Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Golden Oldies: Liveblogging Closing Arguments: Part V

DADT trial Liveblogging

Out of all the live-blogging threads for the District Court hearing, this was the one most requested.

We at P8TT are taking Christmas through New Year’s off. Golden Oldies you requested will run in the place of regular posts. Regularly scheduled programming will resume on January 3rd–Adam Bink

By Rick Jacobs

Fresh thread time. More of Judge Walker trying to get Cooper to make a legitimate argument.

Cooper: To come back to the immutability case, the 9th circuit said, “sexual orientation is not immutable.” Against the Supreme Court cases, we know of no case that sexual orientation meets heightened scrutiny. The characteristics of immutability simply do not apply to sexual orientation. Behavioral, attraction and self-identity are the three definitions that the plaintiff’s experts used and depending upon which you use, a different group falls into that, so the definition is not clear. The plaintiffs made clear that sexual orientation does change over time, especially in women. Peplau commented on the “astonishing elasticity” of women, whose sexual orientation changes many times over their lifetimes. Some 2/3 of women who identify as homo have changed their orientation at least once and 1/3 more than once over their lifetime.

C: Goes to Supreme Court question of immutability. Justice Ginsberg says, “Immutability is tightly cabined. Goes solely to accident of birth.” Heightened scrutiny goes to race, gender, illegitimacy, all accidents of birth. Ginsberg says, “Doesn’t say something can’t be changed.”

Judge: Does this have to do with national orientation?

C: Yes.

J: Sometimes of the year everyone is Irish. (Laughter). People may choose via an ancestor to have a national origin. These questions of immutability are not key.

C: Well, we then look at political powerlessness. We submit that gays and lesbians are not politically powerless as Dr. Segura says. Clearly in the Cleveland case in regard to mentally disabled, does the group have the ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers? 20 years ago in “high tech gays?” the court ruled that gays and lesbians can attract the attention of legislators. As Dr. Segura testified, since that time there has been a sea change.

J: Isn’t that the most important factor, the historical context? Women are hardly politically powerless, yet a law protects them, laws that single them out subject to strict scrutiny. African Americans have considerable power and yet a law that singles them out is subject to strict scrutiny. Isn’t the historical context what makes the point?

C: It’s an interesting question. Here’s a group whose political power has changed so dramatically (women). In 1970 and 1973 when the court had before it the political power of the group (women) needed extraordinary protection from a majoritarian electorate so they needed protection. At that time, only 2% of the offices held by them but 50% of the population. That’s not the case with gays and lesbians in California.

J: The DOMA Statute that has been mentioned, Prop. 8, exclusion of gays and lesbians from military for a long period of time, all indicia of discrimination?

[UPDATE 3:00]

J: P8, these other props in other states, the exclusion of gays and lesbians from military service – aren’t those all indicia of a long history of discrimination?

C: We have never disputed that gays and lesbians have been the victims of a long and shameful history of discrimination. Thankfully, the situation today in 2010 is not what it was in the past. The fact of a history of discrimination is not by itself sufficient to warrant heightened judicial scrutiny.

The question of political powerlessness was very different 20 years ago, but the 9th Circuit nonetheless believed that gays and lesbians could attract the attention of the lawmakers; thus, it follows that it must be true today.

Even though mental disability is an immutable characteristic, the disabled could not qualify for heightened scrutiny because the court found that they had political power (could attract the attention of lawmakers), sure they had to rely on allies to create that political power. If the mentally disabled weren’t politically powerless, I would submit that gays and lesbians are definitely not powerless. I submit that Court’s that have decided against heightened scrutiny have been correct.

Long pause….

j: Why should Mr. Blankenhorn’s testimony qualify as expert testimony. Does he meet the standards?

C: I submit that he does. I don’t have anything to add to the submission we made earlier. Under the 9th circuit standard of the qualification of an expert, he is amply qualified. His professional life for 20 years have been devoted to the study of marriage – the potential parenting structures, the potential for harm to marriage due to a variety of social phenomena, including same-sex marriage, he’s written books that have been received with respect by recognized experts.

J: Were they peer-reviewed?

C: No.

J: Am I correct that the only peer-reviewed article of Blankenhorn was not on the subject of marriage?

C: Sir, as I stand here right now. I don’t know…don’t remember.

J: Fair enough.

C: I didn’t come here prepared to argue that particularly. May I request a 5 min break?

J: Why don’t we take 10 minutes….back at 3:10.

[UPDATE 3:27] from Rick

(Here’s a bit of commentary and some color from the break while Arisha does the hard work.)

Bruce Cohen, the Academy Award-winning producer and key figure behind this case, said to me,” Can you believe that they are pointing to the one court ruling banning gays and lesbians from adopting (Florida) as their standard?” As Bruce said, there are only two states that ban adoption by gays and lesbians—Florida and Arkansas. Yet Mr. Cooper is saying Judge Walker should refer to that ruling for guidance here.

Kris Perry introduced me to her two wonderful, poised teenage sons. I also had the honor of meeting Kris’s mother. Of course ___ Steer was right there, wondering with all of us what Mr. Cooper is really filibustering about. Can you imagine being the subject of this case and having your kids and your mom sitting there with you throughout all of this? Imagine these young fellows, who have such wonderful, loving, caring parents, hearing a high-powered, gray-haired lawyer pontificating about how horrid lesbian mothers must be? I really can’t. It’s not removed at that point.

One distinguished lawyer (not on the legal team) said, “The only thing he has is the strict scrutiny test which has never before been applied to marriage equality.” He went on to say, “What he said about Loving is bullshit. The only reason society had to prevent black and white people from marrying was procreation. Society did not want mixed-race kids.” That’s right. Society did not want Barack Obama to be born.

Cooper has surrendered, really, on all of the other issues. He’s trying to say immutability is not assured, but the judge pointed out that that does not really matter here. And even though the judge keeps bringing this back to marriage as a right vs. sexual orientation, he keeps trying to say it’s about sexual orientation because that is his canard.

Short notes: Maggie has her shoes on. Lance Black is watching intently, having not been absent for a second of this. And there to my left is the (oxymoronic) Protect Marriage gang that sued us in January for having a logo that they say is indistinguishable from theirs even though ours has two women with two children instead of a man and a woman. That’s the point of the whole thing. There’s no difference. It’s about the right to love.

[UPDATE 3:33]

C: The US Supreme Court in Crawford vs. Bd. Of Education in 1982 upheld a California constitutional amendment that reduced the remedial tools given to the courts in the school segregation area. In that case the court rejected the contention that once a state chooses to do more than the 14th Amendment requires that the state could not return the “lower” federal standard.

J: What do we make of that in the context of this case? What baring does that have?

C: The California Supreme Court’s interpretation that we believe goes beyond the 14A, was something that the people of the state were empowered to reverse. The people of California are the ultimate appellate tribunal of the California Supreme Court. The Court’s decision was no more final in the state of California than the Appellate decision that upheld Prop 8. It was reviewed by the ultimate, judicial tribunal and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Crawford is on point here.

C: I also want to address whether there is a legit basis for California citizens to be concerned that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, does not show concern for the potential harm to the institution of marriage or show respect for the role that marriage is supposed to play (procreation, again). Redefining the institution will change the institution. Blakenhorn, our expert, said if you changed the definition of a thing, it’s hard to imagine how it would have no impact on “the thing.” Others have acknowledged that change will result. [He quotes a few “experts” who believe gays marrying will change the institution.] Redefining will divorce the institution of marriage from it’s core procreative purpose. It is not possible to predict with certainty what that change will beget. It seems undeniable that change as profound as this one, would have some consequences. The plaintiffs think that the consequences will be positive; we respect that point of view, but it’s not something that they can possibly prove – and their own expert (quoting Cott now) agrees that we can’t predict. Andrew Churling, a sociologist and equal marriage supporter, also states that “predicting the future of marriage is risky business.” He cites as example the fact that no sociologist forecasted the baby boom during the Great Depression; no sociologist predicted the rise of co-habitation.

Let me say 3 words that I haven’t said that often. “I don’t know.” Jokingly, I wish I could have those words back. Because usually whatever your question is, “I damn sure know.” Courtroom laughs.

J: What about Blakenhorn’s testimony about the negative outcomes that will result if gays can marry?

C: Blakenhorn was giving voice to sentiment that the threat of harm to vital social institution is too daunting to run the risks of gratifying what would otherwise favor the advent of same-sex marriage. There are many who went to the polling place with that sentiment – that’s my speculation. There are millions of Americans who believe in equality for gays and lesbians, but draw the line at marriage. Their hearts are pure – as pure as the plaintiffs – but they still believe that this is profound…could be profound. It could portend some social consequences that would not be positive and that reality

C: No one can know what tomorrow will bring. If there is a legitimate and rational basis to be concerned about that, couldn’t be more rational for people of California to say wait. We want to see what happens in Mass. and here. Perhaps Mr. Olson and his client’s whose sentiments are powerful (he’s speaking very haltingly) will be able to convince their fellow Californians they are right.

J: A disability has been put on marriage. Do you not have to show that there is need, that it’s enough to impose on some citizens a restriction from which others do not suffer? Is it enough to say “I don’t know?”

C: Yes. In looking at what society’s interests are and interests in regulating and caring and about marriage, if there is no basis for drawing a distinction from one to another, the distinction can’t stand. But if there is s distinction, it must stand. It’s been our position from the outset that we do not have to prove that exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage is a problem; we only have to prove that inclusion of those people would erode marriage.

J: Would you wrap up?

C: Yes. (Pause) The California court (missed which one) goes to the heart of the matter. It is the proper role of the legislature to set priorities and make difficult and imperfect decisions and approaching problems incrementally.” That process is at work in this state and the county. As the court considers this, there is a debate about the morals, the practicalities and the wisdom that really goes to the nature of our culture. The constitution should allow that debate to go forward among the people. Thank you.

J: Thank you Mr, Cooper.

Three things you can do right now to help us get the truth out about the Prop 8 trial:

  1. “Like” us on Facebook: and
  2. Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial and @CourageCampaign
  3. Chip in what you can today at


  • 1. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 27, 2010 at 9:51 am

    I remember laughing so hard at all of the acrobatics and contortions of logic, reason, and truth Cooper had to commit in order to give these arguments with a straight face. If nothing else, the Prop H8 Proponents did provide a lot of laughter in this house simply by refusing to see the truth and just shut up.

  • 2. Ray in MA  |  December 27, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Yes!, part of what attracted me to this place was exposure to THIS comedy!.

    You can't make up these things!!!

  • 3. Mandi  |  December 27, 2010 at 10:29 am


  • 4. Ray in MA  |  December 27, 2010 at 10:35 am

    The World Turns during the P8TT crawl inthe Holiday Trenches…

    Why Fox News' Story On Gay Soldiers Living Under DADT Never Got Filed

  • 5. Sagesse  |  December 27, 2010 at 10:35 am

    He's dancing as fast as he can. He can't remember that Blankenhorn's only peer-reviewed paper was his labour economics thesis on nineteenth century carpenters, or some such thing…. sure.

  • 6. Ronnie  |  December 27, 2010 at 11:05 am

    "The plaintiffs think that the consequences will be positive; we respect that point of view, but it’s not something that they can possibly prove – and their own expert (quoting Cott now) agrees that we can’t predict. Andrew Churling, a sociologist and equal marriage supporter, also states that “predicting the future of marriage is risky business.” He cites as example the fact that no sociologist forecasted the baby boom during the Great Depression; no sociologist predicted the rise of co-habitation." ~ Cooper…….

    & yet the anti-gay/equality/freedom side seem to have no problem making their several ridiculous predictions & repeatedly stating that they are fact instead of just what they which they too can not prove..such as: "God will bring his wrath down on the entire world if America legalizes Marriage Equality at the federal level" know, because America, a 234 year old country, is "God's" country..while they ignore that "God" did not bring his/hers/its wrath down on any of the Countries that legalized fact..didn't the Volcano in Iceland settle down after they legalized it?..(a little wedding cake for thought)…of corse Cooper didn't use that in court, but we all know that is what NOM's sheeple believe…..

    Or how about this preposterous prediction from the anti-marriage equality side?: "If we allow 2men or 2women to get married, the human race would become extinct"….you know, because the human population has not reached the same level as Earth's various species of insect populations but does a million times more destruction & are a million times more deadly then any insect or any species of non-human Earth inhabitants for that matter…anyway, I digress…NOM & co are under the illogical & irrational delusion that heterosexuals are just going to magically stop procreating (do a shot) or in a sense maybe, somehow, possibly, sort've someday in the future there are not going to be enough heterosexuals to procreate w/each other because 2men or 2women can get married, start a family (either through adoption or surrogacy) & live happily ever after just like our heterosexual counter parts…excuse me while I laugh hysterically out loud at how mindless these anti-gay predictions are.. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!…. hahahahahahah…ROTFLMGAYAO at NOM & Co…."protect" marriage….hehehehehehe…yeah ok….bwaaaaaaaa!!!!!…hahahah…ha…HA!!…HAHAHA!!!…HA…um….ha…

    Ok I'm good now…The point is, Cooper really should not point fingers at "prediction" making since the predictions from the side he is representing are far more illogical & irrational then anything from our side. Meaning ours are based on reality, while their's are based on apocalyptic delusions that are similar to what Jim Jones used to get all of his sheeple to drink the Kool-aid…I'm just saying…..<3…Ronnie

  • 7. Mandi  |  December 27, 2010 at 11:05 am

    And click the box!

  • 8. Mandi  |  December 27, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Third time's the charm…

  • 9. Kate  |  December 28, 2010 at 12:26 am

    testing. just ignore.

  • 10. Kate  |  December 28, 2010 at 1:12 am

    Pat Robertson: Snow Is God’s Way of Punishing Americans Who Were Planning to Drive to Do Something Gay

  • 11. fiona64  |  December 28, 2010 at 1:28 am

    Every time I think that this man cannot possibly make himself more ridiculous, he manages to do so.


  • 12. Kate  |  December 28, 2010 at 1:30 am

    Indeed. I wish he would get more publicity, as did Jerry Falwell during his Tinky-Winky and 9/11 phases.

  • 13. Ed  |  December 28, 2010 at 2:02 am

    that can't be real….its gotta be a spoof, right?

  • 14. Ed  |  December 28, 2010 at 2:10 am

    cause i watched the broadcast, and pat wasn't on it……so i doubt the validity of this, but damn, i so wish it is true…..

  • 15. Kate  |  December 28, 2010 at 3:21 am

    True, Ed. It's also on the Huntington Post.

  • 16. Menergy  |  December 28, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    Andy Borowitz' "The Borowitz Report" is satire of the sharpest kind, aimed at anything and everything . This "report" about Pat Robertson is another example —

    Y'all should read Borowitz weekly! It's a hoot! And pokes fun at all the right people and situations….

    Happy Holidays to all! And have a fantastic New Year!

  • 17. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 29, 2010 at 1:06 am

    Yes, and just like the best satire, his aim is just so spot on! To be honest, I am truly surprised that this is only satire! It is just so Pat Robertson!

  • 18. Ronnie  |  December 28, 2010 at 2:05 am

    Wow….He really is just nothing but an uneducated, paranoid schizophrenic schlock… : / …..Ronnie

  • 19. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 29, 2010 at 12:25 am

    Maybe it was his own planned gay activities that got cancelled, and that is why he thinks it was a punishment from G-d. Actually, I think She just gave us the snow to get rid of the pesky summer bugs while they were still dormant, and to help alleviate some of the dry weather we have had in certain areas. And to give the snow bunnies something to play in.

  • 20. Sagesse  |  December 28, 2010 at 5:34 am

    I read it three times trying to decide if it's satire or real. Really funny, either way :).

  • 21. anonygrl  |  December 28, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Look at the other stuff this guy writes. It's a spoof. If someone else picked it up, points for this guy for getting his spoof out there.

  • 22. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 29, 2010 at 12:16 am

    Of course, Pat Robertson has long been known to be very many bubbles off plumb with regard to any semblance of sanity.
    This report will do nothing more than generate a whole slew of SNL and SCTV parodies, among others.

  • 23. Kate  |  December 28, 2010 at 3:22 am

    And he ran for President……

  • 24. Ann S.  |  December 28, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Late to the game.

    (::shakes fist in rage at makers of spyware::)

  • 25. Rhie  |  December 28, 2010 at 6:03 am


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