[UPDATE: Apparently, Pugno’s team is getting some headline coverage in Newsweek today, and unfortunately, the coverage is not that critical at all. Check out the article humoring this self-victimization.]
Wow, it seems like Andy Pugno might not even be faking interest or concern for the important lessons we’ve been getting from the expert witnesses this week. Check out Protect Marriage’s latest spin in his post, “Are We There Yet?”
As testimony today droned on from yet another plaintiff expert bemoaning perceived discrimination against gays and lesbians, I couldn’t help but think of the stereotypical long drive with a car full of kids, getting the same question every ten minutes: are we there yet? No matter the subject matter expertise of the expert the plaintiffs have called, they have all made the same claim: gays and lesbians have their feelings hurt because society does not see their relationships as marriage. The testimony has been replete with complaints about public attitudes: sideways glances as gay men walk together down the street, upraised eyebrows when a gay couple checks into a hotel and asks for a room with a king bed, disapproving looks from a bank officer when opening a joint account, etc. Today we heard that gays and lesbians are susceptible to stress and depression over negative public attitudes, and that the passage of Prop 8 elevated their stressful feelings.
Isn’t all discrimination “perceived” Andy? I mean, discrimination wouldn’t be worth labeling or calling out if gays and lesbians weren’t perceiving it. I’m sorry you’re bored—oh wait, no I’m not because our lives are on the line! It’s amazing how the plaintiffs have been talking about daily stresses that gays and lesbians face, higher suicide rates, abandonment, homelessness, and subsequent health deficits, but Pugno sums it all up as just “feelings hurt.”
Testimony this afternoon from yet another academician and anti-Prop 8 donor stated homosexuals have a higher rate of mental disorders than the general population due to the stress caused by supposed stigmatization of being gay (though he admitted that his studies of social and minority stress is at odds with several other studies on the issue). This stress, presumably, justifies designating gays and lesbians as a suspect class entitled to special legal protections that make it easier for Judge Walker to issue a ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. By that reasoning, I couldn’t help but think of other groups of people who might feel stress over social stigmatization. Are obese people a special legal class? Stutterers? Exceptionally tall people? If an exceptionally tall, stuttering, obese gay couple was really stressed out over the passage of Prop 8, does that increase the chances that the measure is unconstitutional?
Just for the record, I am not homosexual. My sexual orientation is homosexual. The witnesses have been speaking about how gay and lesbian people suffer from being identified by only one aspect of their personality, and Pugno goes ahead and continues to do just that using the conditionalizing language the right is such a fan of!
Dr. Meyer’s admission of some different results indicated only that the experience of growing up as a racial minority informs an individual’s ability to cope with minority stress. It was actually a poignant point that makes a lot of sense.
And now, Pugno’s comparing the concept of sexual orientation—something everyone has—with certain body weights, heights, and speech disorders? Really? First of all, as a tall person, WHAT? (Maybe I’m not “exceptionally” tall.) But just so I understand, his strategy for dismissing stigma that gay people experience is by stigmatizing them. AWESOME.
Tomorrow we hear from three more plaintiffs experts who believe that gays and lesbians are subject to social disapproval and discrimination.
I hope one of them introduces your blog posts as evidence, Pugno.
Are we there yet?
No. Be patient. This education is good for you, even if you’re not passing it on to your deluded followers.