Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Polishing Feces: Pugno does his best spin doctoring


by Brian Leubitz

I’ve been watching Pugno’s blog at so you don’t have to wade through the sleaze. But his post yesterday was quite striking for the sheer ability to ignore what happened in the courtroom. Here is the sum total of his comment on Prof. Kenneth Miller:

To show that homosexuals are not politically powerless, Dr. Miller provided “striking” examples of the many ways in which they have won support for their political agenda in California, claiming allies such as federal officeholders (both US Senators and President Obama) , local and statewide elected officials (more than 30 local officials, mayors of the top three cities, and every single Constitutional officer); organized labor (more than 54 such groups opposed Prop 8); major newspapers (21 of 23 opposed Prop 8 while the other two took no editorial position); major corporations (including a consortium of Silicon Valley businesses), and the fact that the “No on 8” campaign actually raised more money than the “Yes” side.

Far from being “politically powerless,” the evidence has firmly established that the political influence of gays and lesbians in California has become quite powerful.

Wow, this Miller character must have really wowed the judge with his encyclopedic knowledge of LGBT history. And his excellent grasp of the current struggles facing gays and lesbians must have really hit the point home. Except, oh, right, Miller didn’t know how many states had legal protections for the community, didn’t know much of anything about LGBT history, and had problems answering some of the simplest questions that were thrown his way.

But Pugno is working his magic for the right here. While acknowledging the greater sentiment that AFER is “winning” the trial, he proceeds to mock them on wanting to admit documents into evidence. It’s like some first grade game of nanny-nanny-boo-boo. What, you need evidence to prove your case? If you were really discrimated against, you wouldn’t need any evidence.

But this is Pugno’s role in the trial. While he has made a few appearances in court, his main gig in this is to play ringmaster. He gets to work it for the press, increase his name ID for his run for Assembly in the Sacramento area, and get some right-wing love. But, sometimes, even the best showman is left to polish a big hunk of dung. And frankly, there’s not much that even P.T. Barnum could do with that.



  • 1. Choinski  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:30 am

    I read rePugno's blog entry for today. Its pretty amusing, as it reads like an 8th grade book report padded by someone who didn't read the book.

    Their case has been 'vigorous'! The subtext 'utterly astounding'! And full of neat-o benchmarks like:

    'the time clock tells me that while plaintiffs have logged 28 hours in presenting their case, the defense team has logged nearly as much time – 27 hours – cross-examining the plaintiffs’ witnesses and introducing our own evidence into the record'

    The most striking difference was the depiction of the tete-a-tete regarding Frank Schubert. According to Prop-8, Schubert caused the plaintiffs to fold from sheer awesomeness.

    For months the plaintiffs have been practically foaming at the mouth to get our campaign manager, Frank Schubert, onto the stand to be questioned as a witness. Having come up empty-handed in their search for evidence of “anti-gay bias” in campaign records, they suddenly dropped their plans to call Mr. Schubert to the stand.

    But when we announced plans to call Mr. Schubert as our own witness to help defend Prop 8, they filed a motion to prevent him from testifying at all. They got their chance to question Mr. Schubert on the stand but when they saw the whites of his eyes, they blinked.

    Meanwhile, in reality:
    (from Commenter james sweet)

    First, the argument about Schubert. The plaintiffs want to introduce a whole pile of documents that they say are either from, or from organizations so closely affiliated with that it might as well have come from them. The defendants say that the latter documents have nothing to do with, and they want to bring in Frank Schubert to help authenticate which documents really ought to be considered to come from

    This sounds reasonable at first blush, but the plaintiffs are saying WTF, because in Schubert’s deposition, whenever the plaintiffs asked him about whether a document came from ProtectMarriage, the defense advised him not to answer or raised on objection. Then the defense only announced at like 11PM last night that they wanted to call Schubert. So the plaintiffs are crying foul, because it seems like the defense is trying to ambush them, i.e. they prevented the plaintiffs from learning in the deposition how Schubert would respond to questions about authenticity, and then they waited until the last minute to announce him.

  • 2. Rhonda  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:36 am

    I can't believe that he HONESTLY believes what he is saying is the truth.

  • 3. Ziad  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:41 am

    "If you were discriminated against, you wouldn't need evidence"

    That is so counter-intuitive…

  • 4. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:26 am

    "I can’t believe that he HONESTLY believes what he is saying is the truth."

    He doesn't.

  • 5. Patrick Regan  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:38 am

    I'm hoping Jon Stewart picks this up. I'd like to see him do another piece on people polishing turds 😉

  • 6. Pamo  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:48 am

    "What, you need evidence to prove your case? If you were really discrimated against, you wouldn’t need any evidence."

    This is something Colbert would say for a laugh!

  • 7. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:43 am

    Like I said Bigots only hear what they want to hear and say what they want to say…….

    I have never wanted to more Gay then right now!

  • 8. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:44 am

    Oops I I forget that Bigots only see what they want to see as well

  • 9. BobbiCW  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:46 am

    The real question is: Are they really this bad, or are we really this good?

  • 10. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:49 am

    Both. Olsen and Boies (Lesbians love Boies!) have put together a spectacular show. Pugno and team have been lacking in the substance department.

  • 11. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:46 am

    The witness is not on trial; it doesn't matter whether he knew about how many states had legal protections for gays or whether he knew anything about gay history. He was there to testify about the power of the gay community, and, boy, there was plenty to testify about.

    You can laugh at the witness all you want, but you can't ignore the facts that he testifed to. The homosexual movement has huge political power. My favorite example of their weakness was their ability to get the New Jersey legislature to vote on marriage before Corzine left office. Yeah, not much power there.

    If the gay movement loses a lot, it's not for a lack of political power; it's the lack of a strong argument.

  • 12. Rhonda  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:53 am

    True the witness is not on trial, but his lack of knowledge in fields that he is "expert" in shows that either the D-I couldn't find a real expert that would agree with them, or they aren't too serious about this case. I think it's the former.

    Love, Rhonda

  • 13. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:54 am

    Wrong George……WTF are you reading the same thing as everybody else….He was brought in because he is "expert" in LGBT History or so he says…..however it was very easy for Boies to discredit him where the defence tried to do that with every one of our witnesses and they failed miserably.

    I live in NJ and If loosing 20 to 14 constitutes as political power then I am the Queen of England!


  • 14. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:01 am

    I repeat: just be cause you lose does not mean you are not powerful. Do you think the Republican party lacks political power? After all, they lost the congressional and presidential elections.

  • 15. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:15 am

    Yeah ok whatever… hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see….

    LGBT people have powerful visibility but political power, there is next to none…..If we had political power then civil unions would actually be enforced instead of enforced where they see fit to enforce it.

    NJ has civil unions but it is not enforced anywhere in state of NJ.

  • 16. waxr  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:15 am

    George, Remember, that just because Obama obtained significant political support and money for his successful run for the presidency, it does not mean that blacks are not discriminated against.

    The yes on 8 backers ran a campaign of lies and slurs. You know that is true.

  • 17. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:57 am

    George, what would you deem about the 'lack of a strong argument' if we win this case? If we win, would you then say 'see, they have political power' or would you say 'wow, they did have a strong argument?'

  • 18. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:14 am

    At this level, I'd say that whoever wins the case, wins because the judge was pursuaded by the winner's argument or was biased towards the winner (or some other reason that's not clear). It doesn't necessarily mean that the winner had a strong argument when one guy is making the decision.

    I don't think political power fits into who wins/loses in court, unless a party was unable to obtain decent counsel.

  • 19. waxr  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:20 am

    George, you are partly right. The defense was unable to obtain decent council.

  • 20. Choinski  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:58 am

    I'm curous, George, as to why the Prop 8 side is always calling it the 'homosexual movement' instead of the 'Gay' or 'GLBT'.

  • 21. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:02 am

    And how about the fact that they constantly leave out that there are heterosexual people that support marriage equality.

  • 22. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:22 am

    @Ronnie: They want to ignore straight allies because it doesn't fit with whatever passes for their worldview: that all straights think just like them.

    I think there are two reasons George hates me: I'm a straight female who doesn't kowtow to his crap, and I'm a believer in marriage equality. George is obviously one of those people whose homophobia is deeply rooted in his misogyny (remember his whole thing about how society is "sadly becoming feminized"?). He believes in strict gender roles and, no doubt, thinks that any woman who works outside the whom should be beaten.

    Sad to be him, if you ask me …

  • 23. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:25 am

    Because the issue is about the essence of marriage being the union of people of different sexes: heterosexuality. And it is about sex: only heterosexual couples can procreate.

    The semantic parallel for couples of the same sex is "homosexual." And there is no procreation from sex between members of the same sex.

    The terms "gay" and "GLBT" try to divert attention away from this important distinction between couples.

  • 24. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:32 am

    And there it goes the usual ignorant , "its about procreation crap"….


    Not all heterosexuals can procreate so with that logic they should not be allowed to marry either!

    Please!….. I've heard it all and debunked it all!

    Go comment on….Oh wait you can't because they are scared that we will debunk their lies on their very own website.

    You are a sheep…….BAAAAAA!………BAAAAA!!!!

    Like the lamb to the slaughter

  • 25. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:33 am

    George wrote: Because the issue is about the essence of marriage being the union of people of different sexes: heterosexuality. And it is about sex: only heterosexual couples can procreate.

    And so what? I'm childfree. I have friends who are infertile. I have friends who are postfertile. And guess what? I'm still married, and so are my other sets of friends.

    Despite your fondest wishes, procreation is NOT a requirement for marriage.

  • 26. Ben  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Then let's pass a law to void the marriages of every couple whose female has passed through menopause, or cannot procreate due to any medical reason. Also, let's pass a law REQUIRING couples to have children.

    No, you're smart enough to realize that the only purpose behind marriage is NOT simply procreation. For evidence, look to the REAL experts who testified last week on the economic, sociological, psychological, social, legal and other benefits of marriage COMPLETELY SEPARATE from procreation.

    At the end of the day, though, the long arc of history bends towards justice, and therefore away from you. You'll end up on the losing end of this one.

  • 27. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:57 am

    Hey Ben –

    If you'd seen my other posts, you'd see that I think people have really messed up marriage over the years, so I'm not so much against gay marriage as I am for a return to what marriage should be.

    I'm one of those "old-fashioned" guys who thinks that people should get married before they have kids so that the kids have the chance to know and be brought up by their bio parents. I think opposite sex couples should get married before living together. And I think that opposite sex couples who marry but choose to not procreate serve a societal purpose of encouraging marriage (instead of living together) and thereby helping to assure that children are born with two married parents.

    I think gay marriage just brings us further down the road toward destroying marriage and promoting the removal of children from one or both of their biological parents.

  • 28. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:04 am

    And what about orphans George they should just be left up to own devices since obviously there are not enough heterosexual couples that want them….. There are now over 3,000 orphaned Hatians and you better believe that there are same sex couples that will step up and give this kids loving homes.

  • 29. Ben  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:04 am


    Well, you keep on holding onto that June Cleaver, 1950's fantasy land that never actually existed. The rest of us will be moving on into the 21st century.

    Remember, in your little fantasy world, when a girl got pregnant outside of marriage, she was shipped off in shame to some relative's never to be heard from again. When those perfect, married couples happened to have an alcoholic, abusive husband, well, that was just too bad. You just couldn't divorce. Those women just had to suck it up.

    In your little fantasy world, society has no problems. But, in reality, your little fantasy world never existed and never will exist.

    The rest of us are working, and will continue to work, to just get the same legal protections everyone else gets out here in the REAL world.

  • 30. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:11 am

    George wrote: I am for a return to what marriage should be.

    No doubt, that would be marriage in which Ward goes off to work each day and June vacuums while wearing a pretty dress and pearls …

  • 31. Marlene Bomer  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:01 am

    I wonder how much George paid for his wife, or was she a present from her owner (father) as a bribe to help his business?

  • 32. Mykelb  |  January 26, 2010 at 5:13 am

    The reason the radical religious right always uses the term homosexual instead of gay is to always keep it front and center that we are having buttsex. It is a way to disgust the general population and inflame their bigotry.

  • 33. Go_proton77  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:37 am

    we call it this because, it's the sex acts performed amongst homosexuals that separates us. You perform homosexual sex acts to reach orgasm, and then demand everyone else to praise and accept it.

  • 34. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    "we call it this because, it’s the sex acts performed amongst homosexuals that separates us. You perform homosexual sex acts to reach orgasm, and then demand everyone else to praise and accept it."

    In general all sex acts are to reach orgasm unless you are trying to conceive then it is about that as well.

    WTF are you serious…some heteros take part in the same type of sex as gay men and your logic does not include lesbians.

    By dictating law based on religious values is forcing us to praise and accept your beliefs in that same sense.

    "You are a hypocrite!"

    We are not forcing you to accept us but you sure as hell have to tolerate us the same as we have to tolerate your bigoted, prejudice, self righteous, holier-than-thou garbage.

  • 35. fiona64  |  January 27, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Goproton said some ridiculous things about sexual acts … apparently believing that no straight people do any of the same things that gay people do.

    I assume that Goproton only has intercourse when his wife is ovulating, since apparently on his planet it is not about intercourse.

    Of course, she lies there and thinks of England, or something, because the womenfolk aren't supposed to like it; it's just for making babies.

    My guess: foreplay chez Goproton consists of "Brace yourself, Ethel …"

  • 36. Beth  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:05 am

    George, can you think of one politician whose career would be in jeopardy — or even spin control — if they fought the "gay agenda?" As opposed to say, making a racist or sexist statement? What happens when someone calls a politician gay? What do they do?

    How many times have our rights been voted down by popular vote? We're 0 for 31. How many times has a right been *rescinded* for any other minority group?

    You may be confusing visibility with political power. It's easy to do. This expert on California politics did it, even while admitting that the referendum process does harm to representative democracy.

  • 37. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:37 am

    I think Obama was very careful to not alienate gays in his election bid, because he feared a rejection from liberal voters. What effect would fighting the gay agenda have on the mayor of San Francisco?

    To you, politcal power seems to mean that if you don't win, then you don't have power; that's not true, it just means that despite your power, you didn't convince the people (or their reps) to support your view over competing powerful groups.

    The homosexual movement has much more than visibility; for example, the media bias is not about giving the movement ink; it's about giving positive spin to the movement.

  • 38. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:40 am

    Again, George, please explain the "political power" of people who have laws on the books of 31 states that discriminate against them.

    I'm serious. Please tell me how that constitutes political power.

  • 39. Ben  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:45 am


    It's not just about winning and losing. You're equating political power with visibility (similarly to the discredited "expert" from yesterday), which I would say is incorrect. Power, in the scientific sense, is the ability to enact change. Gays and lesbians (and our ever-important straight allies) have had visibility for over 30 years now, yet have lost EVERY SINGLE STATEWIDE VOTE ever held anywhere in the United States. After, literally, hundreds of provisions going against us, I think it is safe to say we are powerless.

    And remember, this argument only matters to the scrutiny given to discrimination claims in federal courts going forward. The reason different groups are afforded different levels of scrutiny is because those minority groups have been proven to not be able to defend their rights against the majority. The point is not about "better arguments" or "power of visibility" its about the Courts defending the rights of minorities who have shown that they are not politically powerful enough to defend those rights for themselves.

  • 40. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:47 am

    Right George…..because everything that Pugno spins is true…….NOT!

    The diff between the very small LGBT/Heterosexual power because we do have hetero supports no matter how much you people want to deny that we do, and the beyond obvious religious far right wing ha8ters political power is that we don't lie and use scare tactics to seduce voters to support bigotry, prejudice and hate.


  • 41. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Ben –

    Then any view that is not the majority's view, by definition lacks political power and is entitled to strict scrutiny. Where do you draw the line; peanut allergies? Lactose intolerance?

  • 42. Ben  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:28 am


    When those with peanut allergies can show that their fundamental rights have been threatened (or, as in this case, obviously infringed), we can have that conversation. As it is, that is a red herring. No one discriminates (as far as I know) against lactose intolerant people. Certainly not to the point of denying them fundamental rights and equal protection under the law.

    You REALLY need to brush up on what strict scrutiny is and why it exists before engaging in this kind of discussion. Perhaps you would be better served by just watching Leave It To Beaver reruns. But try not to watch The Andy Griffith Show. You know those single fathers trying to raise a child just isn't how things ought to be.

  • 43. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:28 am

    And now George compares marriage equality to lactose intolerance and peanut allergies.

    Good god, man.

    (Given the number of peanut-free schools, I would say that strict scrutiny *has* been applied to peanut allergies. I would have starved to death in such a school; we didn't have much money, peanut butter was cheap, and I *still* love PB&J.)

  • 44. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Oh George!

    That's it!….just Oh George!

    Which way did he go….Which way did he go!

  • 45. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:15 am

    Wow, George, maybe you need to review what an 'expert witness' does in a court of law. His testimony certainly becomes less credible when it is proved:

    A) His background materials were not provided by the defense team and not himself.

    B) He proves that he is not an expert in the field that he claims he is.

    Looks like the Judge may just disregard a lot of what he has to say.

  • 46. rf  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:22 am

    George, why can't you post your thoughts at the protectmarriage site?

  • 47. Ben  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:35 am

    To rf:

    EVERY SINGLE blogpost over at includes this little gem at the bottom:
    "Both comments and pings are currently closed.

    Comments are closed."

    Their views don't stand up to the light of legal scrutiny.

  • 48. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:41 am

    Credibility of a witness is just a factor that goes to the fact-finder's conclusions. What was important about this expert's testimony was not his opinions; it was the facts on which his opinions were based. Plenty for the finder of fact to chew on, despite opposing counsel's badgering somewhat beyond the scope of direct, arguably (which, incidentally, can have an adverse effect on the fact finder's perspective).

  • 49. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:49 am

    But George he didn't know the facts:

    I repeat:

    I don't know…..I don't know…..I don't know….I don't kow


  • 50. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:36 am

    MordacP –

    Not ignorant. You can give an expert any document you wish; ethically, you shouldn't "create" an expert by trying to school somebody with a bunch of documents, but if someone has some demonstrated expertise, you can most certainly provide that person with documents to be considered, even feed him only documents that support your side.

    You "create" an expert at your own peril; that's why we have voir dire and cross examination.

  • 51. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:19 am

    I am sure this will come as a shock to you, George … but when someone is posited as an "expert witness" and has no expertise … it does not help the side who put him up there on the witness stand.

    Yeah, our LGBT friends have huge political power, George … what with 31 states that have laws denying them full equality, and some states having laws that allow for job discrimination, and some police departments ignoring crimes against them. Yeah, that's power all right.



  • 52. Ben  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:47 am

    Here in Atlanta, I would prefer if the police department would JUST ignore hate crimes against gays (they do that, too) as opposed to executing Stonewall-like raids on gay bars:

  • 53. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:24 am

    An "expert" who couldn't answer any questions and had to admit most of his documentation was given to him by the lawyers (a real no-no).

    Prop 8 seems to have a lot of these so-called "experts".

  • 54. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:43 am

    Lawyers provide docs to their experts all the time; it's common practice.

  • 55. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:49 am

    Um, George? Lawyers are NOT supposed to feed documents to their supposed expert witness. That is a big, fat ethical no-no.

    I know that facts are not your strong point, but you might want to take a look at what an expert witness is expected to *be.*

  • 56. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:51 am

    But they are not allowed to provide information that he is suppose to be an expert on already…..The soon fed him all the info that he was suppose to already know about but when it came down to questioning he could not answer them…expert my @$$!

  • 57. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:54 am

    I hope one day we will be able to see the documents he circled and the ones that had ? marks next to it.

  • 58. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:54 am

    So George is not only a bigot, but ignorant as well.

    Color me surprised.

  • 59. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:27 am

    dear george,

    blah, blah, snore.

    planet earth

  • 60. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:34 am

    Dear Bill:

    I <3 you.


  • 61. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:57 am

    love you, too, fiona64!!!!

  • 62. Flewellyn  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:02 am

    I repeat: just be cause you lose does not mean you are not powerful.

    As a matter of fact, georgie, that is exactly what it means.

  • 63. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:39 am

    Guess the Republicans will become a protected class, eh?

  • 64. Ben  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:47 am


    If Republicans had lost every single time a measure that supported them came up in any State, then, yes, they would be politically powerless (as nice as I would find that to be). It's not about losing a SINGLE election/ballot measure, it's about losing ALL of them.

    Also, to become a class eligible for strict scrutiny, a group must show distinct, systemic discrimination resulting in the loss of fundamental rights. If you could kindly give me any example, however tenuous, of such occurrence against Republicans.

  • 65. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Ben –

    We're talking about political power, here; you said that gays had no political power because they lose. I said that Republicans have no political power because they lose. You can't go counting wins/losses; that's arbitrary

    The other aspects of protected class are a different can of worms.

  • 66. Susan R Barnes  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:44 am

    George, if, at some date in the distant future, republicans are able to show that they lost EVERY SINGLE STATEWIDE VOTE during the preceding 30 years, perhaps THEN we'll have a conversation about whether or not republicans should become a protected class.

    And please answer rf's question: Why can't you post your comments at the protectmarriage site?

    Why don't they provide a similar forum for public comment?

    I'm truly interested to know.

  • 67. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:02 am

    George, political visibility is NOT THE SAME as political power. If we truly had political power, then the radicals who are trying to disguise themselves as conservatives and Americans would never have been able to rob us of our rights to LEGAL marriage. Yet that is exactly what has happened thee times in lifornia alone. If we have so much political power, then DOMA and DADT would not be in place currently. It is only because the radicals want to confuse political visiblity with political power that we are currently in ths trial. We are having to fight for this, just the way African Americans had to fight for the right to the same educational opportunities as whites, and interracial couples had to fight for the right to marry. There is no valid, logical reason to deny any two adults the right to marry each other. Ther are legal, valid, logical arguments against pedophilia, polygamy, incest, bestiality, and "marrying" inanimate objects. Against pedophilia one argument is the fact that you must be 18 or older in order to enter into a LEGAL contract. With polygamy, there are too many legal problems to go into in detail–social security survivors benefits, how to handle it when someone wants to divorce one of the parties but not the rest, and so forth. Animals cannot sign LEGAL documents, and therefore cannot get married, and inanimate objects, being inanimate, also cannot enter into LEGAL contracts. So there is the difference between what we are truly fighting for, and all the things that the radicals who are posing as conservative Americans (believe me, they are neither conservative nor American) are claiming that we are fighting for. We are fighting for full marriage equality for any two adults (i.e. 18yo or over) who are not closely related who find the love of their lives whether it be two men, two women, or a man and a woman. It is only the LDS "church" that wants polygamy, but then, they are allowed to become the core membership and leadership of Protect Marriage and fight to uphold oppression against us because they are jealous that they are limited to monogamy. Don't you find that just a bit ironic?

  • 68. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Ah, ah , ah, Richard. You can't expect the law to stop just where YOU think it should stop.

    For example, I could argue the case in support of pedophilia marriage: the laws that say you have to be 18 to contract are WRONG. 17 should be the age.

    For polygamy: Why should complexity of the system stop us from denying rights? Or better yet, let's give the first spouse the traditional marital rights, and just give marriage in name to the other spouses.

    For animals: As an owner and protector of property, I can make decisions, including consent decisions, on my property's behalf. Who can protect my property better than me; why should the government be involved in my decisions about my property?

    You should look at the pro-marriage arguments; civil unions solve any alleged equality problems and protects marriage and the children thereof at the same time.

  • 69. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:07 am

    George wrote: You should look at the pro-marriage arguments; civil unions solve any alleged equality problems and protects marriage and the children thereof at the same time.

    Aside from the fact that civil unions are not allowed under CA law, I think that you need to consider how they differ. In CA, the law allows for domestic partnerships, so let's talk about that.

    Domestic partnerships require that you be domiciled together; marriage does not (a military servicemember's DP is dissolved when they deploy, their marriage is not).

    DPs require that you not be in a different DP within the past six months; no such requirement for marriage.

    Shall I go on? Really? Let's look at how DPs, powers of attorney, etc., *really* work. You are talking about huge amounts of legal work to tease out the 1400+ benefits automatically granted upon marriage so that someone can have a ream of paperwork proving their rights — and that paperwork can be IGNORED.

    If you read this link, you will see that Janice Langbehn's longtime partner died while they were on vacation. She had a copy of her POA and was told by the hospital advocate that it could be ignored — which is what happened. Langbehn's partner died without her loved ones at her side, although a priest who was a total stranger was allowed into the room.

    Tell it to the Marines, Georgie, 'cause the Army ain't listening.

  • 70. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:09 am

    PS to George:

    Differences between marriage and DP are enumerated here:

  • 71. NVLawMan  |  January 26, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Oh george [sic]….. You let me know when you have a degree in constitutional law under your belt and then come here and try to make your currently failing tirade. Heck, you just come back when you even have a reading level above the 5th grade and are able to discern the difference between the words "law" and "religion" and then take another crack at it.

    Until then, please, stop trying to act like a big boy and be the insignificant bigot you truly are.

  • 72. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 6:04 am

    I'm an agnostic lawyer, dude. Have yet to make a religious argument here.

  • 73. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 6:09 am

    George, if you're a lawyer, I'm an astronaut.

  • 74. Cammie  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:22 am

    george: I'm a first year law student at UCLA, and it is unbelievably clear that you lack the basic knowledge, critical thinking skills, or reading comprehension to get into even a tier-3 law school, let alone pass the bar. I really don't think anyone reading this is dumb enough to believe you're a lawyer, so claiming that your are is kind of pathetic.

  • 75. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Excuse me, George, but when a witness is under oath and purporting to be a witness about something, then proves by his very testimony that he is not, then ye, he is on trial. His "qualifications" are suupposedly the reason he is on the stand, yet he did not even take the time to study his script, or to do his own research, but was spoon-fed everything by the Di attorneys? This also puts the DI legal team into a lot of ethical, if not legal, hot water. They could end up losing their licenses over this trial, regardless of the outcome. And this is a very big reason that they did not want cameras in the courtroom.

  • 76. Elsie  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:46 am

    Prop8 won by relying on lies. The problem with having liars do your work for you is that they eventually start lying to you as well. Pugano is not doing his “constituents’ any favor except to hold them hostage as a political base that is currently out of power. A less generous statement is that he’s locked his side in the boiler room while the Titantic sinks…not doing them any favors.

  • 77. Barb  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:48 am

    It IS his job. His job is to prove that we are not powerless and in turn to make sure the Prop8 followers believe we are not powerless. To do anything else would be defeat for Prop8 supporters. At this point he has to spin that the judge is already bias, as Pugno realizes his side may lose in this segment of their fight. In his mind, and in the minds of many, if they feel or believe they lost because of 'evidence' they may lose some of their followers. That cannot happen for them.

    Their blog had been showing what a great job they had been doing on cross examination of our witnesses. Now that; 1) new evidence was brought in yesterday morning that will be very compelling; 2) their first witness got 'shamed'; etc, they need to make these additional spins. Keep their followers active, keep them believing, no matter what prevails.

    Keep up the great work Rick and everyone at courage campaign and especially our attorneys.

  • 78. Charlie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:15 am

    Spot on, Barb. What's happening here is that Pugno expects the court to rule for the plaintiffs. They are laying the groundwork for a massive fundraising push. After all, it won't be cheap to take this to the Ninth Circuit (which consists almost entirely of "activist" judges, don't you know) and finally to the Supreme Court (which seems lately to have "activists" of a different sort). They need lots of cash for the appeals, to say nothing of lobbying and ballot measures in a few more states to be sure we don't manage to get our rights back no matter what happens here. This is all propaganda to "prove" we're sure to succeed in "destroying America" … unless YOU GIVE NOW!

  • 79. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Yeah, well, given that this judge has allowed all of this extraneous testimony – all of which is to support the plaintiff's position – it's pretty obvious that the deck was stacked against the defense.

    I don't think the defense is trying to lose, but it's definitely holding back some cash understanding that the judge is biased against them. Yes, and the backlash of a loss will result in a lot of money flowing in, nationwide.

  • 80. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:40 am

    No George…all it is pretty obvious that the defense is a joke, have no evidence to support their case other then lies, propaganda, and religious bigotry which they tried so hard to hide from the public but guess what… its all over the internet now…I have sent it to over 2000 people and Have gotten 1,607 responses such as OH MY GOD!!!!!

    3judges for ssm, 3 against, 3 undecided so its still 50/50 and don't forget our lawyers are the best in the world! and have a good repu. with SCOTUS!

  • 81. rf  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:58 am

    Baghdad Bob. That's all I think of when I see the ADF Media tweets too:

  • 82. ZackFord  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:02 am

    Brian, you're stealing my gig!

    Here's a more in-depth analysis of the full Pugno post. It's impressive the way he's now trying to play victim to the courts in addition to still being the victim of those of us "redefining" marriage.

  • 83. Sean  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:06 am

    You know, I hate how they always claim we're "redefining" marriage. We aren't redefining it. We're EXPANDING it. We're making it more inclusive. Is that so wrong?

  • 84. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:19 am

    You can't redefine something that has already been redefined in 8 countries and 8 states… Both websters dictionary and define it as both but it fits to repeat…..Bigots only hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see….. Denial is not just a river in Egypt!

  • 85. waxr  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:40 am

    Plus, the definition of marriage has changed over the years and from culture to culture. Any reader of the Bible Old Testament can see that marriage is between one man and one woman, and one woman, and one woman . . . . In fact Solomon had seven hundred of them. The Bible even has Abraham married to his half sister.

  • 86. NVLawMan  |  January 26, 2010 at 5:38 am

    That's because they know the only way to divert attention from the fact that they are victim-makers is to claim that they themselves are victims… It'd be like a rapist saying "well, that lady I attacked kicked me in the balls when I tried to violate her so it's all her fault!"

  • 87. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:05 am

    I was just reading over some of the depo of Mr. Miller and while reading it, the radio station I was listening to started playing a song by the Eagles that was rather appropriate. It was the song Lying Eyes.

    Ken & Dean

  • 88. Phil  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:11 am

    Pugno is using a pretty standard conservative strategy… spoon feed his followers a bunch of lies and distortions, so when they lose the trial, all the conservatives will be in an uproar because, in their minds, the trial was a slam dunk for their side.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they try to get the judge recalled when they lose.

    Conservatives love to hide the truth from people, because they're easier to manipulate that way. And I think their constituents tend not to be an extremely intellectually curious lot, so I doubt they're going to go out and actively seek opposing viewpoints.

  • 89. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:18 am

    Exactly, preaching to the choir. Unfortunately it's a choir that's used to being mislead.

  • 90. DonG  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:22 am

    Phil, Judge Vaughn Walker is a federal judge; he is appointed for life. There is no way he can be recalled. By the way, he was first appointed by Ronald Reagan, and later by Bush I.

  • 91. Phil  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:30 am

    I stand corrected.

  • 92. Alan E.  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:37 am

    You have to take into account that he is running for a state legislature seat in a highly republican area.

  • 93. Bob  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:18 am

    The fact is, George (#9, above), that an expert witness with no expertise in the relevant area is not a reliable or useful witness. It absolutely matters that he lacks any knowledge of the areas in which he was called to testify, areas which aren't even listed as his areas of teaching and research interest. A witness called to testify on the power of the LGBT population must have expert grasp of the community he purports to be giving useful, relevant information about. Someone who lacks even rudimentary knowledge of the LGBT community and its history, or even its current situation, cannot provide "expert" testimony on that community's political power, because "expert" testimony requires a deep understanding of the subject.

    Thus, while it's easy and tempting to point to cases where gay rights bills have passed, and to the alleged support of politicians and media, someone without even the most basic information about the relevant subject cannot be expected to provide a compelling, useful or relevant analysis of what those things mean. This is why courses at universities build on each other: a first year English student is expected to give only a short, rudimentary, surface analysis of a given piece of literature, while a PhD student is expected to have the foundation necessary to write a book about it. While Dr. Miller may be an expert in something (it's unclear what), his knowledge of LBGT issues barely ranks above your average first year student.

    Here's another example: people are often tempted to say that women have achieved full equality, pointing to various advancements in social settings, employment, and so on. But anyone who seriously studies these matters can tell you that women continue to suffer social and institutional discrimination, inequality in employment, health care disparities, and various other issues that mean that they have not yet achieved full equality with men. This is why we need experts who are actually experts.

  • 94. ron1008  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:24 am

    Its wonderful reading brains at work. Bob,that was great,thanks

  • 95. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:25 am

    Bob my 13 year old heterosexual male cousin knows more about LGBT issues then this miller guy.

    He knows about all the hate crimes, he knows about where it is legal and not legal and which states have civil unions but do not enforce those laws…..We should put him on stand and blow prop ha8te out of the water…..

    However Pugno will spin it as we indoctrinated him even though he is a devoted Christian follower but hates how his religion is used to condone murder…..his words… 13yo……yeah?

  • 96. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Bob –

    A common problem with lawyers is that they try to educate the fact finders beyond what they need to know to assess the case.

    You don't need a PhD to know the political power that the homosexual movement has in this country. You just need to look at how things have changed for homosexuals in this country in even the last 10 years and the powerful groups that have helped effectuate these changes.

    Civil unions, employer benefits are examples of what the homosexual community has accomplished with its political power. And now that it has hit a brick wall with marriage, we get this silly claim of powerlessness. Yeah, powerless to change convert the world to homosexuality, but not politically powerless by any extreme.

  • 97. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:07 am

    I swear you are just as dense as your statements.

    Civil union laws ARE NOT ENFORCED and neither are employer benefits.

    Take it from a member of the LGBT community we have next to no political power and I really wish you would STFU! since you are not a member of the community nor do you support it so you have no idea WTF you are talking about.

    Nobody is trying to convert the world to homosexuality you ignorant troll.

    You prop ha8tesr are trying re-criminalize homosexuality…Nobody is forcing you to be gay by legalizing marriage…..god you ignorant!

  • 98. Marlene Bomer  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Riiiiiight George — CUs can't be taken out of the state and violate the 14th Amendment.

    Not everyone has the good fortune to work for an employer who protects on SO and GI, you twit.

    I want to ship you off to a planet where *straights* are the minority fighting for their rights and have faced oppression for centuries!

    How would *you* like it if your spouse was in the ER and they refused to let you see her because you were straight because your DBA was declared invalid?

  • 99. NVLawMan  |  January 26, 2010 at 6:07 am

    Excellent discourse Bob!

    Also, let us not forget the earlier testimony of Dr. Segura which made a clear distinction between political power of a legislative sense and popular political power.

    I find it incredibly ironic (and ultimately laughable) that Mr. Miller [ I highly question providing him the honorific Dr. or Prof. title] presents such a dichotomous argument:
    1) I am an expert in initiative movements
    2) GLBTQ people have legislative influence
    3) Prop 8 was at NO SINGLE POINT considered by the legislature
    4) Legislative systems of governance are more democratic than direct initiatives

    So to recap, Miller has essentially proven our point: GLBTQ citizens were powerless per se in influencing Prop 8 (from Segura) and Prop 8 countervened the tenets of the American system of governance which is in place to protect popularly powerless groups, meaning GLBTQ interests were doubly powerless and had their constitutional rights and protections abridged…..

    You see the big disconnect? Mr. Miller uses a SCOTUS definition of political power meaning "access to lawmakers", but yet provides expert testimony about a process in which no lawmakers are involved that led to Prop 8 entering into force. So truly, the fact that this man is strained to meet the definition of expert in LGBT matters is dwarfed in relative terms to greater failure in logic he and the defense have committed.

  • 100. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:22 am

    I see now why Pugno has closed comments on his web site.

    There's no way he can mount a defense of such blatant misrepresentation of what happened in court yesterday.

  • 101. kelly  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:36 am

    I don't think comments are closed over there because of just that.

    The Yes on 8 people were never interested in a dialog. They just wish to preach at their sheep.

  • 102. Eric  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:22 am

    Pugno is running for state assembly in the 5th district.

    Anyone know who his opponents are? He needs to lose the primary.

  • 103. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:29 am

    The 5th district is pretty conservative so Pugno stands a good chance of winning regardless of who his opponent is.

  • 104. Beth  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:26 am

    Say… how come the Pro 8 people don't allow open commenting? We've got someone here who is clearly Pro 8 and we're keeping it respectful (mmmmmmostly — name calling isn't very nice and it is not the norm on this site).

    @George — I think it's cool that you posted your position on this site and hope you don't think the general disagreement has been disrespectful in the main. Tell your friends!

  • 105. RAL  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:32 am


    Navigate on over to NOM's site and check out NOMblog. They do allow comments but they're heavily moderated, so not everything gets on…or stays on.

  • 106. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:36 am

    wow….that certainly is the freedom of speech they keep mentioning…….

    You have the constitutional right to say what you want as long as I agree with it….."HYPOCRITES!"

  • 107. Beth  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Ooh! Thanks!

  • 108. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:40 am

    Ah, Ronnie, but they do have the right to remove comments they don't want – since they own their website.

    I have not seen anyone in here complaining that there posts were removed, which I think is wonderful. We want active conversations with every side of this issue.

    Those other sites only want their rhetoric and propaganda to see the light of day.

  • 109. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:42 am

    Thank for the link – I just went and read their 'home page' they seem to believe their is some kind of conspiracy theory afoot in this trial. I used to hold them in contempt, but now I have changed my view to that of pity for them. Living in a world, where you can only hear one side of an argument and ignore all other conflicting views is very sad in my opinion.

  • 110. jayjaylanc  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Although it's awfully hard not to mirror disrespect with more disrespect. I find myself reading George's posts with rolling eyes and involuntary sneers. I have no idea how the civil rights marchers in the 60s maintained such stoic silence in the face of the kind of hate they had flung in their faces. I couldn't do it.

  • 111. jayjaylanc  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:37 am

    Meaning that simply supporting Prop H8 is inherently disrespectful, regardless of the supporter's demeanor.

  • 112. RAL  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:48 am


    Don't pitty them too much. They're nutty but so far they've been effective.

  • 113. Nick Griffin Miller  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:33 am

    Hey …as to the interruption of thoughts by one who doesn't deserve second naming (didn't we have a few Presidents by that name?)–Remember Wizard of Oz-"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"

    Trying to argue with these people obviously only gives them credence in their own minds. they are not here to listen, they are not here to learn–, they are here to confusticate. (f that isn't a real word, it should be! LOL)

  • 114. David  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:33 am

    I am wondering if their spin is not a way for them to 'save face' in this trial. I have little doubt they will claim it was a liberal judge, again trying to legislate from the bench. What is remarkable is these people have no conception of how our system of government works – we have three iconic portions to our government – 1. Presidential 2. Legislative 3. Judicial.
    These seems elementary from my perspective, yet every time I point this out to them – they glare at me 'as if to demonize me and my reality shaking for them'.

  • 115. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:35 am

    This. I swear to the deity of your choice, most of the Prop 8 supporters (and conservatives, so far as I can tell) were absent for the majority of high school civics. They seem to think our form of government is a pure democracy, and that there are no checks and balances.

    Or, perhaps, that is their fantasy world …


  • 116. Go_proton77  |  January 26, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Speaking of democracy the dems are going down, and the will of the voters will prevail. 🙂

  • 117. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    Troglodyte! the will of some voters…..majority is a joke because it oppresses others much like that of Hitler…


    The minority always wins eventually…check your history book ….Ignorant BIGOT!

  • 118. jayjaylanc  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:36 am

    Not to mention that this supposedly "liberal" judge was appointed by Saint Ronnie.

  • 119. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:38 am

    By me?

  • 120. jayjaylanc  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:44 am

    If it WAS you, we've got bigger problems than Prop 8…

    REPUBLICAN ZOMBIE INVASION! Oh, wait…that's the teabaggers…

  • 121. Marlene Bomer  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Remember, David…. the religious reicht is like any totalitarian fascist movement — no dissent, control of all media, control of private life, business to run regulation-free.

    The reicht *despises* the Constitution — there's still a part which wants to remove the Constitution and replace it with the OT.

    Most though are okay with the current tactic, which is to run their own "law schools", ie Regent, Ave Maria, and Liberty — then have them clerk for conservative jurists until they gain enough experience and can join the judiciary. This way they can use the Constitution itself to have the theocracy the reicht's been lusting after for centuries.

  • 122. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:34 am

    Argh … my comment should have read "works outside the home." I guess I can't type already, LOL.


  • 123. Callie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:38 am

    Why are we talking to George? I mean, do you all REALLY think he's going to listen to us? It doesn't matter what we say or how respectful we are because it'll be turned into lies when he opens his mouth around his cronies. I'm sure we're already "attacking" him because we don't accept his worldview without question. There's really no sense in talking to people like this.

  • 124. Mouse  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:31 am

    I disagree. Talking to people who disagree is the only way they are going to ever hear things from a different point of view.

    People have deeply held beliefs and opinions that are ingrained through lifetimes of repetition from our opponents. Gays and lesbians are forced to confront those ideas in order to accept who they are. Either hate yourself, like you've always been told is the thing proper to do with homosexuals, or start the difficult journey of questioning everything you've ever been told.

    How many of us continued to struggle with the homophobia we had been raised on even after realizing that we might be that dreaded enemy ourselves? Is it really so shocking that a straight person – who has none of the motivations we had to question all the garbage he's been fed – has as hard time as we did recognizing the lies for what they are?

    It isn't easy to remain respectful, to remain patient. Having finished that journey long ago, it's understandable no one wants to go through it again even to help someone else along.

    There are some people who will refuse to question their beliefs. Don't assume this is most people and stop all dialog. If we stop talking to people who disagree, how will their beliefs ever be challenged?

    The other side isn't going to stop lying to them.

    Even if you cannot convince George, what about the others who share his ideas who read his comments? What if one of them were open to our counterarguements?

  • 125. Wild Clover  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    Exactly why I do argue with the heterocentrists I encounter on the net. For every poster, there are dozens of lurkers. If one of those lurkers is on the fence, it may be that my argument is the one that sends them either to my point of view, or at the least looking at alternatives and making up their own mind as to what is right, rather than parroting the slogans of the so-called conservatives and Christian (so-called) right.

  • 126. Go_proton77  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Good post…we want you to be happy and live full lives. We do not want anyone to take away the rights afforded to you right now.

    Marriage is sacred ground and it goes beyond your selfishness. Be happy and leave traditional marriage alone.

  • 127. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:30 am

    Who's traditional marriage?…….there are thousands of different traditional marriages all over the country and the world……Christianity and the church are trying to force LGBT people to be christian and religious and that is illegal.

    Why don't you be happy and leave us alone!

    Mind your own FU<KING BUSINESS!

  • 128. Go_proton77  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:27 am

    Ronnie you all are invading territory belonging to us. Were not going to stay silent, we want children of the future to be protected from your choices.

  • 129. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:42 am

    "Ronnie you all are invading territory belonging to us. Were not going to stay silent, we want children of the future to be protected from your choices."


    Your territory? did you pay for it? NO!

    You can't own marriage jack ass!
    I am an American, I pay taxes, I am a human so it belongs to me just as much as it belongs to you!

    I didn't choose shit moron….stop ASSuming you know what the fuck I chose…How fucking dare you POS!

    You say you want children of the future to be protected well then:

    1. Gay people have children also
    2. Gay people are the products of Heterosexual parents
    3. Then talk to your priest who rape both little boys and girls.
    4, Talk to heteros who abuse their children.

    BIGOT TRASH!!!!!!!!!!

  • 130. Susan R Barnes  |  January 26, 2010 at 5:07 am

    I disagree Callie. I wish there were more pro-Prop 8 folks like George commenting here, because it allows their arguments to see the light of day and to be openly discussed, something that is not allowed at While I do not agree with George, I fully support his continued postings. These conversations benefit us all, even if they may at times make our blood boil with anger. Just my two cents…

  • 131. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:38 am

    I just figured out Pugno's tactic, everyone; it's right out of Kander/Ebb.

    "Give 'em the old three-ring circus, bead and feather 'em.
    When you're in trouble go into your dance …
    Long as you keep 'em way off balance,
    They'll never spot you've got no talents.
    Razzle-dazzle 'em and they'll never catch wise."

  • 132. jayjaylanc  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:46 am

    "What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?"

    More appropriate verse for Pugno…

  • 133. Woody  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:39 am

    In reference to:
    To show that homosexuals are not politically powerless, Dr. Miller provided “striking” examples…

    I take it those are the quotation marks frequently ridiculed as changing the meaning of a word to its opposite on The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotes.

  • 134. Alexander  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:48 am

    I think it means "striking" in the sense of "so obviously inexpert that the judge may as well order the court to strike them from the record."

  • 135. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:39 am

    I would ask George what his purpose and intention in coming to this web site is?

    But I think I already know.

  • 136. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:42 am

    Did you ever read Shakespeare? Tybalt, in "Romeo and Juliet," remarks on Romeo and his friends coming to crashing a party at Juliet's home:

    "They are come solely to flear and scorn at our solemnity."

    "Flear" was a period word meaning "to mock."

    George is here to spread hate speech and mock those who care about equality.

  • 137. Bill  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:03 am

    I never doubted George's intentions here for one second.

    He is what is known as the common-as-dirt variety.

  • 138. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:48 am

    You are so right, Brian. Even P. T. Barnum wouldn't try to polish such an obvious pile of dung. But it was also P. T. Barnum who said that there is a sucker born every minute, and Pugno is definitely in that category.

  • 139. Lymis  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:49 am

    About all this political power….

    Just look at how many times something that is good for, or supported by, the gay community has absolutely no traction until it gets powerfully stated how much it affects straight people.

    For example, the only time a popular vote failed to enact a marriage ban was when it was (truthfully) strongly campaigned that it would, as written, take away benefits from elderly straight people. They rewrote the law to exclude the harm to straights, and the ban passed handily.

    Domestic partnerships and civil unions are ALWAYS presented as helping straight people who choose not to marry (even though they could) as well as gay people. There is generally strong opposition to giving gay people "special rights" that exclude straights, even when straights have access to the far more beneficial marriage. But rewrite it to include straights, and off you go.

    Look at Georgia's sodomy law. When it was interpreted (in practice, not in law) as applying only to gays, they took it all the way to the SCOTUS to defend it. What case got it overturned in Georgia? A case where it was used against a straight couple.

    And so on.

    Just because a law or a judicial ruling benefits gay people, or even advances a cause that is important to us, absolutely does not indicate that it is a measure of our power if the only way to get it to go in our favor is showing how it hurts straight people.

    Even the things they are claiming are indicators of our power always have to be bitterly fought in terms of how they won't even inconvenience straight people. Marriage? But we have to show that straight taxes won't go up. We have to show that schools won't be forced to admit we exist. Hate crimes? We have to bend over backward to prove that religious people can continue to spew the vilest lies about us and demonstrate that they won't experience negative consequences.

    Even in this trial, the defendants are claiming that gay people boycotting the owner of a club who publicly supported stripping our rights to marriage was an "attack" and they tried to use that as proof that we deserved what we got.

    Are any of these things really proof of power? If we were powerful, we would actually get what we wanted, not patted on the head and told to sit back down. If we were powerful, all we would have to say is "this helps gay people" without having to prove that it helps straight people as well.

    Access to politicians? LIke being excluded from the Bush White House easter egg roll? Like having the White House risk contempt of court to deny court mandate benefits to the lesbian partner when it was declared unconstitutional? DOMA? DADT?


  • 140. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:10 am

    Political power does not exist in a vaccuum. If you were the most powerful, you would get whatever you wanted; but that's one of the things about politics, that is, there are other political interests to consider besides your own.

  • 141. Pam  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:51 am

    I read what good old Andy has to say almost everyday, just to get a good laugh. I pulled up the actual court transcripts and saw for myself that Rick has done a great job trial tracking for us.
    To quote one of my least favorite people of all time: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig".

  • 142. Eddie  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:51 am

    I was beginning to think that the defense was throwing this case for some strategic reason. But it's more likely (and blatantly obvious) that they do not, and never will, have a case. In any event, is it remotely possible that the defense is throwing this case? What, if any, strategic purpose could there be? Is there some technicality angle to this that can be an advantage to their side at SCOTUS?

  • 143. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:53 am

    Perhaps their legal defense would then be "see they won, they have political power."

  • 144. DonG  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:55 am

    The defense is not deliberately throwing this case; this is the best of what they've got. Pretty pathetic, huh?

  • 145. Eddie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:03 am

    Yeah, it's quite a train wreck. But I still get nervous about it all. I mean, it should be this easy to take apart Prop 8's arguments, but will the people that matter, like SCOTUS, make the right decision? :-/

  • 146. MordacP  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:00 am

    When your campaign is run on FUD and lies, it's hard to hide it when exposed to the light of day.

    They can't defend their campaign in the legal arena and this is the best they they could do.

    "Is there some technicality angle to this that can be an advantage to their side at SCOTUS?"

    The conservative majority is what they are counting on.

  • 147. Robert  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:54 am

    I agree that Pungo has very little to work with here but I'm wondering- just how weak is "powerless" ? That is to say, if we were completly powerless, cops would still be harassing gay bars on Stonewall. If we were powerfull we wouldn't have "legislated discrimination" against us. Could someone write an article on where other groups were before they were called suspect classes?

  • 148. DonG  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:58 am

    Today, blacks are a suspect class, yet you would be hard pressed to say that they were politically powerless. Today, women are a "quasi-suspect" class, yet you would be hard pressed to say that they were politically powerless.

  • 149. RAL  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:59 am

    I think one of the most incisive and relevant lines of questioning yesterday had to do with whether Blacks and Women were more or less powerful (as a group) than GLBT people. The witness mostly didn't answer but the answers to those questions have strong implications for this case.

  • 150. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Yeah, it begs the question as to when a group has become so politically powerful that its suspect class status should be removed.

  • 151. fiona64  |  January 26, 2010 at 6:07 am

    George, I have no doubt that you would like to see suspect class status removed from women and people of color … along with their right to vote, own property, etc.

    We've got your number, sugar-pie. Loud and clear.

  • 152. Andrew  |  January 26, 2010 at 8:05 am

    George – I am curious.

    So you are in favor of suspect classes being removed if the group has become so politically powerful.

    What about religion? Everything these days is about balancing the budget and all Americans are asked to roll their sleeves up and help.

    Do you think it is time to remove the tax free status of religious organizations so they too can contribute to helping this great nation of ours? Or do you feel that they should retain their status and continue funding legislation through their tax-free efforts?

    Does freedom of religion = tax free card?

  • 153. Barb - Lesbians Love  |  January 26, 2010 at 1:59 am

    BTW, new thread on the trial has been started.

  • 154. Tammy  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:00 am

    Does anyone know about the claim that Pugno makes about the 9th Circuit ruling we couldn't have campaign documents, but we're using them anyway, and that they haven't been able to have No on 8 campaign docs. Seems to me to be a point they'll raise on appeal if it is in fact true. I sure hope not, though. Actually, based on all the other BS that I don't believe, I don't know why I'd believe that was the case. I guess I'm just thinking that this is going way too good to be true!

  • 155. Beth  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:01 am

    I've been reading the NOM blogs (thanks to RAL) and it's very interesting how sincerely most of the posters believe that marriage is for raising children with a biological mom and a dad. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity, but I wonder how they would respond if a ballot measure prohibiting adoption and single-parent childrearing were put up to public referendum.

    It's extremely hard for these people to see past sexual behavior when looking at *other* people's marriages. And for those married out there, how much of it is about sex, for Pete's sake?

    Reading their comments is instructive, if painful, insulting, and troubling. My son is doing just fine, thanks.

  • 156. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:20 am

    I'd be happy to see intentional single-parent childbearing go away, as well as, the purposeful creation of children for anyone other than the biological parents.

    If you take the position that marriage is about procreation and children being brought up by their parents, then sex has everything to do with it.

  • 157. Ben  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:27 am

    Then you also MUST take away the right to privacy. What you are advocating is government control of all families. Of government regulation of who can have children and when. Of putting government bureaucrats in control of your bedroom. I don't know about you, but I prefer LESS government than we already have now, not more.

    Furthermore, if you take the position that marriage is only about procreation and marriage, then why not institutionalize divorce at the moment the last child goes off to college? What about (like my aunt and uncle) when a couple has only one child and that child is killed in an accident? Is that couple still married? Should they be? What about couples who don't learn until after their wedding that they cannot procreate for medical reasons? Is their marriage now null?

    No, marriage is about FAR more than procreation and children. It's about two people who choose to commit themselves to each other for mutual love, support, and future. As I commented previously, read the evidence given last week by REAL experts about the economic, sociological, anthropological, social, psychological benefits of marriage that have nothing to do with children and procreation.

    Furthermore, even if you take the view that marriage is only about procreation and children, that is not enough of a legitimate government interest to justify the infringing of some citizens rights and denying them fundamental rights and equal protection under the laws. You are welcome to hold that view, but you do not get to infringe anyone else's rights because you do.

  • 158. Casey  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:14 am

    Have you guys heard that Obama is expected to comment on DADT in the State of the Union tomorrow? No one seems to know what he'll say, but I think I can guess…just wondering, a bit off-topic, if anyone has thoughts about that.

  • 159. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:25 am

    I heard about that….I think they are going to start a trial or something to get rid of DADT….. saying that because the younger generation is going to testify to prove that there is no reason to deny LGBT Americans the right to serve their country openly…or something like that

  • 160. JonT  |  January 26, 2010 at 6:37 am

    I had heard this a couple of days ago. I don't really know what to think about it – but based on his past actions on LGBT issues, I'm guessing it will just be more talk, and no action, if he says anything at all on the matter.

    I really hope I am wrong though.

  • 161. Paul  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:21 am

    Yes, just goes to show you can't polish a turd… but you can still roll it in glitter"
    You've gotta give Pugno an A for trying anyway, he didn't have a lot to work with.

  • 162. Slade  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:23 am

    Oh HELL no. Assembly for Sacramento? I live in Sacramento! GTFO my city! He won't get my vote, thats for sure.

  • 163. Nikki  |  January 26, 2010 at 2:37 am

    What surprises me is that the Yes on 8 sleaze factory went with their own attorneys for this trial instead of outsourcing the job to someone more experienced, as they did with the CA Supreme Court case and Kenneth Starr. While Starr is the king of courtroom sleaze, he is still more adept than these clowns (Pugno, et. al.). Don't get me wrong…I'm glad they've opted to run with their least capable legal team, but it makes me wonder if they are *saving* their $$$ to spend for Starr or some other big gun(s) for the ultimate showdown: The SCOTUS trial.

  • 164. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:15 am

    George….you are a Masochist!

  • 165. george  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:22 am

    Beat me, baby, beat me! I can take it.

  • 166. Ronnie  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:27 am

    ha ha ha ha….note the sarcasm….you would like that so you prop ha8ters can yell hate crime

  • 167. Paul  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:19 am

    I’ve also been reading the PM and ADF, websites since the trial began, in order to get their take on the proceedings (BTW, I highly recommend that everyone do the same). I’ve also been reading Shannon Minter’s postings at NCLR.

    Because these are all legal analysis prepared by lawyers, and of approximately the same length, I believe that the dual-read provide an insightful recount of what’s transpired. Also, there’s much to be learned by reading what the partisans are telling their followers — on both sides.

    The posts go up at different times:

    PM: Within minutes of the end of the court day

    ADF: Three or four hours later

    NCLR: Three to five hours later

    But on the 25th, this changed.

    PM: 10:00pm PST (five[!] hours later)

    ADF: A day later(!) at 9:00am PST

    NCLR: Three to five hours later

    Reading between the lines, it appears that our friends at PM and ADF had a difficult time figuring out how to spin the day’s events — and that in their heart of hearts, they too know that Dr Miller’s testimony was an unmitigated disaster.

    So it’ll be MOST interesting to see what happens in terms of the timing of today and tomorrow’s posts.

  • 168. Andrew  |  January 26, 2010 at 3:48 am

    It's pretty clear they're trying to tell their base that this is going to be a slam dunk, so they can cry bias and judicial activism when they lose.

    The question is, what is our side doing to control this? And we do need to do something about it. Political considerations–such as perhaps renewed attempts to amend the federal constitution–aside, the more they fire the flames of the bigots the more hate crime they will commit. We ought to prevent as much of that as we can.

  • 169. JonT  |  January 26, 2010 at 6:40 am

    Exactly. They've already got the 'biased judge' argument ready and waiting for launch.

  • 170. Tigger  |  January 26, 2010 at 4:07 am

    I think its great that parties with differing view points can have a civil and educated discussion. There are some smart folks on this blog as well.

    A good discussion will change hearts and minds much faster than name calling and mean spirited insults. Bravo fellers and ladies.


  • 171. michael  |  January 26, 2010 at 5:24 am

    It's why I don't believe anyone anymore, especially advertising, nor do I worry about corporations funding political ads.

    You just learn to tune them out.

  • 172. Elliot in NY  |  January 26, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Actually, Mythbusters proved that you can, in fact, polish feces.

    [youtube =]

  • 173. Richard  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    George, you are wrong yet again. How can something that is not available in EVERY STATE AND TRANSFERRABLE ACROSS STATE LINES provide the same protections for the children that marriage does. Nor does it allow for us to have joint health care coverage universally. It does nothing except make an attempt to continue to hold LGBTQQI HUMAN BEINGS in a second, often third class status in this country. How would you like it if the tables were reversed? ANd No, George, being raised with the biological parents is not always the best thhing for the children. Go to the cemetery and ask Patricia Lynn Welker's headstone what happened to her living with her biological mommy.

  • 174. David  |  January 27, 2010 at 12:52 am

    I just checked-out the other side of the rainbow and their spin on this trial. It is remarkable to read their blog (by the way, which comments are turned-off) – their take on the proceedings, on the surface, make it sound like they are putting us down and their legal team is the best in the world. Well, I suppose when you live in a world that does not recognize that GLBT's even exist, much less that we have rights, I suppose you are bound to be a bit confused on the issues.

  • 175. Richard  |  January 27, 2010 at 3:31 am

    To Go_Proton77 in regard to your comment "Good post…we want you to be happy and live full lives. We do not want anyone to take away the rights afforded to you right now. Marriage is sacred ground and it goes beyond your selfishness. Be happy and leave traditional marriage alone."

    Gee, Go_proton77, it sounds as though by not wanting to allow us to have full marriage equlity that you are not telling the truth about wanting us to be happy and live full lives. It also sounds as if you are the selfish one, by not wanting to share with us what we seem to be better at than the HETEROSEXUAL community. You see, we BELIEVE in the value of a commitment. Just ask Phyllis, who along with her wife Del, waited 59 Years to get married, only to have her wife die in her arms. No one should have to wait that long when they find their soul mate, just because of some archaic, outmoded idea of what marriage is abot. If we did that, we sould still be in the days where a man could have 300 wives and 700 concubines, and treat each one of them as his own personal property. And yet, so many of you "preach" about traditional, biblical marriage. That no longer works, dude. Or is it dud?

  • 176. Go_proton77  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:01 am

    We want you to be happy in your lives, so that you don't feel the need to be on par with us who live correctly. You have tolerance and freedom, but you want court enforced acceptance of your sex choices.

    As a husband and father I have monogomous sex with my wife, which normal and natural blah blah blah.

    My wife and I are the standard for healthy living and I wish the same for you all.

    Leave marriage alone.

  • 177. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 6:43 am

    You only want yourself to be happy you greedy, spoiled, selfish POS

    You live correctly? you follow priests who molest kids and who do not pay taxes but make choices as if they do…it should be illegal because only tax payers are entitled to rights

    Its not a fucking choice moron stop saying that and ASSuming that you know if I made a choice you POS

    You are not gay so you have no fucking idea how it feels to be gay.

    Are you psychic?……NO!

    You can leave marriage alone because it is not a thing jackass

    You leave us alone!

  • 178. Dan Hess  |  January 27, 2010 at 7:27 am

    You, sir, are a horrible twisted bastard and on behalf of heterosexuals everywhere I condemn you and your beliefs. I left the Christian church years ago because of your particular brand of hateful discrimination and hypocrisy. You claim to be following Christian values, when in reality you worship your priests and your Bible instead of your God and completely ignore His teachings of love and understanding. Love is THE highest ideal in Christian ideology, not lack of sin.

    If you want to take your Bible's word over that of your God, then I and millions of other people am specifically forbidden from entering a Christian church. Know why? I wear glasses, therefore I have an eye defect and would "profane the house of the Lord with my presence." That's right, you've allowed defective people into your churches and will burn in Hell for your transgressions. By your own logic, anyway.

    So you can either drop the lies your "men of God" have been spewing from the cesspools they call their mouths for centuries, listen up and really follow the teachings of your God, your Christ and your Holy Spirit, or you can sit down, shut up and wait for the Second Coming and we can see who'll end up being right: the homosexuals following your God's ideals with all their hearts and the heterosexuals who support them, or you idolaters who'd rather listen to hateful old men because it makes your misanthropy into a righteous struggle against the "evil" of two people who love each other more than you could ever love your wife and children; since you feel that real love threatens your marriage, you must not have any of it yourself.

    Now, I'm no longer a Christian and this is not even close to a religious issue; it's a secular issue. Even if your twisted and frankly ridiculous interpretation is correct (it's not), you have no right to tell people they can't enter into a sacred institution that they exemplify more than you ever will simply because you, personally, disapprove. So I don't really care if I've swayed you or not, I'd like you to shut up or go to your own Hell.

    Also, feel free to read a mathematical proof I came up with on why you're completely wrong and homosexual marriage is supported by the Christian Bible:

  • 179. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 7:39 am

    Woah!………well said……. but Woah!

    BRAVA!….. I like you Dan Hess…..hehehe

  • 180. Go_proton77  |  January 27, 2010 at 7:58 am

    I want you to be happy in your relationships. I don't want my children to be forced to accept and understand homosexual sex acts to be appropriate. We believe you all are making horribly damaging choices. You cannot argue the fact that humans were not born to perform gay fellatio and gay anal penetration.

    You choose these behaviors and we want you to stop forcing this on us through this marriage equality crap.

    Be happy without demanding to change marriage.

  • 181. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 8:08 am

    "I want you to be happy in your relationships. I don’t want my children to be forced to accept and understand homosexual sex acts to be appropriate. We believe you all are making horribly damaging choices. You cannot argue the fact that humans were not born to perform gay fellatio and gay anal penetration.
    You choose these behaviors and we want you to stop forcing this on us through this marriage equality crap.
    Be happy without demanding to change marriage."

    You want yourself to be happy you greedy, selfish, spoiled POS


    gay people have children too moron

    Marriage has changed in 8 countries and 8 states you bigots just refuse to see it and accept it.


    You Trash bags are forcing us to follow your religious beliefs.

    Gay people are children of heterosexuals….. I really hope none of your kids are gays because they will kill themselves…..and do not say that you know your kids are not gay because you have no idea what they are things and what their feelings are unless you are a mind reader and a psychic.


  • 182. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 8:23 am

    And secondly Go_proton77,

    There are straight people who want Same Sex Marriage Legal as well

    SO YOU REALLY NEED TO SHUT THE FUCK UP! with this whole we want you to be happy BULL SHIT

    Marriage is not the only thing forcing you to accept gay people…don't stop there Ha8ter get homosexuality to be illegal and taken off of tv, movies, magazines, radio, the internet, books, newspapers, the dictionary, the encyclopedia, ect ect ect.

    3rd. Straight people participate in the same type of sex as game men but according to your reasoning you excluded lesbian sex which does not include those sexual acts….

    "You cannot argue the fact that humans were not born to perform gay fellatio and gay anal penetration."

    I'm a human and I was born and i perform both of those well actually i'm a bottom so I only perform one but the latter is well received.

    So I can argue that humans were born to do those thing because we do….


  • 183. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 8:24 am

    I'm sorry Gay men…lol

  • 184. Dan Hess  |  January 27, 2010 at 5:19 am

    Please archive their entire blog so that it can be submitted to the Supreme Court as evidence in case they try to pull the "biased judge" card.

  • 185. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 9:36 am

    OK I found him……. Go_proton77 on yahoo! finance MB

    He says…..

    "Re: 0bama Brown shirts 27-Mar-09 05:39 pm
    Good point. The liberals on this board will do anything to suppress free speech.!!!!" – Go_proton77

    Which is hilarious because his fellow prop ha8ters are doing the same via no comments on theirs and PUG-NO's "blog" as well not airing this trial so they can hide the truth of their lies……….

    HYP – O – CRITES!!!!!!!!!!

  • 186. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 10:26 am

    I just made this statement to my mother I felt the need to share it after watching the video together posted by straight ally #3008…….. .

    The people who are against same sex marriage and equality continue to ignore the simple fact that this is about human. EVERYONE!

    It hurts not just LGBT people whose lives are destroyed by these anti-equality laws.

    It hurts our kids, not just teens but babies, infants, toddlers, 5yo's, 10yo's!…… those of who have children…..

    It hurts our heterosexual friends, families, co-workers, neighbors, supporters and their families and kids……

    It hurts us not just those who have been in relationships for years but those of us who are single and do have dreams of finding mr/mrs perfect and be just as committed as others

    We are teens, 20 somethings, Over the hilliers, Baby boomers, Black, white, asian, latino, muslim, straight, gay, transexual, lesbian, bisexual, religious, non-religious, left handed, right handed, brunette, blonde, black haired, red haired, blue haired, HUMAN.


  • 187. Ronnie  |  January 27, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    He said it!!!!!!!! Obama Said it!!!!!
    The Bigots are DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 188. easy piano lessons for beginners  |  February 17, 2014 at 5:57 am

    Definitely imagine that that you stated. Your favorite reason
    appeared to be at the internet the simplest thing to be
    mindful of. I say to you, I definitely get irked while other folks consider worries
    that they plainly do not realize about. You controlled
    to hit the nail upon the top as smartly as defined out
    the entire thing with no need side effect , other people can
    take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

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