Box Turtle Bulletin

DADT repeal process started

The Hill is reporting:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen will testify next week on the repeal of a controversial law preventing openly gay people from serving in the military.

“The Joint Chiefs and the Chairman understand perfectly the president\’s intent to see this law repealed,” Kirby said. “They take very seriously their obligation to provide him and Secretary Gates the best military advice about both the impact of repeal and its implementation across the force. They look forward to developing their advice and providing their advice in the near future.”

This testimony will reveal the Pentagon’s strategy for lifting the ban on open service. (Fox News)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen will unveil next week a plan to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Thursday.

The military officials will lay out their plan when they testify in front of the Senate Armed Services next Tuesday.

Morrell said the Pentagon is not bringing a legislative proposal to Capitol Hill, but rather an assessment of steps that need to be taken internally to get to the point to change the law.

This testimony may not yield complete agreement. However, the much noted response of the military leaders to Obama’s appeal to lift the ban may not be an indication of disapproval.

When Obama asked Congress to repeal the law in the speech, Gates stood and applauded, while Mullen and the Joint Chiefs remained stoic.

A source close to Mullen said the rest of the chiefs follow Mullen’s lead and will clap only when he does. On Wednesday night, Mullen did not feel it was appropriate to show either support or contempt for such a politically charged issue, the source said.

Next week’s testimony may provide insight to whether the issue will be contentious. The public overwhelmingly supports lifting the ban, but many legislators have used the Military’s opposition as a cover.

While many legislators may oppose lifting the ban out of anti-gay animus, if the Pentagon endorsed the proposal it will make it difficult to find an objection that can be portrayed to the constituents as both principled and supportive of the military.

The Republican response doesn’t address Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

With each State of the Union address, the party not occupying the White House issues its response. And while a President may lay out his intentions, the response can often clarify which plans will flow smoothly and which will face fierce resistance.

This year the Republican response was presented by Bob McDonnell, the newly elected Governor of Virginia. And in a speech that in some ways reflected his campaign, McDonnell avoided social issues and focused on jobs, the role of government, and taxes and regulations. Most importantly, he said nothing in response to the President’s promise to “work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

This does not mean that the Party avoided all response to the issue of gays in the Military. John McCain, the 2008 party nominee, responded with a statement:

“In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress to repeal the ‘Don\’t Ask, Don\’t Tell\’ policy. I am immensely proud of, and thankful for, every American who wears the uniform of our country, especially at a time of war, and I believe it would be a mistake to repeal the policy.

“This successful policy has been in effect for over fifteen years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.”

However, it should be noted that this rebuttal is the McCain response, not the Republican response. If I’m evaluating this situation correctly, the Republican Party will be expending little capital this year in opposing the change in Military policy.

And it may be a stretch to read too much into this, but I think I am beginning to see a pattern emerge. It appears to me that anti-gay policies may be shifting from being Official Republican Positions to becoming the positions of Republicans. And this instance is not the only indication of a shift; here are a few other indications.

Recognizing a decline in emphasis on “values issues” within recent elections, some conservatives have been seeking to impose a litmus test on candidates which they would have to pass in order to receive support or funding from the Party. They sought to require that all Republican candidates agree with at least eight of ten key points, including “retention of the Defense of Marriage Act”. It was an effort to diminish moderates and other “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only).

Although most Republicans could agree on many of the positions, party leadership strongly opposed the effort. Chairman Michael Steele said,

“Every community should have responsibility for deciding who best represents their values, their interests, their principles. I trust them to do that. It is not the business of the RNC,” Steele said. “Ronald Reagan would be ashamed if the party moved in that direction.”

Leaders recognize that purity tests would eliminate the Party’s ability to run candidates in more liberal parts of the country and pointed out that Massachusetts’ Scott Brown likely could not have passed the test. Yesterday, at the RNC’s winter meeting, the state party leaders voted unanimously to reject the proposed restriction.

Another indication that the Party may be allowing dissension on gay issues is the recent public support for gay marriage from John McCain’s wife and daughter. The senator took the opposite position, thus presenting an image that one can be a “good McCain” and, indeed, a “good Republican” and hold differing opinions on issues surrounding gay equality. Nor did party officials loudly condemn Cindy McCain; indeed, it seemed as if they wanted to avoid any discussion of the issue.

Reluctance to visibly oppose marriage equality can also be seen in the response to the District of Columbia’s decision to enact marriage equality. A mere handful of legislators (29) signed an amicus brief in support of having a referendum and visibility on the issue has been scarce. In an election year, the Republican Party has elected not to make gay marriage in the nation’s capital much of an issue at all.

Now, I do not expect that Republicans are now going to immediately become allies of our community. Nor do I have any hope for an outbreak of Republican support for marriage equality.

Also I think that the Dede Scozzafava situation has shown us that hardcore conservatives will not readily or happily accept much divergence from their anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-freedom agenda. They will fight the “big tent” ideology with the vast resources they can muster and will at times be successful.

But I do think that perhaps signals are being sent from Party leaders that individual Republican legislators are free to take positions in opposition to DADT or in favor of ENDA without facing official repercussions or Party sanctions. And, while this could all change at a moment’s notice, I hope that taken together, these signs indicate that the days of the Republican Party using the gay community as a convenient scapegoat for all of the nation’s ills are waning.

Why did CNSNews.com Falsify Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill?

A recent post by Karen Schuberg on CNSNews.com, which claims to have caught Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) in an inconsistency over Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill, purposely twists the bill’s plain English to achieve that conclusion. Schuberg’s column leads off this way:

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said that if a person purposely tries to spread sickness, such as the H1N1 flu or a sexually transmitted disease such as HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, the action should be punished.

But Baldwin did not say what specific punishment was warranted, particularly in the country of Uganda, which currently is considering legislation that would impose the death penalty on any HIV-positive person who willfully and knowingly engages in homosexual relations. [Emphasis mine]

Willfully and knowingly? Where did Schuberg get that? She certainly didn’t get it from the proposed bill itself, which actually says this:

3. Aggravated homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the

(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;

(b) offender is a person living with HIV;

(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;

(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;

(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;

(f) offender is a serial offender, or

(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,

(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.

(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.

Pay careful attention to what the bill does not say. It does not say that the person who is living with HIV intends to infect others. Many people are in consensual serodiscordant relationships. They are in these relationships with full knowledge that their partner is HIV-positive and take cautions appropriately. But even these consensual relationships would result in the death penalty for the HIV+ partner.

And notice something else. If someone is HIV-positive and doesn’t know it, he, too, could be charged with “aggravated homosexuality” based solely on a prosecutor’s suspicion. That would compel the person to undergo an HIV test to determine his eligibility for the death sentence. And this test could very well be that individual’s first opportunity to learn he is HIV-positive. In civilized societies where Anti-Retroviral medicines are available, learning that one is HIV-positive is no longer a death sentence as it used to be before 1995. But in Uganda, it will revert back to being a literal death sentence under the law.

In fact, there is absolutely nothing in the proposed statute that requires the individual “willfully and knowingly” enter into a relationship to intentionally infect others. There is no such burden of proof required. Under this proposal, any consensual serodiscordant relationship — including mine — will open the door to the death penalty.

But the mere suggestion that serodiscordant couples — gay and straight, by the way! Where’s the death penalty against the straight HIV+ person? — can enter into loving, responsible relationships is completely outside of Karen Schulberg’s twisted imagination. That much is is obvious by her line of questioning in the article. She consistently frames it as given assumption that all HIV-positive people are irresponsible, duplicitous and wanton murderers.

One has to wonder at the real motivation of Schuberg and others like her who purposely distort the plain and simple meaning of the bill. Does she really think the bill’s provisions are justified? And since I think we all know the answer, why won’t she just come out and say it?

Update: To clarify, I should point out that not only did Schuberg butcher the actual text of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, she also willfully ignored Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s attempt to correct her. Baldwin made a very clear distinction between intentionally spreading diseases and entering into consensual relationships. Baldwin got the distinction exactly right. But while Schuberg included Baldwin’s quotes in full, she nevertheless wrote the entire column as if such a distinction neither existed nor mattered.

That’s because to Schuberg, it obviously doesn’t matter. As far as she is concerned, HIV-positive gay people are lying, sneaking killers. They have no morals, no sense of responsibility, and are incapable of entering into positive, loving, consensual, and fully informed relationships — none of these factors are addressed by the death penalty provisions. But HIV-positive straight people — AIDS is predominately a heterosexual disease in Africa, yet straight people aren’t being threatened with the gallows — I guess they are all morally upright and trustworthy. That’s Schuberg’s thesis. Otherwise, why would she go through such lengths to write what is plainly not true for something that has life-and-death consequences for gay people?

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

Bahati Won’t Attend the National Prayer Breakfast, But Others From Uganda Will

The Voice of America’s Straight Talk Africa television program this week featured a discussion of the secretive evangelical group known as the Family or the Fellowship and its connections to Uganda. Appearing on the program were Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, and Bob Hunter of the Family.

Hunter explained that Ugandan MP David Bahati, author of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, had been invited earlier this year to attend the National Prayer Breakfast on February 4. That invitation was extended before Bahati introduced the draconian bill into Parliament. Hunter said that Bahati had not accepted the invitation, and was surprised to see Bahati’s boast in Uganda’s Daily Monitor that he would be there. Then, during the program, Bahati himself called in briefly to the program and confirmed that he will not attend the Family’s National Prayer Breakfast “because of a prior engagement.”

But here’s an interesting detail. Hunter reiterated that Bahati’s invitation had been to be a “volunteer” rather than to attend the event itself. (Hunter had also described Bahati’s invitation the same way when he first confirmed that Bahati wasn’t going to attend the Breakfast.) But on the VOA program, Hunter offered a few more details. As he described it, if someone is invited to attend the National Prayer Breakfast for a second time, the invitation is to serve as a volunteer to accompany a larger delegation — in this case, a delegation from Uganda — but not to attend the Breakfast itself. In other words, Bahati has attended the Prayer Breakfast before, but this time he was asked to facilitate the attendance of a delegation from Uganda at the Breakfast.

So who’s coming? We don’t know. But just because Bahati can’t attend due to a “prior engagement,” that doesn’t mean the rest of the Uganda delegation won’t be there.

If I were to put together a “watch list” of Ugandans associated with this bill, I think it would include:

• President Yoweri Museveni
• First Lady and State Minister for Karamoja Janet Museveni.
• Attorney General Khidu Makubuya. He is heading the Cabinet subcommittee examining so-called “compromises” to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and is believed to be a supporter of the bill.
• Regional Affairs State Minister Isaac Musumba is on the subcommittee. I don’t know his position on the bill.
• Education Minister Namirembe Bitamazire is on the subcommittee. I don’t know his position in the bill.
• Gender Minister Gabriel Opiyo is on the subcommittee. I don’t know his position on the bill.
• Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo is on the subcommittee, has been a very strong supporter from the very beginning.
• Uganda’s Speaker of Parliament Edward Ssekandi has urged passage of the bill.
• Deputy Parliament Speaker Rebecca Kadaga also appears to be a strong supporter.

And, of course, Pastors Martin Ssempa, Steven Langa, David Kiganda, Henry Mina, and Julius Oyett should also be on the watch list.

Update: Bob Hunter of the Family left a comment below to say that these people are not coming to the Prayer Breakfast. That leaves open the question of who is coming and whether they are supporters of the bill or not.

[Hat tip: Warren Throckmorton]

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

Obama: Finally Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

The President’s State of the Union address, I thought, was one of the finest addresses ever given. He chastised the largest majority in recent history for its failure to get substantial work done, and he challenged the minority to live up to its responsibility to offer solutions if it is going to insist that a 60-vote super-majority will be required to get anything done in the Senate. This is a fighting spirit that has been missing from the White House over the past year. I frankly hope the President recognizes that change requires leadership from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, leadership which won’t come from the mob on Capital Hill.

But hope and reality are two different things. And given what we’ve seen over the past year, it’s  hard to get too excited over this particular part of the President’s address:

My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network calls for a sense of urgency:

We applaud the President tonight for his call to Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year. We very much need a sense of urgency to get this done in 2010. We call on the President to repeal the archaic 1993 law in his defense budget currently now being drafted, that is probably the only and best moving bill where DADT can be killed this year. As Rep. Patrick Murphy and Sen. Gillibrand have made clear, this is the year to repeal the law. What is also needed is more attention and leadership to win repeal. The American public, including conservatives, is overwhelmingly with the commander in chief on this one.

Chaffetz feebly tries to stop DC marriage

From the Mormon Church’s Deseret News

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, introduced a bill Wednesday that seeks to overturn a new District of Columbia ordinance allowing gay marriage, but he predicts Democratic leaders will not allow it to come to a vote.

Not only are the Democratic leaders going to ignore Chaffetz, so are the Republican leaders. The poor guy is the Rodney Dangerfield of Congress.

Ted Haggard is heeeeeealed

Gayle Haggard told Today’s Meridith Viera that husband Ted no longer has compulsive gay thoughts or behavior. (msnbc)

Both Ted and Gayle say that their love life was always strong. Ted has said that he learned during therapy that he had been abused by an adult male when he was a child and he was acting out that experience as an adult.

In an appearance on “Oprah,” Ted said, “The biggest thing that\’s helped me is therapy. Since that time, I have not had one compulsive thought or behavior.”

To Vieira, Gayle added, “In Ted\’s case, he had had some experiences as a child that kept replaying themselves in his mind. Once he went to therapy he was able to identify that and was given the tools to deal with it. Because of that, he no longer has those compulsions. That\’s not true for everybody. That\’s his story.”

I marvel at people who discover memories during therapy. Especially those which fit so easily into the anti-gay mantra of “gays were all abused”.

And the magical healing of “compulsions”… well, I always worry for those folk. When you think that your natural attractions are simply compulsions from which you have recovered, you then have no skills for making appropriate decisions when you are tempted to sexually betray your wife.

Shalikashvili says the time is now

General John Shalikashvili was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997. As such he was largely responsible for implementing the Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell policy.

In January 2007, General Shalikashvili wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he state that he no longer believes that open service from gay men and women would undermine the efficacy of the armed forces and proposed that the policy should be given serious reconsideration. But he was hesitant about the timing.

But if America is ready for a military policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, the timing of the change should be carefully considered. As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing, and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track.

By taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation\’s most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose.

Last June, he reiterated his belief that the policy should be changed “with proper timing”. (Wathington Post)

While the proper timing of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” remains uncertain, it is evident to me that a policy change is inevitable. More than three-quarters of the public favors the change. Polls show that even a majority of Republicans support allowing openly gay people to serve. Within the military, the climate has changed dramatically since 1993. Conversations I’ve held with service members make clear that, while the military remains a traditional culture, that tradition no longer requires banning open service by gays. There will undoubtedly be some teething pains, but I have no doubt our leadership can handle it.

He stated that the change was inevitable and that officers should begin preparing troops for that eventuality.

Now it seems that General John Shalikashvili has found the right time:

As a nation built on the principal of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger more cohesive military. It is time to repeal “don\’t ask, don\’t tell” and allow our military leaders to create policy that holds our service members to a single standard of conduct and discipline.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day twelve summary

Today David Boies continued his cross-examination of David Blankenhorn. It started with Blankenhorn saying that the children of gays and lesbians would almost certainly be benefited by their parents being able to marry, but that the rights of gays should take second place to the institution of marriage. It’s about “goods in conflict”; same-sex marriage is good but it should be sacrificed for the greater good (this idea always makes me think of the final Harry Potter book).

Blankenhorn agreed that same-sex marriage would provide a large number of benefits including more committed relationship, less promiscuity, higher living standards, reduced burden on the state, less prejudice and hate crimes, more scholarship and discussion on the value of marriage, an expansion of the American idea, and less heterosexual marital unhappiness due to gay people heterosexually marrying.

He even agreed that civil unions and domestic partnerships harmfully blur the distinctions of marriage.

But he believes that same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage. Boies asked him to indicate in his list of references which scholars make this claim, he included Alan Carlson from the Howard Center (an ultra-conservative think tank) and Maggie Gallagher. (It’s amazing how circular the anti-gay argument is. They all rely on each other for validation of their opinion with little to no actual research.)

Boies had Blankenhorn list his three “rules of the game” (essential structures of marriage): 1) rule of opposites, man and woman; 2) set of two; 3) sexual relationship.

When asked if there were exceptions to rule one prior to 50 years ago, he listed a tribe in Africa with possible man-boy temporary marriages as part of a warrior caste.

When asked about rule two, he admitted that previously to 100 years ago, 83% of societies were polygamous. But Blankenhorn doesn’t think that polygamy violates the rule of two because it is a bunch of separate one-man-one-woman marriages. (This is, I believe, a distinction without a difference. It is the fallback position for those who try and imply that marriage has always been the 1950s nuclear family in the face of incredulous historians.)

In referencing Blankenhorn’s third rule, Boies noted that the Supreme Court had already determined that incarcerated persons may marry without the presumption that they would ever have sex.

Boies then entered a report signed by Blankenhorn which listed six dimensions of marriage: legal contract, financial partnership, sacred promise, sexual union, personal bond, family making bond. Blankenhorn testified that both opposite-sex and same-sex couples can engage in these dimensions.

Boies asked Blankenhorn about what professional organizations have said. Blankenhorn answered that their lobbying boards (or leaders) were supportive of same-sex marriage. (He tried to imply a distinction between political opinions and research based opinions.) Boies referred him to the articles listed by the professional organizations supporting their views; Blankenhorn had read about ten percent of them.

Boise closed cross-examination by having Blankenhorn agree that he had written that there is no universal definition of marriage and that it is constantly evolving.

In re-direct, Cooper had Blankenhorn clarify that he sees the same-sex marriage issue as a choice between two goods, the good of dignity and respect for same-sex couples verses the good of children growing up in their biological family. And he sees the way to embrace these two goods in harmony is through domestic partnerships. (This is, I believe, their “rational basis” argument. The Pro-8 side is counting on the SCOTUS not recognizing gay people as a suspect class and therefore there only needing to be a rational basis for discrimination. And the belief, however mistaken, that biological parental marriage would be damaged by same-sex marriage would be the basis they have presented.)

And with that testimony ended.

There are still questions about compelling documents from the No on 8 campaign and if that happens, there may possibly be more testimony about these documents. The attorneys will present proposed findings of fact and findings of law by February 26.

Then the judge will consider all the testimony and all the documents and set a date for closing arguments.

I am very appreciative of the efforts of Courage Campaign and FireDogLake in liveblogging the entire trial and allowing for a timely summary. For those who want more accuracy and the absence of any inherent bias from either myself or the livebloggers, the American Foundation for Equal Rights has posted the official transcripts (there is a one-day delay).

Portugese support marriage equality

A poll taken after the Portugese Parliament voted to enact marriage equality shows the move to be popular in the Catholic nation. From Bay Windows:

Fifty-two percent of Portuguese support legalization of same-sex marriage, according to a new Eurosondagem poll for Rádio Renascença, SIC TV, and the Expresso newspaper.

The Eurosondagem poll quizzed 1,010 people by telephone from Jan. 7 to 12. Forty-three percent said they oppose same-sex marriage.

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.

Pugno’s illogical complaint about documents

Anthony Pugno is the general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and is posting his daily perspectives and arguments about Perry v. Schwarzenegger on the ProtectMarriage.com website. As such, Pugno is responsible for spinning the story in the way that the supporters of Proposition 8 wish and one of his themes has been Judge Walker’s “bias” against his side.

In a commentary posted yesterday he expresses a complaint that reveals the lack of logic, principle, or purpose behind the team seeking to defend Proposition 8:

Before resting their case, plaintiffs began Week Three this morning with a “document dump,” which means they admitted into the trial record a slew of documents they view to be evidence to support their case. Nothing earthshaking in and of itself, but the subtext is utterly astounding.

Despite supposedly winning our appeal in the Ninth Circuit to protect the privacy of our internal Prop 8 campaign records, the trial judge has still forced us to hand over literally tens of thousands of pages of sensitive campaign memos, emails and other documents to the plaintiffs. After sifting through our internal documents for facts they think aid their case, they had them labeled as trial exhibits and added to the court record.

So if the Yes on 8 campaign has been forced to open up its internal campaign records for this court trial, then shouldn\’t also the No on 8 campaign have to do so, too?

Well, although we filed a motion some time ago asking the court to order the “No on 8” campaign to disclose to us the same types of documents as those we had to disclose to them, the court has refused to rule on our request and thus we have been prevented from examining even one single document from the opponents of Prop 8. [emphasis in original]

This argument betrays that either Pugno is completely lacking in logic and knowledge of the purpose of the case, or else he believes that his readers are not too bright.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger seeks to prove that animus and bias were the bases for the initiation, collection of signatures, strategy, marketing, and implementation of the campaign to pass Proposition 8. As such, Pro-8 campaign correspondence is relevant in that it can reveal whether, indeed, animus and bias were motivators.

But the correspondence of the Anti-8 side would tell us nothing about the motivations for passing Proposition 8. It would add no value, answer no questions, and provide no insight. Pugno and company would have to argue for a reason to see this material based on its relevance to the question at hand, and there is none.

But in Pugno’s us-v.-them Culture War mentality, if you can read my email then I should be able to read yours. It’s not about the legal principles behind the constitutionality of discrimination, it’s all about waging war on a culture that doesn’t privilege the religious beliefs of his faith.

Star Of Scientology’s Recruitment Video Leaves Church

Actor Larry Anderson narrates the Church of Scientology’s 1996 film titled “Orientation” which is shown to virtually all first time visitors in church locations all around the world.  Easily the most infamous line of the film comes at it’s conclusion as spoken by Anderson himself:

“If you leave this room after seeing this film and walk out and never mention Scientology again, you are perfectly free to do so. It would be stupid. But you can do it. You can also dive off a bridge or blow your brains out. That is your choice. But, if you don\’t walk out that way, if you continue with Scientology, we will be very happy with you. And you will be very happy with you.”

Here’s a clip of that video. That great line comes at the very end.

The St. Petersburg Times is reporting Anderson is leaving the church because:

He says the church failed to deliver the spiritual gains it promised.

He also wants his money back, nearly $120,000 he says he prepaid for services never taken. A church policy says parishioners can get repayments, but if they do, they cannot come back.

Eleven months ago, Anderson met with Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis to discuss his request for repayment. Anderson, 58, put a tape recorder on the table between them.

As for that tape, the St. Petersburg Times has posted audio here.  In those excerpts Anderson and church spokesman Tommy Davis openly discuss such controversial church practices as disconnection, Scientology’s fear of critics, confidential church doctrine, and corrupt church leader David Miscavige.  In audio segment 13 Anderson says something that really resonates with my ex-gay experience:

I was a spokesman for the church when I truly believed what I was saying.

I too spoke positively of the ex-gay movement while I was in therapy and I believed I was changing.  But later I came to realize it wasn’t so.  I wish I could say this problem of high profile defections is unique to Scientology but it does seem the ex-gay movement has this problem too with former leaders resigning and people used in publicity images changing their minds.

via XenuTV

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day ten summary

Thanks to Courage Campaign and FireDogLake

Today the day started with plaintiffs (those seeking to overturn Proposition 8) entering a large quantity of items into the record. They began by playing a video of a simulcast of religious supporters of Proposition 8. (Were there any other kind? Yes, there were non-religious voters, but I’ve yet to find a prominent non-religious advocate for denying marriage equality.) This are rather nasty and claims:

• same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and incest
• gays are trying to “hijack the civil rights movement”
• race is inborn and homosexuality is “deviant behavior” and a choice
• children in Massachusetts are “being taught homosexuality”
• same-sex marriage is comparable to the 9/11 terrorist attacks
• children raised without fathers will not learn how to be leaders

Boutros presented a document that, in the words of Ron Prentice, illustrated that he wanted to keep the simulcast off the Dr. Phil Show because such imagery “shows religious bias to a national audience”. He also showed Prentice telling pastors that the way to flip a No vote was to tell voters that “children will be taught about homosexuality”. Prentice also told pastors how involved the Mormon Church was in the campaign and how they were instrumental in Hawaii (as Fred Karger has revealed).

Boutros provided a flyer prepared by Prentice which claimed that the goal of the community was not to get married but the full annihilation of the institution of marriage. He showed that NOM cleared everything with the campaign.

There were also a lot of documents that related to or supported earlier testimony but which had not been specifically discussed.

This is the completion of the case for the plaintiffs. (However, because they received 7,500 documents at 11:30 last night, they are reserving the right to reopen testimony based on their review.) Boies: “The plaintiffs rest.”

The first witness for the defendants is Prof. Kenneth Miller, an attorney who also teaches constitutional law in powers and civil liberties on a graduate and undergraduate level. Boies objected to Miller being presented as an expert on gay and lesbian political power. Before deposition he had never heard of the Mattachine Society and he still doesn’t know about a number of important events during the 70s, the period Miller presents as an expert. Miller said that since the deposition he’s read more and could probably write an article now. The judge allowed Miller to testify about current gay political power as he knows American and Californian politics.

(Miller may not have been a good choice. In addition to a lack of knowledge about gay history, he was nervous and kept confusing whether Prop 8 supported gay marriage or opposed it. Additionally, the Prop 8 attorneys continued to commit the cardinal sin of trials: they asked questions when they did not know the answers.)

Miller testified that the keys to political power are money, access to lawmakers, ability to persuade, size and cohesion, and allies. He testified that opponents of Prop 8 raised $43 million, more than supporters; that gays have influential allies including the Democratic Party, labor unions, and newspapers.

Miller testified that many churches opposed Proposition 8. However, he was unaware which churches actually conducted them. He wondered about the United Methodist and the Episcopalians. (at the time of Prop 8, the only sizable churches in California to do so were the Univeralist Unitarians and the United Church of Christ).

He testified that educators and professional organizations often support gay causes. Miller provided examples of when California voters chose not to quarantine HIV positive persons as evidence gay political power. Additional evidence was “increased support” for ENDA and overturning DADT and DOMA.

David Boies led the cross-examination. He illustrated how Miller was unfamiliar with laws and history impacting the gay community (he didn’t even know that the term “gay-bashing” could include physical violence). He then had Miller identify the subsequent research he did himself and the documents which were provided to him by the attorneys. It took him twenty minutes. (This is why Boies is so respected. Illustrating that the expert was told what to say by the attorneys is breathtaking.) Boies went on to show that his testimony relied not on his own documents but on what he was fed.

And then. Oh my. Oh my, oh my, oh my. Boies got Miller to describe the Defense of Marriage Act as “official discrimination” against gays and lesbians. He even said that speaking as a political scientist, Proposition 8 is discrimination (There is not adequate agreement between FireDogLake, Courage Campaign, and the Mercury News. He definitely said it “creates a distinction” and tried to say it was not invidious discrimination but we’ll have to defer to the transcripts whether he said “discrimination”.)

Miller testified that he had written that initiatives are less democratic than legislatures because there is no ability to have transparency, compromise and consensus building. He tried to argue that frequently initiatives are pulled back and reworked after the signatures were gathered but couldn’t name a single instance of it occurring (neither can I).

Miller’s cross-examination will continue tomorrow. I don’t think he will get a good night’s sleep.

President May Address DADT in State of the Union Message

The Marine Corps Times reports that Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) was expected announcement of hearings on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on LGBT people from serving in the military, but that announcement has been delayed at the request of the White House. The Administration’s request that Levin hold off on the announcement until after Wednesday’s State of the Union Address is fueling expectations that President Barack Obama may announce that military leaders will support changing the law.

The Marine Corps Times says that Sen. Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, is committed to holding hearings in February. However Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), the House Armed Services Committee chairman, says he will oppose any attempts by the Obama Administration to change the 1993 law.