Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment - Day 2 Chapter 5

Therese Stewart, Attorney for the City of San Francisco, conducts the direct examination of Yale professor George Chauncey of Yale University, is the leading expert in the country on the history of gay life in America. Chauncey’s testimony will address factors previously treated as relevant to the level of scrutiny, that is, how deferential or skeptical courts will be toward government, certain kinds of discrimination receive under the 14th Amendment of our Constitution. It took two transcript paragraphs to list the prizes won by his book, “Gay New York,” (I read that, it's at the Boston Public Library) which included a trail-blazing analysis of how discrimination against homosexuals (especially gay men) developed alongside the repeal of Prohibition in the early 1930’s (the Hayes committee is one notorious example -- it eliminated gay visibility in the movies) and with the rise of McCarthyism after World War II (a Lavender Scare grew up and exceeded the Red Scare). So his testimony is about how lesbians and gay men were made a "suspect class" for benefit of the hetero majority only, and have suffered widespread and acute discrimination and fearmongering over the course of the 20th Century. He explains how more than just sodomy laws were used to try to keep gay and lesbian people even from patronizing and gathering in bars, how military anti-gay policy came about, persecution and purging of gay and lesbian government employees and even priivate sector employees and the enabling of hate crimes. The bloody discrimination reinforced enduring patterns of anti-gay prejudice and hostility, forcing lesbians and especially gay men to endure the toll of the closet. The closet made LGBT people utterly invisible and has perpetuated “demonic stereotypes” of gay people, including past and present themes of gay men and lesbians as threats to children starting in the '50s, the latest examples being the images of such threats presented in the media in support of Proposition 8. He explains thoroughly that which the plaintiffs are arguing: these scare tactics were a form of irrational prejudice deployed in the Yes on 8 campaign to secure passage of the proposition.

Chauncey has agreed with most modern historians that homosexuality as a category of humanity was discovered only in the late 19th Century. Before that, law and society focused on the acts themselves (sodomy, etc.) and assumed they would come and go in many peoples’ lives. So Thompson, cross-examining again, presses Chauncey to admit that the category “homosexual” is a fluid one with distinctions between acts and identities, and that it’s not exactly clear what it means. As the day ends, Thompson’s cross-examination of Professor Chauncey has only just begun.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 2 Chapter 4

Therese Stewart, Attorney for the City of San Francisco, conducts the direct examination of Yale professor George Chauncey of Yale University, is the leading expert in the country on the history of gay life in America. Chauncey’s testimony will address factors previously treated as relevant to the level of scrutiny, that is, how deferential or skeptical courts will be toward government, certain kinds of discrimination receive under the 14th Amendment of our Constitution. It took two transcript paragraphs to list the prizes won by his book, “Gay New York,” (I read that, it's at the Boston Public Library) which included a trail-blazing analysis of how discrimination against homosexuals (especially gay men) developed alongside the repeal of Prohibition in the early 1930’s (the Hayes committee is one notorious example -- it eliminated gay visibility in the movies) and with the rise of McCarthyism after World War II (a Lavender Scare grew up and exceeded the Red Scare). So his testimony is about how lesbians and gay men were made a "suspect class" for benefit of the hetero majority only, and have suffered widespread and acute discrimination and fearmongering over the course of the 20th Century. He explains how more than just sodomy laws were used to try to keep gay and lesbian people even from patronizing and gathering in bars, how military anti-gay policy came about, persecution and purging of gay and lesbian government employees and even priivate sector employees and the enabling of hate crimes. The bloody discrimination reinforced enduring patterns of anti-gay prejudice and hostility, forcing lesbians and especially gay men to endure the toll of the closet. The closet made LGBT people utterly invisible and has perpetuated “demonic stereotypes” of gay people, including past and present themes of gay men and lesbians as threats to children starting in the '50s, the latest examples being the images of such threats presented in the media in support of Proposition 8. He explains thoroughly that which the plaintiffs are arguing: these scare tactics were a form of irrational prejudice deployed in the Yes on 8 campaign to secure passage of the proposition.

Chauncey has agreed with most modern historians that homosexuality as a category of humanity was discovered only in the late 19th Century. Before that, law and society focused on the acts themselves (sodomy, etc.) and assumed they would come and go in many peoples’ lives. So Thompson, cross-examining again, presses Chauncey to admit that the category “homosexual” is a fluid one with distinctions between acts and identities, and that it’s not exactly clear what it means. As the day ends, Thompson’s cross-examination of Professor Chauncey has only just begun.

What It's Like for a Gay Youth to Live in an Antigay Household.

I will let Joshua Scarpuzzi tell the story. It's here, beginning at Comment No. 38. He was commenting on the fifth installment of the Courage campaign's liveblog the second day of the Proposition 8 Federal trial in Federal Court in San Francisco, California.

I currently live at home with my family…and the closest description of my mother is Anita. I feel like I'm living in “prayers for Bobby” everyday. It hurts to hear these things, these statements that live off of the fear and ignorance of religious people all over our country. I am good with God, I made my peace years ago and I know where I'm going after this life, and being only 19 and out and in the spotlight of the gay community here in San Diego is rough at times but it makes my stomach churn when I see the young gays who take their rights and freedoms for granted, who haven't been through the hate and shame and isolation many of the older, wiser gays have. And I'm not saying they should go through it. No one should, but I honestly feel that losing Prop 8, and now having this battle in the public eye and discussing all of the shit we've gone through will open the eyes of other kids, families, and the public to see the truth. We have a long way to go and I wish the best for everyone in that court room. Thank you so much for blogging this to us on the outside, it is truly a blessing.

Actualy Joshua experienced a year-long concentrated dose of the hate and shame and isolation many of the older, wiser gays have gone through when his biological family sent him away and had him committed to an abusive, homophobic ex-gay cult.

In October of 2007 I was transported against my will to a behavioral modification camp in western Montana. My parents had me locked in this facility for exactly 365 days of which I spent doing labor, line drills, shock therapy, isolation therapy, among other things. I was starved at times, spit on, molested, called a faggot, and beat up by staff and other kids. These religious hypocritical leaders, and I hate to compare the two (because I would never want to minimize what the Jews went through), are the modern day Nazis of America. They want to govern everyone with their narrow minded bigotry and we have to fight! We have to come out of the closet and say enough is enough!!!!! I survived 365 days of abuse and humiliation because I knew one day I could share my story with the world. I've still not told anyone on this big of a scale but I hope that one person may read this and that one person more will take a stand. I've been out in the real world for a year and 3 months and I still, day to day, get the abuse from my family. We have to keep fighting! For my friends who are still in these camps, for our own future, and for the future of our children. :(

If only Joshua were in the Courtroom telling his story!

There are so many of these “camps”, and so many these that goes on behind the closed doors of Prop 8 supporters, churches, and religious organizations that we never hear about. I've tried a few times to contact gay newspapers, news stations, and magazines as well as police officials to try and bring light to these “camps” but no one has wanted to publish my story. People need to know about the cruelty and hypocrisy that goes on behind the God-following mask they wear!

Yes, the news must be promulgated far and wide that these ex-gay cults are a menace! They've even brought the bogus idea of "reparative therapy" to the shores of the United Kingdom (Great Britain) and much to the UK mainstream media's credit, these dangerous cults are being denounced and discredited over there!

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 2 Chapter 3

The cross-examination of Dr. Nancy Cott is complete and Theodore Boutros redirects for the plaintiffs.

It's all about Love.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 2 Chapter 2

The Defendant-Intervenor’s lawyer David Thompson cross-examines Dr. Nancy Cott. He introduces us to the snotty, condescending method of cross-examination the defendants will use throughout the whole trial. Starting off the bat, he tries to undermine her qualifications for her testimony and slime her as a "librul." Presenting a pile of Cott’s statements from a decades-long career, he presses her to recognize defendants’ version of marriage – a Christian, monogamous institution, focused on children -- and to admit the changes she described in direct would destroy the univocal vision. She tries to stick to her original story – that marriage was always partly secular and changed in content as the society changed, mostly, she thinks, for the better – integrating the races, emancipating women. Thompson asks Cott if she agrees with a wide variety of quotations taken from law review articles and other publications on marriage written by other people; she does not agree, for example, that allowing same-sex couples to marry is “breathtakingly subversive.” He does get her to agree with him that thinking of humans in binary male/female terms is universal across cultures, which could feed the defense theme that the Plaintiffs’ are asking the court to experiment in novel and risky ways. [Other witnesses in the trial will address such “third-gender” people as Hijras in India, not to mention that Dr. Cott herself has noted that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has not prevented the condition of opposite-sex marriage to improve there.] Her testimony is crucial, because Defense-Intervenors’ case depends heavily on establishing that heterosexual union is the only core meaning of marriage, so that any change, however harmless by normal standards of harm, will, by definition, destroy the institution.

Attorney Thompson and Cott address possible religious bases of colonial marriage laws; the legal doctrine called “coverture” and old California laws treating men and women differently in marriage; and the social meaning of marriage, where he gets her to agree that the social understanding of marriage has societal effects and that a person’s views about same-sex couples getting married are “quite affected” by various factors including their friends and their religion. Thompson then explores with Cott the motivations of congressional supporters of the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), including concerns for social stability, religious beliefs, and fear of a slippery slope to legalized polygamy. He then tries to treat her as an authority on groups’ political power and secures her agreement in effect that there is less prejudice against gay and lesbian people today -- apparently trying to establish as truth the utterly erroneous idea that the LGBT populace has significant political power.

Again, "the gay activist judge" bends over backwards for the Defense!!!

Is This Good For The Gays? NO!!!!! And This Is Why We Have To SPEAK THE TRUTH TO RIGHT-WINGED LIES!!!!!

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=93114

There is this shocking case of a gay adoptive father who allegedly offered his five-year-old son as a sex object online.

The case, which culminated in a June 26 arrest in which Duke University Center for Health Policy Associate Director Frank Lombard allegedly offered an undercover officer the sexual services of his young adopted son. Eeeewwwww. And, it's appalling! This is the sort of thing that ought not be done by ANYBODY within the LGBT community! One case of pedophilia or child prostitution by an LGBT person is one too many!

Yet this is just one of how many hundreds or thousands of gay fathers who are the best parents the kids have ever ever had? And how many heterosexual parents have done the same thing this gay adoptive father did? To their own biological kids??? Yet seldom do people intervene on behalf of the kids of heterosexual parents until the parents’ conduct is simply outrageous.

Of course, pundits on the right lost no time in seizing on this shocking case. They pointing to the case as evidence why LGBT people especially gay men ought not to be allowed to adopt.

Of course, nothing coule be further from the truth. In reality, gay men are found by peer-reviewed studies to be LESS likely to be involved in pedophilia than the population at large. One such study was done by Dr. Carole Jenny of Denver Children's Hospital. She found that from a sample of fifty boys, there was one boy who was molested by a man who *could* have been gay and forty-nine boys who were molested by either straight men, straight women, or both. Usually close relatives or family friends.

Now why would heterosexual men molest boys??? Watch the embedded video and find out! What you will find will shock and disgust and appal you.

Ugandan Kill The gays Bills is Worse Than You Could Possibly Imagine.

Anybody who knows of a sexually active OR romantically involved GLBT Ugandan would get caught up in this bill if it becomes law and if they commit more than one offense related to homosexuality, then they meet the Death Penalty once convicted! This means that for Ugandan gays, lying and hiding in the closet is no option. Their friends, relatives, employers, coworkers and ministers would have to give them up to the state. And the bill if enacted would have extraterritorial reach.

Link here: http://wakingupnow.com/blog/uganda-kill-everyone-video/comment-page-1#comment-1890

And even the antigay pastor Martin Ssemba could get caught up in this and get killed by the State if this bill were eneacted and he continues to show extreme gay porn in Ugandan churches. He's had two such presentations already and I doubt he'll stop! He appears to be a closet case to me. Still, we cannot allow this bill to become law! Kill the bill!

Utterly Disgusting and Insane Hate Video.

I found this at Joe.My.God. The original is at WorldNutDaily.

WARNING -- COARSE LANGUAGE ALERT.

Pardon my Fench but I am majorly pissed off and very angry.

Just fucking revolting. And twisting MLK's inspirational fight for freedom into killing human beings is beyond abhorrent.

The recent open talk about rounding us up should be seen as a RED ALERT.

The ramp-up of this type of vicious, violent rhetoric is truly disturbing -- it demands that we be more active, confrontational and vocal oursleves. Queer Rising and other groups who've started civil disobedience got it right; this has to be in your face, every day and a demand for no less than full equality -- and these morons publicized and confronted.

I'm sick of gay people who are too chickenshit to push back. You can't make a moral equivalence between hatred of the oppressor and hatred of the oppressed. We have no obligation to treat people like Molotov Mitchell with a shred of respect or even common politeness.

These people are classic bullies, and the only way their evil will be reigned in is if they have something to lose by bullying us.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 2 Chapter 1

In this installment, Atty. Ted Boutros finishes his direct examination of Professor Nancy Cott. Her expert opinion is that there has NOT been a tradition in this country of marriage being strictly for purposes of procreation, marriage has historically been restricted upon the basis of race, marriage has increasingly become a domestic partnership of two equals, same-sex marriage would be beneficial for same-sex couples, and in her home state of Massachusetts divorce rates have dropped slightly (by 2/10ths of 1% out of 100% of all opposite-sex (?) marriages) since same-sex marriage became legally recognised there.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment - Day 1 Chapter 4

Today David Boies completed examining Kristin Perry and examined Sandra Shier. Their testimonies were very poignant. Then, Theodore Boutros examined the plaintiff's expert witness on the history of marriage in the United States, Dr. Nancy Cott, Ph.D. When she tried to testify about marriage outside the US as it pertains to marriage inside the US, she and Mr. Boutros were almost derailed by the defense-intervenor's counsel, saying: "OBJECTION, your honor! It was noted in the deposition that she was only an expert on marriage within the United States and that she is not an expert on marriage outside of the United States," yada yada yada... District Judge Vaughn A. Walker bent over backwards for the D-I counsel and Mr. Boutros had to carefully ask questions about marriage outside the United States as it pertained to marriage inside the United States, including the founders' observation and known history of marriage outside US society.

And this is the judge that ProtectMarriage.com is now denouncing as an impossible-to-be-impartial, gay activist judge. You will find out later why in future installments when the reenactment of the trial proceedings will reveal a serious lack of preparation and a total appearance of ridiculousness, ludicrousness and arrogance on the part of the defense-intervenor's counsel.

A Straight Woman Comes Around on Same Sex Marriage.

This is the story of her journey.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 1 Chapter 3

Today Paul Katami finished his testimony of how he was harmed by the Constitutional change and the worsened atmosphere against gay men generated by the passing of Proposition 8 and the Yes on 8 campaign's lies about the so-called "threat" posed to children by same-sex marriage, as well as his desire to marry his partner, Jeffrey Zarrillo. I was really, really angry when the Defense-Intervenor's attorney did his cross-examination of Mr. Katami. I felt he was hunting Mr. Katami, to back him into a corner and tear him apart. My blood was boiling! I wanted to jump into the computer screen and shake some sense into the attorney's head. then I had to remember: this is only a reenactment. Kristin Perry also testified of the harm done to her and about her desire to marry her partner, Nicole Kirk (do I have that correct?) Kristin's testimony broke my heart when she said she felt that "We weren't good enough to be married" when the State courts ruled in 2004 or 5 invalidating San Francisco's issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and presiding over same-sex weddings.



But remember, Proposition 8 was stolen due to black box voting!

Don't Ask Don't Tell is Exhausting for GLBT Servicepeople.

Comment 143 from Prop 8 Trial Tracker, today's Prop. 8 and DADT thread:

A poster named Ozymandias said:

I think there’s a big misunderstanding concerning DADT with a lot of people who support it (but are at least reasonable about it). I have heard people say ‘Why overturn it? What happens in the bedroom shouldn’t be anyone’s business!’ Naturally I agree, but DADT is not about preventing us from hurling our ‘lifestyle’ about.

I asked someone once, ‘How many times a day do you mention your wife in casual conversation?’ He said that he didn’t know because he didn’t think about it. Exactly – he didn’t have to think about it because his relationship with his wife was universally accepted. Now, I asked him, imagine being in a place where he COULDN’T mention his marriage because his marriage could get him fired. How many conversations would he suddenly have to edit? What about conversations via e-mail with his wife, if the e-mail server was owned by the company with this policy? Going further, even if he used a 3rd-party e-mail platform, how would he feel if his monitor was facing the door to his office? What if the company had internet-monitoring software? Was there the possibility that the company could somehow ’see’ his e-mails? What about Instant Messaging?

Even more than that, what if you ran into a co-worker away from work with your wife by your side? How would you handle company functions, or even places where you know your co-workers go after work? What if someone ‘found out’ about your marriage and said he was supportive – how would you feel if you received instructions to reprimand that co-worker for something? Or have to give them a project that they might feel is unfair? Would the knowledge that he knew affect your dealings with him?

He looked at me with open horror and said, ‘My God, the amount of paranoia that kind of policy would create… in every part of my dealings with my co-workers – that would exhaust me completely! Gays and Lesbians in the Armed Forces have to deal with that?’

Every day, was my response.

And it is exhausting. Having to look over your shoulder every day -- which is absolutely necessary in a hostile environment in which you are being hunted by other human beings. This is exactly the environamt that Former Senator Sam Nunn and Former President Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" promulgates. Superiors in the military, if they suspect any servicemember is gay / lesbian / etc., can ask other people including civilians how that servicemember exercised his / her liberties whilst off duty. Oftentimes the result is a dishonourable discharge which means the dischargee usually can't get a decent job. Servicemembers can't seek address for sexual or homophobic harassment because then they will be under increased suspicion! Oftentimes they have to defend themselves with no support whatsoever. Sometimes they're brutally murdered like Barry Wenchell, who was beaten to death with a baseball bat simply because he fell in love with a MTF transgender who had begun to present herself as a woman... yet he was otherwise straight.

It is past time to let our fellow GLBT servicepeople to serve their copuntry openly!

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 1 Chapter 2

In this installment we have the Defense-Intervenor's opening arguments and the first two Plaintiff's witnesses: Jeff Zarrilli and Paul Katami. Jeff and Paul describe the bloody discrimination they face every day because they are not married. Usually the everyday slights, misunderstandings and downright "why did you ask for a single kingsized bed for???" type of reprimand. All this does nothing except shame and humiliate gay men, lesbians and the like. Paul also tells of a queerbashing in which the bashers threw rocks and eggs over the perimeter fence of a gay-friendly establishment. He and Jeff, along with others, got hit by the eggs and rocks. No doubt that there was property damage and I'm convinced the eggs were rotten aas well. People do not accept same-sex couples unless we are legally married! Toward the end of the vid the DI's team try to prevent the "Stand Up" (freight train and commuter trains) video in which certain California religious right ministers manage to get the conservative Christian church membership all worked up in fear with POSSIBLE SCAREY OUTCOMES if they don't go out to the polls and "Stand Up for Jesus" by voting to take already-recognized same-sex marriage rights from GLBT people (and same-sex sham marriage rights from straight people) with only irrational prejudice and religion for justification.



Here is the stinkin' "Stand Up" video. By showing two COMMUTER TRAINS, it portrays us GLBT people as an unacceptable, dangerous threat. The real Jesus would have nothing to do with this, except to rebuke the producers, directors, crew and cast, especially the featured preachers!



BTW the black preacher, Ron Prentice, looks gay. Hahahahaha. Ouch. :'(

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 1 Chapter 1

This is a landmark case in which a mountain range of evidence has been built which shows that prejudice against us LGBTIQ people is irrational and based on religion, lies, mid/disinformation, myth and false assumption.