Box Turtle Bulletin

Prop 8 Trial: Mormons Sought “Plausible Deniability”

And when you seek “plausible deniability,” we know that’s code for denying what is true. In this case, it was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ extremely heavy and essential involvement in their successful efforts to strip LGBT Californians of their right to marry.

During this afternoon’s session in the suit to overturn California’s Proposition 8, Dr. Gary Segura of the Stanford Center for Democracy read some key memorandums from LDS leaders to the Prop 8 campaign. According to Prop8TrialTracker:

S: Reads document from Jansen who says since first Presidency of LDS church wrote letter, what will be our role? “As you know from the First Presidency this campaign is entirely under the direction of the priesthood…”

“What is the next step in this campaign? I understand all grassroots organizing efforts in OC will be led by Gary Lawrence, who will report directly to the Protect Marriage.com Coalition leaders. He has also been hired…

That was interrupted by objections from the Prop 8 defense team. And while they argue, let’s review some background. Gary Lawrence was the State Grass Roots Area Director for Prop 8. He also said that to get a sens of what the war in heaven was like (in which Satan was expelled), you need to look no further than the Prop 8 campaign. “That battlefield is now California and the parallels between that pre-mortal conflict and the battle over the definition of marriage are striking,” he wrote. Part of the Prop 8 defense in the trial is that their campaign wasn’t driven by animus against gay people. Comparing the battle to cast gays out of marriage with the battle to cast Satan out of heaven looks like, well, animus to me, don’t you think?

There’s more!…

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.

MarriageTrial.com reenacts Perry v. Schwarzenegger

On Monday we told you that filmmaker John Ireland would be posting reenactments of the testimony for Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Now he has a website, MarriageTrial.com, to host the reenactments.

Nothing has been posted yet. Maybe the actors are skurrred that gay folk will hunt them down and make frowny faces at them.

Charts from day six

The Courage Campaign’s Brian Leubitz found charts on the marriage rate and divorce rate in the Netherlands for the past few decades. They add clarity to yesterday’s testimony.

Prop 8’s Chuck Cooper wanted to spend a lot of time talking about the period from 1994 to present where it might appear that enacting marriage correlated to (and perhaps caused) a decline in the marriage rate. But viewing the larger graph shows that this was a false and fraudulent argument.

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?)

Jerry Sanders to testify in Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The very Republican trial to overturn Proposition 8 is about to become even more so. Jerry Sanders, the Republican mayor of San Diego will be on the stand tomorrow (SD Union-Trib)

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders will testify on Tuesday in the federal case about whether states can ban same-sex marriage.
…
“He’s testifying essentially on his experience on the issue and why he believes marriage equality is important from a government perspective,” [spokesman Darren] Pudgil said.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger to be reenacted on YouTube

Judge Vaughn Walker sought to have Perry v. Schwarzenegger taped and released on YouTube.

But those who are defending Proposition 8 in federal court claimed that their witnesses feared for their personal safety. They were skurrred that their names and faces might become known to radical militant roaming bands of marauding gay activist who would call them “bigots” and make them feel bad. The Supreme Court of the United States listened to their claims of mild inconvenience (dressed up as intimidation and harassment) and moved to strike cameras from the court so as to protect their identity.

But now the trial will be brought to YouTube without the faces and voices of anti-gay witnesses. Actors will play their part. (On Top Magazine)

After the Supreme Court blocked video broadcast of the federal trial to decide the constitutionality of a gay marriage ban last Wednesday, freelance journalist and filmmaker John Ireland decided he’d produce his own version and post it on YouTube.

“People want to see this drama unfold and there is a tremendous narrative that was propelled by that first day of testimony,” Ireland told On Top Magazine on Sunday. “This is the first time that gay and lesbian people have talked about their lives in federal court. It’s historic from that point of view.”

Ireland said he’s basing his storytelling on the accounts of bloggers present at the trial that started last Monday in a San Francisco courtroom.

The first day of testimony should be available on YouTube on Tuesday.

So far we have no reports that the actors playing the witnesses are frightened that their faces may become known. They don’t appear to be skurrred at all.

And we do not yet know whether the fact that others will be playing their roles, thus providing a face to their testimony other than their own, has given the supporters of Proposition 8 any comfort. But somehow I suspect that being skurrred about recognition had little importance in the decision of four of their six witnesses to drop out of the case.

I think they would be just as uncomfortable hearing their words come from the voices of actors. When you know that you base your position on deceit and animus, your shame is the same.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day five summary

Thanks to liveblogging from Courage Campaign and FireDogLake.

Today began with testimony from Dr. Michael Lamb, Head of the Department of Social and Developmental Psychology at Cambridge University. Michael McGill led the questioning. Dr. Lamb is highly qualified, prolific, and respected in the areas of child development and devolopmental psychology.

In the 1970’s Dr. Lamb began with the assumption that a father-mother household was better. His views changed based on his research. By the 90s this change was accepted in the field.

Articles document conclusively that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents. This is based on a great volume of study of children of different ages and further buttressed by results that affect children of broader range of children.

Studies conducted include both convenience samples and representative samples, longitudinal and cross-section. Over 100 studies have been taken. All mental health organizations agree.

Lamb refuted some of the pseudo-scientific claims of Prop 8 proponents, including the use of the term “gender disorientation pathology” in a Ron Prentice email repeating “21 Reasons why Gender Matters” (Perhaps those listed at NARTH). This term is not used in psychology.

Lamb refutes the canard that gays and lesbians are more likely to be child abusers, nor are their children likelier to be gay (though they are likelier to reject sex-stereotypical occupations).

Lamb dismisses Dr. Joe Nicolosi (ex-gay proponent) and his notions that childen of gay couples are going to be emotionally and socially traumatized. He says that adopted and artificially conceived children are as likely to be well adjusted as those raised by natural parents. He says that the only one in the field of child psychology who holds that view is David Blankenhorn.

In cross-examination, David Thompson for Prop 8 has Lamb admit he’s a “committed liberal”. Thompson tried to get Lamb to agree that science and research only give the results that government wants and that there is a vast liberal conspiracy to make scientific results be what the liberals want them to be. He references the East Anglia climate control scandal. This is an insult to anyone with a brain.

Thompson argued that men are cretins (he referenced Homer Simpson) and women are weak little caretakers. Liveblog synopsis:

Women spend more on children than men. Some occupations are specific to genders. Men are more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse than women. Step fathers more likely to molest children, abuse children than women. Molestation is bad for kids. Evidence that men who are married to women drink and gamble. You are not saying that men and women are completely interchangeable.

(My favorite argument so far:) Men can\’t breast feed. Breast feeding clearly has benefits for children. (yup, well that settles it, children whose mothers can’t breast feed them should be left out for the wolves.)

Thompson read an article in which Lamb stated that biological parents were more important than involvement in raising the children; it was written in the 1970s. He quoted Lamb stating that it was disconcerting that fathers’ roles were devalued; Lamb was a grad student. Thompson read from Lamb’s The Role of Fatherhood in Childhood Development, 1976 version.

Lamb: Citations are to 1961, two from 1950s, one from 1965. We\’ve had a lot of research since that was written. As you\’ve pointed out, there have been subsequent editions of this book, that have updated these citations.

Thompson reminds Lamb that he described David Blankenhorn’s book as “most provocative commentary published in 1995”. Lamb said that Blankenhorn thought his review was negative.

Thompson somewhat desperately tried to get Lamb to agree that having both a male and a female in the house is essential to good childhood development. Lamb didn’t play along.

(At this point we discover that a few witnesses for Prop 8 have been withdrawn because of “fear for their personal safety”. But wasn’t that why there is no video recording? Personal fear? Or is it that those witnesses realized that their peers would find out what they had testified through bloggers and knew that they would be mocked and reviled in their professional fields for selling their soul to the cause of discrimination and injustice. After lunch, Boutrous pointed out to the court that the witnesses who were skurrrred of being recognized dropped out after the SCOTUS said they didn’t have to be televised. He said that in pre-trial he predicted they would drop out because they were afraid of what they would have to say during cross-examination.)

Quite a bit of time was taken establishing that children do better in homes with both parents rather than with a single parent. Much emphasis that step-fathers are more likely to sexually abuse than genetic fathers. Lamb continues to point out that they are comparing heterosexuals to heterosexuals.

I get the impression that Thompson is out of his element. At one point he objects that the US Census is not a random sample. Lamb points out that if a sample includes the entire population, it’s better than a random sample. Thompson tries to argue that studies of gay people are faulty because they only study those who identify as gay; he seems not to notice that if we are talking about marriage, there aren’t going to be many non-LGBT-identifying folk who marry a person of the same sex.

After lunch the judge asked Lamb why adopted children seek out their natural parents. Lamb said it was due to a natural curiosity about where they came from and not due to maladjustment. Walker then asked about priest abuse in the Catholic Church. Lamb clarified that it was predominantly heterosexual and that gay abuse occurs at about the same rate as heterosexual sexual abuse.

During Thompson’s efforts to discredit the rather extensive research on the subject, he looks for anything that was not included to suggest that it throws all of the evidence out the window. His stabs include the financial resources of grandparents, the genetic intelect of the children, the educational achievement of grandparents, etc. He tries to sound incredulous that these studies didn’t include these less obvious factors. What comes out in court, however, is the rather extensive number of factors that actually have been considered.

He cites Walter Shum of Kansas State Universite. Lamb dismisses Shum by saying, “I\’ve seen it before. It was published in a journal where one has to pay to have it published, so it\’s not really considered part of the literature. But I have seen it in past cases.”

(A non-peer reviewed pay-to-get-published article? Gee, where have we seen that before?)

Thompson is trying to get Lamb to agree that only middle class gay and lesbian families were studied. And that the control groups of straight parents in the studies were not necessarily limited to married biological parents.

I’m wondering at the extent of this effort. I assume that is because when Blankenhorn argues that heterosexuals are better – based on his opinion – then Prop 8 will argue that we can just ignore all research whatsoever and go on Blankenhorn’s opinion. It’s just one opinion against another. While that might work well in a media campaign, I wonder if it’s effective strategy to present to a judge.

Further, it appears that Thompson knows far less about the “gotchas” that he wants to drop on Lamb. He appears to have forgotten the first rule of jury testimony, don’t ask a question to which you do not know the answer. He also confused references to studies as being separate studies and seems not to know what meta-analysis is.

Thompson says, “We\’re trying to show that optimal way to raise kids is in heterosexual households.”

(Yes, Mr. Thompson, you are trying to show that. Unfortunately for you, the science isn’t behind you.)

In redirect, McGill has Lamb clarify that the largest comparative studies included census data and thus compared gay couples (married and unmarried) with heterosexual couples (married and unmarried) and that gay children did not fare worse.

McGill then plays deposition tape of Dr. Marks, a Prop 8 witness that withdrew “cuz he’s skurrrrred of the cameras”. It seems Marks made a wise decision. In the tape he contradicted himself and ends up – in this clip – undermining his assertion that biological families are preferable.

McGill had Lamb read a portion of his review of Blankenhorn’s book illustrating how it was not favorable.

Lamb concludes by testifying that the field shares his conclusions because of the consistency of the outcome of hundreds of studies. Outliers which are not replicated don’t change conclusions based on cumulative work.

In one final dig about Lamb being a “liberal” and donating to PBS:

McGill: Did the corporation on public broadcasting affect your opinion in this case?

Lamb: No, it did not.

To end the day, Helen Zia, an Asian-American told the story of her life. She talked about discrimination and fear. She spoke of the humiliation of signing up for the first local domestic partnerships in San Francisco at the window where dog licenses were issued. She talked about how marriage changed her life. Her Chinese grandmother finally had a word to describe Leah, her wife. Her in-laws now saw her brother as extended family. She spoke of cruelty and hostility she experienced in Oakland during the Prop 8 election season.

Chu: How does getting married change things.

Zia: In most immediate sense, it was in how our families related to us. When we first got married. We have a niece, 2 years old, only known us Auntie Helen and Auntie Leah. WHen she saw Leah and me, she gave us a big hug, said, Auntie Leah, now you\’re really my auntie. I thought, well, you\’ve always known her as your auntie. Somehow it made a difference. It made a difference to our parents. When you say you\’re a domestic partner. When people say “who\’s this person?” I can\’t count the number of times who said “Partner in what business.” We\’d say “partners in life.” Often it was bewilderment. What business is life, od yo umean life insurance. It\’s a matter of how our families relate to people. For me to show up at every event. People ask who\’s she. For her 90-something auntie to say, here\’s Leah\’s friend. She must be a really good friend, suddently there were able to say, Helen is my daughter in law. My mother is an immigrant from China. She dosent\’ get waht partner is. I would be around her, I could hear them say, sometimes in Chinese, sometimes in English, that\’s Helen\’s friend. Then it changed, she would say, this is my daughter-in-law. Whether they got it or not, you don\’t insult someone\’s wife, you don\’t insult someone\’s mother. We\’re not partners in life or in some business. It changed things on a huge level. Marriage in how it affected our families. Our families related to each other differently. Marraige is joining of two families. My family and Leah\’s family now relate to each otheer differently. My brother lived about 5 minutes away from Leah\’s father when he was still alive, in those 15 years, they didn\’t make an effort. After we were married, Leah\’s father would stop by, drop things off. My brother is quite active in HI, Leah\’s brother\’s wife, my sister in law. Has a sister who runs in same circles. He will now say she\’s my in-law.

And this ended the day. The case will resume Tuesday morning. The plaintiffs expect to end testimony on Wednesday.

It is difficult to predict how long it will take the Prop 8 defendants to present their testimony now that four of their six witnesses have dropped out cuz they’re skurrred of the evil homosexual menace that will hunt them down and piddle in their petunia. All, it might be noted, after the SCOTUS gave in to their demands of no televising and no video at all outside of a live-feed to another room inside the same courthouse.

Somehow I think they really wanted to lose the battle over the cameras. As we saw from Dr. Marks’ video deposition, their witnesses may be far more worried about their own inadequacies and dents in their reputation than they are about marauding bands of drag queens and dykes on bikes chanting, “we’re here, we’re queer, you’re a bigot, get used to it” while they try to order a latte at their local Starbucks.

I suspect that they wanted an excuse to drop their witnesses so they could use this to appeal the trial of fact. But the SCOTUS may have unintentionally called their bluff and left them with only the flimsiest of wacky excuses (“we were skurrred of the evil homosexuals in the overflow room; they might hit us with their laptops). And now they only have two witnesses who are willing to be cross-examined.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day four summary

Again, thanks to liveblogging by Courage Campaign and FireDogLake

The day starts with testimony from Edwin A. Egan, Chief Economist for San Francisco. His job includes determining the economic impact of legislation.

His argument: marriage equality means more married couples. Those who marry tend to accumulate wealth, spend more, increase property values, etc. Married individuals also engage in healthier behavior which leads to greater productivity and a positive economic influence.

Egan also discussed how companies treat marriages differently from domestic partnerships when it comes to heath care.

(This direction be an argument unique to San Francisco in which, due to demographics, economic influences on the gay population can have a significant impact on the city’s economy as a whole. It may be difficult for Prop 8 to argue that such an impact is immaterial to a city like SF)

Egan discussed direct economic benefits to the city from legal marriages (event costs, hotel, restaurant). He noted that if DOMA were lifted, income taxes per couple would be reduced on average by $440, some of would be spent in the city thus increasing sales taxes and improving the economy.

In cross-examination, Peter Patterson challenged some of Egan’s calculations.

First he tries to present the idea that all of those who wish to marry already did so in the narrow window. This argument is strangely and poorly crafted by arguing that because there were few appointments for marriages in November (when marriage was not legal) then there was no demand.

Patterson made points by noting that Egan bases his three year projection on the rate of marriages during last summer, not allowing a drop off for a lessening of “pent-up demand”. Further, he argues that Egan’s estimates assume that over 100% of current couples would marry within two years (he does not allow for new couples or couple migration).

Egan may have redeemed himself by showing that his assumptions about marriage expenditures and guests are based on conservative estimates (spend 25% of what straight marriage spend and only 10% of guests from out of town).

Patterson argues that while same-sex marriages may increase, opposite-sex marriages may decrease. (This may actually be true for the short window in a city like SF. There may have been limited marriage facilities and resources and some straight folk may have waited until after the marriage window. Over time, the laws of supply and demand would provide for adequate marriage resources)

In redirect, Egan clarifies that despite dispute over the numerical accuracy of his calculation, marriage would increase health coverage and that, coupled with marriage expenditures, would financially benefit the city.

In the afternoon, Dr. Ilan H. Meyer, Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University\’s Mailman School of Public Health, testified about the stigma and prejudice gay and lesbians individuals face in society. Christopher Dusseault is plaintiff’s counsel for this section.

Meyer argues that societal stigma assigns gay people the roll of not desiring intimate relationships and being incapable of them. Society defines intimate relationships to mean marriage, husband, wife, family and community to the exclusion of gay people. (Think The Boys in the Band)

As illustration, Dusseault has Meyer read from Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex, But Were Afraid to Ask:

What about all the homosexuals who live together happily for years?

What about them? They are mighty rare birds among the homosexual flock. Moreover, the “happy” part remains to be seen. The bitterest argument between husband and wife is a passionate love sonnet by comparison with a dialogue between a butch and his queen. Live together? Yes. Happily? Hardly.

Meyer argues that domestic partnerships do not have the same social meaning as marriages and thus Proposition 8 imposes structural stigma. He talks about social stressors, both event (a bad thing happens) and non-event (something expected and looked forward to does not happen). Because all children expect to marry some day, denying marriage to gays is a non-event stressor. Meyer identified the processes that create minority stressors as prejudice events, expectations of rejection and discrimination, concealing–not being out, and internalized homophobia.

Some stressors may have little real impact, such as filling out a form, but “the form evokes social disapproval and rejection and memories of events, including large events that have happened in the past.” So travel, banking, vehicle registration, many simple things have minority stressors with great impact.

And actual abuse need not occur for the person to experience stressors.

Many times people avoid situations, or swallow those situations of slurs and just move on because they don\’t want to get into a fight, but the anticipation causes stress.

All of the additional sexual minority stressors lead to increased risk and disease.

Dusseault: Do you have a view if mental health outcomes for gay and lesbian in CA would improve if Prop. 8 were not law?

Meyer: Yes. Consistent with my work and findings that show that when people are exposed to more stress than less stress they are more likely to get sick, consistent with a law that says to gay people you are not welcome here, your relationships are not valued vs. the opposite has significant power. Clearly it\’s not the only thing that determines prejudice and discrimination, but it\’s a major factor.

Al Wilson cross-examined Meyer for Prop 8. Wilson tried to identify disagreement between studies and to identify exceptions between theory expectation and results.

In particular, he focused on old studies (this does seem to be a consistent but inexplicable tactic of the Prop 8 side in this trial)

Wilson: Well, were your studies inconsistent with older studies?

Meyer: No. I would say the older studies were inconsistent with my new findings.

Wilson tried very hard to get Meyer to discount his own findings. He tried to dismiss the sample size but Meyer used meta analysis. He tried to argue that population definition is impossible, but Meyer pointed out that all populations are difficult to define

You\’re trying to suggest it\’s some big problem. It\’s not. The population is elusive in every study. This is the first step of trying to study. If I wanted to study men, I\’d have to define the cohort, age, location, etc. What is a Latino? Do you include Mexicans or Puerto Ricans? The first step is to define the general population and then the sampling population.

(Meyer seems to be quite good)

Wilson: Could you ask someone if they were African American ever or were last year?

Meyer: Yes. That does vary. There are people who move into the US as Caribbean, their parents do not describe themselves as black, but after their kids socialize do say they are African American. Identities change and are responsive to the social context, but how people refer to themselves might change.

Meyer: well attraction is very fluid. Woman might say another woman is attractive, but that doesn’t make her a lesbian. for example, if you want to measure race by skin tone, you’ll have a different result than by identity. That’s why I don’t use attraction, but sometimes use identity. when you’re measuring HIV risk, you need to ask about behavior to assess exposure.

(This is an interesting response. If racial definitions were based solely on skin tones, I’ve met quite a few Latinos and even some African Americans who have fairer skin than I do. I once had one fellow lecturing me about discrimination against ‘brown people’ until I held my arm up against his. Yet my ethnic heritage and overall appearance tends to lead me to identify as “Caucasian” while theirs leads to minority ethnic identities. And discrimination and its inherent stressors are not based on either skin hues or internal attractions, they are based on internal and external identities.)

Wilson spent quite a lot of time in discussing why some racial minorities do not experience as poor mental health as might be expected within the models (the answer is because of being raised and nurtured in and supported by racial minority communities). He seemed to be dancing around the idea that gays are mentally deficient.

Wilson tried to make a peculiar (and specious) argument that if domestic partnerships stigmatize, then why would pro-gay groups have ever supported them? (Duh, because they stigmatize less than having nothing, never, ever)

In redirect, Dusseault had Meyer clarify the distinctions between racial stressors and sexual minority stressors (communities, as noted above). He also cleared up the distinction that domestic partnerships stigmatize, though not to the same extent as no recognition.

Yes, what it means that you can\’t have either, the message is even more severe. If a state doesn\’t offer marriage, it\’s great stigma, but if a state offers domestic partnerships it\’s almost like saying go to the back of the bus.

Over all, Meyer’s testimony (as liveblogged) seemed strong.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger to continue to be taped

At trial today it came out that the supporters of Proposition 8 had appealed to have the taping of the trial terminated. They do not want any record of their argument to be retained beyond the bare minimum.

The judge countered that he needed the taping for his purposes and that it would not be televised. Chuck Cooper seemed content with that.

This is good news. As long as a tape is recorded, there is always a hope that some future legal argument can make this recording available to the world. If not now, then this evidence will undoubtedly be useful for social historians looking back upon this time of legal discrimination.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day three synopsis

Again much appreciation to Courage Campaign for their liveblogging (along with others in the media). As the US Supreme Court has decided that, for now anyway, the proceedings will take place out of the sight of the public, their contribution to creating an informed public is of immense value.

The Defense\’s cross-examination of History Professor George Chauncey continued. Prop 8’s David Thompson sought to get Chauncey to agree that gay people are not really subject to discrimination. This is an attempt to battle Olson/Boies’ goal of establishing sexual orientation as a subject suspect class and thus more highly protected from discrimination.

(Because race is a subject suspect class, the legal assumption is that any discrimination against them is probably unconstitutional. Left-handedness, not currently an oppressed minority subject to regular and insidious discrimination, is not a suspect class and therefore they need to prove that any specific discrimination against them is unconstitutional).

Thompson also sought to get Chauncey to agree that not everyone who opposes marriage (e.g. our “fierce advocate”) does so out of bigotry. He attempted (unsuccessfully) to get Chauncey to agree that a portion of the gay community opposed marriage and therefore supported Proposition 8. Chauncey responded, “The right to marry evolved and became a more widespread and deeply held goal of the gay and lesbian community.”

In redirect Terri Stewart had Chauncey draw parallels between the growing desire in the gay community for marriage to that of the black community who did not seek desegregation when they were simply seeking basic existence.

She had him illustrate that while some faiths were supportive there was strong religious animosity to gay people. Chauncey read from statements from the Vatican and the Southern Baptist Convention. Their point is that sincere religious objection to gay equality can be based in stereotypes and bigotry, just as were sincere religious objections to racial equality.

And then we find out exactly why Hak-Shing William “Bill” Tam sought to be removed from the case. Stewart played a tape of their deposition of Mr. Tam. It seems that Mr. Tam was invited to be an integral part of the campaign focusing on outreach to Asians. He raised substantial amounts of money and orchestrated rallies. He wrote to Asian language newspapers and produced flyers.

One flyer claimed that the San Francisco city government was under the control of homosexuals who wanted to legalize sex with children. Tam feared not only same-sex marriage, but children would learn about gay people and then become gay themselves. Tam seemed to believe that Proposition 8 would stop gay couples from being able to adopt.

Next to testify was Dr. Letishia Peplak, a social psychologist from UCLA with extensive credentials on same-sex relationships. She is an expert on four issues: (a) marriage brings important benefits, (b) relationships between same-sex and heterosexual couples are similar, (c) gay couples who can marry have the same benefits, (d) gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriage.

Peplak testified that same-sex relationships are very similar to opposite-sex relationships in terms of stability, durability, process, and level of love.

She said that while there is no evidence, it’s been suggested that homosexual relationships are shorter. She also testified that heterosexual co-habitation relationships are shorter than married relationships. She reported a study that married same-sex couples in Massachusetts reported being more committed and to having more benefits.

Nicole Moss questioned Peplak in cross-examination. Moss argued that a 25 year old article shows that gay men are less monogamous than heterosexual married men. Peplak points out that is an “oldie” from a time when gay relationships were secretive. Moss continues with outdated studies of non-representative sample groups.

Peplak has said that she is not an expert on relationships in foreign nations, but Moss presented statistics on marriage in Belgium and the Netherlands. In Belgium 5% of gay couples marry compared to 42% of heterosexual couples. In the Netherlands, 8% of gay couples and 43% if straight couples marry. (I hope that the plaintiffs have statisticians that can speak to the meaning of these numbers and whether they accurately explain current marriages as opposed to cumulative marriages).

Peplak notes the discrepancy with the Massachusetts numbers and speculates that American gay couples may be more pro-family.

In redirect, Peplak notes that studies about lack of monogamy were from a time when there were neither marriage nor domestic partnerships.

Overall, I’m not getting the impression that Peplak was a stellar witness.

SCOTUS disallows live streaming of Perry v. Schwarzenegger to other courthouses

The question as to whether the proceedings at Perry v. Schwarzenegger can be made available to the public has not been settled. But the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, determined that they cannot be transmitted to other courthouses.

We do not here express any views on the propriety of broadcasting court proceedings generally.

Instead, our review is confined to a narrow legal issue: whether the District Court\’s amendment of its local rules to broadcast this trial complied with federal law. We conclude that it likely did not and that applicants have demonstrated that irreparable harm would likely result from the District Court\’s actions. We therefore stay the court\’s January 7, 2010, order to the extent that it permits the live streaming of court proceedings to other federal courthouses. We do not address other aspects of that order, such as those related to the broadcast of court proceedings on the Internet, as this may be premature.

The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well. The Court grants the application for a stay of the District Court\’s order of January 7, 2010, pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari or the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of mandamus.

Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor disagreed, wondering how transmitting to other courthouses could possibly cause harm to the witnesses:

All of the witnesses supporting the applicants are already publicly identified with their cause. They 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, or already engaged in extensive public commentary far more likely to make them well known than a closed-circuit broadcast to another federal courthouse. The likelihood of any “irreparable” harm is further diminished by the fact that the court order before us would simply increase the trial\’s viewing audience from the occupants of one courtroom in one courthouse to the occupants of five other courtrooms in five other court-houses (in all of which taking pictures or retransmissions have been forbidden). By way of comparison literally hundreds of national and international newspapers are already covering this trial and reporting in detail the names and testimony of all of the witnesses.
…
The majority\’s action today is unusual. It grants a stay in order to consider a mandamus petition, with a view to intervening in a matter of local court administration that it would not (and should not) consider. It cites no precedent for doing so. It identifies no real harm, let alone “irreparable harm,” to justify its issuance of this stay.And the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts. To justify this extraordinary intervention,the majority insists that courts must “enforce the requirement of procedural regularity on others, and must follow those requirements themselves.” [] And so I believe this Court should adhere to its institutional competence, its historical practice, and its governing precedent—all of which counsel strongly against the issuance of this stay.

So, for now, it is up to the blogosphere to report as best possible on the arguments, positions, assertions, and identity of those who present themselves as experts on why our state and nation should institutionalize discrimination.

…And Racism Ended in 1940

Karen Ocomb is live-blogging the Prop 8 trial:

Thompson, the smug attorney for the Proponents of Prop 8, is taking the position that gays are not being discriminated against any more and so that cannot be the reason that Prop 8 passed. … He\’s mentioning Will and Grace, the movie Philadelphia, and Brokeback mountain as evidence that LGBT people are not being discriminated again.

Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar in 1940 for her role as Mammy in Gone with the Wind. At that time, Amos ‘n’ Andy was a wildly popular radio program. Their characters were so beloved that many movie theaters would stop the film and play the program over the house loudpeakers so their audiences wouldn’t miss a single episode.

And that’s why we haven’t had any racial problems since then.

Mormon Documents May End Up In Prop 8 Trial

Salt Lake City’s ABC affiliate KTVX reports that documents from the LDS Church concerning their efforts at passing California’s Proposition 8 may well end up in the Prop 8 trial after all:

Again, according to our sources, the San Francisco City Attorney, Dennis Herrera, requested, perhaps, as many as 1,500 copied documents about the LDS Church’s opposition to gay marriage. The documents reportedly deal with the LDS Church’s earlier efforts to defeat gay marriage movements in other states, efforts going back a number of years. Herrera, coincidentally, has been admitted as co-counsel in the California federal case to over-turn the ban on gay marriage.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day two synopsis

Today’s testimony consisted of two witnesses (thanks again to Courage Campaign):

Professor Nancy Cott, author of Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation, continued her testimony about the meaning of marriage. She explained how marriage evolved from the government directing gender roles as we moved from an agrarian society.

Cross-witness sought to get Cott to own the statements of other marriage supporters so as to get her defending ideas other than her own but she wasn’t having it. Opposing counsel tried to get her to make predictions, she didn’t.

Then opposing counsel sought to show that marriage was actually Christian doctrine filtered through marriage law. (I can think of a few reasons why he really wouldn’t want to go there, one being that Olson/Boies can put the leaders of several denominations on the stand to talk about Christian doctrine).

In redirect, Cott explains that same-sex marriage was not likely to lead to polygamy because the central theme to marriage is consent and the central theme to polygamy is despotism. (Interestingly, if “children” is the sole purpose of marriage, then polygamy could be a next step – or, rather, a step back to tradition).

In the afternoon, Terri Stewart questioned Dr. George Chauncey, an expert in LGBT studies. Dr. Chauncey gave a lengthy discussion about discrimination and oppression of gay people in America.

Dr. Chauncey showed how the themes of Anita Bryant’s “Save Our Children” campaigns in the 70’s were successfully carried into the 80’s and 90’s and are the central themes of Proposition 8. He sees them as part of a continuum.

Stewart: Do you believe Prop. 8 ads perpetuate the stereotypes of the history you describe?

Chauncey: I think they do, but they are more polite than the Anita Bryant ads. Society has changed such that what you can say in polite society is different, but most striking is the image of the little girl who comes in to tell her mom that she can marry a princess. There\’s a strong echo of this idea that simple exposure to gay people will lead a generation of young people to become gay.

Cross examination tries to paint Chauncey as “an advocate”. They tried that with Cott. I’m not sure what’s going on there as I think it’s clear that all witnesses on all sides are probably going to be advocates for their position. Certainly Blankenhorn is.