Protect Marriage, Day 2: Oh yeah, Discrimination Totally Helps Our Case!

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone

In the wee hours of the morning (at least by east coast standards), Protect Marriage put up another delusional spin post from chief counsel Andy Pugno. In it, he rehashes much of what he said earlier in the day about Ms. Cott, again ignoring pretty much every clarification she made in her follow-up testimony after the cross-examination. You can read what he rewrote directly on his post. It’s the same old nonsense that marriage is still a man and a woman, Professor Cott is biased, and she even supports polygamy! (I’m sure that’s what she meant when she compared it to despotism, describing how undemocratic it is in principle.)

For now, let’s take a look at what he had to add about Professor Chauncey’s testimony:

Next, the plaintiffs called to the stand Professor George Chauncey of Yale University to testify as an “expert” about the history of discrimination that homosexuals have felt in America.  His testimony included examples of gays and lesbians being arrested and jailed, losing their jobs, being denied access to public accommodations, and suffering as the targets of “hate crimes.”  While the history lesson was actually quite interesting, to be sure, it completely lacked any relevance whatsoever to the central question whether the voters of California could reasonably and constitutionally decide to continue traditional marriage.

You have to love those demeaning quotes. Professor Chauncey has been approved as an expert witness because he is an expert. I’m surprised Pugno doesn’t put quotes around every other word: Next, the “plaintiffs” called to the “stand” Professor George Chauncey of “Yale University” to “testify” as an “expert” about the “history” of “discrimination” that “homosexuals” have “felt” in America. I guess he wants to just be a little condescending. He did throw in “hate crimes” so I guess he is exactly as condescending as he wanted to be.

I love how oblivious they seem to be about the salience of Chauncey’s history lesson. Chauncey effectively outlined (as he will continue to do this morning, I’m sure) that the tactics used to promote Prop 8 are exactly the same myths and lies that have propagated that history of discrimination. First Cott demonstrated that there is no such thing as “traditional marriage” and now Chauncey is filling in the gaps to show that Prop 8 is, and can only be seen as, discrimination. But no, the good people of California would never willingly discriminate; they’re protecting marriage.

It’s worth noting how much effort the defense is putting forth to keep the Yes on 8 marketing out of the trial. It seems that Judge Walker keeps allowing it, which makes it much harder for the defense to separate themselves from their own loud and proud message of discrimination.

The day closed with another striking admission by Chauncey elicited by our attorney David Thompson.   Chauncey, like Cott, is a gay marriage supporter who has contributed to and assisted several groups advocating for the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Well, duh. I still don’t think this is as damaging as Pugno does. I mean, what, is Chauncey an expert on the history of gay discrimination because he continues to advocate for it? Please. That’s what the defense’s witnesses would do.

Tomorrow, Thompson is expected to continue questioning Professor Chauncey about his views that the slogans and arguments advanced by the ProtectMarriage.com Yes on 8 campaign are just the “latest installment” of invidious discrimination against gays and lesbians.

I don’t think he meant to use those quotes sarcastically, but it’s getting harder to tell the difference between when he’s mocking gay and lesbian people directly and when he’s just mocking the arguments of the plaintiffs.

While it is only day two in what will be a long, grueling trial, we have reason to be positive thus far.  We clearly have had their two expert witnesses on the ropes during our cross-examinations, drawing out information from them the plaintiffs surely would have preferred remain unknown.

I’m really not sure what Pugno thinks “on the ropes” means. If he means his attorneys did not actually let the witnesses speak when they were being cross-examined, I suppose he’s right. Given all the clarifications they were able to make after cross, it kind of seems like a moot point, and as some have noted, a waste of the court’s time. Oh well, it’s their trial to lose.

Stay tuned to ZackFord Blogs for more daily coverage of Perry v. Schwarzenegger and the spin of those who would defend Proposition 8.

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone
Back to Top | Scroll down for Comments!

Write a Comment