Box Turtle Bulletin

ENDA Sit-ins Result in Arrests in DC and San Francisco

DC Sit-in (Omar Clarke, GetEqual.org, via Pam's House Blend)

In Washington, DC, eight activists arrived for a meeting with the staff of House speaker Nancy Pelosi, demanding that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) be brought to a vote. They then barred the doors and staged a classic, old-fashioned sit-in augmented with modern-day Tweets. After about four hours, police were able to get into the offices and arrest four lesbians for unlawful entry. They were taken to DC Central Cellblock — the same location where Daniel Choi  and Jim Pietrangelo were taken following his arrest at the White House —  and released without bail. Their court date is April 6. Choi and Pietrangelo were held overnight.

While the protest in Pelosi’s DC office was taking place, another seven or eight protesters occupied her district office in San Francisco. Arrests also took place there. Both events were coordinated by GetEqual.org.

Not So Ex-Gay “Ex-Gay Leader” Closes Shop

Matthew C. Manning

Last summer, Ex-Gay Watch’s David Roberts published a very carefully resourced investigation into the three arrests of Matthew C. Manning, who runs a California-based ex-gay ministry known as Lighthouse World Evangelism. Manning had been charged in 1998, 2000, and in 2005 with complaints of soliciting other males for sexual encounters in public parks and other venues. He was not convicted in the first two cases but the 2005 episode, in which Manning pleaded “no contest,” includes an order to stay away from Santa Rosa-area 24 Hour Fitness locations for one year.

Roberts’ investigative journalism is truly remarkable, and he has repeated that careful attention to detail in today’s carefully researched follow-up to that story. The very day after Ex-Gay Watch’s investigative report appeared online last June, Manning petitioned the California courts to have his 2005 conviction expunged from the record, a move that California law provides for in some cases. That petition was granted in August. Since then, Manning tried to re-establish his ministry in San Francisco, but now Manning claims that a revelation from God has told him to close up shop.

Manning had made a big splash in the ex-gay world in 2002 when he appeared on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, claiming to have been “delivered” from homosexuality in 1989, and miraculously healed from full-blown AIDS in 1994. The extraordinary claim of a miraculous healing has never been documented. As Roberts points out, Manning also spoke alongside other illustrious ex-gay leaders such as Exodus President Alan Chambers, former ex-gay spokesman John Paulk, and Focus on the Family ex-gay speaker Mike Haley. He now appears focused on arguing with the heart-wrenching blog of a mother whose two sons fell under Manning’s influence.

Tom Campbell responds to “two peas in a pod” ad

Today the National Organization for Marriage released an ad attacking California GOP Senate candidate Tom Campbell. They said that his views on income taxes, gas taxes, and (gasp) gay marriage are no different from those of “liberal Barbera Boxer”.

Campbell’s team is crying, “No fair”

Campbell spokesman James Fisfis said the campaign is more upset that the ad compares Campbell to Boxer on taxes. He says the two are worlds apart on that issue.

Gotta love that answer.

Randy Thomasson: “no such thing as gay”

I love anti-gay activist Randy Thomasson. He makes our work so much easier and he is always worth a chuckle. Remember when the campaign for Proposition 8 called him “extreme” and sued him to make him go away?

Thomasson, currently of SaveCalifornia.com, always has opinions. So, of course, he has some thoughts about newly-out-but-still-anti-gay drunk-driver Roy Ashburn. Not surprisingly, Ashburn is now a bad bad man. But that’s not all, he’s also mistaken.

Now he’s completely “out.” Monday morning on the radio, Republican State Senator Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield said “I’m gay.”

But Roy Ashburn is mistaken. No one is “gay” because the so-called “gay gene” does not exist.

Oh, Thomasson, you funny fellow. Without a gay folk to battle (for donations, of course) you’d starve to death.

I’m guessing that the “amusingly irrational gene” exists in your family in abundance.

CA State GOP Rep Comes Out, Defends Anti-Gay Record

California State Sen. Roy Ashburn, the conservative Republican who was arrested last week for driving while intoxicated after having left a Sacramento gay bar, came out as gay today on a Bakersfield radio station talk show. Asburn, who has a solidly anti-gay voting record however, continued to defend his record:

“I am gay. Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long. It is something that is personal, and I don’t believe I felt with my heart that being gay would affect how I do my job,” Ashburn said.

…Radio talk show host Inga Barks wanted assurances that Ashburn would continue to vote in a conservative manner on LGBT rights issues. Ashburn responded, “I believe firmly that my responsibility is to my constituents. I will take a careful look at each measure and apply that standard. How would they vote on this? How would they want me to vote on this,” adding that most people understood what that means.

Commemorating the Anniversary of an Ex-Gay Conference In Uganda

It was exactly one year ago today when three American anti-gay activists stepped before a small crowd attending a conference in the posh Triangle Hotel in downtown Kampala, Uganda. Exodus International will, err, commemorate that anniversary by holding a “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in San Diego, in order to peddle the same junk science they helped to bring to Uganda twelve months ago.

But there will be a better commemoration of that date across town, at St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral. I’ll be there, along with former Exodus alumnus Michael Bussee, Truth Wins Out founder Wayne Besen, Straight Spouse Network founder Dr Amity Pierce Buxton, Director of the LGBT Rights Division of Human Rights Watch Scott Long, and many others. And if you’re in the San Diego area, we invite you to join us:

On Saturday, March 6, 2010, a one-day event will be held at St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral in San Diego. The 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. which will confront and challenge the “ex- gay movement” – a national movement to “convert” gay and lesbian people to heterosexuality through purported “reparative” therapy efforts. To help educate people about the truth of such claims, and the legacy of harm they leave behind, a day-long conference will be held to expose and counteract this movement.

…Morning sessions, to be held in the Great Hall of the cathedral, will feature authors, psychologists and experts in the field. These will focus on the genesis and subsequent history of the ex-gay movement, the nature of and harm done by reparative therapy, the impact of both on the struggle for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and the ex-gay movement’s connection to the looming human rights disaster in Uganda.

It was on March 5, 2009 when we watched in horror as Exodus International boardmember Don Schmierer and a relatively unknown International Healing Foundation unlicensed “counselor” Caleb Lee Brundidge joined forces with perhaps one of the most notorious anti-gay extremist, Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively. We had no idea what the fruits of that conference would be, but knowing full well the reigns of terror that the Ugandan gay community had suffered in the very recent past, we feared the worst.

But our fears for the worst turned out to be a gross underestimation of what would actually happen as a result of that conference. The “Nuclear Bomb” that Scott Lively and his cohorts delivered that day would leave a devastating fallout: public outings of gay men and women in the press, arrests at at least one suspicious death believed to be at the hands of police, and general threats of mob violence. And all of this culminated in the tabling of the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill before Uganda’s Parliament, a bill that calls for the death sentence of gay people under certain circumstances (a penalty which could conceivably be extended to include just about anyone due to the bill’s sloppy language), and the virtual criminalization of anyone who knows or comes in contact with gay people.

A year later, the “nuclear bomb” delivered by American ex-gay activists continues to spread its toxic fallout in that troubled land. We stand committed to confronting that very same danger here. If any moment can crystallize the dangers that the ex-gay movement can so callously and carelessly deliver to an unsuspecting population, this is it. And today is the day to commemorate it.

St. Paul’s Cathedral is located at 2728 6th Ave in San Diego. Just Love will take place on Saturday, March 6, from 9:00 to 5:00. I look forward to seeing you there.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Another Anti-Gay Lawmaker Outed

Roy Ashburn's booking photo from the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department.

California state Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-18), whose rural district surrounding Bakersfield represents the state’s heartland of social conservatism, is married, a father of four, and proud of his consistently anti-gay positions. He was also seen late last night at Faces, a gay bar in Sacramento, just before he was arrested for DUI. There was another man in the car with him at the time of his arrest. And for most of that — he hasn’t acknowledged his presence at Faces yet — he is deeply, deeply sorry.

KOVR Channel 13 in Sacramento is perhaps the only mainstream media (at least that I’ve found so far) reporting on the gay angle and tying it to the other man who was present in Ashburn’s car when Ashburn was arrested. I don’t know if it was intentional or not, but Democratic strategist Steve Mavigio said that Ashburn should “come out” and “apologize to his constituents and the people of California for what he’s done.”

Nearly half of all Americans live where there is some recognition of same-sex couples

About 5.1% of Americans (15.5 million) live in areas in which same-sex marriages are legal and equal to opposite-sex marriages: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia.

Another 58.4 million (19.2%) live in states which have either civil unions or domestic partnerships that offer all the rights and protections of marriage without the name: California, New Jersey, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington. To that we can add two more states (New York and Maryland) in which the local state government will honor marriage occurring elsewhere and we have a total of 32.6% of Americans living with the rights and responsibilities of marriage available to their family.

There are also five states which recognize same-sex couples and offer them limited itemized rights. They are Hawaii, Colorado, Wisconsin, Maine, and Rhode Island and they add an additional 14.2 million Americans (4.7%).

But recognition does not stop there. There are dozens more counties and cities who provide what local recognition and benefits as they can, adding another 14.2 million local residents (4.7% of Americans) who can appreciate that their city officials see them as a couple. Local municipalities include the populations of Salt Lake City, UT; Phoeniz AZ; Tuscon AZ; Duluth, MN; Minneapolis, MN; St. Paul, MN; Lawrence, KS; Columbia, MO; Kansas City, MO; St. Lewis, MO; Ann Arbor, MI; Cook County, IL (Chicago); Urbana, IL; Cleveland, OH; Cleveland Heights, OH; Toledo, OH; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Harrisburg, PA; El Paso, TX; Travis County, TX (Austin); Eureka Springs, AK; New Orleans, LA; Carrboro, NC; Chapel Hill, NC; Clarke County, GA (Athens); Fulton County, GA (Atlanta); Broward County, FL (Fort Lauderdale); Key West, FL; Miami-Dade County, FL; and West Palm Beach, FL.

In total about 140 million Americans – about 46% of the nation’s population – live where there is some form of official notice of same-sex couples. So NOM can proclaim “victory” when they have an election in California or Maine, but this ball is rolling and the momentum is in the direction of recognition.

Vandalized LGBT Center Vows To Keep Anti-Gay Graffiti

A vandalized LGBT center at the University of California at Davis has vowed to keep the graffiti as reminder that as a reminder that intolerance still exists.

The anti-gay vandalism follows other anti-Semitic and racially-motivated hate incidents on campus. A Jewish student found a swastika carved into her dorm room door late last week, and several racially-charged incidents were prompted by an off-campus party that mocked African-Americans with urban stereotypes.

UC Davis officials are planning a town hall meeting in response to the events.

CA Gay “Cure” Mandate Targeted

Hidden in the recesses of California’s massive Welfare and Institutions Code is a 1967 provision that charges the department of Mental Health with the task of conducting research on “the causes and cures of homosexuality.” While it appears the department has not been following the provision (if they ever did), California assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal has introduced a bill to remove it from the books.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day nine summary

Thanks to Courage Campaign and FireDogLake

On stand today is Dr. Greg Herek, a leading authority on the psychology of sexual orientation. Herek will discuss three opinions:

• Nature of sexual orientation and how it is understood in sociology and psychology
• The immutability of sexual orientation
• Stigma and prejudice against gays and lesbians and how that intersects with Proposition 8

First Herek clarified that there are three different ways of observing sexual orientation: behavior, attraction, and identity. Because their focus is on STDs, health professionals use behavior. But when psychologist study discrimination, they focus on identity, since that is how people are singled out for prejudice. They measure in terms of relationships and attachments as these are a core part of human behavior.

Herek testified that the APA has considered reparative therapy many times, most recently in 2009, and found it ineffective. Further, there was anecdotal evidence that such efforts may cause harm.

Herek discussed how structural stigma give permission to discriminate against and to mistreat gay people. He presented studies that showed that gay people believe they had no choice of very little choice in their orientation.

In cross-examination, Neilson, attorney for Prop 8, distinguishes between social identity and personal identity (ie some persons may not want to identify with the gay community). Neilson tried to break the assertion that sexual orientation can be a distinct category by suggesting that different measures get different collections of people. Herek testified that there are small numbers of people for whom that might be true (ie those who have same-sex behavior but don’t call themselves “gay”), but that for most, the population is the same.

This is a very important aspect of the trial as this is where the Prop 8 supporters seek to attack one of the four qualifications for being a suspect class: the group is a discrete or insular minority. If a group is not a class, then they cannot be a suspect class. (However, while I’m not an attorney I seem to recall that Romer v. Evans established that gay people are a class – or rather Amendment 2 set them as a class and the SCOTUS didn’t disagree. This establishment of a class of people was, I believe, reinforced in Lawrence v. Texas).

In one fascinating interplay, Neilson tried to get Herek to agree with a statement from one of Lee Badgett’s books that there’s a “heated debate” over the definition of sexual orientation. Neilson kept asking and Herek kept saying that he’s not read the book and doesn’t know what she meant by that sentence. The Prop 8 supporters kept trying to enter the whole book based on questions asked to Herek even though they did not ask Badgett about her own book. This appears on the surface to be an exercise in deception.

He continued quite a bit in that vein, pulling a sentence from a book and demanding to know if Herek found it “unreasonable” (obviously going for the idea that it is “reasonable” that there’s no definition of homosexuality). Herek kept consistent, insisting that studies have different goals and thus different measurement criteria but that does not mean that we have no understanding of how to define sexual orientation: “It could be understood as an ongoing pattern of attraction, sexual behavior, or self-identification.”

Neilson is also very fond of old sources, the older the better. His quotes tend to come from books or articles from the 80s, and even include Kinsey’s research in the 50s.

One of Neilson’s gotchas is that most people who engage in same-sex behavior before 18 do not identify as gay. Thus “only 24 percent of men fit in all three categories” (attraction, behavior, and identity). He showed Venn diagrams. But Herek illustrated that those who identify as gay experience both behavior and attraction and that other measures are so vague that they can be meaningless (e.g. would having sex with another woman be “somewhat appealing”?)

(At one point in the afternoon Neilson may have erred in discussing social construction (the way that culture defines how people view reality). He and Herek got in a bit of a debate about whether it was appropriate to see sexual orientation and race only as social constructs and without merit as definitions. Neilson allowed sexual orientation to be equated with race.

Yet we know, without quibbling or arguing or looking for exceptions at the fringe, that most people can be clearly identified by race. Only a fool or a bigot would argue that discrimination against Aretha Franklin cannot be illegal because we can’t define her race.)

Next Neilson, the Pro-8 attorney, sought to attack the fixed nature of orientation. To prove that sexual orientation is mutable, they pointed out all of the gay people who used to be heterosexually married. (While that might work well in a high-school debate class, I doubt anyone really believes that this proves that gays can become straight).

Herek did agree that women’s sexuality can be fluid and change over time. But he pointed out that the much-touted studies that showed mutation in orientation of women was between the “bisexual” and the “no identity” categories and reflected change in labeling, not attraction.

Neilson pointed out that many of those who identify as gay have had heterosexual intercourse. (Shocking!! Surely, oh surely no gay folk here have ever had heterosexual intercourse at some point in their life!! Meh.)

Next the discussion revolved around the ex-gay studies. First was Dr. Spitzer’s sad little telephone survey. Then Freud’s 1935 letter. But he didn’t want to talk about Exodus, it seems.

Then much of the afternoon was spent trying to prove that women’s orientations are whimsy, undefinable, and due to education.

In redirect, Detmer walked Herek back over the very very lengthy cross-examination to see if it changed any of his views. It did not.

Herek pointed out that all of the pro-8 discussion was about those persons who fall on the edges, the exceptions. He reiterated that other groups (like race and ethnicity) have difficulty with definitions.

Herek reiterated that most gay and lesbian people are consistent within their orientation and that very few indicated any choice in the matter. And then Detmer brought the whole argument back into perspective:

Detmer: If two women want to marry, are they lesbians?
Herek: Yes
Detmer: If two men want to marry, are they gay men?
Herek: Yes

On Monday morning the plaintiffs will show ninety minutes of video and then the Prop 8 proponents will begin their testimony.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day eight summary

Thanks to Courage Campaign and FireDogLake

Cross-examination of Professor Gary Segura continued.

The result was evidence that many politicians opposed Proposition 8; that some churches supported marriage equality but that they were in the minority. Established a very strong correlation between those who believe in Biblical literalism and those who supported Proposition 8.

Thompson provided evidence that many gay groups supported domestic partnerships and hailed their passage. Segura agreed but pointed out that this was not in contrast to marriage but rather in contrast to nothing at all.

(The Prop 8 side seems to be encouraging testimony that shows that religion was the reason many voted for the proposition. I’m not sure where they are going with this other than perhaps arguing that religion, as a suspect class, is entitled to discriminate? Or that religion is by definition not animus?)

Thompson brought up the “violent” reaction after Prop 8 passed. (For the record, there was very little violence, “vandalism” seemed to be limited to spray paint, and “intimidation” seemed to consist mostly of boycotts of those who funded Prop 8 but sought gay or gay supportive customers for their business ventures.)

Judge Walker asked an interesting question. He asked whether there were times in which violence did not result in reduced support but rather in increased support. Segura said that happened when it was perceived as acts of desperation by an otherwise powerless group. However, he hesitated to make that leap.

Then Thompson brought up everyone’s favorite Mormon boycott victim, Marji of El Coyote. He referred to Steve Lopez’ column which claimed that police in riot gear were there. (For the record, that is not true. I was there, police were there, Steve Lopez was not. But they were NOT in riot gear and the ONLY interaction they had with the crowd – other than friendly chatting – was to direct people out of the street if they got too far.) Thompson is seeking to argue that the public rejected marriage equality because they heard media reports (or anti-gay exaggerations) about gays behaving badly after the vote. He tried to suggest that any lack of political power that gay people may have was due to a handful of incidences of bad behavior.

In redirect, Theodore Boutrous showed how boycotting is a tool that is employed by the otherwise powerless. He showed how it has a long history in our country and was used by colonialists colonists and by African Americans in the South during civil rights efforts. Segura noted that bad acts were not limited to the gay side but that vandalism and theft of signs also occurred on the pro-8 side. Such behavior, while counterproductive, does not influence many voters.

Because Thompson had brought up after-the-vote events, video, and articles, this opened the door for the ookie-spookie “Gathering Storm” video created by National Organization for Marriage. While it is preposterous and ridiculous, it is a good example of the effort by anti-gays to demonize gay people and portray them as a threat. Segura says that this reinforces disparity in power.

Segura finished by saying that any individual vote or political gain by gay people can be held up as an indication that gays have political power, he has to look at the broader scope of all bills and conclude that gays are indeed unable lacking in influence. To do otherwise would be malpractice.

Next up to the stand is Hak-Shing William “Bill” Tam, as a hostile witness. He is one of the five proponents of Proposition 8 who tried to drop out of the case.

After having previously petitioned the court as a deeply involved party, Mr. Tam now tried to downplay his connection to ProtectMarriage.com. (Frankly, his reluctance to answer honestly – even when the answer is obvious – does not credit his position.) Boies was able to show that Tam was involved with the Proposition 8 campaign since 2007 and before the proposition itself was written.

Tam testified that he believes that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia and that gays are 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals and that gays want to legalize sex with children. Boies had to drag every admission from him. It was nasty.

Tam testified that he said that homosexuality is mutable based on what he had read at about Dr. Francis Collins on the NARTH website that “homosexuality is not hardwired” and has no genetic basis. (I hope that the plaintiffs have read Dr. Throckmorton’s website where he confirms that Dr. Collins said no such thing.) Tam said he never tried to find out what the APA says because NARTH is a better source.

Tam seemed to have consistently undermined his own integrity. In one example, Boies asked him about a rally and Tam tried to downplay his involvement. Then Boies showed documents proving that Tam was the one who brought in Ron Prentise as a speaker and was one of the two press contacts for the rally.

Boies also cleverly got Tam to show that his objection to gay marriage was really an objection to anything gay, supporting Prop 8 would oppose social moral decay including polygamy and incest. He testified that after the Netherlands legalized same sex marriage they legalized polygamy and incest. He testified that after Sweden passed Civil Unions, they allowed siblings to marry.

Boies showed that Tam was ready to believe and repeat anything negative about gay people, no matter how bizarre or heinous. Also, Tam says that he supports domestic partnerships, but it’s pretty clear that this is just a talking point and that he really opposes anything positive for gay people.

Tam testified that his statements were not representative of the campaign and that “Mr. White” called and asked him not to make them. (Based on Tam’s earlier, umm, mistaken testimony which had to be corrected by documents which proved him to have, umm, misspoken, I doubt the veracity of that claim).

Boies pretty much illustrated that everything that was coming out of Tam’s mouth was contrary to evidence. Tam claimed that the campaign was unaware of his OneManOneWoman website in an effort to separate the outrageous claims on the website from the motivations of the campaign.

Boies: Let\’s do more than infer, let\’s look at that August 22, 2008 memo from Mr Schubert\’s firm. What did Schubert\’s firm do again?
Tam: He ran the campaign.
…
Boies: Now look at the last page? Third bullet? Read that please?
Tam: “A website is up, OneManOneWoman.com”

In redirect, Moss tried to show that Tam was insignificant, a rogue, someone who did not clear his messaging with anyone or have his fliers approved.

(There was moment when Tam said he didn’t recognize the voices on the conference calls because English isn’t his first language and they all sound the same. Yikes.)

In redirect, Boies showed that contrary to his claim about being involved only in the “petition phase” and not the “campaign phase”, Tam could be proven to be involved a few days before the election.

Boies concluded the day by reminding Tam of the time in which Asian Americans could not marry the person they loved. He asked if Tam would have felt aggrieved. Yes, Tam said that he would have. Sad.

Hak-Shing Tam To Be Called As Hostile Witness

Expect some dramatic fireworks today at the Prop 8 trial:

A proponent of California’s same-sex marriage ban who warned that gay rights activists would try to legalize sex with children if Proposition 8 did not pass is expected to be called as a hostile witness Thursday for two same-sex couples suing to overturn the measure.

Lawyers for the couples said they planned to call San Francisco resident Hak-Shing William Tam to testify even though he has asked to be dismissed as a defendant in the case, the first in a federal court to examine if state bans on same-sex marriage illegally discriminate against gay Americans.

Part of the case by lawyers seeking to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage is being built on the fact that the proponents of Prop 8 acted out of malice toward gay people. Tam had been an intervenor-defendant in the case but dropped out last week because he didn’t like being subjected to the discovery process. No wonder, because attorneys discovered written statements saying that “other states would fall into Satan’s hands” if same-sex marriage weren’t halted in California. With Tam on the stand today, I’m sure that other similar statements will come to light.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day seven summary

Thanks to Courage Campaign and FireDogLake

Today the ex-gay movement was on trial. This may seem like it is a long way from the question of marriage, but in reality it sits at the heart of whether anti-gay discrimination is legal.

Olson and Boies are trying to convince the court that gays and lesbians are a “suspect class”. If so, then any laws that distinguish by orientation and discriminate against gays and lesbians would be subject to strict scrutiny (ie the presumption is that such laws are illegal).

The considerations that generally go into whether a group of people are a “suspect class” are:

• Is the group a “discrete” or “insular” minority?
• Do they possess an immutable trait (except in the case of religion)?
• Is there a history of discrimination?
• Are they powerless to protect themselves via the political process?

For this reason we have heard the defense try and argue that, unlike race, sexual orientation is hard to define (so is race, actually). They’ve attempted to show that gay people are politically powerful and that discrimination against gay people is all a thing of the past.

But the plaintiffs’ testimony has been pretty solid in confirming that gays and lesbians are a discrete minority with a history of discrimination and they lack the ability to achieve equality and protection though the political process. Today their focus was to show that sexual orientation is an immutable trait.

The day started with the defense (the Prop 8 guys) adding four witnesses to their list:

• Mr. Criswell – this is probably Bill Criswell, a principal in Criswell Associates, the firm that produced the Prop 8 ads.
• Mr. Wirthlin – Joseph Wirthlin is the Mormon in Massachusetts who sued when his son Joey was read the book King and King in second grade. The Wirthlins, along with David Parker (another darling of the MassResistance hate group), sued the school claiming that it was attempting to indoctrinate their children about an “immoral lifestyle.” They lost, and the US Supreme Court chose not to grant a writ. They were featured in at least on Prop 8 ad.
• Richard Peterson – this is likely be one of two people: either the Richard Peterson who was fired from Hewlett-Packard after he posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality at work, or Pepperdine’s professor Richard M. Peterson, the Mormon who was the face of Prop 8’s ads lying about the consequences of same-sex marriage. I’m guessing the latter.
• John Doe – obviously we don’t know who this is. I’m going to make a wild guess that it’s an ex-gay.

David Boies started with a taped deposition of Dr. Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, two Prop 8 witnesses that dropped out.

On tape Boies got Nathanson to admit that the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Church use terms such as sinful, evil, a perversion, abomination, deviant behavior, manifestation of a depraved nature in talking about homosexuality. Dr. Nathanson said that half of the Prop 8 voters may have supported the initiative due to religion.

This guy comes off sounding like a witness for the plaintiffs. And, indeed, there is word that he may be gay and supports marriage even though he was called as a witness for the proponents.

Boies: Do you believe that the teaching of certain religions that homosexuality is a sin and abomination leads to gay bashing?

Nicholson: Yes.

Next was taped deposition of Katherine Young. She gave a long list of cultures in which same-sex relationship comparable to marriage were tolerated: Hidras in India, Berdache in a number of American Indian tribes, cultures in West Africa and China, Romans during the Emperors. In addition there were many cultures that tolerated non-marriage same-sex relationships.

She also testified about the link between anti-gay religious teaching and hate crimes, that marriage would be beneficial to gay couples and their children, and that religion had been used as a basis for discrimination and bigotry against women and blacks.

(I can see why they “dropped out”)

Next to the stand was Ryan Kendall, a man who unsuccessfully went through ex-gay therapy. The Prop 8 proponents sought to keep him off the bench, but the Judge pointed out that they introduced reorientation to the case.

Kendall was raised in a very religious family. When they found out at age 13 that he was gay (his journal), they sent him to a counselor to make him heterosexual. Focus on the Family recommended that he be sent to NARTH and his parents began systematic emotional abuse. After a few years of this, at 16, he couldn’t take it any more and asked the Department of Human Services to help him become emancipated.

He went through a rough patch, jobs, school, drugs for about four years until he pulled himself together. He’s been working for the police department now for about two years.

(In yet another demonstration that this is a bi-partisan trial and not the ‘conservatives v. liberal radical homosexuals’, it turns out that Kendall is a member of Log Cabin Republicans.)

In cross-examination, James Campbell for Prop 8 asked him if he’d ever met anyone who had been successful. Kendall said, “publicly yes”. In redirect, Boies had him clarify:

Q: Have you met anyone who succeeded in conversion therapy?

A: Yes, Nicolosi trotted out his perfect patient, named Kelly, who (when the doctor left the room) told me that he was going to a gay bar that night and was pretending success in conversion for his family.

Next up was Dr. Gary Segura, a political science prof at Stanford, president of the midwest political science association, and head of the Stanford Center for Democracy, which studies American elections.

He looks at how the public influences decision makers. His focus is minorities, particularly Latino and gay. One of his article dealt with self-identification of those minorities who can ‘pass\’ as others. He was there to speak about the powerlessness of gays and lesbians in American politics.

Segura had three opinions:

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

2. They are not subject to political exclusion and suffer political disabilities greater than other groups that have received suspect class protection.

3. The opinions of the Proponents expert Dr. Kenneth Miller are fundamentally flawed and incorrect.

Segura explained how a favorable outcome may still lack political power. For example, Houston just elected a lesbian as mayor but had also just voted against allowing partners of city employees to get benefits, so the new mayor cannot provide benefits to her partner of 19 years.

He pointed out that in those few states where there are protections, generally these are not designed to advance the interests of gays and lesbians but rather to correct harsh discrimination against them. “You have laws against discrimination because there IS discrimination.” Segura testified that no group has been the target of punitive or discriminatory initiatives more than gay people.

Segura talks about under-representation and how that impacts the discussions about people who are not present. “Some public officials have compared gay marriage to marrying a box turtle.” (you go, Segura!!)

Segura testified that the incidences and the intensity of hate crimes against other groups has decreased, but not for gays. He ties a recent surge in hate crimes to Proposition 8.

He testified that government censorship of sex ed classes, HIV prevention efforts, and even bans on funding for gay-themed art all add to the disempowerment of gays. He said the “mommy, I heard in school that I can marry a princess” ad was part of the continued theme of seeking to censor out gay people.

Segura dismissed the idea that gays have powerful allies. He pointed out the failure of the Democratic Party to do anything meaningful and listed the many instances in which Our Fierce Advocate has filed briefs and defied courts in order to keep anti-gay positions in place and has done little to nothing to address our needs.

He said that if two groups were about the same size, the one with no opponents has a real significant advantage. He then was asked about the Mormon involvement in the campaign. He laid out the organization and power of the supporters of Proposition 8, especially the involvement of Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church.

(An attorney for Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson sought to keep their sermons, speeches, and statements from being presented as evidence. The pastors want on one hand to be political but they want that political activism to have the protections of religious speech. The decision goes to Magistrate Judge Spiro.)

Boies put up a redacted correspondence from the Catholic Conference of Bishops:

The Catholic Conference has played a substantial role in inviting Catholic faithful to put their faith in action by volunteering and donating. Led by the Knights of Columbus national donation of $1.5 million, other million dollar donors, and the countless major donor and with a significant percentage of the 90,000 online donors, the Catholic community has stepped up. Of course this campaign owes an enormous debt to the LDS Church. I will comment specifically at a later time (under separate cover) about their financial, organizational and management contributions to the success of this effort.

Segura reviews other documents noting that the campaign was very early focused on religion, was national in scope, and contained unusual coalitions of churches who seldom align.

Andy Pugno for Prop 8 then fought tooth and toenail (unsuccessfully) to keep out documents that would demonstrate the intense involvement of the Mormon Church. Documents were entered which showed that the LDS Church was very active in the campaign, especially in funding and grassroots organizing but sought to keep plausible deniability about their involvement. Documents showed that the church actively sought to have its members individually donate to the campaign and used the church structure to do so.

Segura discussed the deposition of Dr. Miller, a witness of the proponents who dropped out. Miller lacked knowledge of gay history, social work, and anything outside of California laws. He knew nothing about the lack of protections in most states.

In cross-examination, Thompson lists a bunch of accomplishments that gay people have been able to achieve in terms of legislation. He uses New Hampshire as an example, but Segura notes that there are currently efforts to reverse marriage in that state.

Expert is asked about certain politicians (eg Nancy Pelosi is an ally but not one who moves legislation forward on gay issues), union support, ACLU, high tech companies, etc.

The case will continue until tomorrow or perhaps Friday.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day six summary

Thanks to Courage Campaign and FireDogLake for liveblogging.

Today’s testimony started with San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. He stated his conservative credentials: Republican, previously police chief. Sanders talked about his lesbian daughter Lisa and how he came to believe that domestic partnerships were not adequate.

Sanders spoke about the city’s resolution to support marriage equality and why he unexpectedly decided to sign it rather than veto it (liveblog paraphrase):

I struggled for a long time since I took the position. But the night before that video, I invited some LGBT friends over to tell them I was going to veto. I was shocked at the hurt that they showed when I told them. One friend said that we interact with you as a family. They felt that their children deserved married parents. I could see the harm that I would do with the veto. This was a night not about politics, but about the depth of their emotions. That created part of the emotion in the video. I realized how much it hurt for them.

Sanders’ part of the testimony is interesting. It appears that he is there to show that one can be supportive of the community and acting without hatred and yet have your judgment and behavior clouded by prejudice. He sees that his previous view of domestic partnerships as being “good enough” was a prejudiced view even though he was not motivated by hatred.

In cross-examination, the Proposition 8 supporting attorney Brian Raum proposed several other motivations for supporting the propositions: religion, biological family preference, procreation, history. In each, Sanders came back to these reasons being grounded in prejudice.

The next witness was M.V. Lee Badgett, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She has an extensive curriculum vitae in matters surrounding the economics of same-sex marriage and is the research director of the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA School of Law and also the directer of the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

She argued four points:

· Prop 8 inflicts substantial economic harm on same-sex couples residing in CA and their children.

· Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not adversely affect different-sex couples, children, or the institution of marriage.

· Same-sex couples are similar to different-sex couples in most economic and demographic respects

· Prop 8 imposes substantial economic losses on Californa and its counties and municipalities.

Badgett testified that gay couples benefit economically more from marriage than domestic partnerships and that gay couples are far more likely to enter a marriage than a domestic partnership. She took data from Massachusetts’ married same-sex couples and showed that couples and children greatly benefited from marriage.

Badgett studied the behavior and treatment of heterosexual married couples after Massachusetts allowed marriage equality and found that there were no negative consequences.

We now find out why Professor Douglas Allen withdrew as a witness. It appears that he was to tell the court that since marriage equality came to the Netherlands that the total number of marriage decreased. However, he also noted that it was part of a greater trend rather than an effect of marriage equality. Badgett used Allen’s testimony to argue that comparison to Massachusetts is more reasonable than comparison to a foreign nation.

(It seems that the Proposition 8 supporters’ decision to withdraw two thirds of their witnesses in order to bury their testimony may not have been successful. The portions most beneficial to the Olson/Boies team are being presented.)

In cross-examination, Chuck Cooper noted that even during the period in which same-sex couples could marry, some people elected domestic partnerships. Badgett said that she didn’t know if perhaps they did both. (While this might seem glib, I can easily see a couple registering immediately to get the coverage while they were planning their wedding or fearing their marriage would become invalid through Prop 8).

Cooper tried hard to suggest that gay people prefer domestic partnerships and don’t really want marriage. And he challenged Badgett’s numerical accuracy. He did a lot of quibbling about numbers (18,130 v. an estimate of 18,000). Badgett dismissed the variances and reiterated that hundreds of millions of dollars would be lost by the state for not allowing marriage equality.

Cooper made up some hypothetical situations and tried to get Badgett to explain variances between his hypotheticals and her estimates. Much of the cross examination appears to be an exercise in obfuscation, seeking to have Badgett justify old estimates made on some assumptions without allowing for the fact that those assumptions were impacted by later events.

Cooper tries to have fun with math by trying picking dates and comparing marriage rates and children out of wedlock in the Netherlands. He tried to intimate that marriage equality caused the Dutch to value marriage less.

However, Badgett points out that legalizing gay marriage had no statistically valid impact on this trend and his graphs look the same before marriage equality as they do after. Cooper sought to find measures of difference that were minuscule and find meaning in them.

In redirect, Boies showed that Cooper’s selection of 1994 as a start point was hand picked to try and present a false impression. Badgett presented a chart going back to 1960 which proved that the decline in marriage rates in the Netherlands was part of a long trend and was not impacted by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Further, he showed trends of heterosexual marriage and divorce in Massachusetts that, if causal, would be an argument for marriage equality.

(I know that the information I’m receiving is filtered through the eyes and ears of those who sympathize with the plaintiffs. But, even so, it is does appear that the defense is ill prepared and is making foolish blunders. Why talk about the Netherlands if it doesn’t prove your point and why present charts if they are only going to be shown to be falsely constructed?)