T: You refer to his appearance at Saddleback Church at which he said marriage is between a man and a woman?

S: I suppose so.

T: And president Clinton and he’s very popular in California?

S: Yes, but I’m not sure that he’s still so popular here.

T: Did any former presidents support passage of Prop. 8?

S: I don’t know.

T: Reads press release from EQCA that says that Levi Strauss and PG&E joined business council against 8 and gave money. Points out that Levi gave $250,000. Is this an asset to LG?

S: It’s a financial asset, but not sure how much political asset.

T: Stars, like Ellen DeGeneres and Brad Pitt opposed 8?

S: Ellen DeGeneres is like a political party in that she is part of the class that is under question here.

T: Do you know of any corporations that donated $250,000 to yes on 8?

S: Not corporations, no.

T: Lists hundreds of congregations that supported same sex marriage and opposed Prop. 8.

S: Yes, but it’s misleading. The groups you mention such as Universalists and Church of Christ (getting these wrong I think) constitute less than 2% of the US population vs. Roman Catholic 30% and protestant faiths that also supported Prop. 8 that are much larger.

T: Shows ad that appeared in San Jose Merc News with 25 ministers who signed ad for no on 8.

T: UCC Church takes stand against California’s Prop. 8 referring to first cong church of Berkeley. “In addition to voting to oppose Prop. 8, we’ve been actively working to defeat Prop. 8. Formed phone banks…” It’s true that churches formed phone banks?

S: Less than 1% of population and not surprised that a church in Berkeley would do this.

T: St. Francis Lutheran Church photo in newspaper agreeing to accept donations for no on 8.

S: Yes, but tiny.

T: Keeps listing churches, and rabbis who oppose Prop. 8.

S: Reads the release fro NGLTF in which they claim lots of religious support. Then reads paragraph T does not want him to read that says from NGLTF that “we have a problem with religion.”

T: Says that CA has the largest population.

S: There’s more of everything in California; one out of 8 Americans lives here.

T: Nevertheless, CA has the highest per cap of homos?

S: Not sure.

T: LGBT move to CA because they are protected here.

S: More than in other states.

T: LGBT supported Domestic Partnership laws?

S: Yes, as opposed to nothing.

T: Reads statement from Kors that says that AB 205 being signed by Davis “honored all families and shows that intolerance stops at CA’s borders.” Shows that LGBT community supports DP?

S: As opposed to nothing.

T: Reads NCLR (National Center for Lesbian Rights) that says we “hail” the passage of AB 205. Lots of LG “hailed” the passage?

S: Appears so.

T: You also talked about initiatives and the number that have passed or not targeting gays and lesbians. Number that were held in CA?

S: No.

T: Percentage of initiatives that targeted gays and lesbians in CA and passed?

S: No, since I don’t know how many occurred here.

T: “Lose, Win or Draw: Effects of Direct Democracy…” this is an article you used in preparation for this testimony? Have you attempted to determine whether gays and lesbians have been winning more initiatives recently?

S: No, I did not disaggregate.

T: Puts in as evidence with this appendix that shows the specific number of elections.

T: Reads from Dall’s book suggesting that majorities are inherently unstable. That’s the protection against the Madisonian concern about tyranny of the majority. Don’t you see that the majority is not monolithic and some are in favor of ss marriage like in New Hampshire? (Dahl or Dall is the authority on majoritarianism cited many times yesterday and part of S’s main education.)

S: You miss the point. One of the critiques of Dall’s pluralist theories is that there are some majorities that do not fade, that do not break down, that persist for a long time such as the majority opposed to gay rights and even what happened with AA people that took an exceedingly long time. You take this paragraph out of context.

S: Are legislators more or less likely to adopt policies; not clear that policy will endure.

T: Many times gays and lesbians are successful in keeping measures off of a ballot.

S: That implies an agency to which I cannot attest. Some measures do not go on ballot, but not sure that gays and lesbians did it.

S: Prop. 8 is a factor in demonstrating political powerlessness. As I said in response to His Honor’s question yesterday, one election is not dispositive.

S: Repeats that gays and lesbians have a “religion problem.”

T: Some people voted for Prop. 8 because they feared their churches would be forced to bless ss marriages?

S: I’ve heard that, so makes sense.

T: Some voted for 8 in reaction to judicial activism?

S: Political scientists lament the lack of information voters have. Doubt many voted due to judges.

T: We have decades of information that show how religion impacts voters, such as abortion. Religion is regularly cited as influencing voters? Everything shows that religious people vote based on religion?

S: Mr. Thompson, have you switched sides? Yes. Increasing levels of religious observance are more likely to dislike same sex marriage, then we might logically conclude they voted yes on 8 because of religion.

T: Hard to estimate who voted yes based on religion?

S: Could do surveys, polling, campaign messaging, language people use, lab experiments, variety of scientific methods we could use to look at distribution of votes if we had time and money.

S: I don’t have numerical basis to conclude why people voted. I don’t have a basis to make an estimate of whether its greater, less than or equal to 50%.

[UPDATE] 9:47

T: Goes through Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists to say their religious views informed their votes on SS marriage.

S: Yes, but tiny.

T: 100% of Quakers?

S: All three of them, yes.

T: It’s your data set. Jews? Many voted against same sex because of religion?

S: Not sure that’s true.

T: Is it true that some percentage of religions in CA honestly believed 8 had more to do with children than anything else?

S: Yes.

T: How much money came from RC church?

S: Not sure.

T: How many Mormons campaigned?

S: Document that I read into evidence yesterday said church claimed 20,000. I have no reason to doubt them.

T: Don’t know how many Episcopalians, Jews and Catholics campaigned?

S: No. I don’t know how many people showed up for public events, but the event Qualcomm stadium was quite large.

[This is in the context of rebuttals S did to Prop. 8’s expert.]

T: Some individuals who themselves are not religious believe that marriage is religious so they could have voted for Prop. 8?

S: I suppose.

Judge: Please explain this table that breaks down religion and voting.

S: Tells judge that survey question asked do you favor full marriage, civil unions or no legal recognition. That’s from what these data are derived.

Judge: 47%+ of Protestants favor no recognition, 21% marriage and 27% civil unions (reading chart out loud to be sure he understands what data mean).

[Judge Walker asked a lot of questions about data, including whether any questions were asked about which people think the bible was written by man vs. God and how their beliefs influence their views of same-sex marriage.]

T: Wants to move in document that shows number of acts of violence in campaigns?
Boutrous: Object. Hearsay.

Judge: Didn’t he talk about vandalism and violence in campaigns?

T: S said in his testimony that “the moment you resort to violence the ability to persuade is lost.”

Judge: Okay.

T: With approval of Judge, showing video.

[Video from SD showing that there was a physical fight over Prop. 8. An old lady shows up with bruises on her face because she had a yes on 8 sign. Proud to show their support on their front lawn. “When I put up my sign, I noticed that my neighbor put up his little sign. That probably provoked him…” Arrested 53 year old man who did.]

[UPDATE] 9:59

T: Wouldn’t a video of an old woman with a bandage over her eye because she put up a Prop. 8 sign hurt the no side?

S: I can’t say what happened, but such a video is inflammatory.

B: Objects; not relevant.

Judge: Not here to adjudicate what happened in SD. But this is part of what witness talked about, so it’s relevant.

T: Reads news report about fight in Carlsbad, CA between people who were “stealing” prop. 8 signs and then fought with yes side and had dog bite person. Would this hurt no side?

S: (over objection) Yes.

T: Reads another report, “Prop. 8 supporter, Jose Nunez, assaulted for giving out Prop. 8 signs at church…” He was punched in his eye and the assailant ran off with the signs. (From int’l biz review.)

S: Not sure how many people read that paper and note that source is Protect Marriage dot com.

Judge: Pauses to check that citation. “Oh, I see. You may proceed.”

T: “The homeowners had Yes on 8 Protect Marriage signs on their yards…” Had garage doors spray-painted “no on 8” The rear window also hit with red spray paint. Does this sort of activity diminish support for gay marriage?

S: Yes, but see above that campaign disavowed it.

T: Reason they disavowed it is politically “it’s kryptonite.”

S: I cannot say why they did that;.

T: Plays video entitled vandals target downtown Fresno church. From ABC 30. Pictures of church that was egged. Pastor told supporters that his home was also egged.”

T: Were you aware that mayor of Fresno received death threats? If that were true, would you say that would diminish the ability of the LGBT to appeal to norms of fairness?

S: From PR point, not helpful.

Judge: Before we take our break, if counsel from this matter could step aside, we have another matter which is happy.

[Inducts two lawyers into Western District of Texas. A young man and woman. Both attractive. Swears them in. Says, “very well, good luck in Texas.”]

Break until 1010. Judge tells T to “streamline things.”

[Note]: Following the break I moved to a second thread.

Tags: , ,


  • 1. Patrick Regan  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:51 am

    Thank you thank you thank you.

    Yet another unproductive day at work. (yay!)

  • 2. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:54 am

    and I haven't even started studying today.

    Here we go… ready, F5 button?

  • 3. Patrick Regan  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:05 am

    I prefer ctrl-r, but then again, I'm used to using linux terminals so I use the ctrl key a lot. My pinky actually floats over it more than over the 'a' key anymore.

    I'm glad I'm not the only one around here 😉

  • 4. Alice  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:06 am

    I have an examination tomorrow morning; if only it were on a subject that had anything to do with this case, I'd be feeling much better prepared!

  • 5. Daniel L  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:57 am

    yeah the F5 key is getting a lot of extra love as of late

  • 6. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:54 am

    Software aims to help bosses limit "cyberslacking" If this would be implemented at work, I would cite emotional distress and take off sick time to follow the trial.

  • 7. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:55 am

    crap I messed up my codes. There should be a way to edit posts. Here is the link:

    Software aims to help bosses limit "cyberslacking"

  • 8. Patrick Regan  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:06 am

    I'd get around it. I can remote into my home machine and view it from there if needed.

    *Muhahahaha* <-evil laugh.

  • 9. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that one any longer – I am on Disability.

  • 10. Michael Herman  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:55 am

    I'll be between fixing my car and reading this today. Should be quite fascinating. XD

  • 11. Marci Walley  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:05 am

    I'm a gay at home mom, so I'll be checking in between, laundry, dishes, and during naps! The baby's naps, that is! 🙂

  • 12. Jeff jones  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:09 am

    I just want to tell my story before all the yes on 8 people start talking about being harassed. My girlfriend and I (yes were straight) have been together for over 6 years now, and we decided to help out with the no campaign. We were holding no on 8 signs, both purchased AND homemade in our fair little city of alpine. One day we had to call the police to come and make sure it stayed a peaceful protest when about a dozen adults with yes on 8 signs showed up and started calling us names/slurs (I'm sure you've heard them all before, in fact someone called us baby killers). They also showed up with their children and used their children to stand in front of us so our message couldn't be seen. The children were ranging in age from newborn to teenager, and started complaining about being cold. Did the parents listen and go home? No. They stayed in the near freezing temperatures, NEGlECtING their kids "that they are trying to protect from the gays". Please let it be known that the same people saying "I want a mommy AND a daddy please" are also ignoring their kids for their own political beliefs.

    Are my gf and i planning to get married? Not until everyone can. We refuse to support an institution that puts conditions(opposite gender only) on unconditional love…

  • 13. Yann  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:11 am

    Thasnks for your support, Jeff! I also witnessed the same hostility at No on 8 rallies…

  • 14. Pete  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:16 am

    There were people holding signs for "No on 8" here in Sacramento that were assaulted. No news of the assaults were shown, and I heard of it through word of mouth, not the news. That's a hate crime.

  • 15. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:20 am

    I was assaulted myself in North Bay, where they did not pass 8, it failed here.

  • 16. drjams  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:22 am

    I am hopeful and kinda assume that in redirect the plaintiff's will bring up the fact that No on 8 folks were targets of attacks as well, probably more so!

  • 17. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:19 am

    You may or may not be in for a long wait on that account.
    But, thank you for "taking one for the team".
    We need your support to get this through.
    It may come down to another proposition and voting again to shut them down.
    Something I just heard is both disturbing and thought provoking. The Supreme Court just ordered that Corporations are allowed to donate to campaigns now.
    As disturbing as that is, it may end the Republican fundraising from Focus on the Family. They no longer need their money, so perhaps they will stop their pandering to those like the "God hates fags" group and the ones that temper their prejudice, like we see here.

  • 18. Jeff jones  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:33 am

    We don't mind waiting… Personally I don't understand why ANYONE would want to get married. If 51% of marriages fail, getting married is like backing a losing horse. But if you love someone and you want that certificate soooo bad, the state has no right to deny you that piece of paper for ANY reason.

    All I see marriage as being is a legal contract between two people providing protections for dividing of mutual posessions (ie children) if the couple were to seperate. God has nothing to do with it unless you want him to be involved… The laws of man hold little bearing when compared to the laws of god. And I believe wrath IS a sin, homosexuality, unclear…

  • 19. Anne  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:45 am

    why would people want to get married?

    If I hadn't been able to marry my husband, I couldn't have covered him & his kids with my benefits when he lost his job. CORBA would have been over $700 a month.

    When I sold my house in the bay area – I made more than $250,000. If I hadn't been married, anything over $250,000 would have been taxed. Because I was married, we were tax-free up to $500,000 profit.

    We had a fire that destroyed a storage shed. Insurance agent said that if we weren't married, we might have to put in additional docs to prove my husband wasn't just a renter or roomie.

    If I die, he gets my social security.

    We didn't need the license to confirm how we felt about each other. But financially, not marrying would have been very costly.

    That's why I think all couples should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender. And why DOMA has to be repealed.

  • 20. Ty  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:46 am

    Jeff, that is so heart-warming on your part, and it's a shame the Yes on 8 supporters put their children through that. I'm kind of surprised they allowed them to stand so close! Thanks for supporting equality. I'm so grateful for that.

  • 21. Jeff jones  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Good thing the kids didn't "catch gay"…. Or maybe they were trying to get us to "catch Mormon"

  • 22. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:07 am

    I think that they provoke altercations to make headlines. Having Children there would make it a sensational news story. "Peaceful Family Protest Results in Violent Attack!"

    That is why they try to get in your face saying horrible things. Hoping that we loss it and get to play their favorite card, the Victim.

    I hope our team today shows our side and the violent attacks done to our supporters.

  • 23. george  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Hey Jeff –

    Holding off on marriage; sure, what guy wouldn't want to leave his options open, yet have a guaranteed supply of sex? Why buy the cow?

    And the women are the ones who have to deal with the babies when the fathers decide they don't feel like sticking around.

    Liberal views of sex and marriage have made things so great for guys. I remember the days when a guy had to wait to get married before a woman would consent to have sex with him.

  • 24. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:04 am

    George wrote: Liberal views of sex and marriage have made things so great for guys. I remember the days when a guy had to wait to get married before a woman would consent to have sex with him.

    Yep, darn those liberals. They are wrecking everything for the guys. Why, thanks to that uppity feminist Greta Rideout, a man can't even rape his own wife anymore.

    What is the world coming to?

  • 25. Jeff jones  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:06 am

    Almost everyone I know that got married then divorced, the state ruled that the father was more competent to raise the child than the mother, so your views are a little outdated.

    And I'm not going to get into the deatils of cows and milk, but what you don't know about our relationship would overflow the grand canyon…

  • 26. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Yes Women Liberation Movement Really damaged the Men Superiority Complex. How troubling that was for the Religious Right. Used the same arguments against that too.

  • 27. John D  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:11 am

    George, George, George, get your mind out of the gutter.

    Jeff didn't overshare. He didn't talk about his sex life. You did. From what he wrote, for all we know he and his girlfriend don't even share a home, let alone a bed. You dirty-minded man.

    As for that mythic time when " a guy had to wait to get married before a woman would consent to have sex with him," when was that? I think you'll find that the last few centuries have had pregnant women getting married. It happens.

  • 28. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:28 am

    That would have been the time when men in their 30s married (were married to) teenage girls. I'm not sure about the consent there. The parents consented maybe.

  • 29. Desert Verdin  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:30 am

    Why buy the pig when you can get the sausage for free?


  • 30. waxr  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:40 am

    I remember the days when an unmarried woman who got pregnant was considered a whore. No decent man would marry her, and nobody cared about the baby.

  • 31. Carol  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:26 am

    I remember the days when a guy had to wait to get married before a woman would consent to have sex with him.

    George, if you remember that, you are Really Old. Older than dirt, certainly older than Adam and Eve.


  • 32. Adam Sanford  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:27 am

    Oh look, the troll's here again. Kiss off, George.

  • 33. Marcia  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:35 am

    "Holding off on marriage; sure, what guy wouldn’t want to leave his options open, yet have a guaranteed supply of sex? Why buy the cow?"

    I can understand that. Many a woman has bought an entire pig when what she really wanted was a big ol' sausage.

  • 34. Jon Childress  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Great! Doing the same; straight but won't get married until everybody can.

  • 35. Bill  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:33 am

    I actually saw one of them poke their kid in the eye with their 'protect the children' sign. Blood and everything…

    I feel like that sums these folks up quite neatly.

  • 36. Loren  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:46 am

    Wow. That's poetic. "Protect the children", such a disgustingly misleading statement. To quote Louis CK, "The worst are the soccer moms who say, 'How am I supposed to explain this to my kids? I don't like talking to my kids.'"

  • 37. Loren  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:38 am

    My No on 8 signs in Lancaster, CA were all stolen within hours. Put 'em up late at night, gone before the morning.

  • 38. JaNG  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:43 am

    This, as well. I put up handmade signs and would find them vanished or torn up and in the mud the next day.

  • 39. JaNG  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Definitely a familiar story. Reading this testimony, I remember standing on street corners out here in the Inland Empire with other protesters, with people throwing food, trash and insults at us.

    We had a handful of younger folks (high school, probably) who would start the day vibrant and proud, and by the end of each day, they looked defeated and curled in on themselves. Once the Yes folks had given up for the night (we always outlasted them), we would wander off, and often, the kids would snatch up Yes signs from the grass along the sidewalks.

    Every time they did something counterproductive like that, they were admonished, but I can hardly fault them for the urge to retaliate.

    The months of November and December in '08 were so difficult to breathe through.

  • 40. Diane M.  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:11 am

    Thank you for taking your time to bring the trial to my livingroom… I had hoped to be able to watch it but as The Supreme Court felt it was necessisary to squash coverage your coverage has been my window into the proceedings… Keep up the good work, your finger cramps are not in vain…

  • 41. Pearl  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Will be interesting to see if William Tam even shows up in court today since he asked to be removed as a party. I think he is from the Bay Area and there is some Federal Ct rule that witnesses outside of a 100 mile radius can't be compelled by subpoena.

  • 42. cytyger  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:20 am

    I know he's been seen in the courtroom on earlier days so he's already there.

  • 43. Nathan  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:25 am

    I thought Tams request to be removed was finite, but guess not. I'm not even close to being legal savy or even familiar with the judicial proceedings, but I did find this (which is quite interesting for those new to all this and, like myself, completely obsessed with the trial)

    Court documents on Perry et al v. Schwarsenegger

    Filing #369 is motion filed by Tam requesting to withdraw


  • 44. Tom  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Basically, he's no longer on record as an official defendant. However, since he was actually at one time a part of the case, he can still be called as a witness by either side.

  • 45. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:17 am

    He was deposed too, so they have an interview on record.

  • 46. Brian  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:15 am

    I am very interested to see what surfaces with Tam.

    This will be another explosive day, I'm sure.

  • 47. Linda  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:19 am

    I propose the establishment of an LGBTQ Church.

  • 48. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:28 am

    I'm just saying …

  • 49. Chris  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:34 am

    There are several churches that fully support LGBTQ equality. My fear about an "LGBTQ" church is that it would shut out non-LBGTQ folks, and I'm so pleased that I have somewhere I go several times a week where my LGBTQ status is a non-issue. As the comments here have shown their are many allies and we should be as careful of being inclusive to them as they have been to us.

  • 50. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:06 am

    MCC welcomes everyone. I will admit that I asked the pastor, when he invited me to attend, whether it was okay for me as a straight person to be at MCC. He informed me that, like Rabbi Yeshua, he and MCC practice the obviously radical politics of *inclusion,* LOL.

  • 51. Adam Sanford  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:28 am

    The UU church is also LGBTQ-inclusive – and straight-inclusive, and even conservative-inclusive. We take all comers.

  • 52. M Berry  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:08 am

    No. We shouldn't be forced to go to a special kind of church because of our sexual orientation. Homosexuality isn't condemned in the Bible. The only thing that is actually condemned is the 'loss of seed' …

    … if the Christians would actually read their Bible, and do the research, they would know that. God's message is about love and acceptance, not hate and exclusion.

    My partner is in Seminary right now. There are a suprising number of LGBT folks in school with her. With any luck, they can mold church back into the welcoming and wonderful experience its supposed to be.

  • 53. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:12 am

    I don't think that anyone was advocating "being forced to go to a special kind of church," but for establishing one that is LGBTQ-friendly. As there are several such churches, and links are being provided left and right, I think it is potentially a productive conversation.

    You're right, though: Rabbi Yeshua didn't say "everyone is your neighbor but that person over there whom you find icky" when he told people to love their neighbors as themselves.

  • 54. sugarbritches  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:42 am

    I guess maybe I'm a bit in the minority here. I don't want an LGBTQ church. Isn't that still separate but equal, at some level? I just want it to be enough of a non-issue that we don't have to segregate.

  • 55. Casey  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:21 am

    Thanks for the continuing coverage! I'm a teacher, obsessively checking the updates during planning periods. This morning I sat with a class of students and had a long discussion about why it's not okay to use "gay" as an insult. These kids (the class has an average age of 13 or so) were amazingly insightful and mature in their questions, discussion, and understanding. Many of them argued – which is good, because it means that they are thinking – and continued to discuss the topic after class had ended. I put a lot of hope in them each day, and give them more credit than most adults think they deserve. This trial is for them – gay, straight, bisexual, transgendered – so that they can grow up to be who they are. I believe that the fear kids are taught is like an infection, like other forms of prejudice. Their capacity to think for themselves is amazing, when they are empowered to do so. GO COURAGE! You are the ones who are really protecting our nation's kids – by allowing them to feel safe in being who they are. Bravo!

  • 56. Eric Thut  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:49 am

    GO CASEY! Because of teachers like you this trial won't be needed in 20 years, not that we should wait even one more year, but eventually the mgority of the public will be more enlightened and on our side.

  • 57. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:22 am

    I believe there is already one – it is called Unitarian Universalist. I have been to a few of their meetings, when I lived in Seattle and for me, it was an odd ceremony. I believe the Catholic Church also has a outreach ministry.

  • 58. Caitlyn  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:08 am

    *is a Unitarian Universalist*

    yeah, we're awesome like that.

  • 59. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:23 am

    A church in Berkeley opposed to Prop 8, the mind reels.

    Just like a protest is more like a parade in Berkeley. Some people wathc, but people not interested dont pay much mind.

  • 60. Ben  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:23 am

    It seems to me that our side has been very careful throughout this first week and a half to meet every point possible that gays are a suspect class. That seems like the more far-reaching goal than just winning this particular matter.

    It seems like they are trying to get the SCOTUS to declare suspect class status even if this particular case is won or lost. Pretty good long-term strategy if you ask me.

  • 61. Ron  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:44 am

    Yes, that's the same conclusion I have come to. If Olson can get LGBT to be declared a suspect class then all future law suits on behalf of LGBT rights have a far greater chance of success.

  • 62. Ron  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:37 am

    I was participating in a No On 8 rally in Pasadena (sponsored by the UU church that my husband and I attend) holding a home-made sign that said, "Love Conquers All" and a guy drove by and flipped me off. Who could be against love that much? The sheer hatred of the proponents is mind-fogging.

  • 63. Terri  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:38 am

    "Mr. Thompson have you switched sides?" lol!

    It's rather pathetic when our witnesses are pointing out the fact that their attorney is proving our point during cross.

  • 64. JC  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Can. Not. Believe. This. Wow!!!

  • 65. Martin Kuplens-Ewart  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:41 am

    Goodness. This waiting makes me wish you guys were using something like ScribbleLive for the liveblogging!

  • 66. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Yeah some sort of interactive game would be great, but I would get even less done than I already do at work!

  • 67. Doug  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:43 am

    "S: Mr. Thompson, have you switched sides?"


  • 68. pearlheartgtr  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:51 am

    The defense is funnier then any stand-up show I've seen thus far. Keep up the great work guys!

  • 69. Anne  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:47 am

    I was at a No on 8 rally… one guy who drove passed said "Sure! legalize it! gays/lesbians should be able to be as miserable as I was with my wife!" thought that was funny.

  • 70. Wren  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:48 am

    While the testimony to date supports a finding of suspect class and a finding that marriage for same sex couples is a constitutional right, we all know that a Supreme Court can twist its decision to say that it comports with the Constitution, while at the same time getting what it really wants. What this case will ultimately come down to (presuming no more change in the makeup of the Sup Ct between now and when they hear this appeal) is if we can keep Kennedy on our side (remember he authored Lawrence v. Texas) or not. It will be a 5-4 decision, either for us or against us. All eyes should be on Kennedy.

  • 71. DonG  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:57 am

    Kennedy wrote Lawrence v. Texas, but more importantly, he wrote Romer v. Evans which held that you couldn't pass a constitutional amendment taking away rights from a class of people, like gays, simply because you have a dislike of them. Check out the Wikipedia listing of Romer v. Evans to get an idea of what this case is all about, how important it is for gays, and how the Prop 8 case is virtually identical to Romer.

  • 72. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:12 am

    The SCOTUS has thus far carefully avoided ruling that sexual orientation is a suspect classification. You're right that all eyes should be on Kennedy. I'm not sure that either Lawrence or Romer shows that we have him (or any other Justice, for that matter) in the bag.

    But who am I to question litigators like Olson and Boies?

  • 73. Adam Sanford  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:33 am

    I hope that Kennedy still remembers Lawrence and, as pointed out in another comment, Romer.

    If he doesn't, we're sunk.

  • 74. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Nevertheless, CA has the highest per cap of homos?

    Did he actually say homos? or did the blogger shorten the word?

  • 75. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:03 am

    It was most likely shortened. I have seen this the whole trial.

  • 76. Carl E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:03 am

    Shortened by blogger.

  • 77. Warren  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:03 am

    the blogger shortened it

  • 78. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:17 am

    maybe he meant Hobos? (levity, levity)

  • 79. sarah  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Will the redirect present stories about the violence done to the No on 8 people?

  • 80. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:07 am

    It would be useful. I would *cheerfully* testify about what has happened to me. I wonder if the San Mateo teen girl (I posted the link already) who was assaulted by two Prop 8 supporters would do so …

  • 81. Gaby Tako  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Now, will our side be showing videos of the violence committed on No on 8 supporters?
    And what about those Prop 8 commercials that were disallowed – clearly they go right to foundation…?

  • 82. M. N.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:04 am

    One would hope they will, or at least bring it up on redirect. They've certainly been doing an excellent job of proving their case so far. Of course, that's just my logical perspective – it seems logic doesn't always apply in these cases, but I have my fingers crossed.

  • 83. Ed Hall  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:59 am

    Thanks so much for the continued updates and all your hard work. Fascinating reading. Looking forward to hearing what William Tam has to say — should be interesting.

  • 84. Shane Z.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Yeah, any n amount of 'examples' of No-on-Yes violence the defense pulls up can be countered with n examples of Yes-on-No violence. This is as weak of an argument as they come.

  • 85. Ken McPherson  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:01 am

    I found the full transcripts at the American Foundation for Equal Rights difficult to navigate, so I have reposted them in an easier to read form at:

    Ken McPherson

  • 86. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:01 am

    I hope they squash all of the "hate" that Thompson is showing with a substantial number of instances where Yes on 8 people were cruel and violent.

  • 87. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:02 am

    Ah, the infamous "little old lady beat up by a man" video. I wonder whether they'll bother to share the story of the teenage girl beaten up by Prop 8 proponents:

    During a silent vigil, we had Prop 8 supporters attempt to hit us with their car (even running the wheels up onto the sidewalk), throw things at us and scream hate-filled epithets.

    Of course, in their minds, the numerous incidents of gay-bashing don't really count. Unbelievable.

  • 88. David  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Well, gays are gross. So violence against gays doesn't matter, remember? Also, Will and Grace…

  • 89. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:13 am

    And "Brokeback Mountain." And Ellen. We have to remember them, too.

    @@ <– These are my eyes, rolling like dice …

  • 90. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Those all came from "LOVE". They were trying to correct you with Love by driving you down.

  • 91. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:31 am

    That reminds me of a line from "Saved!" where the uber-religious girl cries out "I am filled with Christ's love!" then chucks a bible at another girl.

  • 92. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Exactly! Because it comes from Love being beaten with a Bible should be helpful to you even excusable!

    Nuckin' Futs!

  • 93. JefferyK  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:04 am

    So the defense is going to argue that gay activism is violent, and therefore Prop 8 passed because of gay activism?

  • 94. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:22 am

    They are trying to prove that the motivation of the voters in support of PropH8 were not based totally on religion but rather a reaction to supposed violent attacks by the radical Homosexual Activists.

  • 95. sarah  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:06 am

    Have any of these alleged assaults proven to be true?

    Remember the idiot McCain volunteer who carved the BO in her cheek? But must have been looking in a mirror because she got the letters backwards.

  • 96. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:18 am

    Speaking of Senator McCain, did you see the news that his wife, Cindy, has come out in favor of gay marriage? He still opposes it though.

  • 97. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Most of them have other factors involved that conveniently get glossed over. Like someone spits in your face and you react to it, they call the media and claim they were peacefully protesting and savagely attacked!

    "Oh what wicked webs we weave when first we practice to deceive"-Shakespeare

  • 98. JefferyK  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:51 am

    Yes somehow the murder of gay people by anti-gay activists is never quite considered violence.

  • 99. David  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:10 am

    I've always thought this could be resolved under a freedom of religion challenge.

    Why is a marriage btw a man and a woman performed in a Catholic church more valid than a same sex marriage performed in an MCC church? It makes no sense!

    It boils down to discrimination AGAINST THE MCC! It equates to federal recognition of the Catholic, Baptist, Mormon Churches' catechism etc. but not the validity of the religious views of MCC or UCC. I don't know why this has not been the challenge to DOMA.

  • 100. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:15 am

    I have pointed out, in another forum, that forcing one group's religious beliefs into law denies the religious beliefs of other groups. Someone actually replied that the MCC isn't "really Christian" because they allow LGBT ministers.

    Really, there are some people who cannot be reached with facts and logic. ::coughcoughgeorgecoughcough:: Sad that there are some people who delight in their ignorance, but there you are.

  • 101. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:30 am

    That is because their religion is that only one that needs to be protected. Typical Hog Wash

  • 102. Frijondi  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:33 am

    That's the tip of the iceberg. Some (not all) evangelical denominations don't consider mainline Protestants or Roman Catholics to be Christians. They define "Christian" as a member of a narrow subculture, rather than a 2000 year old religion that comprises many different traditions.

  • 103. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:51 am

    That is what is so interesting about them all getting together on this. Evangelicals think that Catholics are Idolaters and Mormons are Blasphemers.

  • 104. David  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:24 am

    Mormons are polygamists! Sanctity of marriage my ass.

  • 105. Linda  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:10 am

    My suggestion to establish an LGBTQ Church was not intended to be to provide a place of worship, but to create a special class which would be fully protected legally.

  • 106. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:31 am

    Good Idea but they would burn it down or vandalize it daily

  • 107. Steve  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Several MCC churches have been burned down by arsonists.

    And, at least at the one I attend, there is vandalism almost every week.

  • 108. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:13 am

    This strikes me as a very weak argument, since it can equally be shown the hostility on the part of Prop8.

  • 109. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Thanks, Rick for keeping us informed!

  • 110. Tara  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:19 am

    The mayor of fresno also held a Pro Straight Marriage rally at CITY HALL! Honestly dig into fresno, It is a place where the No on Prop8 people were physically and verbally abused all the time. Signs stolen..

    It is on the net!

  • 111. Frijondi  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:22 am

    Thank you yet again, Rick, and bless you! The other side has some nerve plopping themselves down in the jury's position. If they start to get to you, imagine the thousands of us who are standing next to you in spirit.

  • 112. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:23 am

    It's obvious what the defense is trying to do with the whole "we get attacked for our views" ploy, but a part of me is suspicious of how much of this is all just a set-up or con by them. I'm sure some of us lose our cool because you can only kick a dog for so long before they try to bite you, but I can remember as far back as the AIDS marches on D.C. (and Phelps protesting us) being told "don't look at them and sure as hell don't say anything to them, don't give them any excuse." It's pretty ingrained in our community to play nice and not show our anger (no wonder it's taken so long to get to this point of our civil rights struggle!), so I wonder how much of this is a con by the opposition and they send in people pretending to be pro-gay to attack the anti-gay protesters. I wouldn't be surprised. They're damn sneaky.

  • 113. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Its all a con. They always use the same script that has been perfected over the years.

  • 114. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:43 am

    Our local No on 8 headquarters started charging for lawn signs after a while, because someone found out that the Yes on 8 folks were coming and taking huge lots of them and just throwing them away. The replacements didn't show up until just a couple of days before the election and, of course, had not been available for people to put up in their yards.

    I had one up, and a (rather beefy) teen neighbor kid came over to "discuss" it with me. I knew him because my husband had purchased Christmas trees and wreaths from him in the past (he's in Scouting). He loomed over me and said "I'm here to tell you that you need to take that sign down, and why."

    I guess he didn't figure that the 5'1" middle-aged woman with the big loud dog would say anything back to him, LOL. He got an earful about the 14th Amendment and why I didn't want his bigoted "literature." He then started screaming at me (no joke) about "What about the 'King on King' [sic] storybook that the gays are forcing kids to read?" He then got an earful about the realities of that particular story. He tried one more time to physically intimidate me by stepping closer … at which point he heard "Get the eff off of my porch. I *really* don't want to let the dog out here … And don't come back here to sell Christmas trees."

    This was the beginning of me keeping a firearm at hand, to be perfectly honest. I'm a damned good shot (yep, the conservative's worst nightmare: a pro-choice, female, feminist Democrat who can shoot, LOL). With all of the subsequent stalking and harassment that I endured as a straight ally, I got a really good picture of what it must be like to be LGBTQ and feel terrorized.

    I don't back down, though. Period.

  • 115. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:46 am


  • 116. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:53 am

    Here! Here!

  • 117. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:29 am

    WHOOHOO!!! Way to go, Fiona!

  • 118. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Thanks, Ann S. and Michael.

    I don't ordinarily "pimp" my work in this kind of forum, but I'm an author. I've written a memoir and one of the chapters has to do with my work on marriage equality. It's "set your own price," so you can put in $0 if you want … if you're interested, you can have a look here:

    I started working on behalf of marriage equality six years ago, when Bush wanted a national constitutional amendment. I am astonished that this is still a question, but I guess the forces of bigotrydarkness are still mobilizing, LOL.

  • 119. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:52 am

    Fiona, thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

  • 120. Frijondi  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:37 am

    Don’t parents teach their kids to respect their elders anymore?

  • 121. The Reverend Susan R  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:25 am

    And we've got pictures of our vandalized "No on 8" banners at the Episcopal Cathedral in Los Angeles and a folder full of "you're going to burn in the Lake of Fire" emails from the religious right folks who are ready at the drop of a hat to harass, harangue and hassle.

  • 122. Theresa  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:28 am

    AGAIN we've been gay-bashed, assaulted & murdered for years for being gay and they are playing victim here?!


  • 123. Frijondi  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:42 am

    You're suggesting that guy you run into at the convenience store sometimes does NOT have the right to block your path on the sidewalk and then follow you shouting LESBO DYKE BUTCH QUEER? Even though you have bruised his fragile sense of masculinity simply by existing? You are the reason America has become a nation of pantywaists and deadbeat dads.

  • 124. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:28 am

    Hey check this our Teddy posted this from

  • 125. ron1008  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:32 am

    One of the chants in DC when passing the haters on Penn Ave was "SHAME,SHAME". It holds today

  • 126. erik sot  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Erik R. Soto Photography

    Let me take photo of your event

    Photographs with Passion & Panache

  • 127. Ed Greenberg  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:37 am

    He didn't say "homos" did he?

  • 128. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:38 am

    No, it was shortened by the blogger

  • 129. Sue  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:37 am

    I had No on 8 signs on my lawn, as did my immediate neighbors on each side. They were stolen 3 times. I eventually began taking the sign in at night, as that is when the thefts appeared to occur. and during the day, I moved the sign closer to my front door.

    I also placed many No on 8 signs in public places. All were taken down. Often replaced with Yes on 8 signs. I thought about stealing their signs. But never did. That would be stoooping to their level.

  • 130. Desert Verdin  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:39 am

    Okay okay okay. So I thinks I gots it.

    Because some on our side, in anger over the threat of having a fundamental right voted away, stole a few lawn signs we all are violent, and thus we cannot be allowed to marry because we're big fat violent meanies.

    I guess that explains why convicted murderers in prison are allowed to marry . . .

  • 131. JC  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:43 am

    I'm glad you formulated a theory. I've just been sputtering something akin to WTF for the last hour. How does Thompson think Segura has any standing to answer on behalf of the No on 8 people? Where is this line of reasoning leading, if anywhere? Just don't get it.

  • 132. Linda Gray  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:40 am

    Some time ago someone asked for a citation on levels of violence toward LGBT in CA post-prop8.

    A report was released by the LA County Commission on Human Relations documenting the increase. You can find it at the following link:

    I understand that there will be a meeting this afternoon at the West Hollywood Sheriff's Station to discuss the findings.

  • 133. rpx  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:41 am

    France is belted in and watching on Day 8.

  • 134. JC  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Yes, seatbelts are indeed necessary today of all days. I've gotta go to the gym now to work out some of my pent-up energy, but I'll have my iPhone on the proceedings. Hope I don't slip and sputter WTF too often in the public gym….

  • 135. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Yeah, I was at the dentist this morning and discovered what a FANTASTIC job the makers of this website did on getting this on mobile phones. My only complaint was refreshing and having to reread comments because many of us reply to reply's : )

  • 136. Casey  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:57 am

    It seems like political suicide for them to even *attempt* the claim that Prop. 8 supporters are bigger victims of violence than Prop. 8 opposers. Violent behavior is never okay, but if you're looking at statistics, crimes against LGBT folks clearly happen more often. I guess that explains why they're relying on individual cases and emotional situations like the little old lady. The stats are simply not – and could never be – on their side. Seems like they learned something about trying to fudge numbers from yesterday's fiasco.

  • 137. gary, Seattle  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:04 am

    T: Were you aware that mayor of Fresno received death threats? If that were true, would you say that would diminish the ability of the LGBT to appeal to norms of fairness?

    Are you aware that the mayor of San Francisco actually WAS killed by a right wing nut job? That guy has a hell of a lot of nerve to pursue that line of thought in an SF courtroom.

  • 138. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:19 am

    OMG. How did I miss *that*? Is he really going to try that nonsense in the same city where Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk were murdered?

  • 139. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:06 am

    If No on 8 needs more witnesses, I cannot accurately set the date, but I volunteer my testimony:
    Not long before election day for 2008 November election, most likely a Friday evening in Windsor, CA.
    I solemnly swear that I was physically assaulted, along with uncountable verbal assaults while legally holding a simple (you know, the blue one) No on 8 sign.
    A truckload of young men rode by and threw a nearly full Pepsi bottle, hitting me in the chest. My wife (we are among those 18,000) was there along with several other unknown of both Yes and No sides. While throwing the bottle, the usual stream of obscene name calling came from the truck.
    Nobody got a license plate or ID'ed the occupants as yet. No police report was made. I hope they felt fearful, when I tried to get the license plate.

  • 140. rpx  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:20 am

    To bad nobody gives out battle medals, you deserve one. Wounded for the cause, I knwo it hurt but thanks for being there and standing strong. You took one for the team,

  • 141. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:25 am

    I concur with rpx.

  • 142. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:33 am

    I only regret not getting the license plate and not reporting it.
    The pain was nothing compared to having to continue this stupid battle over and over.
    The weird thing is, Prop 8 did not pass in my county, Sonoma. Imagine those that risked themselves in OC, and such places!

  • 143. JaNG  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:26 am

    My favorite ("favorite"? really?) incident came when a woman pulled up at the light, reached into her passenger seat, crumpled up a piece of paper, rolled down her window and threw it at the woman next to me. She then rolled up her window, and….accelerated into the SUV in front of her.

    The paper she crumpled and threw was a child's drawing of a heart on pink paper.

    I have pictures.

  • 144. James Sweet  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:17 am

    Q: LGBT groups supported domestic partnership, right?

    A: Yes, but…

    Q: Well then that's all they want!!! They don't need marriage!


    Q: That guy who's starving to death ate my leftover pizza crust, right?

    A: Yes, but…

    Q: Well then that's all he wants! He doesn't need a slice.

  • 145. Alex Tsai  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Gays should all "hail" about the privilege of having DP & stay quiet in the corner…Just like Blacks should be happy to be able to get on a bus, and should sit quite in the back..Was that what the defendant lawyers tried to say?!…Perfect logic…Flawless, really!!!

  • 146. davidLBC  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Regarding violence, it should have been noted by the Prof that this is further evidence of LGBT political powerlessness; That some feel they need to resort to violence to make some sort of impact. Unfortunately, it's bad PR and gives the christianists evidence for their own supposed "victimization" or persecution by a tiny, tiny minority group. Give me a break.

  • 147. davidLBC  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Update: the Prof does address the issue of powerlessness in the next thread

  • 148. Mouse  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:28 am

    Congratulations, anti-equality people, you have shown that the dog you were kicking bit you a couple of times.

    If this were all playing out in one of your deceptive campaign commercials, I'm sure you would be frothing at the mouth to have the dog put down as rabid. Unfortunately for you, you're in court against a legal team that greatly outclasses you and I have no doubt that while we don't condone dogs biting, you more than asked for it.

    You people are not the victims. We are not villifying you by pointing out that you are villains.

  • 149. jessica  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:17 am

    lots of talk about the central valley of ca! aka ground zero i wounder if they will talk about having a whole town that is for yes on 8 the only town in the whole ca to go on record for the yes side!

  • 150. IT  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:20 am

    What gob-smacks me is that they point at the KKK attacking freedom riders in the South….and then claim that THEY are the freedom riders, and we are the KKK?!!

    I was spit at, cursed, and my car was vandalized. I was flipped off so often by people in cars with the JesusFish emblem that I decided that the middle finger must be a special sign for the Jesus Fish.

    Despite them saying this over, and over, and over, doesn't make it true….but their side's acquaintance with truth seems very limited. What does it matter? They win with lies, just like death panels and teabaggers.

    After the injunction against video… after the SCOTUS deciding to hear the case from WA about petition signatures…. after NOM trying to overturn Maine's campaign transparency laws (more here …. and now after SCOTUS turning our political system over to corporations….I have no confidence in the SCOTUS, even if we win with Walker, and in the 9th circuit. None at all.

  • 151. Anna  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    "[Judge Walker asked a lot of questions about data, including whether any questions were asked about which people think the bible was written by man vs. God and how their beliefs influence their views of same-sex marriage.]"

    That's because Walker adhere's to a legal approach called "Law and Economics". Wikipedia describes this approach as:

    " It includes the use of economic concepts to explain the effects of laws, to assess which legal rules are economically efficient, and to predict which legal rules will be promulgated".

    It's a fascinating approach to legal theory.

  • 152. Anna  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    and i suck at explanation, apparently. his analysis of data sets through the trial, and the importance of the economic effects, are particularly interesting in the light that he uses this approach.

  • 153. Prop 8 Trial: Great Lawye&hellip  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:55 am

    […] Gore, also won today’s Supreme Court campaign finance decision. He is basically terrible! But here is the twist: he is arguing for gay marriage in the ongoing Proposition 8 […]

  • 154. s.a.g.  |  January 24, 2010 at 1:33 am

    I wrote last week about what happened to fellow No on 8 protestors in front of the Mormon temple. The week after prop 8 passed a gay family in my hometown still had their NO on 8 signs up and their driveway was chalked with "faggot." This was in the only county in Southern California that voted No.

    I've only presented two or three instances, but I know there were many many more.
    What about the woman who was attacked in Richmond and raped because she had a rainbow sticker on her car?

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