Box Turtle Bulletin

About those seven million, Maggie…

Tomorrow is closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case over whether Proposition 8 was in violation to the US Constitution. Here’s what National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher has to say about it:

This is an outrage that never should have happened: 7 million Californians exercised their core civil rights to speak, to donate, to organize and to vote for marriage. Around the country millions of other have invested their time and their treasure. And Ted Olson today will be asking the courts to nullify our right to vote for marriage.

Well 7,001,084 does sound like a lot of folks. But let’s just for a moment put it in perspective.

• In 2008, the population of California was 36,756,666. So about 19.0% of Californians voted for Prop 8.
• In 2008, there were 23,208,710 people eligible to vote in California. About 30.2% of eligible Californians voted to take away marriage rights.
• At the time of the election, there were 17,304,091 people registered to vote in the state. Of registered voters, about 40.5% showed up at the polls to “vote for marriage” restricted to heterosexuals.
• A total of 13,743,177 voters turned up to vote. Of them 50.9% voted for proposition 8.
• There were 13,402,566 votes cast on Proposition 8. Of them, 7,001,084 (or 52.2%) voted for the proposition and 6,401,482 (or 47.8%) voted against it.

Yes, Proposition 8 won. But let’s not pretend that Californians as a whole were so fired up about marriage that they all couldn’t wait for the chance to vote against equality. Less than a third of eligible voters supported this bill enough to show up and vote for it.

Exodus Co-Founder: Inequality Under The Law Is OK As Long As It Persuades People To Go Ex-Gay

Modern day Exodus and president Alan Chambers provide a near non-stop supply of illogical and bizarre statements that keep watchdog sites like Truth Wins Out, Ex-Gay Watch, and BoxTurtleBulletin busy documenting and analyzing them.  My personal favorite is Alan’s claim that he might never have come to Jesus and become straight if gay marriage had been available to him when he was young and gay.

I thought I’d ask Michael Bussee what he thought of Alan’s statement.

Hat tip to Ex-Gay Watch for capturing video of Alan’s appearance at the Prop 8 rally.

(transcript below the jump)

Read the rest of this entry »

Date set for closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Prop8trialtracker.com is reporting

So now we finally have a date for Closing Arguments for the Prop 8 trial — Wednesday, June 16th, or 156 days after the start of the Trial. By now, we’ve heard the evidence, we know what’s been said, and there’s been a lot of analysis on this site about what it means for the outcome, our movement, and our lives.

What will LA’s new Cardinal selection mean for CA’s fight for marriage equality?

Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony will retire in February, 2011, and the Catholic Church has just announced his replacement, Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio. Considering that California will likely be voting again in 2012 on whether the state will recognize same-sex marriages, and considering the importance which the Holy See places on this issue, I doubt this move is unrelated.

As a Mexican native, Gomez will have a natural appeal and a greater sense of authority than had Mahony. And he could be a far more committed opponent of equality.

Cardinal Mahony was active in seeking Latino and other Catholic vote in favor of Proposition 8. Yet his was not the image of the initiative and his activism seemed more cursory than heartfelt. He opposed equality but not with ferocity.

This may, in part, be due to Mahony’s less rigid ideologies and his affiliation with the more moderate wing of the Church, one focused on advancing social good rather than upholding the dictates of Rome. Jose Gomez is cut from a different cloth. (LA Times)

During his six-year tenure atop the San Antonio archdiocese, Gomez emerged as a leading advocate for doctrinal conformity, determined to stave off what he saw as creeping secularism in the church.

He denounced one Catholic university when it invited then-Sen. Hillary Clinton to campus, because she favored abortion rights, and another when it invited a Benedictine nun, because she had advocated the ordination of women. Under his reign, a local Catholic high school ended its relationship with an organization that raised money to fight breast cancer, because the same organization gave grants to Planned Parenthood. After a 17-year-old lay advisory commission created by his predecessor suggested that gay marriage might be a human rights issue under one reading of the church’s teachings, Gomez disbanded the commission.

“The doors were closed for collaborative communication,” Mary Moreno, one commission member, said in an interview Tuesday. “We just got a letter. And when things are done like that, it kind of leaves a sting.”

Such hardline authoritarianism is natural considering his affiliation within the church. Gomez comes out of the conservative Opus Dei movement, one which frequently seems present when the Church lodges attacks the civil freedoms of non-Catholics, especially gays and lesbians.

And Gomez does believe in advancing his church’s agenda by means of the ballot box. In 2008 he wrote an op-ed in the San Antonio Express-News in which he said

Recently, the Express-News published its voter’s guide. It was a comprehensive listing of races and candidates running for office in November. I’m sure it was a helpful tool for many. I recognize it is challenging to make any voter’s guide comprehensive. However, the inclusion of the fundamental life issues for pursuit of the common good would have made the publication a more complete, accurate and useful tool at this critical time.

People need to know the positions of the candidates on the key issues that protect the right to life such as abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and capital punishment. Voters also would have been better served if they had been provided information about the candidates’ positions on the definition of marriage, the basic cell of society as a union between a man and a woman.

But Jose Gomez may find that being Cardinal in Los Angeles is quite different from being Archbishop in San Antonio. He’ll soon discover that California’s Latino Catholic politicians are socially liberal and will not fall in line to follow the Church’s anti-gay positions. It will be interesting to see to what extent the new Cardinal will seek to impose his will on the local political power structure. And it will be interesting to see whether Gomez’ support for immigrants (with which he shares ideology with local Catholic Latino politicians) will cause him to tread more lightly on those other issues with which he disagrees.

But in any case, I think that this move is likely to change the game in the next proposition battle. I suspect that Gomez will be much more aggressive in the Church’s campaign to impose its will on its neighbors.

Anti-8 Campaign must reveal internal memos

It seems that the anti-gay activists supporting Proposition 8 will get a chance to review the internal documents of No on 8. They had been complaining that they the Olson-Boies team in Perry v. Schwarzenegger had access to their documents and that it just wasn’t fair that they didn’t have access to the No on 8 side. That appears to have changed.

From the San Jose Mercury News:

A federal magistrate is ordering several gay rights groups that campaigned against California’s 2008 same-sex marriage ban to furnish some internal memos and e-mails to lawyers for the measure’s sponsors.
…
Spero says Equality California, Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights, an ACLU campaign committee and an umbrella group that oversaw the campaign against the ban must hand over all documents “that contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8,” with the exception private communications between their core leaders.

This is a very perplexing order for several reasons:

First: The reason that Olson-Boies had access to the Protect Marriage campaign, was because it was pertinent to the question of the trial: was Prop 8 based on anti-gay animus and marketed to appeal to prejudice. Because this dealt with the intentions of the Yes on 8 side, their internal documents were relevant.

But the motivations or intentions of No on 8 were not up for question. There was nothing in the internal documents from No on 8 that could shed any light whatsoever on the question of whether Proposition 8 was intended to deny a class of Californians from equal protections. Nothing in these documents will tell the court whether Yes on 8 was motivated by animus, because they aren’t Yes on 8’s documents and don’t reflect their views.

Second: The trial is over. The testimony is concluded and the final written arguments have been presented. It is unlikely that the turn over of Equality California’s documents to the anti-gay activists will or even could occur before final arguments are made and Judge Walker makes his determination. So it is confusing exactly how this request advances the pursuit of justice in this case.

Third: As this order has no value on the merits of the case, it appears to be purely political in nature. I’m not suggesting that Justice Spero is engaging in judicial activism, but rather this seems to be an order purely to be “fair” so that “both sides can see each others’ secrets”.

But legal proceedings are to be based on the law, not on making both sides happy. “Making everyone happy” is not a standard that is applied to disclosure in criminal or corporate law.

This decision seems to be a product of the culture war. But justices are sworn to defend the constitution, not make sure that the culture warriors are each provided with the same ammunition.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day eleven summary

Thanks to Courage Campaign and FireDogLake

Today started with the continued cross-examination of Professor Ken Miller. Attorney David Boies further proved that Miller was ill informed and that his stated opinions did not seem to be consistent with the facts.

Boies provided exit polling that revealed that the third of Californians who attend church weekly voted 84% for Proposition 8 and in all other category of Californians the majority voted “no”. And while Miller had claimed that gay people have power due to union support, the exit polls show that union households supported the proposition. (which, I suppose, means that union households are disproportionately religious)

Boies provided a poll that showed that Americans were much less willing to vote for a presidential candidate that was gay (55%) than they were for a Catholic (95%), an African American (94%), or Hispanic candidate (85%).

He went on to illustrate that Miller had not familiarized himself with workplace discrimination, school bullying, or stereotypes about gays preying on children, or the extent to which such stereotypes impacted voters. (In short, the proponents’ expert witness isn’t very expert at all. But considering what he might have found had he bothered to look, ignorance may have been their best option.)

Miller admitted that some people voted for Proposition 8 based on stereotypes, but he could not say to what extent.

Then it got unpleasant for Miller. He has a new book that came out in 2009 in which he argues that initiatives that disadvantage minorities “can easily tap into an anti-minority sentiment”. He even gave examples including initiatives directed towards restricting the rights of homosexuals. One of Miller’s examples of initiatives that tapped into anti-minority sentiment and disadvantaged homosexuals was Proposition 22, the original ban on gay marriage that was overturned by the California Supreme Court.

Miller argued in his book that courts needed to strictly scrutinize initiatives and not be lenient because their role was to protect minorities from such initiatives. He had written in an article that “Once this majority puts its preference into the state constitution, the legislature and state courts can\’t take it out. Only federal courts are the remedy.”.

A year later, Miller “no longer believes” his own book. In fact, he “did not believe all of it” when he wrote it. (Miller has just torpedoed his own career.)

Miller had earlier presented the support of the California Council of Churches as evidence of large religious support for gay rights. In cross-examination he reveals that he really doesn’t know what the CCC is or even if they were a group organized to oppose Proposition 8 (they trace their history back to 1913). His earlier position was that if a church belonged to the CCC then they supported gay marriage.

After all of Miller’s testimony about support from the Democrat Party, he was presented with an article in which he said that Democrats splintered along religious lines. Miller had already written that the issue, the primary determinant was religion: In order for gay people to have marriage rights, “They need to persuade those Christian voters that extending marriage rights to the gay community is consistent with their religious beliefs, not undermining them.” He had written that blacks and Latinos had been taught in church that sexual orientation was a matter of scripture and thus could vote for Barack Obama as a civil rights issue and for Prop 8 as a religious issue without conflict.

Boies got Miller to agree, as a social scientist, that “it is a general principle that it is undesirable for a religious majority to impose its views on a minority”. While Miller was babbling trying to find an out for the religious oppression of gay people, Boies announced that he had no more questions.

Thompson tried to recover in redirect. He had Miller reiterate that the Briggs initiative (to ban gay school teachers) and the LaRouche initiatives (to quarantine AIDS patients) did not pass.

Miller testified that he used to think that initiatives did not well serve democracy but since Massachusetts legalized marriage he changed his views and now sees them as a way for people to express their popular sovereignty. The exception he now sees is marriage. (In short, he found that his prejudices disagreed with his principles, so he made an exception. I can’t see how this will help either his credibility or his argument.)

In the afternoon, the defendants presented their second witness, David Blankenhorn. He is president of the Institute for American Values, a non-profit think tank that focuses on fatherhood, marriage, child rearing, child well being, and family structure.

He testified that to write his book, The Future of Marriage, he sought to learn about the anthropology of marriage across cultures.

In voir dire, Boise noted that none of Blankenhorn’s marriage writing was peer reviewed. Nor has he taught courses about marriage, fatherhood, family structure or anything else. Blankenhorn’s examinations of the results of same-sex marriage are limited to discussions with colleagues and reading articles. His only peer-reviewed work was on cabinet makers and black fathers. Judge Walker indicated that were this a jury trial Blankenhorn might not be qualified to testify as an expert but that he can testify.

Blankenhorn testified that marriage is the socially approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman which establishes the parenthood of the children. Marriage brings about the social, the legal, and the biological consequences of parenthood. “East, West North, South, 1000 years ago, it always does this thing.” As marriage changes, this aspect never does.

This is based on a broad consensus of scholars and anthropologists. For his “broad consensus”, Blankenhorn relies on a number of quite old books, the most recent of which is from 1985.

Blankenhorn read from some who say that marriage is an adult relationship but stated that he disagrees. Earnestly. He testified that he could not find any animus or hatefulness of gay people as the reason that people get married. (I dare say he’s correct. No one marries to spite gay people. And the original definitions were not designed to exclude but rather to allow society to know which man owns which woman and is responsible for her care. But the new definitions as applied by anti-gay amendments are absolutely intended to exclude gay people and to spite them.)

He testified that research shows that the ideal family relationship for a child is a biological mother and father in low-conflict marriage. (Again, he’s likely correct. And a principled argument could be made that these are the only family forms that society should reward with marriage. But it doesn’t. It rewards remarriage of widows and widowers, divorced people with children, the childless, the elderly, and indeed absolutely every other less-than-ideal coupling provided that they are opposite-sex. The question is not whether biological parents are a smidgen better than two mothers (a position that could probably be made), but why two mothers (who are better than, say, a mother and stepfather) are not provided with marriage.)

Blankenhorn testified that changing the rules of an institution results in weakening, what he calls deinstitutionalization. He notes that the deinstitutionalization has been the fault of heterosexuals: out of wedlock childbirth, divorce, assisted reproductive technology, and the very idea of same-sex marriage. He claims that “Scholars are telling us that process of weakening will be accelerated significantly by same sex marriage.” Transferring the institution from a child centered one to an adult-pleasure centered one would erase the institution.

It would become impossible to opine that a child needs a father. It could lead the public to consider polygamy. In short, Blankenhorn believes that allow same-sex couples to marry would remove the core purpose for marriage and leave it essentially meaningless and valueless. An institution that doesn’t define heterosexual couples tied to their biological children would have no purpose and would eventually die off.

Blankenhorn supports domestic partnerships and civil unions. He just wants to protect the privilege of marriage. (This is, in my thinking, the weakest argument. If one truly wants to “think of the children” then any structure that “denies a child their biological mother and father” would be equally disadvantageous. It matters little whether this deprived child’s same-sex parents are civilly unioned or civilly married.)

He co-authored an article supporting civil unions (and implies that Jonathan Rauch agrees with him that they are better – he does not). In reality the article supported a temporary compromise in which the federal government would recognize state marriages as civil unions provided that there were robust religious-conscience exceptions.

He argued that marriage is bigger than just the legal incidences of marriage (a point that our side has made repeatedly). Domestic partnerships are comparable but not the same as marriage. Then he said something perplexing: “It is discriminatory and morally wrong to call two things that are the same by different names.”

Boies then led cross-examination.

Boies showed that Blankenhorn’s institute treats biological and adoptive families the same. Blankenhorn testified that adoptive families are just as good. And he is not aware of any study that shows that children of gays and lesbians have different worse outcomes than straight.

If I understand the liveblogging correctly, Blankenhorn believes that the adoption of same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children. And he believes that America would be more just by allowing same-sex marriage. But he thinks it would lead to fewer marriage between heterosexuals.

(Odd, it never occurred to Blankenhorn that he would actually have to tie his opinions back to those who did research. I get the impression that he thought it would be similar to the polite debates in which everyone’s opinion is considered to be valid and that real research was treated as no more valuable than opinions based on “thinking about it for a long time” or writing a book.)

Boies gets Blankenhorn to admit that few (perhaps none) of his listed sources actually discuss either disinstitutionalization or same-sex marriage and that none make the two part linkage: same-sex marriage leads to deinstitutionalization which then leads to fewer heterosexual marriages. (This may be simply an extrapolation on the part of Blankenhorn, and he simply is not qualified to make such an extrapolation. He has not done research and it appears that he cannot back up his positions with the research of others. It’s difficult to understand why Cooper allowed two very unprepared witnesses to take the stand.)

That was it for today and cross-examination will continue tomorrow. The case is scheduled to end around noon, after which the judge will go ponder the evidence before the attorneys make their closing statements some time in February. Then Judge Vaughn Walker will make his decision.

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.

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.

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: 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.