Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Liveblogging Day 9: Part I


By Rick Jacobs

Judge: Next witness?

Boutrous: What is timing of the closing arguments?

Judge: I think given the volume of evidence we should have the closing argument sometime in the future, probably in the distant future. That way I can read and review the evidence, tease out questions in the closing. Does anybody have a problem with that?

B: Wants to enter into evidence some documents.

[UPDATE] 9:13

Cooper: We have done our counter depositions and are ready to enter those counter designations.

Boies: We are going through them now. I know we will object that some are outside of any expertise the witnesses have, but we’ll be ready to submit those this afternoon.

Judge: I gather you are not going to call them?

Cooper: We’ll respond by plaintiff’s calling our experts as his or her own witnesses.

Judge: That has been done before and can be done again.

B: Call Dr. Gregory Hererk (H). Examination to be conducted by Mr. Dettner (D).

H: Ph.D. in 1983 in social psychology and then at Yale as post-doctorate. Attitudes of Heteros toward Lesbians and Gay Men. Also attitudes toward HIV, which was a major issue then. Stayed at Yale as post-doc for two years. Asked to stay to teach for another year. Then went to teach at NYU—Interpersonal Psychology.

Associate Research Psychologist at UC Davis. All research. No teaching. 1999, full tenured professor. Teach “Sexual Orientation and Prejudice” and graduate course in conducting survey methodology and undergrad course as well as seminars in sexual orientation and prejudice.

(Herek is on numerous boards of journals and has published over 100 papers.)

H: I intend to offer an opinion on the nature of sexual orientation and how it is viewed by psychology and psychiatry today, the effect of intervention therapy and how stigma relates to Prop. 8

D: For the sake of efficiency, I have run these by Prop. 8 and they have no objection to the admission of these documents.

Prop. 8: Agrees.

Judge: Thank you for the cooperation.

H: Sexual orientation is a term we use to describe intense sexual attraction to men by men and to women by women and pattern of identification and behavior. (Three different aspects.)

H: In public health research, the focus is on STDs, so it’s defined in operational terms according to sexual behavior. In other contexts, would focus on identity because we look at discrimination.

D: Do ordinary people have an understanding of their sexual orientation (SO)?

H: We don’t use that term. We typically ask if people are hetero or gay, lesbian, bisexual.
Judge: By ordinary people you mean non-professionals?

H: Yes.

H: S.O. defined relationally. Whether talking behavior, attraction or identity, we talk about needs people have and forms of attachment.

H: Attachment is a core part of human behavior.

H: Am Psychiatric and Psychological and other major mental health organizations have all gone on record as saying homo is normal, not pathological.

H: No inherent relationship between SO and ability to contribute to society and lead a happy and fulfilled life.

D: What about in the past? Was there a different view?

H: 1952, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) by Am Psychiatric Association included homosexuality in it. By 1973, Am Psych Assoc removed and then Psychological Association followed.

H: Looks at 1952 DSM to see homosexuality as a mental disorder. Then looks at policy statement that shows Am Psycho Assoc resolution passed in 1975 to endorse changed policy of Psych association. Pushes mental healthcare officials to lead in ending stigma.
Judge: What led to the change?

H: That’s a long story.

Judge: Well, we’re here for a while.

H: Prior to 1950s, no science, almost all hearsay. Then there was research and change in society that led to change. All culminated in change in 1973 when board of Psychi Asso voted to remove from DSM based on empirical studies.

Judge: You are saying that 1952 DSM was not based on empiricism, but the 1973 one is based on empirical data. Is that a fair statement?

H: Society had realized that homosexuality is not longer bad, but also there had been empirical work.

D: Do people choose their SO?

H: I did research that shows that vast majority of gay men and lesbians and bisexuals as well say that they experienced very little choice.

D: Reparative therapy?

H: Refers to intervention to change someone from being homo to hetero.

D: Have those types of those therapies been proven effective?

H: First, define “effective.” Does it consistently produce change and does so without producing harm to the person involved. With those definitions, no, reparative therapy has not been found effective.

H: These therapies have been around for a long time. The APA has considered them a number of times. Most recently was convened in 2008 or 2009, produced report in 2009. Evaluate their effectiveness, safety and whether or not they should be used.

H: Task force did thorough review of literature. First, not many high quality studies that showed effectiveness. When they did look at those, there was very little effectiveness and potentially harm.

Enduring change to a person’s sexual orientation is uncommon. The participants in this body of research continued to experience same sex attraction follow SOCE AND DI NOT REPORT significant change to their-sex attractions that could be empirically validated, though some showed lessened physiological arousal to all sexual stimuli. Compelling evidence of decrease same-sex sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare. …” Unlikely to reduce same-sex sexual attraction.

Also found many anecdotal reports that showed harm. Some in studies showed that individuals feeling harmed

Exhibit from APA after 2009 study:

Be it further resolved that the AM Psych Assoc reaffirms its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and opposes portrayal of sexual minority youths and adults of mentally ill due to their sexual orientation;

Further resolved that the APA concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological intervention to change SO.”

[UPDATE] 9:26

[Discussion that says that the bar for harm in any efficacy study is lower than for “cure,” because the first order is do no harm. These therapies do harm people.]

“Despite the general consensus of major medical, health, and mental health profession that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal expressions of human sexuality, efforts to change SO through therapy have been adopted through some political and religious organizations and aggressively promoted to the public. However, such efforts have serious potential to harm young people because they present ht e3view that the SO of lgb youth is a mental illness or disorder and they often frame the inability to change one’s sexual orientation as a personal moral failure.

H: LG can marry in California, but only to opposite sex.

D: Has that happened?

H: Yes. Sometimes they marry before they realize they were gay or lesbians. In other cases, may have known, but married because of intense social pressure or by marrying they would change, become hetero as a result, help them not to be gay anymore.

[I tried this. DO NOT DO THIS AT HOME. I became suicidal.]

H: If people do marry and one is g or l and other spouse did not know, likely to create conflict and problems for children, friends and family. Ripple effect.

D: In CA l and g can enter into DP.

H: Yes, significantly the same rights as marriage.

D: Just a word, then?

H: No, not just a word. Public opinion data show that large proportion of public is willing to extend DP or civil unions, but not marriage. So in the minds of most Americans there is a difference between those words. Also, when g and l could get married in CA, thousands did. Fact that we are here today shows there is strong emotion and feeling about difference between marriage and DP.

D: Does marriage lead to stability of relationships?

H: Yes. Researchers look at reasons people stay together. They are brought together for many reasons. They love their partner, like being together. When people are married, there are legal and social barriers to dissolution. Family and community hoping that couple will stay together. Many barriers to dissolution. Relationships are more likely to be permanent when deal with rewards; barriers may keep people together when going through a rough patch. They may better get through that rough patch if married.

D: Do DPs create those same barriers?

H: We lack a great deal of empirical data, but I would say no.

H: In 2004, CA legislature enacted laws that increased responsibilities of DP. IN 2004, CA Sec State mailed letter to all DPs saying that you should consider whether you want to change your DP due to changes in law. I find it difficult to imagine that if there were changes in tax laws that would affect married couples the state would send letter saying you might want to consider divorce before they go into effect. Way that marriage and DP are different.

[UPDATE] 9:38

H: Shows study that shows huge spike in dissolution of DPs before new law went into effect. Shows that people think more highly of their marriages than DPs through separate discussion.

H: Stigmatized people have less power than other individuals. Structural stigma is contrast to individual manifestations of stigma. Individuals may be ostracized, but structural may be codified in the law.

H: Gay men and lesbians are stigmatized based on great amount research. Great amount survey data that shows that Americans feel disgusted by gay men. FBI and state of CA track hate crimes against LGB. National survey found that 1/5 of homos had experienced violence in lifetime. Slightly lower had experienced some form of discrimination in employment. Children in schools feel negative pressure if perceived as l or g. Two men walking down the street holding hands feel pressure.

H: Within broader social context, structural stigma provides permission to denigrate or attack stigmatized members of society. In some research when researchers want to ascertain reactions based on images, have sometimes used photos of same sex couples. Get substantially more negative reactions to photos of homo couples than hetero.

H: By definition, Prop. 8 is part of structural stigma.

D: Going back to some of your earlier testimony that shows people do not choose SO. Can I ask a couple of follow ups?

H: This is a paper that I published in 2009 with two colleagues in journal. As part of the study that is described in this paper, we asked about 2,200 people in Sacramento area how much choice they have in hetero vs. homo. For purposes of study referred to as essentialist beliefs. 87% of g said no choice or little, l, 79%. 88% of gay men said they had no choice at all. L said about 66% no choice by about 16% little choice.

[UPDATE] 9:40

D: Any studies asking heteros?

H: Not that I know of. Hypothesize that heteros would have similar response rate.

D: (Puts up statement from Helen Zia in this trial.) We for a brief moment in time we experienced a feeling of what equality is, what instead of having to go to the fountain that is just for gay and lesbian people, here we could go to the fountain that formerly said heteros only. And we tasted the water that was sweeter there. And our families experienced that.”

H: Some people define stigma as unwanted difference. That’s what Zia seemed to feel, the lifting of that difference.

D: No further questions.

(Mr. Nielson to cross-examine.)

[UPDATE] 9:55

N: Want to get to your definition of sexual orientation. Most define by attraction, identity, action or combination of those.

H: Yes. Also refers to patterns of behavior and identity as well as enduring patterns of affections.

N: Something that has some consistency over time, but how long is not specified.

H: General understanding that not fleeting, something that constitutes a significant period of a person’s life.

[So would they ask this about heteros who marry? Is there a definition for how long they are mutually attracted before they can get married?]

N: There may be a distinction between social and personal identity?

H: Social is based on a collective view. Personal is based on specific relationship.

N: Possible that someone does not feel part of larger collectivity.

H: Some people can people feel a sense of their identity alone and not part of lgb group.

N: Some might want to be not part of collective.

H: Yes.

N: You used term gay to define homos?

H: I frequently use gay, but sometimes use lesbian to make explicit that I include both sexes. Some women choose not to be labeled gay, prefer lesbian.

N: Person can be gay, but not be part of gay community.

H: Yes.

N: Could be that a person’s social ID is very much tied to being gay, but could be that it is not?

H: Some do, some don’t.

N: Although it’s often discussed in three categories, but it’s on a scale.

H: This is a way to think about sexual orientation that goes back to Alfred Kinsey that shows continuum, but we usually refer to three different groups.

N: Do you believe that sexual orientation is on a continuum?

H: Can be very useful way to think about sexual orientation.

N: Reads from binder of Dr. H’s depo that repeats above.

H: Correct.

N: SO is generally a characteristic that is not readily identifiable by looking at them.

H: Unless they wear a button or something, yes that’s generally true.

N: PX 0918

H: Entry I wrote for Psych Encyclopedia for definition of homosexuality.

N: Homo

N: These are your definitions of homosexuality: Sexual attraction, desire, identity, home environment (?), and communities.

H: Yes.

N: Such labels—homo, bi, hetero—represent oversimplification?

H: Can yes.

N: Homosexuality can be seen as counterpart to hetero.

H: Yes, but I we do see instances that people have attraction but don’t act on it.

N: Not all people display consistency in sexual behavior?

H: Correct.

H: Porcini Encyclopedia of Behavior definition I wrote.

N: (Reads)

N: Not all people with homo attractions do not engage in sexual acts and do not ID as gay?

H: Yes.

N: Many men have sex with other men but never label themselves as homo or bi.

H: This is phenomenon that has been observed.

[NOTE] I have moved to a second thread. Follow the action over here.

Help spread the word and keep your friends up to date on the trial: Click here to share the Courage Campaign’s Prop 8 Trial Tracker on Facebook!

Tags: , , ,


  • 1. Patrick Regan  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:52 am

    I have an idea. Many of the opposition doesn’t seem to remember that this is about two people who love each other. They use hateful, or inaccurate language. I propose that all those who support the plaintiffs to sign most, if not all, of their comments with “Love” and the name they comment under. It can be used as a sign to show that this is about the right to express love.

    What do you guys think?


  • 2. Patrick Regan  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:55 am

    Sorry for those that saw my other post, I figured the live-blog posts get more traffic, so I'd repost my idea here. Please don't hate me 😉


  • 3. Jan  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:57 am

    There's no hate on this side, sweetheart, only LOVE! And, LOVE the idea!


  • 4. Jane  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:23 am

    I really like that idea.


  • 5. proudprogressive  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:52 am

    me too, esp here since many frustrated haters have landed.
    love, Nicki

  • 6. James  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Love, the entire reason of the website was founded, to showcase the positive love and news that's out there.

  • 7. David  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:53 am

    Yeppers, that works for me,

  • 8. James Sweet  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:55 am

    Heh, yeah, gotta kinda feel bad for Judge Walker. The defense's case primarily rests on, "Well, we have some obscure reason why your numbers are 2% off over here, and a different obscure reason why they are 5% off over here," etc. That's not gonna be fun for him to review… :/

  • 9. Rhie  |  January 26, 2010 at 7:04 am

    No wonder he has to take a few weeks off to review it all.


  • 10. elliott  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:55 am

    Pugno, you are a piece of s***.



  • 11. fiona64  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:56 am

    I will now envision Elliott Stabler (one of my favorite TV characters), saying these words, LOL


  • 12. elliott  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:57 am

    hehe i like him too

  • 13. Nicholas Kapur  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Whenever I read the statements of Olson or Boies, I hear Sam Waterston's* voice in my head.

    *A.K.A. Law & Order's Jack McCoy

  • 14. Callie  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:58 am

    ROFL…that just made me roll with it followed up with "love." BWAHAHAHAHA!!


    (oh, I remembered twice in a row! I'm doing good!)

  • 15. fiona64  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:56 am

    I will do my best, Pat.


  • 16. Patrick Regan  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:56 am

    That's all anyone can ask Fiona64!


  • 17. Chris  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Walker's close attention to the evidence can only be good for us.

  • 18. Callie  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Maybe we should all chip in and send poor Judge Walker some Aleve. I think he's gonna need it when he has to review the defense's "testimony"!

    And Pat, I think that's a good idea. I'll try to remember to do that, but can't make promises. I'm kinda scatterbrained. 😉


  • 19. Patrick Regan  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:58 am

    callie, I didn't mean for it to be a burden, and I don't think it's a necessary thing for every comment, but seeing more words of Love in the comments might remind people what this is about! 😉


  • 20. Callie  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:01 am

    Oh, I agree! Iz just messing with you. *hugs*

  • 21. Ann S.  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:59 am

    You all are the best.


  • 22. Tim  |  January 22, 2010 at 6:12 am

    I agree Ann, it makes me proud to be associated with such loving people.How can anyone hate/discriminate against us.I dont understand.

    Much Love and (((Hugs))) –great idea!!

  • 23. David  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:00 am

    Another point I feel is worth making is please try to avoid 'ad homonim' attacks, since these are character attacks and I don't want to give the other side any fuel for their fire in a SCOTUS case.


  • 24. elliott  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:04 am

    you're right, but i couldn't resist


  • 25. David  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:07 am

    yeah, I know what you mean, it is tempting, but if we want respect, we should return respect in kind to them.

  • 26. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:00 am

    Hey let's rename it it the Loveblog!

  • 27. michael  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:08 am

    What about the "Rights to Love Blog!"

  • 28. michael  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:08 am


  • 29. sugarbritches  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:06 am

    Guess I'm gonna have to use a different name?


  • 30. Alyssa  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:08 am

    Awww I love the idea Pat.


  • 31. Steve  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:09 am

    This notion of signing "Love," and a name is good.
    Those of use who are in long-term relationships should sign both names. Let them know the actual names of the couples who would like to be married,

    Steve & Dennis

  • 32. Patrick Regan  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:11 am

    Great idea! I haven't talked to my gf yet about it, but I know she'll be all for it.

    Pat & Adrienne

  • 33. Alan E.  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:16 am

    How do you set an avatar?


  • 34. Patrick Regan  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:24 am

    You have to have an account with This site is actually hosted by them (i think) If you have an account and sign in your Gravatar shows up!

    P & A

  • 35. James  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:45 am

    Well what about…
    James & taking applications

  • 36. Tim  |  January 22, 2010 at 6:20 am

    LOL James!! If I wasn't married I'd ask for an application!
    Yep in Ca. and STILL married!

    Love Tim and Michael

  • 37. michael  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Good Idea.

    Michael & David

  • 38. Robin W  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:30 am

    Two more for love.

    Robin & Violet

  • 39. Barb  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:09 am

    I am curious as to the new evidence.


  • 40. David  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:10 am

    Yeah, me too,
    Love, David

  • 41. Joe Smith  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:13 am
    love, joe

  • 42. Santa Barbara Mom  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:18 am

    Right on, David!! We need to "walk the walk" ………….one of my favorite shirts/bumper stickers is "Love Conquers Hate". It doesn't mean you have to love the other side, but anger, threats and hate messages can turn around and hurt all that we're working for………………… per the interrogation yesterday.

    SB Mom

  • 43. cubeslave  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:19 am

    Brilliant idea. And brilliant work covering this, Rick et al.

    Angela & Meg

  • 44. Alan E.  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Judge: What led to the change?
    H: That’s a long story.
    Judge: Well, we’re here for a while.

    We're all here for a while. Please tell!

  • 45. Chelsea  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:24 am

    Anyone on FB or twitter, etc., statuses are changing to "Dear Prop 8: Love. ).


    Chelsea and Heather

  • 46. Patrick Regan  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:32 am

    Good idea, Done,

    P & A

  • 47. Alec  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:25 am

    I just worry about the judge's one history with a 'gay' issue…

    Altho I will say that I'm surprised with his attention on detail. It will be interesting.

    If this goes to the SC. I'm making the drive from SC to DC… I'm sure of that!

  • 48. Marcia  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Me too! I have a sister in northern Virginia (who's sympatico) that I can stay with and I'll save up my vacation time. Although who knows how long that will take? The wheels of justice grind slowly — and sometimes grind exceeding small.


  • 49. evenevan  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:25 am

    Hey, you guys are of course welcome in DC!

    The plan is that we'll have marriage equality in the Nation's capital by March 2nd! We'll have exhausted the 30 day Congressional legislative review of our marriage bill around then.


  • 50. Barb  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:26 am

    I wonder if those so opposed to same sex marriage think that if they were to undergo intervention therapy for their sexuality "Heterosexual ›› Homosexual" they would indeed become homosexual?


  • 51. Dave T  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:30 am

    Exactly! Are these people so out of touch with their own feelings that they're afraid some "therapist" could talk them into becoming gay?

    I'm straight & I can't imagine any possible "therapy" that would make me gay (sorry, guys, I'm just not that into you). It's a pretty simple conceptual step from that to imagining that it's the same for homosexual people.

    *thwack* – that's the sound of me slapping my forehead in disbelief.

  • 52. Bill  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:07 am

    I can imagine one…

  • 53. pbrim  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:03 am

    Apparently they thinkis it is exactly that contagious — that's why they don't want their children to even know homosexuality exists, they don't want to work with LGBT, etc. I have even heard gay bashing defended as a "primal urge" to protect the tribe by eliminating diseased members

    (In fact, Dawkins has proposed that there is an actual evolutionary advantage by having a certain proportion of the tribe as LGBT. When adults that contribute to the resources of the tribe while not producing children to use those resources, all the children in the tribe are more likely to survive and perpetuate their genes, including the genes for LGBT.)


  • 54. Tom B.  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:10 am

    Exactly! And let us not forget that homosexual relationships exist in the animal kingdom, as well as the fact that as the population rises, naturally, the amount of us seems to rise. One would think that this is a natural check on overpopulation, by making some members of the species unable or unwilling to procreate. But that is not to be taken as any type of expert statement, since I am no sort of expert on the subject. 🙂

    Tom & Roland

  • 55. James  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:27 am

    I just realized something while reading the comments by Judge Thomas about Prop 8 after yesterdays SCOTUS decision.

    When Prop 8 talks about the threats "many" people received, I wonder how many of those making the threats thought they were threatening Gays and Lesbians? There was much confusion in CA by everyday folk who didn't know which side was which. Many anti-gay people in the beginning almost all the way through thought Yes on 8 was Yes on marriage equality. So I wonder how many people were attacked by their own bigoted side…..

    Just a thought….

  • 56. David  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Interesting, I dunno, but I have had the same suspicions myself – would be interesting to find-out.

  • 57. David  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:30 am

    oops, forgot,

  • 58. James  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:02 am

    As a Californian I'd heard many people were so confused and I'm willing to bet a majority of the threats came from bigots. I'm sorry, I just don't see too many gays & lesbians who do that kind of hateful stuff. Now, I can see homo's getting verbal with people, but it's really hard for me to imagine G & L's attaching others….maybe I'm blind to it…


  • 59. Barb  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:46 am

    We had that same problem in Arizona Proposition 102: defining marriage as between one man and one woman, which was passed and brought into the Arizona Constitution.

    So many didn't know if Yes was for or against and even got confused in the voting booth.


  • 60. Sean  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:30 am

    This has often been an issue in these campaigns. Even back to Amendment 2 in Colorado that was overturned by the SCOTUS in Rover v. Evans there was confusion about what people were voting for when they said yes or no. I tend to believe that often times the authors of these types of amendments count on that.


  • 61. Santa Barbara Mom  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:39 am

    The threats were real. Some of my acquaintences who supported prop 8 with large donations received threats to their businesses. Not to mention the containers of urine that were thrown at the LDS Temple in Santa Monica.

  • 62. Glenn I  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:52 am

    Nope. It didn't happen. You are not telling the truth, Santa Barbara Mom. That's sad.

  • 63. Ann S.  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:56 am

    I have only this to say: Matthew Shepard, Laramie, Wyoming, 1998.

    Tell me again how threatened you felt.

  • 64. Alex O'Cady  |  January 22, 2010 at 4:55 am

    Would these threats to businesses be perhaps threats of boycott? Because that was an appropriate response, as they were discussing in court yesterday- why would someone want to contribute money to a business that is going to use that money against them? Or, if it was a private donation, then why would someone want to patronize a business that is run by such a person? It makes financial sense. It also happens all the time, with all sorts of corporations and businesses, because of varied social and political issues. It's nothing to whine about.

    Or perhaps the threats were to spread the word to the community, that the businesses or individuals had done so- if they donated the money, they opened themselves up to it. Unless they were ashamed of the donation, why should such a threat bother them?


    Alex & Jessi

  • 65. Susan R Barnes  |  January 22, 2010 at 5:19 am

    Santa Barbara Mom, in the interest of accuracy, please post links to verify your post.

    Love, Susan

  • 66. V Abi Abad  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Why is this Judge pushing for closing arguments. Have all the arguments been heard? The Gay Community has enough argument to circle the globe several times on this subject of s/s marriage and other issues. Are we to conclude that because this Judge has only dealt with only one Gay issue in the past is now ready to assess and adjudicate this very important argument?

  • 67. fiona64  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:39 am

    I don't think he's pushing for closing arguments, frankly. He's trying to work out his future calendar. He can't add new cases to his docket without having an estimate of how long a particular case will take.

  • 68. adam  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:41 am

    He's just trying to get a handle on the schedule.

  • 69. JC  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:45 am

    It was our lawyer who asked how closing arguments would work, FYI. I find it very encouraging that the judge is going to take his time going through the many binders carefully.
    Julie and Lisa, married in CA June 2008; in limbo since November 2008….

  • 70. Happy  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Judge doesn't seem to be pushing for closing arguments. Boutrous asked when. Judge said in future, probably distant future due to volume of evidence/testimony to consider (BLACK BINDERS most likely!!)

    Kelly & Amanda 🙂

  • 71. Sheryl Carver  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Based on the blog entry:
    "Boutrous: What is timing of the closing arguments?

    Judge: I think given the volume of evidence we should have the closing argument sometime in the future, probably in the distant future"

    It looks like B was just asking a question so they could be ready. The judge's answer indicates he's not going to rush anything.

    Love to all.

  • 72. Ozymandias  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:39 am

    "However, such efforts have serious potential to harm young people because they present ht e3view that the SO of lgb youth is a mental illness or disorder and they often frame the inability to change one’s sexual orientation as a personal moral failure."

    This was my personal experience with 'conversion therapy'. I've posted my testimony previously but ultimately it came down to this very issue, once all the 'interventions' and 'biblical discussions' on changing my orientation failed – the group discussion then turned to how I 'didn't have enough faith' to make the change, or that I somehow 'wanted to be Gay' even though I was doing everything I could to change.

    Being a closeted Gay man in a conservative church was a nightmare – but being confronted with accusations that I had NO defense against that cut to the core of my faith – that was far worse.

    Much love,


  • 73. Tim  |  January 22, 2010 at 6:40 am

    Ozy, I am so sorry you were subjected to such ignorance and stupidity! I think you are perfect just the way you are! The way God made you! Those types of "so called therapy" should be outlawed, deamed as abuse and tourture!

    Love and ((hugs)) Tim

  • 74. David  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:40 am

    I got a different understanding from the judges comments – I think he said, we should probably have closing arguments in the future…distant future.

  • 75. Linda  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:42 am

    That reminds me–I live in Fresno (!), and just a few months ago our resident prop8 pastor–Jim Franklin–found his church vandalized. He called the press and told them the LGBT folks did it. No evidence whatsoever. Of course the LGBT folks said no, they didn't do it, and they offered to help clean it up. But the news ran with that; and I noticed it was sited yesterday as one of the 'attacks'. Are all these attacks that unfounded? No proof necessary, just make the claim and it becomes fact?

    Linda and Leslie

  • 76. JC  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:47 am

    I believe that this is the world created by Rove, Fox, Limbaugh, Palin, et al. Just get the negative, fear-mongering statements out in the press; no evidence necessary. Those nasty seeds will then grow over time with repetition and cultivation in the fear-laced "soil" of our current culture. (Sorry for the tortured metaphor….)

  • 77. fiona64  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:53 am

    You got it exactly right. Particularly in difficult economic times, there will be people more than willing to latch onto a scapegoat. Truth? What difference does that make when there's inflammatory propaganda?

    (See rise of Third Reich …)

  • 78. michael  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:59 am

    Most if not all of the supposed attacks have little or no basis on fact or reality. Like that woman who got hit with her bible. She claimed they were singing Amazing Grace and some Gay Guy just snatched her Bible and hit her with it and kicked her, Then the video of the situation came out and showed that they were doing far more then holding hands and singing hymns. But the story had already be broadcast as "Violent gay attack on peaceful Christian Woman" They are all BS. But they sure love to play the victim.


  • 79. Tim  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    So Michael, Your saying that we also use the bible as a weapon of hate and for purposes it was not intended for? Hmmm.

    Love Tim…

  • 80. rpx  |  January 22, 2010 at 4:07 am

    Please find the e-mail address and send this to the atorneys for the Plaintiffs. Kid you not Clarence Thomas believes this stuff. If you ahe first hand knowledge you should not just sit on it, please act.

  • 81. Susan R Barnes  |  January 22, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Apparently so, unfortunately. Too many people accept simple statements as fact, and don't bother to take the time to do any research whatsoever.

    This is why I appreciate it when I see links that not only back up some of the statements made on this site, but that provide opportunity for more in-depth research on particular aspects of this case, and all of the history involved.

    Love, Susan and Lynne
    Married in June 2008

  • 82. Bill  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Even if 'reparative therapy' worked, WHO CARES?????

    What would they do if it worked, make it MANDATORY???

    Give me a break. I wouldn't want to be straight for all the money in the world.

    Just look at how immorally they are capable of treating their own offspring who turn out LGTB.

    Who would want to be on THAT side???

  • 83. Denise  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Amen, and LOVE's the Word!

  • 84. Denise  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:22 am

    Oh……….Love, Denise and Cindy

  • 85. Rev. Steve  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:46 am

    Good point. Very little mention of love, just a retelling of our history of discrimination, which in itself has value, but is something most of us have been saying for most of our lives.

    It's all about the love.


    Rev. Steve

  • 86. Pearl  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Yes I remember getting that letter from the state of Caleefornya back in 2004 advising us we could dissolve our DP before the new laws went into effect about joint filing of income taxes. We were going through a very rough patch at that time with one of us taking a promotion 500 miles away and being separated for 18 months. We thought about it. Decided we still loved each other and wanted to work on it so we stuck together. We got married in Aug 08 and we both think our relationship is better/stronger now than ever! Marriage does make a difference!

  • 87. Pearl  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:59 am

    Oh yeah

    Love Pearl!

  • 88. michael  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Congrats on making it work!

  • 89. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:02 am

    Glad you stuck together, separations like that only make us stronger, I know from personal experience myself.

    I love that you got married in Aug O8–I am thinking (other half is not here to ask) that if Marriage is reinstated, we might try to actually tie the knot next August 17 on the 30th Anniversary we now celebrate as our "first sign of love and commitment"–I *think* the other half would like that…
    Love Nick (and Ken, only abt 150 miles away during the week at work in Bay Area…LOL)

  • 90. Alan E.  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:56 am

    I discovered this week that my marriage date can be turned into a math equation.

    11 – 3 = 8

    To which my husband just rolled his eyes.


  • 91. michael  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:02 am



  • 92. Bill  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:59 am

    "H: Gay men and lesbians are stigmatized based on great amount research. Great amount survey data that shows that Americans feel disgusted by gay men."

    Boy, heteros are a harsh bunch.

  • 93. Ann S.  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:07 am

    Um, not all of us.


  • 94. Bill  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Sorry, forgot…


  • 95. Bill  |  January 22, 2010 at 10:11 am

    Not all, but most.

    A violent, judgmental bunch. Toward your very own LGTB offspring. While screaming about morality.

    Sorry, but anger toward heteros is warranted here.

  • 96. Barb  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Of course, if broken down by age group, the younger they are, the more (can't find the word I am looking for here) tolerant they are. I know tolerant isn't the right word. But dag nabbit, my brain is chum from reading the last weeks of testimony (and comments).


  • 97. Mairin  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:19 am

    i don't like tolerant either… i usually try to use "accepting", but not sure if that's the one i want either.


  • 98. jthomas  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:56 am

    I'd be fairly satisfied with "gay indifferent".


    a. having no bias, prejudice, or preference; impartial; disinterested.
    b. neither good nor bad in character or quality; average; routine: an indifferent specimen.
    c. not making a difference, or mattering, one way or the other.
    d. making no difference or distinction, as between persons or things: indifferent justice.

  • 99. Ann S.  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Bill, please don't stereotype heteros. No one likes being stereotyped. Please direct your hate where warranted, at the behaviors you describe and the Yes on 8 voters.

    Your Ally Ann

  • 100. fiona64  |  January 22, 2010 at 5:51 am

    Bill wrote: Sorry, but anger toward heteros is warranted here.

    Do you really want your straight allies to walk away, Bill? Seriously? I am curious as to what your goal is with statements like this.

  • 101. sugarbritches  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:01 am

    So is Nielson trying to say I'm only part gay? Wonder what the rest of me is….

  • 102. Barb  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:06 am

    H: I frequently use gay, but sometimes use lesbian to make explicit that I include both sexes. Some women choose not to be labeled gay, prefer lesbian.

    Never really paid too much attention until I read the above. I usually refer to myself as 'gay' and on rare occasion, 'lesbian'. My heterosexual male & female, and lesbian friends also refer to lesbians in general as 'gay', but on rare occasion lesbian. My gay male friends almost always use lesbian.

  • 103. Barb  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:06 am



  • 104. outloudstock  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:27 am

    As an 100% LGBT stock photography company, outLOUDstock did some basic study on labeling for the purpose of keywording and captioning images in order to keep search results consistent. The LGBT community more often than not uses gay to mean "male" and lesbian to mean "female."


  • 105. David  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:08 am

    Anybody know where the defense is going with line of questioning?

  • 106. David  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:09 am

    oops, Love, David

  • 107. sugarbritches  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:13 am

    I'm guessing he's trying to say that if sexual orientation is at all fluid, there's no way to define a suspect class.


  • 108. David  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Thanks, that's what I thought.

  • 109. Erica  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:32 am

    So, "suspect class" requires an "immutable trait" (among other things). Religion is the only suspect class that *doesn't* require this, apparently. Why is religion so special? Why not add SO to the list? Or – Instead of SO, couldn't the suspect class be defined as "people who are in a relationship with someone of the same sex"?

  • 110. Ray Harwick  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:08 am

    [I tried this. DO NOT DO THIS AT HOME. I became suicidal.]


  • 111. JC  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:17 am

    25 years ago, when what I thought was my "best friend" (yes, we had been sleeping together since 1982) got asked out by a really nice guy, I "stepped aside." (The "gay thing" was just a phase, right? We used to say that we would've gotten married if we could've….)

    I was the maid of honor at her wedding in 1990. Hardest day of my life. She left that mistake of a marriage after less than 2 years and we have been together, happily and out, since then (1992). We both still feel bad for the poor guy in the equation. He never had a chance. Don't let this happen to other people!

  • 112. Ann S.  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:50 am

    I'm so sorry.


  • 113. PM, in the UK  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:15 am

    Not comprehending the cross-exam yet; simply reading out Hererk's literature and having him agree with it?

    Color me out-foxed.


  • 114. James Sweet  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:18 am

    The defendants are trying to show that "homosexual" is not a "discrete and insular" classification, i.e. the definition is not clear, and having homosexual preferences do not make you by definition part of the "homosexual community". This matters for suspect classification — the logic roughly being that if you can't tell clearly define who is gay and who isn't, then how can such an ill-defined group be the subject of discrimination?

    Of course that's absurd, but it's a reasonable legal strategy to try and attack the suspect classification angle.

  • 115. Skemono  |  January 22, 2010 at 5:38 am

    The defendants are trying to show that “homosexual” is not a “discrete and insular” classification, i.e. the definition is not clear, and having homosexual preferences do not make you by definition part of the “homosexual community”.

    Indeed. Because race is such a very clear thing, and anyone who's "black" is part of the "black community".

  • 116. Pat  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:16 am

    Is the defense going to bring as witnesses ONE of those thousands of Ex-gays" claimed by the conversion therapy ministries?

  • 117. pepper  |  January 22, 2010 at 4:36 am

    LOL Pat!

    Love, pepper

  • 118. Jerry Halstead  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:18 am

    Just thinking. I have no gay, "Identifying characteristics." Seeing me on the street, casually meeting me; one would not know that I'm gay. Spent most of my life living the straight, "Life style." What a mistake because I always felt devalued by all the gay slurs and discrimination I witnessed even though it wasn't aimed at me directly. Now that I'm out, I REALLY UNDERSTAND! I've truly learned the meaning of showing and giving love.


  • 119. Ray Harwick  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:27 am

    My gay-identifiying characteristic is my compulsion to sing Show Tunes. I do a great Ethel Merman singing "Ya Cain't Git a Man With A Gun!"


  • 120. fiona64  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:37 am

    Gad, if singing show tunes is an indicator, I guess I'd better tell my husband that he's gay. ;->

  • 121. Tim  |  January 22, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    “I have no gay, “Identifying characteristics.” Seeing me on the street, casually meeting me; one would not know that I’m gay. Spent most of my life living the straight, “Life style.” What a mistake because I always felt devalued by all the gay slurs and discrimination I witnessed even though it wasn’t aimed at me directly.”

    Jerry, my words exactly! I went through the same thing,still am.I go to straight bars in my “not that big of a town” and even though it is very gay friendly, we still have an idiot or two that say stupid shit and are sitting right next to me. They have no idea that im gay. My friends roll their eye’s but I wish they would actually tell them to shut the hell up.But they dont.

  • 122. WhirledTraveler  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:22 am

    [I tried this. DO NOT DO THIS AT HOME. I became suicidal.] — Speaking to my partner, as well.

    Love, Rob

  • 123. Barb  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:29 am

    Part II thread for today has started.


  • 124. Hunter J. N.  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:36 am

    They talk a lot about attraction, but it's so emotionless and dehumanizing.

  • 125. Marko Markov  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Patrick, this is a lovely idea! You made my day :-)))))


  • 126. bbock  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:52 am

    Here's a pop culture example of gays being discriminated against. The networks have no qualms showing a man and woman kissing. They've been showing that in media since the movies were invented and on TV since they started broadcasting. But they blur out Adam Lambert same sex kiss. Because teh gay is icky. CBS claimed they blurred it for legal reasons.

    “We gave this some real thought. The Madonna image is very familiar and has appeared countless times including many times on morning television. The Adam Lambert image is a subject of great current controversy, has not been nearly as widely disseminated, and for all we know, may still lead to legal consequences.”

    Seriously. Two men kissing on TV = Fear of a Lawsuit

  • 127. Aconite  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    “The Madonna image is very familiar and has appeared countless times including many times on morning television.”

    Um, yeah. It became “very familiar” because the hypocritical network showed it over and over. In other words, “We showed that picture lots and lots because we’d shown it lots and lots. But we didn’t show Lambert, so we won’t show Lambert.”

  • 128. lsfoster  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:56 am

    These people really are just impervious to logic…. I'm about ready to give up over here…

  • 129. OhGoddess  |  January 22, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Dear Bill,

    Please don't lump all us straights in with the haters. The majority of us support everyone's right to love and marriage, and are just as disgusted by the haters as you are. I have written my lawmakers and urged them to support equal rights. I don't label gays as negative stereotypes – please don't do it to me. I am sorry you have been on the wrong end of discrimination – I have been there too, although in my case it was ethnicity and not sexual orientation. But discrimination and prejudice are ugly in all forms, and so I am just as glued to this important trial for equal rights as you are, and I know that justice will prevail in the end. So please hang in there and in the meantime my arms and heart are available for hugs and encouragement when needed and my hands stand ready to grasp yours in unity. In the meantime, we are all in this together for LOVE and EQUALITY.


  • 130. how to car repair&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 8:26 am

    Car Repair…

    […]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[…]…

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