In the Supreme Court today during an argument over Proposition 8 of California, Justice (sic!) Antonin Scalia asked Atty. Ted Olson, Esq., "When did it become unconstitutional to exclude gays from marriage?"
To which Mr. Olson replied with a quip, "When did it become unconstitutional to exclude interracial couples from marriage?"
I think it should have gone this way. Mr. Scalia plays himself, Boris Badenov plays Mr. Olson. And Justice Anthony Kennedy plays himself, too.
"When did it become unconstitutional to exclude gays from marriage?"
"June 26th, 2003."
"I don't recall that being decided."
"You don't recall, you honor? You said so, yourself."
"Okay, tell me when I said so."
"It's in your dissent opinion, Lawrence v. Texas."
"Since you're so smart, why don't you quote it?"
"Certainly, your honor.
" 'If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “when sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “the liberty protected by the Constitution”?' "
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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. :'(
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.
From today's session, early afternoon, of the California Proposition 8 Trial in Federal Court, S.F., CA.
David Boies: (pauses to collect himself) Turn to PX513. This is something you wrote for the campaign for Proposition 8, correect? Dr. William Tam: Yes. B: The heading is WHAT IF WE LOSE, correct? T: Yes. B: Meaning what if Proposition 8 doesn't pass? T: Yes. B: You write, "They will lose no time pushing The Gay Agenda." T: Yes. B: You wrote, "The San Francisco government under rule of homosexuals." T: Yes. B: Who were these homosexuals? T: Tom Ammiano was a supervisor. B: Was the mayor a homosexual? T: I don't believe so? B: So why did you say that? T: Well Gavin Newsom married them so he must be their friend. B: So you mean that San Francisco was under the rule of heterosexuals who were friends with homosexuals? T: You were using your legal words to change my original intent.
So here we have Dr. Tam basically saying in his campaign email that gavin Newsom is a homosexual by association. Or at least that's how it comes off to me.
"When did it become unconstitutional to exclude gays from marriage?"
"June 26th, 2003."
"I don't recall that being decided."
