I couldn’t resist using Pugno’s snarky quotation marks against him. It’s 2 in the morning eastern time, but I’ve got more spin to debunk from Protect Marriage, so let’s dig into it! I’m just as curious to hear about their “Successful Day” as you are, I’m sure!
I’ll skip his first paragraph since it just recounts what he already wrote earlier. Essentially, gays and lesbians don’t face discrimination like they used to. Well… yeah, we kind of do. Moving on!
Their second witness of the day was UCLA social psychology professor Dr. Letitia Peppeau who opined that, among other things, same-sex couples are “indistinguishable” from heterosexual couples in terms of their relationships, and that legalizing same sex marriage would not harm traditional marriage. However, she could offer no studies to prove her contention that there would be no impacts on traditional marriage. On cross examination, she also admitted that the available studies do, in fact, show significant differences between gay couples and heterosexual couples. For example, one study reported that a significantly lower percentage of gay men think that monogamy is important in their relationships (only 36%) than do those in heterosexual relationships. Of those gay men who say that monogamy is important in their relationships, 74% still engage in sex with multiple partners. When pressed, she admitted that sexual exclusivity among gay men is the exception rather than the rule.
I’m pretty sure indistinguishable means indistinguishable no matter how you write it, Andy. In fact, I’d venture that “indistinguishable” is indistinguishable from indistinguishable. But hey, however you want to mock the witnesses! It’s your call.
Again we see the “prove the negative” argument in play. With another misspelled witness name (though I’ll admit I had it wrong on a previous post, but rapid liveblogging can be blamed for that—Pugno has no excuse), Pugno tries to suggest that since Dr. Peplau can’t prove there won’t be an impact on traditional marriage, there implicitly must be such an impact. I should point out that I cannot prove that I won’t get awarded a lifetime supply of butterscotch krimpets tomorrow, so by Pugno’s logic, I have some tasty treats to look forward to. I should also point out that I can’t prove that there’s not a God, but that doesn’t mean I’m not an atheist!
We also see some impressive cyclical reasoning here. See, marriage encourages monogamy. Demonization and harassment discourages openness. So, for many decades, gay men have had to sneak around and have had no motivation whatsoever to commit to a partner. If anything, such a commitment would be punished by society. So, naturally, the culture of gay men (unfortunately) has come to not value monogamy. But they don’t value monogamy because they don’t have marriage. Pugno’s trying to suggest they shouldn’t have marriage because they’re not monogamous, but he’s got the whole thing backwards, and Dr. Peplau did a fair job of pointing that out to the cross-examiner, Nicole Moss.
As Marchy Wheeler commenting during her liveblogging, “Has anyone asked Mark Sanford and John Ensign about this? Because I’m pretty sure they’d say monogamy was really important to them.” Indeed, the Protect Marriage side seems to have no problem ignoring that heterosexuals aren’t the best at monogamy either. I would offer that they’re relatively worse, because gay men are probably at least more open about their extra sexual partners so that the whole situation is emotionally healthier than those who lie and cheat. Of course, gay men lie and cheat too (unfortunately).
But the news that carried the day was the United States Supreme Court’s decision to stop the trial court from broadcasting the Prop 8 trial beyond the courthouse. Our opponents had convinced the judge that televising this trial is a great opportunity to “educate” the public about same-sex marriage. But as I’ve said over and over again, the courts are first and foremost the guardians of our right to a fair and impartial trial. The courts should never become a tool to help advocacy groups sway public opinion. That is what political campaigns are for.
Basing their decision in part on the well-established record of death threats, hostile phone calls and e-mail messages, lost jobs, Internet blacklists, boycotts, vandalism and physical violence that supporters have faced from anti-Prop 8 extremists, the high court recognized the harm that could come to our witnesses and supporters of traditional marriage as a result of broadcasting their testimony about their political and religious beliefs.
Even having read the SCOTUS decision today, I’m not convinced that public broadcast does anything to affect whether the trial is “fair and impartial.” This is the continued self-victimization rhetoric that the defense uses to try to gain more control of the message. Thanks to our livebloggers, we still see just how low their tactics are, despite the spin they try to offer.
As I have before, I must point out that Pugno and Protect Marriage don’t seem to have any concern for all of the violence the gay community has faced because of their discriminating lies.
The Supreme Court’s decision also noted that the trial court improperly suspended the longstanding court rule against televising federal trials “at the eleventh hour” in violation of federal statutes. The highest court in the country took the position that we have held all along: this case is too high-profile, the stakes are too high, and the risks of harm to its participants too great to use it as a pilot project to experiment with televising federal trials, as Judge Walker and the homosexual activists have relentlessly insisted.
I always feel so respected when I’m referred to as a “homosexual.” Doesn’t that seem oxymoronic? It’s too high-profile to broadcast?
All in all, Wednesday was a successful day for our legal team, the integrity of the judicial process and the supporters of Prop 8.
On another note, please join us for our weekly “bloggers-only” update call on Friday at 5:30 PST, where we will talk about the week’s events and preview the coming week. Please contact Communications Director Carla Hass at Carla.Hass@protectmarriage.com or 916-834-9969.
I’m going to try to see if I can get in on that. It would be very interesting to see what they feed the bloggers. Why do I get the sense I won’t be allowed to participate? I’ll follow-up tomorrow.
And, as always, pings and comments are closed, so Protect Marriage will not be letting their readers see any feedback to their posts. Hopefully they see this one.