Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 3 Chapter 4

The Defense-Intervenors' Attorney Nicole Moss, who, according to various livebloggers watching the proceedings, was utterly snotty and condescending, cross-examines Dr. Peplau. Ms. Moss gets Professor Peplau to acknowledge that there are hardly any empirical studies which show that same-sex couples benefit from marriage or benefit more from marriage than from domestic partnerships and later on that we don’t have enough years of experience with marriage in Massachusetts to know empirically whether same-sex couples’ marrying has had an effect on heterosexual marriage. In standing her ground, Professor Peplau replies that researchers know enough about stigma and discrimination against LGBT people and how they affect relationships to predict confidently that same-sex couples would benefit from having our right to marry recognised. Responding to questions about monogamy, Professor Peplau notes that a lower proportion of gay men report valuing it than the proportions among lesbians and married heterosexual couples, although she stresses that some studies were snapshots of gay men in particular places and past times (like L.A. in the 70s / early 80s). Ms. Moss drags Professor Peplau through a drudgery of an "analysis" of complicated numerical hypotheticals about marriages of same-sex couples in Belgium and the Netherlands, though Professor Peplau insists on her lack of foreign jurisdiction expertise and notes that rates of marriage of same-sex couples in Massachusetts are much higher than Moss’s hypotheticals from Belgian data. Echoing arguments from New York State and Washington State cases rejecting same-sex couples’ right to marry, Ms. Moss secures Professor Peplau’s agreement that same-sex couples don’t accidentally get pregnant and have kids the way heterosexuals do. Professor Peplau suggests that the influence of individualism on some decline of marriage has nothing to do with gay and lesbian people -- but of course! Heterosexual couples divorce because the individuals end up having irreconcilable differences with each other, usually over money.

On redirect examination by Plaintiffs' Attorney Christopher Dusseault, Professor. Peplau observes that she knows nothing suggesting gay and lesbian people are more individualistic than heterosexually identified people or less concerned about the welfare of their children. The day then closes with a little discussion about broadcasting the trial or not -- I believe they ended up deciding not to, thanks to certain Justices at SCOTUS.



Credit to MarriageTrial.com.

Let me close with something timely and inspiring from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: "Liberty is too precious to be buried in books."



And just like today, this movie shows that back then, the Senate was utterly corrupt.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 3 Chapter 3

San Francisco City and County Attorney Therese Stewart wraps up the re-direct examination of the Plaintiffs' expert witness Professor George Chauncey.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Christopher Dusseault then begins direct examination of Letitia Anne Peplau, a Harvard educated social psychologist on the psychology faculty at UCLA, an expert on close personal relationships, sexual orientation, and gender. Ms. Peplau adds to the plaintiffs’ story by testifying that Proposition 8 hurts gay people who would benefit from marriage. She also testified that Proposition 8 does not harm opposite-sex marriage, which strips the defendants of their only "good" reason for passing Proposition 8, HAHAHA.

She testifies, based on her own research and other experts’ work, that for those adults who choose to marry, marriage is often associated with a wide range of important material, emotional and spiritual benefits, partly due to the revered status of marriage in society; that there are remarkable similarities between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in respects such as relationship satisfaction, commitment, and stability; that same-sex couples will likely enjoy the same benefits from civil marriage that different-sex couples currently enjoy, consistent with self-reports from same-sex couples who married in Massachusetts (only more so when same-sex marriage is legal nationwide); and that allowing same-sex couples to marry will not harm heterosexual marriage, neither causing fewer different-sex couples to marry nor causing more of them to divorce. She explains that same-sex couples married when it became legal in Massachusetts at higher rates than they had entered civil unions or domestic partnerships. She concludes her direct testimony by noting that the existence of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts for four years has had zero affect on opposite-sex marriages.




Kudos to MarriageTrial.com.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 3 Chapter 2

The Defense-Intervenor's Attorney David Thompson completes his cross-examination of the Plaintiffs' expert witness Professor George Chauncey on discrimination against gay men and lesbians in the history in the United States. The SF City and County Attorney Therese Stewart, redirects the witness.

As the day opens, Attorney David Thompson confronts Chauncey with all manner of evidence, including his own work that things have not changed for the better for gays and lesbians in the United States and trying to get him to concede on the stand that gay men and lesbians have amassed significant political power in the US. Chauncey stoutly tries and succeeds to limit the effect of his prior statements by insisting that the improvements are incomplete due to political polarisation. THANK YOU, CLINTON. THANK YOU, ROVE. THANK YOU, BUSH. He also asserts that the process of integrating gays into American social life slowed or stopped in 2004, when a bunch of states passed Proposition-8-like initiatives to utterly ban gay and lesbian marriage, and sometimes civil unions, explicitly in their state constitutions. Chauncey resists and insists that such these ballot question setbacks and other forms of antigay discrimination is based on a view that same-sex relationships are unequal and inferior. Thompson makes the big mistake of not restricting Chauncey to simply saying yes or no.

Chauncey scored a very important point against the D-I Team, disputing their claim that being taught about same-sex marriage is bad for children. As revealed during the trial's first day, the Yes On 8 Campaign included a TV commercial relating how a Massachusetts grade school now includes fairy tales that end with the prince marrying the prince. Cross-examining gay plaintiff Paul Katami on Day One, defense lawyer Raum backed him up into a corner and managed to get him to waffle on whether or not parents could legitimately object to that, cleverly conflating the meaning of “morality,” and implying that any mention of homosexual marriage is tantamount to sex education! Again, Thompson makes the strategic error of trying to back Professor Chauncey into the same corner! Describing the Massachusetts fairy tale ad: “Is it reasonable for parents who morally disapprove of homosexuality to want to wait until the fifth or sixth grade for those sorts of issues to be taught in public school?”

Instead of being derailed by the red herring about sex, Chauncey immediately sees through the question: “Well, would you say that people who morally disapprove of racial equality or racial marriage should be able to insist that no books showing black and white people as equal or black and white people in relationships should be kept out of the schools?”

And then Chauncey drives the point home, skewering the old magical thinking that exposure of children to even the mention of LGBT people will automatically make the little tykes gay: “And in this case the child is simply being exposed to the existence of gay people. And I take note that the parents don't express concern just about marriage, but about homosexuality at all.”

On Therese Stewart's redirect, Chauncey reiterates that the Proposition 8 ballot question itself said nothing about children or what parents can teach them or what they’re taught in school. He clarified that there have long been people whose attractions today might lead them to be identified as gay; that there had been African Americans who questioned integration as a goal; that the progress made by lesbigay people in quarters such as academia has been only partial; that the majority of religious institutions and their congregants still oppose same-sex couples’ marrying and even “homosexuality”; that such religious views can be affected by anti-gay stereotypes, which were dredged up by Yes on 8 and other antigay campaigns before and since. He further stressed that these sorts of campaigns invariably reduce LGBT people to the sex act, essentially turning us into animals and "unnatural" ones at that!: "It focuses entirely -- it suggests the focus on homosexuality entirely as a matter of sexuality, not love, not relationships. This is actually a book about two princes falling in love and it's a fairy tale. It doesn't talk about sex. It's another fairy tale that seems appropriate to that age."

This is critical! Reducing us gay men and lesbians to absolutely nothing but sex and then invoking the sexual innocence of children has been a very effective strategy for the opponents of gay marriage, who prey on the magical thinking of misinformed people! Chauncey reveals what is really going on: libel, slander, and defamation of character in a smear campaign worthy of Goebbels! Would Thompson say that people who disapprove of interracial marriage should be allowed to pull their children out of school when they study the civil rights movement? HAHAHA.






Many thanks to to MarriageTrial.com.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 3 Chapter 1

Thompson’s cross-examination of Professor Chauncey continues today. He is trying to get Professor Chauncey to concede that LGBT people have amassed significant political power, but the professor stands his ground that LGBT people are still relatively powerless because of the severe polarization caused by the continuous and ongoing backlash from "Religious Right" groups. At several points the D-I's attorney gets to be pretty damn annoying!



Video from MarriageTrial.com's YouTube page.

LGBT Youth also Sexually Harassed More than Straight Youth. Quelle Surprise.

From ScienceDaily (Apr. 24, 2008)

James Gruber from the University of Michigan-Dearborn and Susan Fineran from the University of Southern Maine interviewed a sample of 522 middle and high school and found out that just over half the students had been bullied and just over a third were sexually harassed. Almost a third had been subject to both behaviors. Straight girls were bullied or harassed as frequently as straight boys, but lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, intersex, queer and questioning youths were submitted to greater levels of both.

Gruber and Fineran found that sexual harassment causes greater harm than mere bullying in both boys and girls. Straight girls and LGBT(etc) youths appeared to be the most affected by sexual harassment, suffering from lower self-esteem, poorer mental and physical health, and more trauma symptoms (that is, thoughts and feelings arising from stressful experiences) than straight boys.

Springer (2008, April 24). Sexual Harassment At School -- More Harmful Than Bullying. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2008/04/080423115922.htm

One would think the religious right would be on board with preventing sexual harassment. But once they catch wind that LGBT youth would be protected.....

LGBT Youth Bullied Three Times More than Straight Youth.

From Science Daily on February 1st:

In a nation wide study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, it is reported that kesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and other sexual minority youths are bullied two to three times as often as heterosexual youths are. LGBT(etc.) youth are also more vulnerable to mental stresses such as suicidal thoughts. It is also interesting to note that older adolescents are also bullied. So the problem is in both Junior and Senior High, all the way up to senior year.

Which shows that work still needs to be done to create school environments that are supportive and accepting of all students regardless of the students' sexual orientation. At the very least, schools need to lay down rules that bullying will not be tolerated, period.

Nationwide Children's Hospital (2010, February 1). Sexual minority youth bullied more than heterosexual youth. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/01/100127182503.htm

Problem is: it is always the religious right propagandists that oppose this. The most shameful being the "ex-gay" cult known as Exodus International.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Pro-Prop 8 "Expert" Witness Brings up Evidence the Question was Stolen.

Now Professor Kenneth Miller doesn't come out and say it, but under cross examination that the exit polls for those voters who went to Church only occasionally responded 'no' on the exit polls more than than the actual vote went no.

Link

But the best evidence is still over at Bradblog.

Proposition 8 - Stolen and Turned to H8

Turns out that there was a huge discrepancy between the exit polls for Proposition 8 and the vote counting results. A swing of 4% from one direction to the other. And a group in Los Angeles did their own exit polling with safeguards inaugurated to minimize lying to the exit pollsters: i.e., filling out printed informal ballots anonymously and inserting them into a locked box. They found even wider swings!

Links: Bradblog.com , WasProp8Straight.org

Not only were we LGBT America citizens queerbashed, so were the majority of California's voters, their state's constitution and the US Constitution!

And it looks like SCOTUS may pull a Conservative Judicial Activist stunt, like they did with Bowers v. Hardwick. :(

"This is un-American. My state is supposed to protect me, not discriminate against me."

So said Paul Katami yesterday in the historic legal challenge to California's Proposition 8.

That ballot question, place on the ballot by initiative petition, was motivated solely by religious fundamentalism and was approved by voters based on appeals to their fears and their blind prejudices.

And it's nothing but bloody discrimination in favor of heterosexuals, even the worst kinds thereof.

As Ted Olson has said,

At the end of the day, whatever the motives of its Proponents, Proposition
8 enacted an utterly irrational regime to govern entitlement to the fundamental
right to marry, consisting now of at least four separate and distinct classes of
citizens: (1) heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers
and sex offenders, who are permitted to marry; (2) 18,000 same-sex couples
married between June and November of 2008, who are allowed to remain married but
may not remarry if they divorce or are widowed; (3) thousands of same-sex
couples who were married in certain other states prior to November of 2008,
whose marriages are now valid and recognised in California; and, finally (4) all
other same-sex couples in California who, like the plaintiffs, are prohibited
from marrying by Proposition 8.

There is no rational justification for this unique pattern of
discrimination. Proposition 8, and the irrational pattern of California's
regulation of marriage which it promulgates, advances no legitimate state
interest. All it does is label gay and lesbian persons as inferior,
unequal, and disfavored. And it brands their relationships as not the
same, and less-approved than those enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. It
stigmatizes gays and lesbians, classifies them as outcasts,and causes needless
pain, isolation and humiliation.

In a nutshell, the proposition humiliated and shamed us in order to advance a blind prejudice that I call heterosexual supremacy. And goes against the state's interest in encouraging people, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, intersex and straight alike, to commit to stable, lifelong, monogamous civil and sacred unions based on love. And inadvertently reduces the importance heterosexuals' relationships to simply breeding children.

It is a crime against humanity that must be ruled Unconstitutional.