Tag: David Thompson
By Paul Hogarth
More of SF Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart’s redirect examination of Professor Chauncey.
C: In 2004, I had written optimistically that marriage equality was on the way … but since then, with the number of states passing constitutional amendments I am less inclined to believe this.
S: Mr. Thompson talked about religious organizations that supported marriage equality. What were some of the churches against marriage equality?
C: Baptists, Catholic Church — a whole range of religious groups that represent far more people than supportive churches.
S: [Quoting from a Vatican document re: recognition of same-sex unions.] Please read this:
C: [Reading Vatican statement] “There are no grounds to believe homosexual unions are equivalent to God’s plan to marriage and family. Homosexual unions” [more on how homosexuality is sinful and immoral]
S: Please read the Vatican statement re: allowing children (more…)
January 13, 2010
By Paul Hogarth
[UPDATE] 10:26: We’re back from a short intermission — so I’m starting a new thread.
Thompson: Quoting a California legislator (Jack O’Connell) who supports domestic partnerships, but has difficulty supporting gay marriage. “Marriage is too steeped in tradition …” Wasn’t it the opinion of LGBT groups in the 1990’s that supporting civil unions was an “equitable” position?
Chauncey: This was a time when marriage was seen as far too distant a prospect — given the opposition to it. So in this context, they would be grateful to have supported it.chrome://foxytunes-public/content/signatures/signature-button.png
Thompson now wants to show video of people who were beaten up for supporting Prop 8. SF Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart objects, because it is not relevant.
[Opponents of gay marriage love playing the victim. The irony of this is that during the Prop 8 campaign, “Yes on 8” folks tried to organize boycotts of businesses that gave money to “No on 8.” See: http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=6222 — Once the Election was over, nobody talks about this anymore. All we hear about is “Yes on 8” people being boycotted and persecuted for their beliefs, when the EXACT SAME THING happened to our side before the election.]
Judge allows Thompson to continue line of questioning on religious groups being “defaced” — but won’t let him show a video. (more…)
January 13, 2010
By Paul Hogarth
[UPDATE] 9:21 The last post was getting long, so I started a new one. Now, Thompson is going over statistics of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Thompson: “Courts used to be able to confine homosexuals based on their ‘pathology.’ That doesn’t happen anymore, correct?”
Chauncey: Yes
T: “California, Iowa and Connecticut have all granted the rights of gay couples to marry. Doesn’t this measure an increasing acceptance of homosexuality?”
C: “Not really. Those court decisions went against much of public opinion.”
At first, I was glad that Chauncey answered this question that way — to show we still have a long way to go. But again, it makes me nervous for the reason that courts are an inherently conservative institution. Chauncey has now just admitted that CA, IA and CT courts are more the exception than the rule when it comes to jurisprudence on the issue of marriage equality, “outliers” as a lawyer would say. Rarely — think Brown and Roe — do courts deviate from tradition and precedent when it comes to decisions. (more…)
January 13, 2010
By Paul Hogarth
Good morning! My name is Paul Hogarth, and I’m the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron (www.beyondchron.org). I’ll be your Courage Campaign live-blogger for the trial today. I’m in the overflow room of the Federal Building, literally the only place where you can watch it on video — thanks to the Supreme Court injunction. We’ll hear later today if the injunction is lifted, but for now I’ll do my best to brief you all on what’s goin’ on …
[UPDATE] 8:49 The Defense’s cross-examination of History Professor Chauncey continues, and they’re asking him about how much — as a historian — public opinion on same-sex marriage has changed in recent years. The fact that in 2000, Vermont Governor Howard Dean was denounced for supporting civil unions. Lotsa statsitics on polling data are being thrown about. The generational shift is noted — young people support it 4 times as much as their grandparents.
Thompson: “Spring 2004 was a decisive turning point in public opinion on gay marriage, correct? It’s hard to think of any group whose opinion has changed more quickly, correct?” (more…)
January 13, 2010
By Rick Jacobs
And we are back from the break…
Thompson (defense lawyer): Now, he’s going after gender classification and its role in marriage.
T: Now onto religion in marriage. He’s reading from her own writing, talking about Christian model of monogamy, from the time of the colonists. In the history of this country both the church and state have influence marriage via conscience. He’s reading from her writings about Jesus Christ standing for the “innovation” of Christian monogamy.
Professor Cott: Want to make it clear since you are repeating my words outside of context, that I am using monogamy as within Christian precepts.
Judge Walker: Pre-Christian societies did not require monogamy?
Prof: As far as I am aware, in the regions in which Christianity arose, relationships were not restricted to monogamy. Christianity introduced the single partner for life as the marital regime.
T: One tenet of Christian monogamy was between a man and woman? (more…)
January 12, 2010
By Rick Jacobs
The last thread was getting a bit long, so I am moving to a fresh one. Thank you for hanging in there while I was experiencing Internet connection issues earlier.
Thompson (lawyer for the defense) tries to say that Professor Nancy Cott is not a big defender of the institution of marriage.)
Throughout American history the government has been very interested in assuring dependent children are supported by family.
One of purposes of marriage is to provide for dependents and vulnerable. One of marriage’s purposes is to promote stability. One of purposes is to assure that children are raised by mother and father (She says no). Purpose to legitimate children (but less important now, she says.)
Laws of interracial marriage bans created illegitimate children. YES
Prof: 1667 law punished shameful matches between free white women and Negroes, intent was to penalize and criminalize marriages.
True that NY, PA, NJ have never had a law prohibiting interracial marriage.
I have to check this.
Fair to say never a uniform legal prohibition against marriage. (more…)
January 12, 2010
Next page
Previous page
