Prop 8 on trial: Plaintiffs' press conference (Video Sunday)

Lesbian albatrosses raise chick

Sometimes you just can't make it up:

A pair of female albatrosses in New Zealand are raising a chick, and you can suggest a name.


For more about the range of same sex behavior in nature, read the books Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl, and Evolution's Rainbow by Joan Roughgarden.

Grounds for Appeal?

Remember how the SCOTUS decided not to allow delayed broadcast of the Prop8 trial? This came after the judge had agreed that even if it WERE broadcast, any witness could request the cameras be turned off.

No matter, a number of the Defense witnesses pulled out, even though there was no broadcast allowed.

Now Maggie Gallagher claims that the trial was biased because their witnesses pulled out and it's all that mean judge's fault.

Is this their ground for appeal? That even though there were no broadcasts, the mere fact that broadcasts were possible, EVEN THOUGH anyone could avoid being broadcast, is enough to tilt the field?

Well, if the missing witnesses were anything like as good as the ones that DID testify for the defense, I'm sorry they didn't show. The defense witnesses they had were excellent....for the plaintiffs.

As reported in the Sacramento Bee,

Under cross-examination, Blankenhorn said he has not scientifically studied the impact of same-sex marriage on the institution of marriage in countries where it is now legal.

And he said that none of the work by scholars that he submitted to court has studied the impact either.

He also said he knew of no study showing that children raised by gay parents are worse off than children raised by their biological mothers and fathers.

During his wide-ranging testimony, Blankenhorn also said, "I believe homophobia is a real presence in our society" that "I deplore and wish would go away."

He said he now views domestic partnership as "part of a humane compromise" to the clash over gay marriage, although he admitted he had concerns that it might be discriminatory to confine gays to that type of legal union.

"It is discriminatory to call two things that are the same different names," Blankenhorn said. But he said he feels "satisfied" that domestic partnership is a good compromise.

Pretty good...for our side.

Next proposition: ban atheist marriage!

From the Pew Foundation, in a study on race, we find this morsel:

The survey finds that most Americans also are ready to accept intermarriage in their family if the new spouse is Hispanic or Asian. But there is one new spouse that most Americans would have trouble accepting into their families: someone who does not believe in God. Seven-in-ten people who are affiliated with a religion say they either would not accept such as marriage (27%) or be bothered before coming to accept it (42%).

To do the math for you, that means only 31% of Americans of faith are fine with having an atheist in the family. Compare this to the inter-racial issue, where 64% or whites are okay with a family member marrying a black, and 80% of blacks have no problem with a family member marrying a white. From a previous Pew study, 35% of Americans support same sex marriage (this drops to 21% for regular church goers, and rises to 67% for people without religious affiliation). I've graphed these numbers for you below.

So does this mean that we can expect a new proposition, banning marriage to atheists? Come on, isn't that the logical next step?

Prop8 on trial: the defense rests

The final witness for the Prop8 defenders was David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values. Compared to the discussion with the academics (even the ill-prepared Dr Miller), who attempted to review scholarly studies and opinions, Blankenhorn made sweeping statements that essentially say, "I believe it, that ends it". He is not an academic, and has no academic credentials in this area. His thesis is that the "deinstitutionalization" of marriage, which has occurred as it focuses more on adult desires, is bad for children: marriage's proper purpose is for licit sex and procreation. And, since gays can't procreate, same sex marriage is therefore going to "deinstitutionalize" straight marriage. (Never mind that straight marriage is doing fine, indeed better than elsewhere, in places like Massachusetts that have marriage equality. Why let data interfere with your argument?)

Now, I have debunked the procreation argument numerous times on my blog; it boils down to (1) there is no requirement for fecundity for straight people to marry (e.g., elderly, infertile, those who don't want kids can all tie the knot), so that can't be the purpose of legal marriage, and (2) GLBT families have kids, either their own from previous relationships, various assisted methods, or adopted, and without marriage, those kids are disadvantaged. Let's leave that for a minute.

Instead, let's focus on the statements made by this witness in response to the aggressive cross-examination by the expert David Boies. And these statements, remember, are made by a witness for the DEFENSE, who is trying to prove a legitimate state interest in denying marriage to GLBT people. From the AFER transcript, and the brilliant liveblogging at Prop8TrialTracker and FireDogLake:

Blankenhorn: The parenting process in the -- this loadstar notion that animates the marital institution is not the same that is operative in the domestic partnership institution......It is discriminatory and un- -- and morally wrong in my view, morally wrong to refuse to call two things that are the same by the same name.

Blakenhorn: insofar as we are a nation founded on this principle, we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before.

Q. Are you aware of any studies showing that children raised from birth by a gay or lesbian couple have worse outcomes than children raised from birth by two biological parents?
Blankenhorn. No, sir.

Blankenhorn: I believe that adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.

Q: First point you agreed with that ss marriage would improve the happiness of many G&L individuals, couples, and gay community members. Then you agreed that it would extend the benefits of marriage to couples and their children. Then you agreed that a higher proportion of ss couples would enter into committed relationships. Then you agreed that more would enter into long term relationships. Then you agreed that lesbians and (especially) gay men would be less promiscuous. Then you agreed that gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideal of tolerance. It would increase the number of those ‘accepted’ and would be a key expansion of the American idea.
Is that right?

Blankenhorn: Yes

Blankenhorn: CU and DP are comparable to marriage, they might blur the distinction [between marriage and marriage-like entities]

Here's one of the more surreal moments, in which Blankenhorn argues that polygamy does not violate the "rule of two"people in a marriage, as long as the marriages are performed sequentially.

Q: I want to pursue whether polygamous marriages are consistent with your so-called rule of two .... IF a man has five wives –
Blankenhorn: No he has five marriages, each is one man one woman


HIs other rules? Must be opposite sex (though he admits in some cultures same sex marrages have occurred) and must always involve sex (which left him a little flummoxed considering incarcerated prisoners who are denied conjugal rights).

The concluding cross:

Q: Marriage is always changing?
blankenhorn: I wrote those words
Q marriage has no single definition?
Blankhorn: I wrote those words too

Remember, this guy is on the side of the defense.

From here, the judge takes a week to review the case, the voluminous documents, videos, and transcripts. Then the attorneys come back for the closing statements.

As Ted Olson, one of our lead attorneys, said,

This is the game that they’re playing. They define marriage as a man and a woman. They call that the institution of marriage. So if you let a man marry a man and a woman marry a woman, it would de-institutionalize marriage. That is the same as saying you are deinstitutionalizing the right to vote when you let women have it. It’s a game. It’s a tautology. They’re saying, ‘this is the definition. You’re going to change the definition by allowing people access that don’t have it now, and that would change it so that people who currently have access won’t want it any more because it’s changed.’ This is all nonsense. They are not proving that. This is a syllogism that falls apart. The major premise, minor premise and conclusion are empty.

And all they have left is bias, ignorance, fear, and occasional hatred. As I've said before: show me one straight marriage harmed by my marriage to my wife. One family harmed by the protections we now also enjoy. One couple whose commitment to each other evaporated because of my vows to my wife.

So here's a deeper reflection. I think that while many Prop8 supporters are ignorant and fearful, the leadership is not. They are playing a longer game for which marriage equality is just one part. Spin aside, can they honestly look at the testimony from their side, the witnesses tied in knots, their awkward attorneys, and the smoking gun of the religious motivations, and truly believe they are right? Or (rather more frightening concept), do they not take it seriously because it doesn't matter, because they know, no matter how wrong they are, how unjust and unfair they are, they have it in the bag already?

Libertarian view of marriage equality

An op/ed from Robert Levy, the director of the Cato Institute ( a libertarian think tank):

To pass constitutional muster, racial discrimination had to survive "strict scrutiny" by the courts. Government had to demonstrate a compelling need for its regulations, show they would be effective and narrowly craft the rules so they didn't sweep more broadly than necessary. That same regime should apply when government discriminates based on gender preference.

No compelling reason has been proffered for sanctioning heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. Nor is a ban on gay marriage a close fit for attaining the goals cited by proponents of such bans. If the goal, for example, is to strengthen the institution of marriage, a more effective step might be to bar no-fault divorce and premarital cohabitation. If the goal is to ensure procreation, then infertile and aged couples should be precluded from marriage.

Of course Levy argues that marriage should have no role for the state, but as long as the state is involved, there is no justification to exclude GLBT people.

It's worth remembering that in one of the early hearings of the Prop8 Federal case, the proponents were unable to define a harm to straight families in marriage equality.

"What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?" Walker asked.

"My answer is, I don't know. I don't know," Cooper [counsel for the proponents] answered.

Exactly.

The libertarian Orange County Register agrees :

Our position is that the State, as an institution, has no right to decide who can enjoy the institution of marriage, which predates the State by millennia. The ideal situation would be one in which people who wish to marry and religious institutions were free to make their own decisions about whether to undertake the obligations of marriage and to bless such unions. However, since the government has decided to license marriages and to promulgate a series of legal privileges and obligations that are extended to married couples, we support the right of same-sex couples to marry (though we would never force a church that opposed same-sex marriage to solemnize such a union), and opposed Prop. 8.

DIvorce rates higher when gay marriage banned

From the über-pollsters at FiveThirtyEight:

Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period....

The differences are highly statistically significant. Nevertheless, they do not necessarily imply causation. The decision to ban same-sex marriage does not occur randomly throughout the states, but instead is strongly correlated with other factors, such as religiosity and political ideology, which we have made no attempt to account for. Nor do we know in which way the causal arrow might point. It could be that voters who have more marital problems of their own are more inclined to deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples.

There is, however, probably now enough data on this subject to engage in more sophisticated longitudinal studies on this subject (more sophisticated than I have engaged in here), which might produce more robust conclusions. Although only Massachusetts has affirmed gay marriage for any length of time, the difference between the states which have banned it constitutionally versus statutorily may be worth examining, as the former represents a significantly more confident assertion about the nature of state-sanctioned marriage. At the very least, I would be surprised if there were any statistical evidence that interpreting the right of marriage to apply to same-sex couples would be injurious to heterosexual couples in any material way.

Prop8 on trial: When is an "expert" not an "Expert"?

Monday update Two big things in the Prop8 trial today. First, the plaintiffs (=good guys) got several videos and documents into evidence about the views of the proponents. As reported in the NY TImes, one of these laid out the outrageous claims of equality opponents:

The video presentations included footage from “simulcasts” to church groups, in which pastors say that gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamy, marriage with children and bestiality.

“If Proposition 8 doesn’t pass we will see a domino effect and the social re-engineering of marriage will have a profound implication for every one of our lives,” said a man in the footage, in what appeared to be a live interview. He compared the potential failure of Prop 8 to the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attacks in New York, saying, “After 9/11 the world was a fundamentally different place.”

A woman added: “If sexual attraction was the basis for the definition of marriage then pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry 6-, 7-, 8-year olds. Then a man could marry a horse. Mothers and sons. Sisters and brothers.”
The purpose of entering these simulcasts as evidence is part of the plaintiff lawyers’ attempt to show that Proposition 8 violated the constitution because it was motivated by prejudice and resulted in discrimination against a politically vulnerable group.

When Christopher Dean Dusseault, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, tried to link the simulcasts with ProtectMarriage.com, the official campaign behind Proposition 8, Nicole Moss, a lawyer with the defense, acknowledged that the simulcasts were paid for by ProtectMarriage.com, but objected that they were relevant to the case.

Bias, much?

Then, Prof Kenneth Miller, of Claremont McKenna College, stepped forward today as an expert witness for the proponents of Prop8, especially on the initiative process. HIs purpose was to show that the GLBT community actually DOES have power, but, it didn't go so well. Apparently in his deposition, he showed a few gaps in his knowledge. In his testimony, he admtted the Prop8 attorney gave him documents to ... well, cram.

From the Prop8TrialTracker, an exchange with our attorney David Boies about initiatives and re-writing them:

M: In California, there is no opportunity to amend unless they pull it back.

B: How often has that happened in California?

M: Not infrequently.

B: When was last time?

M: I guess.

B: I’m not asking you to guess. I’m asking you to tell me the last time.

M: Many times it’s pulled back.

B: When was last time in CA that signatures were gathered and then proponents pulled back to make compromise?

M: Discussed in 2005 special, but did not happen.

B: Give me last time in California?

M: I can give you example in Colorado.

B: We’re talking about Ca. You wanted to talk about CA.

That's your expert on the intiiative pocess.

As the NY Times put it,

At one point, midway through an intensifying series of questions from Mr. Boies, Mr. Thompson, the defense lawyer, stood up to object that the questions had strayed beyond the scope of Dr. Miller’s expertise.
To the loudest laughter of the afternoon and a chuckle from Judge Walker, Mr. Boies responded wryly, “I think there is some merit to that objection.”

Prop8 trial trackergoes on,

But it really goes further than that. When an attorney puts on an “expert” who has so little background in the subject area, it tells the Court that this is a) the best they could find and b) probably the level of all of their witnesses. A bad expert can taint the whole case, the reputation of the attorneys, and the odds of winning. Combining the fact that they could only find two expert witnesses, the fact that this one did so poorly, and the fact that cross-examination did little to touch the plaintiff’s experts, the defense has a bit of work ahead of them.

Oh, I hope so!

Marriage Equality around the world (map)

From Worldfocus, a map of marriage quality around the world.

Courageous Conversations, 2 (video Sunday)

Guide to having a Courageous Conversation here

Coming out against H8

This is a picture from the NoH8 campaign that supports marriage equality. It uses celebrities to demonstrate their opposition to Prop8, and how their voices were not heard.

THis is the latest model. It's Cindy McCain, wife of AZ Senator and erstwhile presidential candidate John McCain. Mrs McCain is coming out against H8.

Prop8 on trial: the end of week 2

Thursday, examination of Dr Segura continued (it started Wednesday, described here.) The defense tried to show that because some famous people support gays, that the community has power. It also said that there are churches that support gays, so you cannot blame churches. The defense attorney also tried to claim that GLBT people were winning battles on adoption, etc, but had to be corrected/reminded of setbacks in Arkansas and Florida. He also ranged over claims of violence against prop8 proponents (although as the witness pointed out, reports that made no attempt to gather evidence of violence in the opposite direction are intellectually dishonest).

The redirect was very effective. Despite the defense's attempt to say that just as many faith groups were pro- as opposed to Prop8, it was brought forward that the groups opposed are very small and comparatively powerless. But here was the kicker (from the transcript)

So imagine for a moment that I was going to write an opinion that says gays and lesbians are powerful in the political system. So I go and I survey the world and I survey the literature and I say, Well, the FBI suggests that gays and lesbians are experiencing increasing levels of violence and represent 70 percent or more of the hate-inspired murders. Could I see that and still conclude that the group is powerful? Well, conceivably, because there are other factors.

Could I look at the circumstances around the country and say, Well, in 29 states gays and lesbians could still be dismissed without cause for their identity from their source of employment, that they enjoy no protections. Could I observe that and still conclude that the group was powerful? Well, possibly.

Could I observe that even small statutory protections designed to redress previous disadvantages have been challenged at the ballot box over 150 times, and gays and lesbians lose those more than 70 percent of the time, and still conclude that the group is powerful? Presumably.

Could I look at the enactment of statutory -- excuse me, constitutional exclusion and establishment as excluded from a civil institution as a citizen that is separate -- that is treated separately from all other citizens, and conclude that the group is powerful?

I could conceivably observe one or maybe two of those things and still decide that there's other evidence to suggest that the group is powerful. To observe all of those things and to conclude that gays and lesbians have the political power to protect their basic rights in the political system would be the political science equivalent of malpractice. I -- I couldn't possibly draw that conclusion.

Dr William Tam (Witness #12) testified on THursday. He sparred quite a bit with the attorney. Tam is a Prop8 proponent, who worked with the Protect Marriage group, and did outreach into the Chinese Evangelical community. He tried to withdraw from his role as a defendent intervenor (see my previous trial post, for a fuller description). Despite the defense's efforts to paint Tam as relatively separate from the main Prop8 group, it was very clear he was one of them. He's got the most biased, loony views imaginable. He stated that San Francisco is run by gays, that the "gay agenda" includes legal prostitution and sex with children. That marriage equality in other countries has led to legalization of sibling marriages and polygamy. He quotes actual lies, about gays abusing children, and about the nature of homosexuality--basically the most inflammatory stuff you can read on the internet, all of it disproven. HE considers NARTH (a discredited "reparative therapy" group) more reliable than the American Psychological association. And he buys into the whole "recruiting" notion: a direct quote,

Social moral decay, what it means -- what mean is if same-sex marriage is legal, it would encourage children to explore same sex as their future marriage partner.

Read more about Tam here.

Friday's witness #13, Dr Gregory Herek, testified on the nature of homosexuality, its scientific definition, and the current state of knowledge. The cross-examination was really hard to take, because the defense attorneys focused to agonizing degree on how the definition of homosexuality is somewhat fluid, how some people experience partners of both sexes (generally when coming to terms with their sexuality) and included a quote that said,

one could seriously doubt that sexual orientation is a serious concept at all.

They cherry picked quotations and even cited the writings of Freud! (ca. 1935) to make their case, and the witness kept coming back to context of the quotes nadthe studies.

Their plan is to show that homosexuality is completely mutable, a choice. If it isn't definable as a class, then it's not qualified for "suspect class" status, which is one of the two arguments our side is putting forward to justify equal protection. (Race is pretty complex too, but that qualifies.) The reasoning is a bit circular, because if gays don't exist, why would you have laws against them?

I know that for gay people listening (or rather, reading the live-blogs) this was incredible hard to take and hurtful, it's like they were trying to deny our very being. We know their job is to attack us, but this is horrible. The redirect tried to bring it back to accepted scientific principles that for MOST GLBT people, it's NOT a choice.

The concluding questions tried to bring it back:

Q: If two women want to marry, are they lesbians?

A: Yes

Q: If two men want to marry, are they gay men?

A: Yes

Meanwhile, NOM and others consider this trial just a stepping stone to carving their bigotry into supreme court precedent. At some level, they don't care if they lose.

And in Wyoming, an anti-bullying banner saying "No Place for Hate" is removed from schools because it was co-sponsored by a GLBT organization. (Remember, Wyoming is where Matthew Shepard was murdered). So I guess it is a place to hate, as long as you hate GLBT people. And at Notre Dame, the school paper publishes a cartoon making fun of gay bashing (read the comments to this article only if you have a strong stomach).


My summaries rely on the outstanding live-blogging and analysis from these sites, but any errors are my own.

• Prop8TrialTracker (Courage Campaign liveblog)
• FireDogLake (liveblog)
• LGBTPOV
• Pam's House blend/NCLR

Full trial transcripts are now available from AFER.

All my previous posts on this trial are here.

The crux of the matter: Prop8 trial

I'll have a proper update done tomorrow. But for right now: the final witness for the plaintiffs (our side) is currently being cross examined. The heart of that examination is to argue that being gay is not immutable, because some number of people have sexual partner of either sex. Are they gay, or straight? The defense apparently want to say that it's a problem if sexuality is fluid or changeable in any way. And that anyone who has had partners of different sexes isn't "really" GLBT (but by that logic, how can you say they are really hetero?)

If marriage is simply marriage, regardless of orientation, it makes NO difference what genders are involved. My wife was married to a man before coming out to herself in middle age. (This is not uncommon for many lesbians I know). Now she's married to a woman. Why is that a problem, if divorcing and marrying another man is not? The only problem is if you define marriage between women as something different between marriage between a man and a woman. That's the crux: we say marriage is marriage, and one definition is sufficent for both. They disagree.

But (paradoxically) the defense are trying to show that there is no such thing as gay people; that it's not a characteristic that is unchangeable, but it's a choice. And therefore, we aren't a legitimate minority (in legal parlance, a "suspect class") that would deserve the highest degree of protection for civil rights. Of course religion is definitely a choice, and that is protected.

This whole thing is making me sick.

What's worse: same sex marriage or marrying your cousin?

The answer may surprise you. Or not. (Hat tip, Joe.My.God)
Update: Data about which states allow cousins to marry here.

Lights! Camera! Prop8 Trial, the movie

A video producer is using the transcripts to make a film of the Prop8 trial. THe first episode will be available at Marriagetrial.com.

American Foundation for Equal Rights is releasing the transcripts.

WIth this, as well as the live blogging and tweeting, it is not possible to keep it secret, despite the proponents' attempts to hide what they said.

Action!

Prop8 on trial: the beginning of Week 2

The trial of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, addressing the constitutionality of Prop8, resumed on Tuesday, with some procedural issues about admission of documents. The plaintiffs (=Good Guys) want access to documents about the campaign, which is vigorously resisted by the Defendant-Intervenors (=Bad Guys).

Day 6 began with Expert Witness #8 San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, speaking about his conversion to a marriage advocate. Sanders' daughter is lesbian. But what's more notable is that he's a Republican, former police chief, and the heart of the establishment. He originally promised to veto a San Diego City Council resolution that favored marriage equality, but in an emotional press conference in 2008, changed his mind, much to the dismay of his base, and became an active campaigner against PropH8. He explained that he was shocked at how hurt his GLBT friends were when he told them civil unions were good enough, and that he had an epiphany:

"I could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people that they were unequal . . . I couldn't look them in the face and tell them their relationships were any less meaningful than the relationship I shared with my wife."

"It's not necessarily hate," he added, "but it is prejudice." And he repeated this over and over during cross.

Excellent witness. Great dad. You can read more at Rex Wockner's site here.

Expert Witness #9 Professor M.V. Lee Badgett of University of Massachusetts testified on the economic effect of marriage inequality. She described how couples are hurt financially if they can't marry, and showed that there is no negative effect to STRAIGHT couples if GLBT couples marry. She also showed that there is a negative effect to the state if people can't marry. Finally, she presented evidence that GLBT couples and straight couples are really indistinguishable in terms of demographics (and apparently also in terms of logos, see here).

On cross examination, the Prop8 side tried to poke holes in the argument by twisting numbers. For example, they claimed that there was a decrease in straight marriage and increase in out-of-wedlock children in the Netherlands once marriage equality occurred. ANy scientist will tell you that you cannot make a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument about causality without better data, but more telling, their contention was shown to be false, because they only looked at one time point. They ignored the long term trends prior to equality. (They have real trouble with science and quantitative data, these defense attorneys. It's of course characteristic of the social conservatives to ignore data that doesn't agree with them. But if the preponderance of data disagrees with your viewpoint, you don't get to cherry pick the one guy who agrees with you and ignore the 99 who don't).

Day 7, the witnesses were Witness #10 Ryan Kendall, who testified movingly about his parents' reaction when he came out--his mother told him she wished he had been aborted, despite her Evangelical Christian views-- and their insistence he participate in "reparative therapy" and the damage it did. (Can you imagine what it must mean to a boy to be told by his mother she wishes he had never been born?) The Prop8 supporters want to argue that being gay is a choice, and not an immutable characteristic, and therefore not eligible for protection. They tried to keep the witness off the stand because they didn't want to discuss "forced conversion".

The main part of the day was spent with Expert Witness #11 Stanford University Professor Gary M. Segura, who testifed that GLBT remain strikingly unpopular politically and socially. Among the important quotes:

"There is no group in American society that has been targeted with ballot initiatives more than gays and lesbians."

Not to mention losing 70% the ballot box.

"Gays and lesbians are not able to protect their interests because they do not possess meaningful political power."

"I think President Obama is perhaps the best illustration of an ally who cannot be counted upon, an ally whose rhetoric far exceeds his actions."

So much for the fierce advocate for change. Remember there are no federal protections: no federal non-discrimination (ENDA), no repeals of DADT(don't ask don't tell), no repeals of DOMA (defense of marriage).

Professor Segura pointed out that anti-GLBT hate crimes are on the rise, citing data showing that in 2008, 71% of hate-motivated murders were against GLBT people. And then he quoted the outrageous and hateful remarks of opposition politicians.

"When two US senators compare gay marriage to bestiality, that is not the fringe, that is the US senate."

He also showed that in 29 states there is no protection, no non-discrimination policy that protects GLBT people, and of course, no federal protections. Finally he made the point that using initiatives to target GLBT people is a cynical ploy to inflame the base and support conservative candidates and measures.

There were some bombshells. In a discussion about the Prop8 campaign, and the array of forces supporting it, some documents came out from the campaign revealing just how deeply entwined the Catholic church and Mormon church are in this. The defense tried to keep these documents out, claiming that because they were written by religious people, their views were protected and private. The plaintiffs countered that if you share a letter or a view with 3000 people in a phone conference on a political issue, it's not private.

There were documents thanking the Conference of Catholic Bishops for their "unprecedented" support of this campaign. You know how we said that the Catholics and the Mormons were in bed together on this one? One pro-Prop8 document main funding to put 8 on the ballot was from Auxiliary Bishop Corleone of San Diego’s efforts amongst Catholics (he's now in Oakland).

From the Courage Campaign

This is perhaps the most explosive bit of all, from a document between the LDS Church and the campaign:

With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved.

Get that? The LDS Church intentionally worked to hide behind the scenes to disguise their involvement in the public realm.

From the AP

Other evidence presented by the plaintiffs Wednesday provided new details confirming reports from the 2008 campaign that Catholic and Mormon church leaders were heavily involved in promoting Proposition 8, directing money, volunteers and advisers to the effort.....

"This campaign is entirely under (Mormon) priesthood direction in concert with leaders of many other faiths and community groups," read an e-mail from Mark Jansson, the church's representative to the executive committee that oversaw the Yes on 8 campaign.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., a lawyer for the couples, told Walker the documents were significant because the Mormon and Catholic churches tried to downplay their roles in the campaign. Segura testified that having two powerful religious groups form an alliance against gay rights was a big asset for gay marriage opponents and "unprecedented, in my experience."

(My emphasis). Prof Segura also said

We might look at religious belief as source of opposition and think that some folks would vote their religious conscience, but we would not know that this sort of direct church power is engaged. I have never seen this level of coordination in a political campaign.

The fact that the opposing churches are much larger than those in favor of equality was also mentioned. They are pussyfooting around the religion issue to some degree, and did not bring up the question of why the political process should favor one religion's views over another.

As the Courage Campaign summarized,

Basically, Thompson went through every possible event, election, legislation, or judicial decision that could possibly be construed as a victory for the LGBT community and asked Dr. Segura whether he felt that represented political power for the community. Dr. Segura pointed out, time after time, that you have to view each victory in context, each election in context. For example, Annise Parker, the newly elected Mayor of Houston, is an out lesbian. However, she does not get benefits for her partner, and says that she will not take the lead on them. Furthermore, Parker lives in a state with no protections for LGBT employees, and little, if any, protections whatsoever for the community.

Now, let's talk for a moment about the pro-Prop8 witnesses on the calendar for the defense. One feature of this trial is that the video tapes made when the witnesses were deposed can be admitted into evidence. (Depositions are taken under oath). As I mentioned before, several of the defense witnesses have withdrawn, ostensibly because the trial is being taped (even though not broadcast). THe defense claims they are afraid for their safety. Our side suspects it's more likely because the depositions show that those witnesses aren't so hot-- for the defense! They got two depositions admitted and it looks like the defense should work for the plaintiffs.

Paul Nathanson PhD and Katherine Young PhD between them agreed that (in the summary by AFER)

“equal marriage would increase family stability, improve the lives of children, and that gay men and lesbians have faced a long history of discrimination including violence. They also acknowledge broad scientific and professional consensus in favor of equal marriage.”

Dr Young also noted that with separation of church and state, this kind of religious persecution shouldn't be allowed.

You can see their depositions yourself here. I have to say, why would the defense even suggest these witnesses? Didn't they actually ask them any questions before putting them on the list? It sounds like a failure in due diligence on the part of the defense to have their own witnesses so readily "turned" to the other side.

Day 8 will continue the cross examination of Prof Segura. Other plaintiff witnesses to be called are Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. a Professor of Psychology who will testify about the nature of sexual orientation, and how medical professionals view it as a normal variant. But we are all looking forward to the testimony of Mr William Tam. Tam's the one who wanted to withdraw from the case, which he had joined voluntarily as a defendant intervenor.

Just to remind you, although the"offical" defendants of the case are Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, neither of them are willing to defend it. (Brown agrees it is unconsituttional). So a bunch of prop8 supporters "intervened" to defend Prop8, hence the term "defendant intervenor". Tam, a vocal supporter and organizer of the Pro-Prop8 campaign, is one of them. He claimed he wanted to withdraw because he feared for his safety, but since he's been a public face of the campaign, this is not really plausible. It's more likely to be because he wants to hide his views. ( His deposition says that the gay agenda was founded in 1972 to support sex with children. ) They may also call Ron Prentice, a minister and leader of the campaign, to authenticate newly provided documents. The plaintiffs should finish their side of the case Thurs or Friday. Then the Defendants step up to justify their bias.

My summaries rely on the outstanding live-blogging and analysis from these sites, but any errors are my own.

• Prop8TrialTracker (Courage Campaign liveblog)
• FireDogLake (liveblog)
• LGBTPOV
• Pam's House blend/NCLR

Full trial transcripts are now available from AFER.

All my previous posts on this trial are here.

Indiana proposes amendment to ban marriage AND civil unions

Because it's not just about marriage. It's about bias, pure and simple. From Bilerico:

This morning the Indiana State Senate Judiciary Committee passed SJR-13, the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions. The legislation passed on a vote of 6-4 party line vote with one Senator out of the chamber at the time of the vote.

The amendment is now eligible for a full vote on the Senate floor where it's expected to pass handily. The Indiana State Senate has an overwhelming majority of Republicans.

The amendment would still have to pass the Indiana State House of Representatives before it could move on to the next stage needed on the way to a public referendum, The amendment is expected to fail in that chamber. Democrats hold the majority in the Indiana House.

A conservative case for marriage equality

From Ted Olson, counsel for the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, writing in Newsweek

:Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but hardly all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the state's support and benefits. The California Supreme Court described marriage as a "union unreservedly approved and favored by the community." Where the state has accorded official sanction to a relationship and provided special benefits to those who enter into that relationship, our courts have insisted that withholding that status requires powerful justifications and may not be arbitrarily denied.
....
The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships and embrace the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and become full and equal members of our society.....

When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.
...
Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.

It's not just Olson who has seen the light, so to speak. Fox News commentator Margaret Hoover writes,

Mr. Olson thinks constitutionally guaranteed rights ought to transcend left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican divides (he even recruited legal opponent David Boies as co-counsel). I agree with him. And as a proud Republican representing a younger generation of conservatives that cherish individual freedom, I am honored to join the American Equal Right’s Foundation’s Advisory Board.

I encourage everyone, but especially Republicans, to consider Mr. Olson’s arguments on the merits, both in his opening statement and throughout the trial’s ensuing three weeks. The plaintiff’s counsel seeks to convince Judge Vaughn R. Walker that the Supreme Court has already decided in Loving v. Virginia, Turner v. Safely, and in Lawrence v. Texas among others, that the right to marry is a fundamental right currently denied to an entire class of American citizens. This is unconstitutional.

We Republicans have often found ourselves on the wrong side of civil rights struggles since the 1960s, but there was a reason that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s father is said to have supported Republicans.

Republicans were historically the party ever-expanding freedom to disenfranchised minorities, from newly liberated slaves to giving women the right to vote. Susan B. Anthony was a Republican. By supporting the AFER trial we have an opportunity to establish our historic credibility on civil rights issues once again. But we should support marriage equality because it is the right thing to do.....

If you are uncomfortable with gay marriage, I encourage you to pay attention to this trial, the plaintiffs, the defense and the spectrum of experts, historians, psychologists, economists, political scientists, who will testify as to the effects and detriment of Proposition 8. In the words of NAACP chairman Julian Bond, “The humanity of all Americans is diminished when any group is denied rights granted to others.”

Civil unions in Hawai'i? insights into the Prop8 case (really)

A large part of the Prop8 case relies on whether or not California's domestic partnerships (the Californian version of civil unions) are equal to marriage. The Bad Guys say they are, so we don't need marriage as an option. The Good Guys say separate is never equal. So, you might interpret this as meaning that the Bad Guys are okay with civil unions/domestic partnerships, and it's just the M-word that they care about.

Not so fast. As I've blogged here previously, the Bad Guys are only in favor of civil unions when they are trying to keep us from getting married. When it's a choice between civil unions and nothing, they want us to have nothing. Let's be very clear about that. We've seen over and over again that they fight vigorously against civil unions too.

In Hawai'i, there is a bill coming up on civil unions that is likely to get a vote very soon.

The measure would grant gay couples the rights and benefits the state provides to married couples and is among a handful of similar proposals that could pop up in several other states.....

In Hawaii, the measure would expand the state's existing reciprocal beneficiaries law by granting to unmarried same- and opposite-gender couples all of the rights and benefits the state provides to married couples. It is similar to broad civil union or domestic partnership laws in California, the District of Columbia, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and New Jersey.
.....
Honolulu Catholic Bishop Larry Silva in a letter last week urged some 220,000 parishioners to lobby lawmakers. He called civil unions "simply a euphemism" for gay marriage and claimed it is justifiable to discriminate against gay couples who want to marry.

The Bishop makes his antipathy and bias very clear. I hope that the forces of fairness and equality SPEAK OUT in Hawai'i and counter the bigotry and opposition with vigor.

And despite the Prop8 proponents arguing that the presence of an unequal DP law in CA makes marriage unnecessary, don't believe for an instant that they wouldn't eliminate that if they could. Their attacks against our very personhood, which are being exposed in the trial, make it very clear. It's not just about marriage. It never has been. It's about any recognition of our families and our right to live freely and openly.

SCOTUS and equality opponents: the courage of conviction?

As the Federal Prop8 trial (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) enters its second week, we are all relying heavily on the live-bloggers and tweeters to keep us informed, given that the SCOTUS agreed with the Defendant-Intervenors (the Bad Guys) and banned broadcast of the trial.

This decision was based ostensibly on the fear of the Prop8 proponents that their witnesses would be harassed, threatened and injured if people knew who they are. Because you KNOW how much violence there has been, right? Right? Yes, not so much. Despite the endless claims of roving bands of homos beating up on people, there is a paucity of evidence that anything dangerous has actually happened-- even though donor lists pro- and con- Prop8 were public in CA. Sure, there have been a few boycotts, but that tactic goes both ways.

In fact, in the aftermath of Prop8, its supporters made numerous unsubstantiated claims of violence. They accused the marriage equality supporters of terrorism --they even compared us to Al Qaeda for daring to march and claim the right of free speech! Let's not forget this.

And these experts and proponents of Prop8 who are reputedly so fearful, were certainly unafraid to be seen on camera during the run-up to the election, when you couldn't escape from them. Perhaps more telling is that, despite banning the broadcast, the Prop8 supporters' fearful witnesses have still retreated. It seems more likely that their withdrawal has something to do with the fact that their bias may actually be exposed-- see for example William Tam, who attempted to withdraw as a defendant-intervenor. His issue may be less about safety, than privacy, as noted by the Box Turtle Bulletin

I do not like the burden of complying with discovery requests. I do not like people questioning me on my private personal beliefs.

Of course he had no such qualms about sharing those beliefs to deny GLBT people of equal rights for months and years. (He also thinks the "gay agenda" is based on sex with children and was founded in Chicago in 1972. I am looking forward to his examination by the Olson / Boies team.)

Or perhaps it has something to do with the cross-examination of the expert witnesses, because some of them apparently don't look so good in the deposition tapes where they had to backtrack on their testimony.

In the end, these experts might end up blowing up in the defense’s face. If Boies and team is able to show what he claims, that their testimony was without basis, the experts have opened themselves to charges of perjury. Removing the possibility that the defense team knew about the baselessness of the depositions, because such a circumstance would be an egregious violation of professional responsibility, this also has huge implications for the case. If the defense experts admitted that there is no basis to say there is harm to straight marriages, that point becomes a big longshot to recover for the defense.

This embarrassment tends to happen when you are wrong, or careless, or somewhat ....stingy with the truth.

Both the LA Times and NY Times Op Ed pages decried the SCOTUS decision to hide the case. From the LA Times:

"Reasonable minds," the majority wrote, can differ over televised court proceedings. Fair enough, but some significant number of them also will be troubled by the five justices' blanket adoption of the assertion that televising the testimony of expert witnesses called to defend Proposition 8 -- including those being paid -- would create "irreparable harm" by exposing them to embarrassment and "harassment." If you accept that, you're on a path whose logical conclusion is secret testimony. It's easy enough to excerpt trial transcripts and post them on the Web. Doesn't that "expose" witnesses in any socially or politically divisive case to potential harassment? Television may accelerate the process, but the way text and photographs ricochet around the Internet these days, it's just a matter of degree -- and a rapidly diminishing one at that.

Moreover, as Justice Stephen G. Breyer pointed out in a 10-page dissent, in this particular case the witnesses "are all experts or advocates who have either already appeared on television or Internet broadcasts, already toured the state advocating a 'yes' vote on Proposition 8." What is there about these proceedings that will make them more vulnerable to reprisals than they already are?

That brings us squarely to the majority's troubling subtextual suggestion that there is something uniquely threatening -- even sinister -- about the activities of gays and lesbians advocating marriage equality. It's true that a tiny handful of activists on the movement's fringe have behaved outrageously toward opponents of same-sex marriage, but that criticism can't be made against the plaintiffs in this case. They've simply sought vindication of their rights through the courts, the very definition of law-abiding.

The Courage Campaign reminds of what's at stake in this:

The legal system exists precisely to counteract those kinds of situations, to provide those who have had their rights attacked or taken away the ability to confront those who have done so and take back their rights. And that in turn is precisely why ProtectMarriage.com wants to undermine the legal system in order to undermine marriage. If they can’t win fairly, then they’ll try to undermine the systems and institutions that ensure fairness.

Secret courtrooms and hidden testimony are antithetical to our principles of justice. And for an issue discussed almost exclusively in superficial media soundbites and advertising hyperbole, it is particularly disheartening to have hidden from public view the reasoned discussion of evidence in a courtroom that actually relies on facts and data, not lies and misinformation.

There's now another SCOTUS case, this one not just a request for an injunction, but a full-blown case, that the Court has agreed to hear, called John Doe vs. Reed. You may recall in Washington state last year the referendum on civil unions, in which the voters only narrowly approved generous partnership benefits. (The campaign against Referendum 71 provides yet another example of how the argument isn't about marriage, it's about ANY recognition of our families).

Washington has a law that releases the names of people who sign petitions to put referenda on the ballot. The proponents of discrimination want their names hidden, and in the case John Doe vs Reed, ask the SCOTUS to allow them to do so. From Pam's House Blend, a discussion of this case which asks the Court to

a. Declare Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.070 unconstitutional to the extent that it requires the Secretary of State to make the Referendum 71 petition, or any petition related to the definition or [sic] marriage or the rights and responsibilities that should be accorded to same-sex couples, submitted to the Secretary of State's office available to the public;

b. Enjoin Defendants from making the Referendum 71 petition, or any petition related to the definition or [sic] marriage or the rights and responsibilities that should be accorded to same-sex couples, available to the public pursuant to the Public Records Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.001 et seq., or otherwise;....

ONLY for this issue, note. They are seeking to cover up ONLY the opponents to marriage equality and civil unions. Unlike NOM, which is trying to overturn completely the campaign transparency law in Maine, the Washington folks want protection specifically, and ONLY, for petitioners involving same sex marriage or civil unions.

The irony is noted by the NY Times Opinionator :

Has anyone noticed that now that lesbians and gay men have left the closet to assert their equal rights as citizens, their adversaries seem to be running for a closet of their own?

But the Opinionator comments, more disturbingly,

A question now is whether the opponents of same-sex marriage can plausibly claim, as their court papers have sought to do, that they face threats to their lives and property comparable to those faced by civil rights workers in the Deep South in the 1950s and 1960s.

Did you catch that? Let's make this clear. The opponents of marriage equality (AND civil unions) are claiming the mantle of honor for themselves, and as they strip the rights away from a persecuted GLBT community, they have the utter audacity to compare themselves to freedom marchers in the Civil Rights movement.

It is gob-smacking: those hiding under the hoods are pretending to be forces for justice. And it is even more outrageous if the courts let them get away with it.

David LInk at the conservative Independent Gay Forum writes,

People who believe they are right should be willing to own the morality of their cause, even when that means taking very real, sometimes severe risks such as going to jail, or even being killed — neither of which anyone opposed to gay equality can truthfully claim. That’s what lesbians and gay men have had to do to get where we are. Perhaps that’s harsh, but I’m having a very hard time seeing how name-calling really counts as a similar sort of abuse, or how risking some loss of government funds equates with actual peril in a way that would justify refusing to air arguments in a public forum like a court of law.

And Firedoglake chimes in, remarking upon the hypocrisy of the conservative viewpoint:

Sure, harassment is fine and dandy when you’re the one brandishing firearms and shouting down congresspeople at townhalls, or yelling at women going into family planning clinics, but when there’s even the slightest chance that someone might call you a bigot, well, that’s just as bad as the KKK killing Freedom Riders.

It’s a truly amazing lack of perspective. Gays are persecuted, discriminated against, bullied, beaten, raped, and murdered; many of them feel they have to conceal the very essence of who they are to fit in and be safe. Gay marriage opponents? The worst that’ll happen to them is that they’ll get picketed or insulted, or get the cold shoulder from residents of the 21st century. But apparently the risk of facing intolerance of one’s own intolerance is too steep a price to pay for defending The Most Important Institution Evar.

Many of these people who want to hide under a hood claim to be Christians (which insults the many, many Christian faith groups who support fairness and inclusivity.) Perhaps it is time for them to actually READ the Bible that they thump so passionately:

And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.’
John 3:19-21

LA Times Op/Ed: It's none of your business!

The LA TImes nails it:

...Same-sex couples shouldn't have to prove that their marriages would be as "normal" as those of heterosexuals or meet some kind of artificial bar....

This strikes at the heart of what's wrong with denying marital status to gay and lesbian couples. Somehow, society -- and in this case, a federal judge -- are being put in the position of deciding whether these unions are "good enough" to earn the legal and social status of marriage. We don't judge these issues for heterosexual marriages.
.....
The public as a whole might not look favorably on all.... marriages, but it does not try to deny others the right to form such unions. It's gay and lesbian couples who are singled out for this. Only in a hearing on same-sex marriage would we hear arguments judging whether a relationship between two adults is loving and committed enough to gain legal and social standing -- evidence on its own that homosexuals, who have long faced unreasoned hatred and abuse in many forms, are being singled out for the withholding of this basic societal right.

Read the whole thing!

Quote of the Day

"How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality ..."

- Martin Luther King Jr.

Prop8 on trial: the end of week 1

(See my earlier posts here and here for the beginning of the case). On Thursday (Day 4), we moved on with the case.

Expert Witness # 4: Edmund Egan, the chief economist in the Office of the Controller for the City of San Francisco. Stated that marriage inequality costs the city. Not only in loss of revenue from weddings, but also health insurance, and taxes. Cross tried to disprove this, nitpicking over numbers, and made the breathless claim that if fewer straights marry, might negate the effect.

Seems to me it would be pretty easy to get the numbers from MA about rates of marriage pre- and post-equality.

Expert Witness #5 Prof Ilan Meyer, Columbia, a social psychologist testifying about the harm of "minority stress", and the negative effects on GLBT people of always having to hide who they are, of making that snap decision about coming out. Do you mention you have a wife, not a husband, when carrying out the minutiae of everyday life? Do you guard pronouns? I think every GLBT person saw themselves in this testimony, I know reading it I wanted to say "That's it!" The cross appeared to try to state that DPs make it all better. This Quote from his testimony is pretty good:

“Young children do not aspire to be domestic partners; most young people desire and have a respected goal of attaining marriage…

Domestic partnerships do not have the same social meaning as marriage. I don’t know if it has any social meaning at all. It has legal value, but that’s not what I talk about with stigma.

Prop. 8 sends a message that it’s very highly valued by our constitution to reject gay people.”

Expert Witness #6: They spent a lot of time with this one: Prof Michael Lamb of Cambridge University on parenting. THis witness focused on evidence that GLBT parents have well adjusted and healthy children, not really different than straight parents. The cross focused on papers of the witness from 30 years ago stressing the importance of a father. THe witness returned that science and data have disproven earlier work, which led to a discussion of when science is wrong.

The subtext of the Pro8 side being, if you were wrong before, why aren't you wrong now? And that all science is based on politics. And then, the Prop8 attorney argued, since men can't breast feed, and women (on average) make less than men....you need one of each. WTF?!?! Lamb pointed out that the Prop8 side were selectively citing out of date literature. The livebloggers commented that this was like the Scopes monkey trial, where science was on trial.

In any case, sure, data say that 2 hetero parents are better than one, when you compare a married couple to a single parent. The Prop8 side are trying to say that means 2 hetero parents are better, period. What has this to do with GLBT parents raising children? First, the fact is we ARE already raising children, regardless. And despite the opposition's best efforts to claim otherwise, studies say that our kids are doing just fine, thanks.

Second, if married couples are better off for kids welfare, then isn't it better if we are married?

With all this to-and-fro-ing you would think this proposition was about gay adoption.

Oh, and then he finishes up the cross with saying the kids are doing okay without marriage, so marriage doesn't matter! Wow. No consistency at all. Update, Margaret Talbot of the New Yorker also is shaking her head at this.


In the middle of this, the Prop8 defenders say their witnesses are withdrawing because they don't want to be recorded because they are afraid. After hearing how GLBT people are attacked violently? Some nerve! Perhaps instead they don't want to be associated with a band of biased luddites with indefensible anti-intellectual views. OR maybe they don't want to be cross-examined by Boies et al and made to look foolish. Since they withdrew AFTER the SCOTUS issued a stay, preventing broadcast, it does seem a little odd. But they claim that even a private recording is problematic. Maybe they'd like to stop the stenographer, too. I'm sure they'd like to stop the tweeters and livebloggers.

Expert Witness #7: Helen Zia, author. She's testifying as a married lesbian. The Prop8 defenders say that's of "limited relevance". Hmmmm...

Her testimony is painfully familiar:

“I feel constantly aware that my sexual orientation could for whatever reason provoke violence toward me or my loved ones. As I walk through life, especially when with my wife, I feel very aware of whether we hold hands in public, show affection. ....Even in my own neighborhood I feel fear.....“Prop. 8 messages were that I am an abomination, that my relationship to Leah is wrong. When we were out on street on Oakland working to get no votes, people would come up to me and say, excuse my language Your Honor, “you fucking dyke.” ....“Said essentially we are so offensive, we are not worthy of same rights of every hetero to be married, that we’d end human race. What do you do when someone is going to end human race, harm your children, what do you want to do? You want to stamp them out. It all made me feel endangered.

So while the Other Guys bleat that they are endangered, because of graffiti on a sign, let's remember who are the victims of violence. Again, quoting LGBTPOV (go to that link for the citations):

In LA County, for instance, hate crimes generally dropped 4% but they increased against LGBT people, prompted in part by Prop 8. According to the LA County Commission on Human Relations, there were 134 sexual-orientation hate crimes reported in 2008, up from 111 in 2007 – and were more likely to be violent than hate crimes motivated by race or religion.
In Santa Clara County, violent crimes against gays and lesbians accounted for more than half of the hate crimes last year – a huge leap from the 15% reported in 2007, the San Jose Mercury News reported last March.
Deputy District Attorney Jay Boyarsky said:

“My belief from having done this work for many years is that surges in types of hate incidents are linked to the headlines and controversies of the day.  Marriage equality and Proposition 8 have been in the news, and we have seen an increase in gay-bashing.”

So, who is REALLY injured by this case?

Tuesday, the plaintiffs' case (our side) continues.

Ted and David with Rachel (video Sunday)

The Prop8 trial attorneys with Rachel Maddow

Marriage in Buenos Aires & Portugal

Argentina As I told you last month, a gay couple who won the right to marry in Buenos Aires had their marriage blocked at the last minute.

Good news! The governor of Tierra Del Fuego allowed them to marry.

Alejandro Freyre, 39, and Jose Maria Di Bello, 41, tied the knot in a civil ceremony in the southern city of Ushuaia, in Tierra del Fuego province.....provincial governor Fabiana Rios..... gave the two men a special dispensation.

She said in a statement that gay marriage was "an important advance in human rights and social inclusion".

However Bishop Juan Carlos, of the southern Argentine city of Rio Gallegos, called the marriage "an attack against the survival of the human species".

The Catholic church is increasingly out of touch on this, don't you think? And it doesn't escape most people that the ranks of the hierarchy are replete with closeted gay men. (PHotos of the event here.)

Portugal: From the AFP:

Catholic Portugal, traditionally one of Europe's most socially conservative countries, is expected to approve the legalisation of gay marriage on Friday with a minimum of fuss. [Update: it did pass.]

With the governing Socialists and other left-wing parties enjoying a strong majority, the new law is likely to sail through the first reading debate and gain final approval before a visit by Pope Benedict XVI, due in Portugal in May.
....

If the gay marriage proposals do pass through parliament, they will the have to go through a parliamentary commission before coming back for the final approval.

According to media reports, both the government and the Catholic Church wants the gay marriage issue to be resolved before the visit of the pope, scheduled for May 11-14.

Prop 8 trial: from tears to laughter

Who is the audience for Prop8? THis excellent article from Daily Kos argues that the focus is on one person, and one person only: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote. It was Kennedy who authored the overturn of the bigoted Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans, and who wrote the sweeping decision of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 (seems so long ago now) but has in other cases sided with the conservative cabal.

In the comments to that post, DKossack ivorybill says,

I think in many ways this particular Supreme Court case will be a tragedy - I cannot find it in me to feel the same intense distaste for Kennedy that I feel toward the other four.  Despite their erudition and quick wit, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts are small cruel men.  In another century and on another continent, they would be constructing the legal argument to burn gay men at the stake.  I fear Kennedy may feel enough uncertainty and discomfort to step back from granting marriage equality - but the decision to do so will haunt him and damage his legacy.  Marriage equality is coming, it's just a question of whether this turns into a Plessy v Fergussen decision and another decade or two, or whether we bite the bullet now and move ahead with the inevitable trajectory expanding rights, rather than restricting them.    

For some background, Here's a list of 10 court cases that changed the GLBT movement.


Meanwhile, on a lighter note, have you visited the Prop8TrialTracker, the site run by the Courage Campaign? They have a logo that spoofs the Yes-on-8 logo, which is a cheeky thumb to the nose.

Seems Yes-on-8 folks are peeved and has sent a cease-and-desist. The Courage Campaign has responded,

Your letter threatening legal action and demanding a response in two days is a clear attempt to abuse intellectual property laws to stifle our client’s freedom of speech, particularly as no one is likely to confuse Courage Campaign with ProtectMarriage.com merely because of our client’s parody of your client’s logo. .....While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is “substantially indistinguishable” from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect.....You conceded over the phone that bloggers and online commentators noted the changes from man to woman and are making fun of your client, demonstrating that the public notices the difference and gets the joke.

Sometimes it's best just to ignore it when you are being made fun of, you know? Lest you just make yourself look even sillier.

For some sharper humor, check out this Fiore cartoon.

Hiding under the rock: NOM and campaign financing in Maine

You know what lives in the dark, under rocks and bridges, right?

The bad guys continually try to hide who they are and where the money comes from, amidst unsubstantiated claims of threats ad violence. (Let's face it, they have had great success telling lies in both CA Prop8 and ME Question 1 campaigns). Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate continues to shine a bright light on these people.

But this takes the cake. Now Maggie Gallagher and her band of NOMmers are trying to overturn campaign finance transparency laws in Maine, in order to cover up the money.

As commented in the Bangor Daily News Editorial,

In October, NOM filed suit in federal court claiming Maine’s referendum campaign finance reporting requirements were overly burdensome and, therefore, unconstitutional..... If its challenge is upheld, it would leave a big hole in the state’s reporting requirements and its Clean Election financing program, which relies on candidates’ reporting of donations to determine whether matching funds are warranted.

The group, based in New Jersey....has refused to disclose to state election officials where its money came from....

The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices is investigating whether NOM violated state campaign finance laws by refusing to name its donors in connection with Question 1 on the Nov. 3 ballot.

Attorneys for the group have argued that listing donors would discourage contributions because people would be afraid of retaliation.

Gay marriage is an emotional issue, but citing fear as a reason to flout the law is an unpersuasive argument, especially when thousands of donors are named — complete with their home or businesses addresses and occupations — on campaign finance reporting forms filed by groups on both sides of Question 1....

A close look at the group’s fundraising literature will clarify whether it was raising money for the Yes on 1 campaign in Maine. If it was, reporting is necessary, as it should also be for other national groups that contribute to Maine campaigns....

The bottom line is that Maine voters should be able to know who is trying to influence their vote.

Shine the light on the donors. Tell the truth.

DC Court rejects attempt to put marriage equality on the ballot

From the WaPo:

A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage opponents do not have a right to hold a public referendum on whether those marriages should be legal in the District.

The ruling, a major victory for gay rights activists, makes it more likely that the District will start allowing same-sex couples to marry in March.

The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics has twice ruled that a referendum or initiative on same-sex marriage would violate a city law prohibiting a public vote on a matter covered by the Human Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination against gay men and lesbians and other minority groups.....

In her ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso stated the board "properly rejected the proposed initiative" because of the Human Rights Act....

City leaders say that, barring intervention from Congress, marriage licenses will be available to same-sex couples around the first week of March.

Day 3-4 of Prop8 trial: what's happened so far

The Good Guys continue to lay out their case. The Bad Guys continue to focus on children and procreation and scapegoating Teh Evil Gays.

First witnesses were the plaintiffs: Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, who have 4 kids, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarillo. The defense only cross-examined Katami, trying to get him to admit that the parents have legitimate reasons to fear marriage equality. Katamii doesn't have kids, why didn't they ask Perry? perhaps they didn't want to highlight the fact that GLBT couples have kids too. It's hard to read the testimony of these people without tears. They are so loving and so vulnerable.

Expert Witness 1, Professor Nancy Cott of Harvard, an expert on marriage, explained that the concept of marriage continues to evolve, and particiularly noted how it changed with changed gender roles, and women's independence. She feels that marriage equality will strengthen the institution.

Expert Witness 2, Professor George Chauncey of Yale, an expert on GLBT history, gave an overview of the discrimination and prejudice against GLBT people. This led to a somewhat surreal moment where the defense attorney in cross examination claimed that because the film Brokeback Mountain got awards, there is no more discrimination against GLBT people. Then he read a list of faith groups that support marriage equality. I think the goal is to claim that GLBT people are not discriminated against any more (um, then what are you defending?).

The re-direct examination of Prof Chauncey exposed some of the really vile lies told in the campaign. The deposition of WIlliam Tam (he who tried to withdraw) was important here, and they showed the video. From the SF Chronicle:

Tam, who organized rallies and raised money for the measure, sent a letter to Prop. 8 supporters during the campaign warning that if same-sex marriage remained legal, "other states would fall into Satan's hand."

San Francisco's government, already "under the rule of homosexuals," would move next to legalize sex with children and prostitution, Tam said.

In his deposition, Tam said he was also concerned that "every child can grow up thinking whether he would marry John or Jane."

Tam also was quoted as saying he believes there is a homosexual agenda, and it started in Chicago in 1972.

Wow.

Expert Witness #3 is on the stand: Prof Anne Peplau of UCLA, a social psychologist who studies couples and relationships. She stated that there is no real difference in GLBT and straight couples and that marriage improves both types of relationships. Pushed by the defense during cross, she admitted there is one difference: no unintended pregnancies with GLBT folks. The defense here really tried to focus on gay men being promiscuous by nature--relying on data from 25 years ago. (In addition, I don't know why someone doesn't point out that without marriage, straight men would probably be promiscuous too.)

The final note is that the Supreme Court decided (5 to 4, usual suspects) NOT to allow cameras in the courtroom. The NY Times nails them in an Op/Ed Discrimination on trial, not on TV. Because remember, this way the bad guys can keep hidden shocking evidence like William Tam's lies and paranoia, or the awful, awful things they say about us....and they can keep hidden the scary normality of people like Kristin Perry.

Following the Prop8 case

I've written extensively about this case.

Also:
Follow on twitter:

• From the Advocate
• From Bilerico
• Hashtag #prop8

Follow live blogs:

• Prop8 Trial Tracker
• Firedoglake

Other info:

• Lawdork
• Pam's house blend
• LGBTPOV
• Proposition 8 and the right to marry
• Gay Couples Law Blog

Day 1, now Day 2 of the Prop8 trial

Here we go again: Gay on Trial. Can you imagine how dehumanizing and hurtful this feels, straight people, for others to once AGAIN debate the most personal and intimate and tender aspects of our lives to decide if we are sufficiently human to deserve civil rights?

Based on the first day, we can see the trends.
1) THe defendants will focus on the role of marriage in the procreation of children (theChildren Question). It seems to me this can be challenged in several ways, principally:

• We do not restrict marriage to fertile people, and nor do we require married people to reproduce. Therefore, marriage is uncoupled from procreation.
• GLBT families are raising children, often their own biological children from former relationships, or from IVF, or adopted and fostered children. Therefore the status of marriage protects OUR kids too. or are they not worth protecting?

2) The defendants will focus on whether the presence of married gay people will affect what children are taught in schools (the education question). I would challenge this by saying

• What children are taught in schools is the reality around them. There are already GLBT parents with kids in schools, just like there are single parents, divorced parents, or inter-racial parents. Whether or not we are married doesn't change the fact we are already present and children are ALREADY taught that.
• Parents must already deal with the challenge of families and relationships they may religiously disapprove, for example, Catholics must contend with divorced/remarried families, or unwed parents.
• You don't get to teach bias in schools. THey needn't approve to tolerate and coexist. That is the requirementof a pluralistic society.

3) The defendants will focus on being GLBT is immutable--if it's not, they will argue against "suspect class" status, as for race. I respond thus:

• Whether it is changeable for some does not affect the reality that it is not changeable for all. Sexuality is on a gradient, that's well established. Along these lines, when did your average straight person choose to be straight, and why on EARTH would gay people choose to belong to a villified despise minority?
• Religion is a choice. We do not allow discrimination on the basis of religion; we do not prevent Jews or Wiccans or Hindus from marrying just because they are a small minority.

4) The defendants will argue that if you let gay people marry, straight people won't, and how can you PROVE no harm?

• You can't prove a negative, of course, and a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument is fallacious --it attempts to establish causality by coincidence. There is good evidence that marriage rates are declining in Europe regardless of marriage equality. But why let quantitative analysis get in the way of breathless hyperbole.

The bad guys are already saying the judge is prejudiced, that he has made up his mind, and that they can't get a fair trial. They are also accusing him of being gay himself. The mud they are flinging is quite remarkable.

I feel sick to be back on this merry go round again listening to the same vile lies and bigotry again. Let's face it, the two sides are talking past each other. There is no common ground: either you believe I'm a full citizen, entitled to the love and respect of any other, or you don't.