Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Liveblogging Day 8: Part II Segura epic cross continues


By Rick Jacobs

Back at 10:15 after the break

David Thompson (T): Reads NYT story about the ugly specter of people getting death threats and white powder being mailed and boycotts. Does that make the LG position tougher?

Dr. Gary Segura (S): To the extent that these acts make the already weak position of the LG community weaker, I’d agree with you. Boycotts are separate. Difficult to imagine the success of the civil rights movement without the Montgomery Bus Boycott. We can all the way back to the 1770s when women in Boston organized a boycott of English tea to see that boycotts are often instruments used by weaker parties.

Judge Walker: Just occurred to me since T is exploring this line of questioning, have you considered the riots and vandalism and other inappropriate behavior associated with the civil rights movement and associated largely with blacks and how that affected civil rights movement?

S: Yes. Any form of violence or disorderly behavior has a negative impact on the public. Non-violent protests play better. That said, it is conceivable that such outbursts may serve the long-term impact of the group. Eg, post Rodney King violence that spurred “Rebuild LA” that brought about investment in south LA. Not endorsing such acts, but there are times when such acts express powerlessness.

Judge: Is it possible that the effects Mr. T describes had the same effect?

S: I’m a little concerned about making that leap. First, Mr. T mentioned NYT article of things that occurred after Prop. 8. We’ve heard Mayor Sanders talk about vandalism at his house, about Ms. Zia being attacked. Heritage Foundation reports about violence against Prop. 8 intellectually dishonest because did not take into account any acts against NO side. We know there were over 100 hate crimes reported in 2008.

T: Reads LAT article by Steve Lopez saying that police were called because of El Coyote boycott.

S: I have no problem with underlying boycott of business that makes money from gays and lesbians that used that money against them. If it got out of hand, not good.

T: Reads LAT article about teacher who called kid a fascist for supporting Prop. 8 after the election.

S: Yes, adverse publicity against a group is not good.

T: Reads definition of hate crime. Assailant is trying to create sense of fear… Trying to show that hate crimes were committed against majority.

pPlays Bill O’Reilly, who says courts want to support gay marriage, there is no doubt. Brings on 21-year-old guest who is Christian (named Christine Cloud) who plays Christian music and has been doing so in Castro for three years. We don’t stop people. “Are you trying to convert from being gay to straight?” “No, but we are hoping they’ll accept Jesus Christ and have that revelation.” “We wanted to be sensitive to these people. We were singing Amazing Grace. Man took my bible, “hit me upside the head with my bible, knocked me on back and kicked me.” Police arrested guy, but I said I would not press charges, that I forgive you.” O’Reilly tries to say that police should have arrested him. She says police did not see crime. “I don’t know if we are going to be back. We are going to use wisdom, we know it is a politically charged situation.” BO: “You turned the other cheek.” ]

Boutrous: Objects. A number of Mr. O’Reilly’s questions were leading.

[LAUGHTER, but B made the point perfectly.]

T: May fit my your definition of hate crime?

S: Might, but it could also be like yelling fire in a crowded theater. If an AA approached an Anglo and said, “You racist bastard you are evil” and then that person hit the AA, not a hate crime. I don’t know what to make of that video.

Judge: (In annoyed tone) Very well, can we move on Mr. Thompson?

T: Document in TIME Magazine. What happens if you are on gay rights enemies list? AA, 70% of whom voted yes on Prop. 8 according to CNN exit poll, racial epithets have been used against blacks, some of whom are fighting to repeal Prop. 8.” Bad?

S: As I keep saying anytime there is adverse publicity, not helpful.

[Just need to point out here that the 70% number has been debunked. About 57% of blacks voted for Prop. 8. The church relationships as disclosed yesterday also help to explain the vote of the black community. Thompson is trying very hard to show that gays hurt ourselves because we were violent. He’s saying that we are bad for us, but he does not take into account that a group that has been put down for so long by so many gets frustrated. Did Stonewall, which was violent, help our cause? Of course it did. Does vandalism help our cause? No. Should we be violent? No. But again, Mr. Thompson is trying to say that gays are powerful and hurt our own cause.]

[UPDATE] 10:56

T: Reads from Time Magazine story about the Cabinet, a secret cabal of rich homosexuals who met with two sitting governors in California at the same time. Doesn’t that show power?

S: It is clear that if people have money, politicians will show up to take it.

T: We can agree on that.

T: Tries to show that homosexual power is evidenced by the increase in AIDS Funding.

S: Deeply troubled by your assertion that this somehow shows political power. This is a disease that has ravaged and killed people all over the world and its incidence continues to grow. So the increase in funding is likely due to the fact that AIDS is so dangerous to so many.

T: Doesn’t right of adoption exist for gays and lesbians in 40 states?

S: Yes, but those laws predate gay movement. Adoption laws silent in those states about gay and lesbian adoption. Says one man or one woman may adopt. I predicted that once the anti-marriage movement peaked, the next frontier would be anti-gay adoption. Arkansas unfortunately proved me right. Florida, Miss., Oklahoma, Arkansas have taken this up by ballot measure. More will follow.

T: Goes through hate crime incidence rate of hate crimes. Jewish population per census is 2.2%.

S: I dispute this. Table you presented under this next tab has to do with religious observance so I think it’s 4-4.5%.

T: So there is a higher incidence rate of hate crimes against gays and lesbians less than Jews. Notwithstanding hate crimes against Jews, Jewish community is politically powerful?

S: Yes.

T: Look at African American rights in 1964 before civil rights act. Do you think gays and lesbians in California in 2009 are better off than AAs before the passage of civil rights legislation?

S: Depending upon your definition of “better off,” yes.

T: Shows that before civil rights there were two AA members of congress when AA were 10% of population.

S: Yes.

T: Women had between 10-16 members of House and 2 women in senate maximum before 1975 in 1970s.

S: Correct.

T: Women are less cohesive group that gays and lesbians.

S: I suppose.

T: Talked about politicians making disparaging remarks about gays and lesbians, most specifically Tom Coburn?

S: Yes.

T: Can you identify one statewide elected who made negative comments about gays and lesbians in last quarter century?

S: I would be shocked if there were zero. I don’t have encyclopedic knowledge of everything said in last 25 years.

[UPDATE] 11:24

Judge stops Thompson from putting in an article questioning whether its time to go to Supreme Court, apparently written by opposing counsel. “That’s at the edge of the pale, Mr. Thompson.” Judge is not happy with the way Thompson is handling himself.

T: Young people will support homos?

S: Quite likely that in time we will have majority that support gays and lesbians.

T: “shift in opinion (to support gays and lesbians) was frankly astounding.” Article by S:

S: Yes, but read on.

T: Reads on. Support for at least civil unions climbed to at least 61-64%. Outright opposition to any recognition dropped to 29% when President was reelected largely on anti-gay wave.

S: With respect to subject matter about which I was writing, correct.

[Redirect begins]

Theodore Boutrous (B): Explain what that article is about.

S: Article was about civil unions. Once Massachusetts had a court ordered adoption of gay and lesbian same sex marriage rights, support for civil unions climbed partly as a strategic move by those opposed to marriage. That notwithstanding, there has been growth in public support for gay unions.

B: Do the views in that article affect your views of powerlessness of gays and lesbians?

S: The fact that attitudes toward gays and lesbians are changing for the better is good, but does not always have to move in one direction. There can be ceiling and floor.

B: Civil unions similar to enhanced domestic partnerships later passed in CA.

S: Yes.

B: What happened to Grey Davis to whom Mr. T referred before as having signed D bill?

S: He was recalled from office.

S: Regarding boycotts, when you teach a course on American political history, David Thoreau’s civil disobedience and it was used again by AA and by Cesar Chavez t help grape harvesters.

B: Boycotts were used as a means for AAs to achieve equality?

S: Boycotts are difficult to maintain. They only work if there is long term and wide spread adherence. One of strategies by whites in south was to insist that their African American domestic help to shop at white boycotted stores. One of ways they resisted was to wear maid’s uniforms to show that they were not breaking boycott.

B: MLK preached a philosophy of non-violent actions. Were there times when certain members of the AA community engaged in violent activity even though MLK wanted non-violent?

S: First, remember that MLK rose to prominence due to Montgomery Bus Boycott started by Rosa Parks. He was chair of boycott. Notwithstanding, some AAs lashed out. Did it help cause? No. Bad PR? Yes.

B: Does fact that AAs engaged in boycotts suggest that they were powerful?

S: No. Powerful people do not do that.

B: Is this activity deeply entrenched in our history?

S: Boston Massacre was British troops opening fire on a protest mob.

B: Talks about Claiborne Hardware Case of 1982 v. NAACP.

S: Reads: “Boycott of with merchants at issue in this case too many forms. Nonviolent.”

S: Speech itself was also used to further the aims of the boycott. Nonparticipants repeatedly were urged to join the common cause via churches and to join via social pressure….

B: Supreme Court found that the speech and boycott were protected under 1st Amendment?

S: Yes.

B: Hardware sued because NAACP caused violence that spilled over. Supreme Court found for NAACP.

S: (Compares with violence and vandalism against Prop. 8 supporters.) Not clear that the violence and vandalism are applauded by American political process. Individuals sometimes behave badly. Individuals whose emotions run high frequently behave badly. Not endorsed or supported by No campaign.

B: Any electoral effect of the cases Mr. T. mentioned?

S: I know of none. Some individuals may have been motivated to vote based on those acts. Doubtful in the extreme that this would have affected outcome of Prop. 8 Idea that lots of people changed their minds from no to yes on 8 because of vandalism is almost impossible. Some might have, but not enough could have.

B: Refers to Heritage Foundation.

S: Conservative think-tank. I do not know of the author. Never heard of him. Heritage Foundation backgrounder does not conform to social scientific standards. In a social scientific journal, we’d want to look at evidence selected. Flaw in logic where you only study cases in which incidence occurred. Imagine if we wanted to study the cause of war, must look at cases where war did not start as well as did start or could not learn why wars start.

B: Do you think news reports Mr. T put up could have reached enough viewers to change outcome of election?

S: Almost impossible.

B: T only put up examples of harassment of yes side, but here’s Ms. Zia’s testimony from last Friday that shows that she was harassed.

S: Need to look at acts of violence and harassment on both sides. Takes me aback that someone would walk up to someone on the street and say you are going to burn in hell. What’s the right response to that? Have a nice day?

[NOTE] I’ve moved over to a new thread, where Judge Walker lets the Gathering Storm video be played.

Tags: , ,


  • 1. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Offtopic, but Focus on the Family Gets Super Bowl Ad

  • 2. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Yeah, I've read that too somewhere. Where the hell do they get the money for that???

  • 3. InMA  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:59 am

    Not sure since they laid off so many people due to "lack of funds."

  • 4. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Focus on the Family has had two layoffs in a 12 month period.

    They spend hundreds of thousands, possibly millions in California and Maine fighting gay marriage.

    Dobson quite recently is being ousted from his position at Focus on the Family (that he created) and is presently starting yet ANOTHER hate group, called, "James Dobson on the Family".

    Add that to Ted Haggard who is ALSO starting another church.

    So there is no shortage of anti-gay hate groups.

    Wish our side would compare the amount of anti-gay organizations (and increasing) versus the amount of anti-religious groups. (non-existent)

  • 5. Doug  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Absolute waste of money. Why not use that money for Haiti, or AIDS research (oh wait… nm)

    They won't be able to say anything to help their cause against LGBT during the commercial since it would never fly past the censor group. Like I said, waste of money.

  • 6. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:14 am

    LDS won't see it, since they cannot watch TV on Sundays

  • 7. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:18 am


  • 8. Roberta K  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:42 am

    I've heard it's an anti-abortion ad, nothing to do with marriage equality. Supposedly they've got St. Tim Tebow on it to appeal to the football fans.

    Ironically, CBS rejected a UCC ad because it was "controversial" — it was the one with the two bouncers deciding who'd get into the church (nice white heterosexual couples with children) and who'd be kept out (gay couple, minority single, mixed race couple, etc.). It's a good ad — probably on YouTube somewhere.

  • 9. Scot  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:46 am

    This is for Barb – heh, Barb, you got your facts wrong. LDS members are not limited on what they watch on Sunday. That's a personal choice, not a church wide restriction. I watch TV on Sunday, for example.

  • 10. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Scot, that's so enlightened of you.

  • 11. K  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Note that the Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad is not anti-gay, it’s anti-abortion. Not that the organization isn’t hateful anyway, just a point of clarification.

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

    Bill O Reilly? Seriously?!

  • 13. Charles  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:54 am

    Wow.. he actually brought up O Reilly in a courtroom. That should be the judicial equivalent of the Godwin point or something. You know? Automatic fail.

    Video: "So were peacefully telling these people their life is wrong, they're going to hell and discrimination they face is legitimate – and they told us off! But we're so goo and peaceful we didn't press charges. Actually, no policeman saw us, too."


    Judge Walker + Every person with a brain: …………….

  • 14. Andrea  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Evil must prevail before the Second Coming. That's why Jesus cannot return until same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states and the Federal Government. Only then can the Rapture occur.

  • 15. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:22 am

    Can't wait. There'll be a lot of nice cars going begging once their owners get raptured.

  • 16. Charles  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Exactly! This is the reason why I can't understand why evangelical Christians are so against same-sex marriage. It plays right into their fantasy mythology!

  • 17. Rod  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:38 am

    Hi Andrea, interesting comment. I rather see it this way; Jesus wont come back here until we get things right. So, religious leaders ought to start looking for the spirit of God that lives in every man, woman, and child; recall that we are all God's children; and begin to judge these things righteously. Those leaders ought to start teaching their flock that we should treat other persons as if we are in the presence one of God's children, lest we find ourselves offending Him. So long as religious persons propagate unfair treatment of God's kids, they are showing themselves not worthy of receiving Jesus in their midst.

  • 18. Eric  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:54 am

    Why newspaper accounts and not police reports and trial transcripts?

    Where's the proof that some of these events weren't staged by 8 supporters?

  • 19. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Yes, that is what I have been wondering too! Interesting!

  • 20. Christopher  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:59 am

    I was thinking the same thing Eric!

  • 21. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:15 am

    I think we all forget that in 2008 there was just one of those staged acts during the Presidential election where some Pro-McCain supporter bozo beat beat himself (or herself) who was alleging it was due to an attack by an Obama supporter.

    Forget what state, but George comes to mind.

    Hard to compartmentalize every single news story accurately. My "hard drive" has limited space.

  • 22. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:16 am

    Georgia, not George.


  • 23. Roberta K  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:45 am

    That was the girl with the backwards "B" carved in her cheek, which turned out to be done by herself in the mirror. I remember jokes about "hordes of dyslexic Obama supporters", but if she'd done an "O" it might have worked.

  • 24. Patrick Regan  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:56 am

    what I wouldn't give for even just an audio feed of the court room. It's sad that this isn't allowed out 🙁

  • 25. abbe  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:57 am

    if gays were that powerful, would we have a "cause" that would be hurt by violent acts? The Pro 8 side perpetrated violence and on a large scale, that isn't hurting their "cause" but anytime some Anti-8 whackjob hits a lady in the face it's suddenly representative of the whole movement. that right there shows us the difference in the amount of power each side has. i think thompson is doing a great job today. i don't think he's made one point today in favor of his own side.

  • 26. Jason F  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:58 am

    I think all this reference to violence in cross is going to help us in redirect. In the battle for equal rights for lgbt people, we more often have owned the consequences of violence and been the victims. These isolated incidents are lamentable, but predictable considering the history of violence against LGBTs.

  • 27. Nikki  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:00 am

    There was raw video posted on youtube of the Castro incident and at no time was the young woman referenced by Thompson assaulted. Her account of her "assault" has been proven fallacious. There was physical crowding of the Xtians–a coffee was spilled on one of them–and the GLs shouted "Shame on you!" over and over again as they drove them out of the Castro. It was a beautiful and empowering thing to witness. Personally, I think the crowd of GLs showed superhuman restraint in the situation, considering the overwhelming emotions of hurt and outrage many of us felt in the hours and days immediate following the Nov. 4th vote.

    There were MANY verbal and physical attacks against
    GLBTs and are allies during and after the Prop 8 campaign, none of which is being brought up in today's testimony…and that disgusts me. The Prop 8 supporters who are making themselves out to be the victims of GLBT violence are tantamount to a 200 lb. man who, after years of oppressing and abusing his 90 lb. wife, suddenly cries victim and seeks empathy when the wife at last fights back, be it by physical or legal means.

  • 28. nina  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:49 am

    here's the link- very moving!

  • 29. nina  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:50 am

    nevermind – won't let me post- but it's on there…

  • 30. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:00 am

    Thompson summary: "AIDS is a gay disease."

  • 31. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:14 am

    Sometimes reading this liveblog makes me physically sick, like today. I agree that Thompson was summarizing that AIDS is a gay disease. Could he and the rest of these people pro-8/anti-gay be more ignorant? Honestly.

  • 32. Alan E.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Maybe those people should call it GRID again instead of this facade that is easy to see through.

  • 33. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:23 am

    They help our case much more then they realize.

  • 34. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:22 am

    Argh. I hope that, on redirect, someone points out that the largest growing population of HIV patients is hetero women of color, per CDC stats.

  • 35. Pete  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Gosh, this is so uncomfortable and exactly why I am peaceful in my protests. HOWEVER, bringing up violence against their side might be a bad idea as we have so many more examples of it, day to day. They may have opened a can of worms… However their evident prejudice against queers makes me sick to my stomach in this line of questioning…

  • 36. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:02 am

    What is interesting is that Thompson has not established clearly a link to GLBT in any of these events – other than the

  • 37. Ken McPherson  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:03 am

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

    Ken McPherson

  • 38. Pete  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Thanks Ken!

  • 39. InMA  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Just in: SCOTUS voted 5-4 (go figure) to take the cap off of finance campaign spending limits..just in time for the 2010 elections. This makes me angry and scared for this country.

    WHEN this Prop8 trial goes to SCOTUS, I don't see the 5-4 vote changing. I relaize in the end it's definitely worth our time but really, do we even have a chance?

  • 40. BMc  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Keep in mind, however, that verdict was won by the same atty that is on our side right now.

  • 41. DonG  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:11 am

    I am a retired law professor who wrote the 1st gay rights ordinance to pass in the US, and it is my opinion that we will win in the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote.

  • 42. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Don, could you please explain why you think this in more detail? Thank you.

  • 43. Matthew S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:27 am

    I'm in no way a religious person, but to your comment I say, "From your lips to God's ears!".

  • 44. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Yes, thanks, Dan. I believe our side has done an excellent job of establishing 'animus' in this case, yet I worry things could fall apart in the next few days.

  • 45. Doug  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:11 am

    I see a silver lining in this ruling. No longer with politicians need large sums of money from far right/religious groups with strong agendas against LGBT. Now they can get even larger sums of money from corporations that have certain discrimination laws to abide by depending on what state they are in of course. More diversity = more accountability.

  • 46. Roberta K  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:49 am

    Definite possibility — remember that Apple Inc. and a large number of tech firms opposed Prop 8 because they feared the "brain drain" of their gay/lesbian employees heading for better cultural climate, especially in Massachusetts with MIT and the like. Imagine if some of those companies hadn't been limited in how much they could donate to the campaign last year.

  • 47. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:00 am

    That was my thinking in a previous thread. Maybe the Republicans will cut loose Focus on the Family and leave them wondering what happened, like every time the LGBT voters get "dropped" after the election.

    Will be interesting to see how it is used.

    I really think it is a bad thing in regard to furthering the full on corporatocracy we live in already.

  • 48. Balu  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Well, it is true supporters of same-sex marriage are not entirely saints. For example, look at the number of negative comments that Cindy McCain received for her NoH8 photograph from our LGBT community. While anger is good, it is very important to make sure anger does not spill over. It is even more important to channel that anger into constructive political activism.

  • 49. PeeJ  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:05 am

    I wonder that the point isn't brought up that "minor" "hate crime" incidents where the victim is us are "dog bites man" stories. Even "minor" "hate crime" incidents where the perpetrator is us are man bites dog. Point being, when your gauge is the media reporting, you're measuring the media, not the underlying situation.

  • 50. ron1008  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:07 am

    OMG Say the magic word,win your rights

  • 51. Doug  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:08 am

    I sincerely hope Walker was paying attention when Thompson tried to show that homosexual power is evidenced by the increase in AIDS Funding. If that isn't a bit of proof of animus of the Prop 8 side I don't know what is.

    He may have been dozing off by this point though. LOL

  • 52. JeffSD  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:10 am

    Im pretty sure that the couple in Carlsbad were found to be fighting a long a battle with their neighbor and it had nothing to do with Prop 8 (the sign just happened to be used in the fight). In fact its come to light the elderly couple instigated the fight.


    "Although the incident was originally reported as the result of a conflict over Prop. 8 signs, it appears more likely that it was an outgrowth of an ongoing feud between the neighbors, Carver said.

    Prop. 8 was a statewide measure that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, banning marriage for same sex couples.

    Tensions already were simmering between 53-year-old Pizzicara and his neighbors when each placed signs regarding Prop. 8 on a shared strip of grass between their respective driveways, Carver said.

    According to court testimony in an earlier hearing, the male victim saw Pizzicara approach the signs and suspected Pizzicara might tamper with his "Yes on 8" sign. The elderly man confronted Pizzicara.

    A scuffle broke out, leaving the 76-year-old male neighbor bleeding from a wound to the face and the victim's 77-year-old wife with a black eye. Pizzicara had his glasses knocked off and received scratches on his face during the brawl, Carver said.

    Neither sign was touched before or during the scuffle, the prosecutor said.

    Pizzicara has no prior criminal record, Carver said. His guilty plea to a lesser crime — he had originally been charged with felony elder abuse — came on the day his trial was to begin at the Vista courthouse.

    In recent days, Carver said, evidence came to light that the elderly male neighbor had told others hours before the fight that he was expecting he would confront and tussle with Pizzicara."

  • 53. JPM  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:13 am

    T: Can you identify one statewide elected who made negative comments about gays and lesbians in last quarter century?

    Surely there are plenty such?

  • 54. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:16 am

    I am really wondering which side Thompson is arguing in this case?

  • 55. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:17 am

    wasn't there something with marrying boxturtles just yesterday?
    also, found this:

  • 56. Lisa  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:18 am

    btw, this is the first hit when you google "politician gay bashing". I love Google!

  • 57. David Kimble  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Wow, now that is scary!

  • 58. Doug  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:27 am

    I don't even know what to say to that!

  • 59. Grant  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:20 am

    I would think Briggs would certainly qualify!

  • 60. ron1008  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:17 am

    Cummon group I'm waiying for the list.

  • 61. ron1008  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:18 am


  • 62. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:24 am

    More than 100K hits on Google search "anti gay bias politicians":


  • 63. Nikki  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:03 am

    "We've had homosexuals since time immemorial," he said, "and nobody cared as long as they did their work and they didn't flaunt their sexuality and didn't try to push it on you and say, 'You have to accept me.' But now they are going to say they want to be classified as normal, and I can't accept the fact that two men, married, is normal…"

    Late state Sen. Pete Knight, author of the anti-gay Prop 22. This quote is from 2004, in response to Knight's own gay son getting married to his boyfriend in San Francisco during the "Winter of Love."

  • 64. RebeccaRGB  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:21 am

    "Also, we’d want to weigh those incidents against the converse. We have testimony from Mayor Sanders about his house being vandalized. The Heritage Foundation report makes no effort to gauge violence and vandalism in the opposite direction. We know that there were over 100 acts of violence against gays and lesbians in 2007. We know that gays and lesbians are more likely to be targeted for violence than any other group. We’d want to consider all of that."

    I love this guy! SE-GU-RA! SE-GU-RA! SE-GU-RA!

  • 65. Theresa  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:23 am

    i concur!
    surely, wecannot let those facts slide.

    i don't think any one person has been killed for being a proponent of this discriminatory proposition 8.

    sadly, can't say that's the case for us.

  • 66. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Wow, there's so much I want to say here, but two big points: one, I hope there will be some rebuttal about this violence issue. If we look back at the civil right period, there was tremendous violence, and I'm sure the blacks got blamed for much of it (bringing it on themselves, antagonizing the nice white Christians, etc.). Eventually, people have enough of being kicked around. It's not right, but it happens. And I'm thinking that much of this is staged anyway. Two, the adoption issue Thompson mentioned. As a gay parent, my partner and I have gone through the adoption process (for HER biological child that WE decided to have), but we had to do it as a second-parent adoption which forced her to surrender her rights so we could both adopt her. Basically, she had to adopt her biological child. It's maddening the process you have to go through and the small fortune you put out to do it. It took us almost a year and half to do it, and we were in a rush to do it because our state (TN) has Republican legislators that reintroduce an anti-adoption bill every year. Usually, it fails because most people have enough sense to not want the kids in the foster system that their tax dollars are going to funding. We couldn't take that chance so we, along with about six other gay couples, were rushing at the last minute to get our adoptions done (secretly, because second-parent adoptions by gays aren't openly known here) before the law took that away from us too.

    The anti-gay side is NOT content to just pick off marriage from us and they're not okay with us having CU's or DP's. They don't even want us to adopt or be able to keep our jobs. They'll stop at nothing until we have nothing.

  • 67. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Telling also that she said that she predicted that adoption would be the next anti-gay battle. And was proved right!

  • 68. Happy  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:42 am

    I found it particularly interesting (and sadly believe to be true) when you said,

    "our state (TN) has Republican legislators that reintroduce an anti-adoption bill every year. Usually, it fails because most people have enough sense to not want the kids in the foster system that their tax dollars are going to funding."

    Isn't it sad that so often people don't seem to vote for what they believe is right or wrong as much as how they believe it will affect their pocketbooks?

    I wonder if there's some sort of pro-8 advertising out there saying that gay marriage is going to cost the taxpayers more money…

  • 69. InMA  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Here ya go Thompson:

    In 1999, California Republican State Senator Richard Mountjoy claimed that being gay “is a sickness…an uncontrolled passion similar to that which would cause someone to rape.”


    Congressman Ken Calvert:

    Calvert scored high with the Family Research Council on “Family and Children’s Issues”: 2000 (100%); 2001 (90%); 2003 (100%); 2004 (100%); 2005 (85%); 2006 (85%); 2007 (87%); 2008 (88%)

    Calvert's VOTING RECORD:

    • YES on banning gay adoptions in Washington, D.C. (Bill HR 2587, July 29, 1999)
    • YES on the Marriage Protection Amendment (Bill H.J.RES.106, September 30, 2004)
    • YES on the Marriage Protection Amendment (Bill H J RES 88, July 18, 2006)
    • NO on ENDA (Bill HR3685, November 13, 2007)
    • YES on the Marriage Protection Amendment (Bill S.J.RES.43, June 25, 2008)
    • NO Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Bill H.R. 1913 RFS, April 29, 2009)


    Congressman Bob Dornan: “Don't use the word 'gay' unless it's an acronym for 'Got Aids Yet’.”


    Michael Duvall: Received a 100% scorecard from the “pro-family” Capitol Resource Institute for his consistent stance on family values positions.

    Bill Thomas:
    • YES on the Marriage Protection Amendment (Bill S. J. Res. 1, June 7, 2006)
    • YES on the Marriage Protection Amendment (Bill H.J.RES.106, September 30, 2004)
    • Interestingly, he voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Bill HR 2587, July 29, 1999)


    Shall I go on or go ahead and testify in our defense?

  • 70. jayjaylanc  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:42 am

    I knew B-1 Bob was good for at least one quote.

  • 71. Choinski  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:42 am

    But it was a carefully worded trick question: he said (if it was liveblogged correctly) any 'Statewide Elected' official. Representatives and State Senators are elected from districts. So – a Senator or Governor would fit the bill.

  • 72. ron1008  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:27 am

    OK- Everytime a politicion supports,votes for or puts forward public policy in opposition to human rights against gays he is making a powerful comment and suporting hate.

  • 73. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:12 am

    We could look in archives of CSPAN for testimony and arguments and debate when DOMA was being enacted.
    We could go state by state that enacted anti same sex marriage bans, same sex adoption bans (Florida?)
    I lived through Prop 6 (Briggs) in the 70's that were about banning gay teachers from their profession in CA.

  • 74. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:15 am

    I was accosted and had my car disabled by a carload of verbally taunting young men for driving with a no on 6 bumper sticker.
    The assassination of Harvey Milk was a political MURDER.

  • 75. K  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Note that the Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad is not anti-gay, it's anti-abortion. Not that the organization isn't hateful anyway, just a point of clarification.

  • 76. pepper  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:49 am

    K, just a thought here: it's chilling that anti-abortionists wanna protect life, yet when a gay or lesbian is born, they wanna ruin that very life. Makes you think.

  • 77. Pat  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:30 am

    VA elected Governor said something really homophobic before elections.
    Sally Kern remarks are priceless!

  • 78. Glenn I  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:31 am

    The anti-gay case is based on lies and misdirection, consequently I do not believe them when they claim they have been assaulted for their anti-gay views. Why would they tell the truth here when lies serve them much better? – it is with lies they are the most practiced.

  • 79. DonG  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:31 am

    #29 Ann: I think Justice Kennedy is the swing vote, and I think he will support us for the following reasons:
    (1) He wrote the opinion in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in the US;
    (2) He wrote the opinion in Romer v. Evans which overturned a Colorado constitutional amendment which took away civil rights from gays and from no one else. Kennedy said that you cannot enact a law that picks out a group and denies them their rights simply because you dislike them or have an animus toward them.
    (3) The Prop 8 case is virtually the same as the Romer decision (check out Romer v. Evans on Wikipedia).
    (4) As an aside, our attorney, Ted Olson, who just won a case in the Supreme Court today, is a close personal friend of Justice Kennedy. Olson's first wife was killed in the 9/11 crash into the Pentagon. Recently, Olson remarried in a small, limited number of guests, wedding. Justice Kennedy was one of the people at the wedding.
    (5) Our attorney, Ted Olson, has argued 55 cases before the Supreme Court and knows all the judges really well and knows their interests and peculiarities so he can frame his arguments to address the interests of the Justices.
    (6) Justice Kennedy likes to look at what is happening in Europe to see if there is anything there to guide him in making a ruling. There are now 6 countries with gay marriage laws, and 25-30 countries with civil unions.

    I hope, Ann, this gives you an idea of why I have hope for the Supreme Court.

  • 80. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:41 am

    Thank you, Don. I hope you are right.

    If I understand correctly, Romer held that a law based ONLY on animus did not withstand scrutiny. I don't think it's a certain thing that the 9 will hold that Prop 8 is based only on animus.

    You probably know more than I do, and I certainly hope you are right.

  • 81. JiminMN  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:41 am


    I just wanted to take a second to thank you for writing that. Those are points I did not know about Kennedy and my opinion about the Supreme Court on this issue has just continually deteriorated to complete despair. This does give me some hope that Kennedy will be reasonable and that Olson does believe he knows where he is going on this. 🙂

  • 82. Carol  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:01 am

    Thank you, Don.

  • 83. David  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:31 am

    >>T: Tries to show that homosexual power is evidenced by the increase in AIDS Funding.
    S: Deeply troubled by your assertion that this somehow shows political power. This is a disease that has ravaged and killed people all over the world and its incidence continues to grow. So the increase in funding is likely due to the fact that AIDS is so dangerous to so many.<<

    This is seriously sick.

  • 84. Matthew S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:37 am

    I know– that one struck me too. It was implied at least one other time that increases in AIDS/HIV funding and research are evidence that the LGBT community is being treated fairly.

    Ummm… hello? WTF? Since when did AIDS/HIV become something that ONLY affects LGBT's?? Last time I checked… anyone with a pulse was susceptible (under certain circumstances).

    I don't know why I continue to be shocked and appalled… it's just so MADDENING!

  • 85. Bill  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:40 am

    The fact that, worldwide, nearly 80% of HIV/AIDS cases are HETEROSEXUAL is lost on them is perhaps the reason why the disease keeps spreading at the rate it is.

    Disease is not gay or straight. Disease does not discriminate. The attorney shows his immense bias making a statement like that in a courtroom.

    But marraige does prevent the spread of STD's. So I am not sure what point he was trying to make besides to draw attention to his own bias.

  • 86. Bill  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:36 am

    The defense is presenting us as a violent people, when in truth, we are, like, the ONLY peaceful, gentle people on the PLANET.

    They have absolutely no right to expect us to be, since they treat our lives with such disregard. If we treated them the way that they treat us, we would see civil war.

    Odd that 'the majority' is unable to see this as what it is – tyranny.

    What is it that allows them this blindness?

  • 87. michael  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:40 am

    The Bible.

  • 88. Bill  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:45 am

    It can't be just 'the bible,' can it? I mean, if it was, wouldn't they be pushing for biblical law in the secular world as it pertains to THEIR lives?

    Seriously, if this is truly about god/bible then why aren't the fundacrazies trying to pass laws that would restrict the freedoms of heterosexuals into line with biblical law? why do they only choose to persecute gay people, but NEVER themselves? It is just so transparent, that I refuse to believe that they don't see right through it as well.

    No one is that stupid. Right?

  • 89. Susan R Barnes  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:09 am

    The Bible, and its justification for their animus towards gays

  • 90. InMA  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:42 am

    “I find this very repulsive. I don't want to entice any of those people into our state. Those are the wrong kind of people.” – Kentucky Republican State Senator Dick Roeding, speaking about the inclusion of domestic partner benefits at state universities.

    In a March 1995 debate on the House floor, Rhode Island Democrat Representative Harold Metts used quotes from the bible such as “mankind shall not lie with mankind,” and “immoral sexual behavior is an abomination to God” in objection to an gay anti-discrimination bill.

    While debating whether the South Carolina gay restaurant and club, The Treehouse Club, could obtain beer and wine sale permits, Republican Senator Mike Fair testified against the license stating, “homosexuality is a public health problem.”

    “I thought then and I still think [homosexuality] is a perversion.” – Montgomery County, Maryland Council President William E. Hanna, Jr., 1994

    “I’ll never be able to support bills which try to overturn centuries of moral ideology…Homosexuality is wrong.” – Montana Republican Senator Dan McGee during a 2005 state legislative session

    Attempting to amend a 2001 sexual orientation rights bill, New Mexico Senator Tim Jennings wanted to exclude his comrades at the New Mexico Military Institute as they feared students would be molested by gay teachers. The Senate Bill 38 passed with a vote of 39-27 in March 2003

    “[W]hat is [sic] the morals of a gay person? You can’t answer that because anything goes.” – Republican Utah State Senator Chris Buttars

    "Keep your immoral beliefs to yourself. You want to punish people who don't believe the way you do." – Ohio Republican Representative Lynn R. Wachtmann after an anti-discrimination bill passed in the Ohio House, September 2009

    "One might have that lifestyle, but if one promotes it as acceptable behavior… I don’t think they should be a representative of this country." – Sen. Don Nickles, former Republican Senator from Oklahoma

    I wrote an entire book on this stuff…would be perfect for courtroom cases…now if i can just get a publisher to bite 😉

  • 91. Bill  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Wow. They really DO love us. Just like they say they do.

    THIS must be what Jesus was talking about!

  • 92. Matthew S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:53 am

    UGH!– Chris Buttars… he's infamous here in Utah. He is truly the sum of ignorance, intolerance, and bigotry INCARNATE. Not just against gays (though predominantly) but pretty much any minority.

    He's the first face you see in the trailer for the new documentary '8: The Mormon Proposition' premiering here at Sundance (all showings currently SOLD OUT). It promises to piss off loads of fundy Mormons, so I'm just tickled. Here's the link to the trailer. It goes hand-in-hand with the trial and yesterday's testimony:

    Buttars is truly EVIL.

  • 93. Nikki  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:29 am

    You left out Rick Santorum. Every time he opened his mouth, he said something vile and vicious against GLBTs.

  • 94. Callie  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:42 am

    S: Need to look at acts of violence and harassment on both sides. Takes me aback that someone would walk up to someone on the street and say you are going to burn in hell. What’s the right response to that? Have a nice day?

    ROFLMAO…took the words right out of my mouth!! Way to go, Segura!

  • 95. Alex Tsai  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Totally agree…I was laughing about that too.

    Dr. Gary Segura is not only intelligent but also has a great sense of humor…;-)

  • 96. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:45 am

    I have to give Segura a standing ovation for his testimony for how many hours, now?

    Also, the bloggers…

  • 97. Urbain  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:47 am

    Need to look at acts of violence and harassment on both sides. Takes me aback that someone would walk up to someone on the street and say you are going to burn in hell. What’s the right response to that? Have a nice day?


  • 98. Nikki  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:54 am

    Here's one the Prop 8 supporters never mention:

    Skinhead Ordered to Stand Trial for Anti-Gay 'Yes on 8' Hate Crime….

    "Storm's attorney asked for the hate crime allegations to be dismissed, but the judge refused, saying, "Why? There's overwhelming evidence of that.""

  • 99. DonG  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:00 am

    Ann: Legal scholars are arguing whether or not Romer was about ONLY animus or whether it was about animus (in addition to any other reason) since you can't know what is in the voter's mind when she/he votes. That's why some of the early testimony was elicited by our side–to show that animus was a primary focus of the PROPONENTS of Prop 8.
    When Dr. Tam testifies this afternoon, it will be even clearer since he was a main proponent of Prop 8 and because his main motivation was animus toward gays. That's what's going to be so interesting–in addition to seeing Tam being examined by our attorneys. Apparently, he didn't stand up too well in the deposition.

  • 100. Bill  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:14 am

    If an American citizen's civil rights are placed on a ballot to be voted upon by the gereal public who seeks to oppress and abuse them via the law, than that person, whose rights are being voted on, is not truly a citizen of his own country, now is he?

    It is animus. That was evident by the lack of a sinlge logical reason or any evidence to support the proposed legislation in Colorado. The electorate is not always allowed to run amock at the ballot box as they are here in California. And we have been taking abuse at the ballot box for decades. They actually feel that they have power over our lives. They believe that they SHOULD have power over our lives. Power only to deny us what is trualy already ours, but being withheld from us.

    Gays alone were singled out to be removed from any constitutional protections in Colorado. What reason but animus COULD exist for perpertrating such a HUGE crime agaist millions of Americans?

    The answer is nothing.

    Only animus would or could compel a people to do that to their very own offspring.

    While screaming about morality and protecting the children, of course.

  • 101. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:15 am

    I see, that's interesting. I forgot that Romer was also about an initiative (or referendum?).

  • 102. Susan R Barnes  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Thanks for your posts, DonG, and to everyone else who cites other cases and posts links supporting the points they have made. This is extremely helpful to me since I am not in the legal profession and want to learn as much as possible. Keep it up!

  • 103. Sean  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:33 am

    I never supported the violence or stealing of campaign signs over the course of the campaign. the item to take into consideration is that how many of the people that got into fights had routinely been told they were wrong, evil, going to hell,….. The "WASP" population has a rule rarely had much animosity really shown to them on a regular basis. Yet I can't count the number of times I have been assaulted by people with signs at any given time about the evilness of being Gay or over HIV or … and I am not talking about at a Pride Event or other types I am thinking of the people out week in and week out near Union Square in San Francisco. Yet the one time we start standing up and saying you're a bad person for taking this stance we are instantly in the wrong.

  • 104. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:05 am

    There is the privileged status that people continue to deny exists. That is the answer to many of our problems. The privileged never seem to notice how their privilege affected and still affects their experiences. The might makes right crowd is confusing majority rule with democracy and minority oppression is over with any small crumb given.
    The privileged/majority seem to view any sort of minority equality as something taken from them.

    Oh, the privileged now see themselves as victims.

  • 105. Paulo  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:07 am

    A bit of history is in order. Martin Luther King was a hero who took the road of non-violence. He gave people an outlet for their political frustration and channeled it into political power. However he did so in a fluid culture where violence by the AA community was a distinct option. As I tell my class: Martin was successful in talking to white politicians in part because the alternative was to talk to Huey, Aldridge and Malcolm.

    It is rather sad to say but part of our problem as a community is we do not present society with a militant alternative if they keep disrespecting our rights.

  • 106. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:28 am

    Paulo, I wonder if that could be because they tend to be killed (Harvey Milk, just to name one)?

    I'm not being flippant. It is scary as hell sometimes to be an *ally* (I posted part of what I've experienced in other threads), so I cannot imagine what it must be like to be out and trying to organize.

  • 107. Faith W.  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:49 am

    So I guess according to the Yes on 8 crowd, the Stonewall uprising was an "inappropriate" use of protest. I guess the bar patrons should have allowed themselves to be harassed by the police for the umpteenth time, just as the Watts residents should have been good, docile Negros and been deferential so whites wouldn't have been so alarmed. That way the public would have responded positively to the cause of equal rights. All we have to do is wait around for tolerance to magically appear and win hearts and minds!
    Personally, I believe in militancy of outlook, standing one's ground, using peace when possible, but not waiting around for hearts and minds to change. If we took that approach with interracial marriage and integration of schools, we'd still have segregation laws on the books while people "warmed up" to the idea of equality. There's de-facto segregation in schools now and that's with enforced laws!!! No more waiting around and being nice so as not to offend those with an unbelievably narrow range of what is tolerable. I say get the laws changed and then it doesn't matter if hearts and minds are won, we're protected.

  • 108. How Today’s Supreme&hellip  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    […] morning David Thompson and Dr. Gary Segura got into an important discussion about the role of boycotts in politics. At the same time, the US Supreme Court was handing down one […]

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