First, here’s a quick reminder of the vocab, because I know it can get confusing. The plaintiffs are the good guys (represented by Olson and Boies), the defendants are the actual government officials, and the proponents are the Protect Marriage folks who stepped in as defendant-intervenors.

» When Judge Walker first overturned Prop 8 two weeks ago, he implemented a temporary stay for his own ruling for the sole purpose of giving the defendants/proponents a window to demonstrate why the decision should be stayed until after appeal. This was a tough case to make since he said in the decision that same-sex marriage in no way harmed anybody or any marriages.

» We learned that Judge Walker would make his decision on this matter last Thursday (August 12). We waited with baited breath through a three-hour window in which we thought we would hear. Couples were waiting in line to marry and extra city officials had been deputized to help perform the marriages. Finally, sometime in the fourth hour we learned that he would be lifting the stay, but it would still be in effect until this Wednesday (tomorrow, August 18).

Many were underwhelmed by this response. Given that the original decision had been so unabashed in outlining the harm to gays and lesbians by Proposition 8, this seemed an unnecessary extension of that harm. Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry called it Justice Delayed. The extension of the stay created room for the Appeals Court to offer their own stay without there being a window of legal same-sex marriage.

» Yesterday, the appeals court did issue their stay until that round of the trial is over. This is disappointing news for most. The court did expedite the case, but that won’t necessarily appease many, as the trial date is in December, and a decision won’t come until potentially months afterward.

» There is still the question of standing, whether the proponents have the right to appeal at all since they are not the defendants. A decision in that matter could end everything else. If that were to happen, Judge Walker’s ruling would apply, but to California only. Still, it would be an important precedent for future trials in other parts of the country.

That’s where we stand now. Same-sex couples still cannot marry in California. A final decision in that matter is still at least half a year away, if that. It’s odd to recognize that we had this huge victory two weeks ago and yet we don’t have much to show for it.

In the meantime, we can still take a whack at Protect Marriage and their ugly gloating over basic procedure that is not really a victory for them at all.

Here was Charles Cooper’s reaction last Thursday when Judge Walker (kind of) lifted the stay:

We are gratified that Judge Walker has continued until August 18^th the temporary stay of his decision.  We will promptly seek from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a stay pending the final resolution of the case. On appeal, we look forward with confidence to a decision vindicating the democratic process and the basic constitutional authority of the 7 million Californians who voted to retain the traditional definition of marriage. The decision whether to redefine the institution of marriage is for the people themselves to make, not a single district court judge, especially without appellate scrutiny.

Again, this completely ignores the fact that it is Judge Walker’s job to uphold the Constitution as the law of the land. Andy Pugno then, of course, gloated yesterday when they got a stay:

This afternoon, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by Prop 8 proponents to stay U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling, thereby upholding the vote of 7 million Californians while the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is heard on appeal. The arguments will occur in San Francisco the week of December 6, 2010.

“California voters spoke clearly on Prop 8, and we’re glad to see their votes will remain valid while the legal challenges work their way up through the courts. Invalidating the people’s vote based on just one judge’s opinion would not have been appropriate, and would have shaken the people’s confidence in our elections and the right to vote itself,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the defendants in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case.

Always eager to play the victim! Enjoining Judge Walker’s decision would have validated my confidence in the judiciary to be a balanced check, but that’s just me.

Pugno went further in an email to Prop 8 supporters:

As we pointed out in our motion, Judge Walker’s decision totally ignores virtually all legal precedents, the well-recognized public interest served by fostering traditional marriage, and even common sense itself.

Of course, he has to raise the stakes so he can ask for more money two paragraphs later. He’s so appreciative of the prayers and support. Won’t you give these whiny brats a special donation so they can continue to waste the government’s time with unconstitutional, discriminatory ideas?

Or, don’t. :)

Statement of Charles J. Cooper, lead counsel for the proponents of Proposition 8, concerning the decision rendered today in Perry v. Schwarzenegger:

Today, a single federal judge has negated the will of the people of California.

No, he didn’t. He overturned an unconstitutional mandate determined by 52% of the valid vote-casters of California who participated in the November, 2008 election in fulfillment of his Constitutionally-mandated responsibility as a federal judge.

The central premise of the court’s ruling is that it is irrational for the citizenry to decide to retain the traditional definition of marriage.

Technically, he ruled that the idea of retaining such a definition was irrational, not the idea of the citizenry making decisions.

The court holds that the ubiquitous definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a historical curiosity that serves no purpose whatsoever, but rather is based solely on anti-gay biases.

Shocking as it may be, that is, in fact, true.

Indeed, the court went so far as to brand as “irrational” all supporters of traditional marriage, which is the vast majority of all people, in American and throughout the world.

No, here you’re quite wrong. He made no such judgment about the people who supported the referendum. In his own words, the word “irrational” appears twice in the decision. On p. 109, he uses it to describe using sexual orientation to classify people. On p. 133, he uses it to describe the post-hoc state interests that your defense team, Mr. Cooper, espoused at trial. At no point did Judge Walker refer to supporters in this way.

As New York’s high court recently recognized, until very recently it “was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex.”  [Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d at 8 (N.Y. 2006)].

And then recently happened.

The historical record reveals that the traditional definition of marriage is grounded in society’s interest in channeling potentially procreative sexual relationships between men and women into enduring, stable family units to increase the likelihood that children will be raised by the man and woman whose union brought them into the world.

The court record and the expert witnesses reveal that that’s a load of malarkey. For example, the traditional definition of marriage included coverture, the idea that a man owned his wife and all of her belongings. It also never had procreative ability as a prerequisite nor required procreation after affirmation.

Judge Walker’s ruling sweeps aside this historical understanding of marriage.

The one that has constantly changed over the ages? I’d say he did the opposite.

In its place, he has announced that “Marriage is the state recognition of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependants.”

In its place? That’s what it was on August 3rd, too.

His opinion thus treats children as a mere afterthought when it comes to marriage.

Quite to the contrary, Mr. Cooper. I might refer you to Judge Walker’s Findings of Fact 35, 41, 49, 55, 56, 69, 70, 71, and 72. You might be surprised what you learn when you actually read the decision, considering you obviously didn’t pay attention to any of the testimony.

The Court’s disregard for the historical purposes of marriage would require California to embark on a novel experiment with the fundamental institution of marriage.

Wouldn’t be the first time! Besides, how many decades have to pass before ideas aren’t considered “novel” or “experimental” anymore? Or heck, centuries? Emperor Nero is rolling in his tomb.

In doing so, it threatens to harm the vital interests historically served by marriage.

Scary language. No substance.

The United States Constitution provides no warrant for this result, as demonstrated by the all-but-unanimous judgment of other federal courts that have addressed the issue.

Looks like Judge Walker found some pretty solid warrant for this result. Besides, no such judgment has ever heard this kind of testimony on the issue. Look what happens when there’s real information provided in a trial about gays and lesbians!

In addition to dismissing the traditional definition of marriage, the judge incredibly found that children don’t need fathers. Or mothers. To state this proposition is to refute it.

No, that’s not what the judge found at all. The judge found, based on substantial research and evidence, that the genders of a child’s parents do not determine how well that child is raised.

And the court also found that there is no benefit whatsoever for a child to be raised by its own biological parents.

That’s true. Adoptive parents like my own appreciate this resistance to such stigmas as your own, Mr. Cooper.

Fortunately, the Constitution does not require the people to substitute the social science musings of gay rights activists for common sense. This decision will not stand.

Musings? How about overwhelming consensus. And yes, actually, judges are beholden to keep experts and their evidence accountable to standards of intellectual rigor.

Fortunately, the case is not over. Judge Walker acknowledged from the outset that “this case is only touching down in this Court, … it will have a life after this Court, and what happens here, in many ways, is only a prelude to what is going to happen later.”  July 2, 2009 Tr. of Hr’g at 12.  About that he was right. We have already filed a notice of appeal and look forward to the next stage of this litigation.

And we’re all so glad you will continue to spin your foundationless vitriol for us all to see.

Is he really that stupid or does Protect Marriage just pay him enough that he’s willing to sound like it for the sake of the case?

I’m sure such a statement will get them a ton of donations, though.

(You can find all my Protect Marriage responses listed in italics in my Prop 8 Archive.)

I don’t think anything in the decision is as powerful as the Findings of Fact I compiled yesterday. Another important aspect was the determination of expertise for the witnesses that were offered as “experts.” As I pointed out back in January, there were some compelling face-value distinctions between the plaintiffs’ witnesses and the proponents’ witnesses. It seems that Judge Walker thought so too.

He takes a fair amount of time in the decision to outline the credentials of the expert witnesses and the criteria used to evaluate them. This was surely necessary given that he did not accept them all. Starting on p. 28, he affirms the testimony of all the plaintiffs’ experts. Scroll over each to see the brief summary of their testimony and then check out the decision to see all the credentials: Nancy Cott, George Chauncey, Lee Badgett, Edmund A Egan, Letitia Anne Peplau, Ilan Meyer, Gregory Herek, Michael Lamb, and Gary Segura.

Those Religious Studies Professors

Then (starting on p. 35), Judge Walker gets to the matter of the proponents’ witnesses. First he describes Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “experts” the proponents’ withdrew, but whose taped depositions were still submitted as evidence by the plaintiffs. What is remarkable is how—perhaps because they were withdrawn—their expertise and their testimony have little to do with each other (p. 36-37 citations omitted):

Young has been a professor of religious studies at McGill University since 1978. She received her PhD in history of religions and comparative religions from McGill in 1978. Young testified at her deposition that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and that same-sex couples possess the same desire for love and commitment as opposite-sex couples. Young also explained that several cultures around the world and across centuries have had variations of marital relationships for same-sex couples.

Nathanson has a PhD in religious studies from McGill University and is a researcher at McGill’s Faculty for Religious Studies. Nathanson CV. Nathanson is also a frequent lecturer on consequences of marriage for same-sex couples and on gender and parenting. Nathanson testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians and that there is no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples.

Proponents made no effort to call Young or Nathanson to explain the deposition testimony that plaintiffs had entered into the record or to call any of the withdrawn witnesses after potential for contemporaneous broadcast of the trial proceedings had been eliminated.

This seemed an incredibly useful tactic by the plaintiffs’ legal team. It demonstrated that even if Young and Nathanson had testified at trial, their expertise on religioun would have been irrelevant to what we actually know about gays and lesbians.

Kenneth P Miller

I’m going to save David Blankenhorn for last, because he makes for a grander finale. Skipping down to p. 49, we see where Judge Walker considers the testimony of Kenneth P Miller, who plaintiffs contended did not have sufficient expertise to testify on the subject of the political power of gays and lesbians.

Miller received a PhD from the University of California (Berkeley) in 2002 in political science and is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. Plaintiffs contend that Miller lacks sufficient expertise to offer an opinion on the relative political power of gay men and lesbians. Having considered Miller’s background, experience and testimony, the court concludes that, while Miller has significant experience with politics generally, he is not sufficiently familiar with gay and lesbian politics specifically to offer opinions on gay and lesbian political power.

It seems that the proponents found a witness who was willing to say what they wanted him to say, but really had nothing to back it up. There are several pages where Judge Walker showed how Miller could not explain how his conclusions contradicted studies and reports submitted by the plaintiffs. My favorite was this one (p. 52):

Plaintiffs questioned Miller on data showing 84 percent of those who attend church weekly voted yes on Proposition 8, 54 percent of those who attend church occasionally voted no on Proposition 8 and 83 percent of those who never attend church voted no on Proposition 8. Plaintiffs also asked about polling data showing 56 percent of those with a union member in the household voted yes on Proposition 8. Miller stated he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the polling data. Miller did not explain how the data in PX2853 are consistent with his conclusion that many religious groups and labor unions are allies of gays and lesbians.

It was also revealed that Miller was fed most of the documents he cited by the defense. I’ll let Judge Walker take us home on Miller’s testimony (p. 53-54):

The credibility of Miller’s opinions relating to gay and lesbian political power is undermined by his admissions that he: (1) has not focused on lesbian and gay issues in his research or study; (2) has not read many of the sources that would be relevant to forming an opinion regarding the political power of gays and lesbians; (3) has no basis to compare the political power of gays and lesbians to the power of other groups, including African-Americans and women; and (4) could not confirm that he personally identified the vast majority of the sources that he cited in his expert report. Furthermore, Miller undermined the credibility of his opinions by conceding that gays and lesbians currently face discrimination and that current discrimination is relevant to a group’s political power.

Miller’s credibility was further undermined because the opinions he offered at trial were inconsistent with the opinions he expressed before he was retained as an expert. Specifically, Miller previously wrote that gays and lesbians, like other minorities, are vulnerable and powerless in the initiative process, contradicting his trial testimony that gays and lesbians are not politically vulnerable with respect to the initiative process. Miller admitted that at least some voters supported Proposition 8 based on anti-gay sentiment.

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Miller’s opinions on gay and lesbian political power are entitled to little weight and only to the extent they are amply supported by reliable evidence.

I think Judge Walker ought be applauded for his critical observations here.

Determining Expertise

Now, you might read all that and wonder, “So what exactly qualifies an expert?” Judge Walker will happily walk you through it.

First, we have Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (p. 39-40):

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that a witness may be qualified as an expert “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” The testimony may only be admitted if it “is based upon sufficient facts or data” and “is the product of reliable principles and methods.” Expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable, with a “basis in the knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline.”

This is key language. The information provided has to, essentially, be scientifically valid and reliable. Scientific literacy is so vital to our society and we are fortunate that Judge Walker understands that. He goes on to say that formal training and peer-reviewed publications are not necessary, but speak to the intellectual rigor expected of an “expert.” However, the court is not required to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert. So peer review is an effective way for the court to ensure that an expert’s methodology is sound.

Several factors are relevant to an expert’s reliability:

(1) “whether [a method] can be (and has been) tested”;

(2) “whether the [method] has been subjected to peer review and publication”;

(3) “the known or potential rate of error”;

(4) “the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the [method’s] operation”;

(5) “a * * * degree of acceptance” of the method within “a relevant * * * community”;

(6) whether the expert is “proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation”;

(7) whether the expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion;

(8) whether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations;

(9) whether the expert “employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field”; and

(10) whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give.

I know that kind of reads like gobbledygook, but each of those is a significant point in which the court upholds scientific thinking.

Essentially, the court holds (or should hold and has precedent to hold) experts accountable to their testimony. If their research isn’t accepted by their field or their conclusions don’t match their claims, they are violating the expertise they claim to have. This is so important, and I think we have to appreciate the way Judge Walker carefully meted out and considered all the facts in this case.

And why did he have to write this all out in the decision? Because of David Blankenhorn.

David Blankenhorn

You might think I’ve already beaten up on David Blankenhorn a bit too much. It’s not without irony that I was chastising his pity party yesterday just hours before the decision came down. But you ain’t seen nothing until you’ve seen the way Judge Walker eviscerated Blankenhorn’s testimony (p. 39):

Plaintiffs challenge Blankenhorn’s qualifications as an expert because none of his relevant publications has been subject to a traditional peer-review process, he has no degree in sociology, psychology or anthropology despite the importance of those fields to the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure, and his study of the effects of same-sex marriage involved “read[ing] articles and ha[ving] conversations with people, and tr[ying] to be an informed person about it.” Plaintiffs argue that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are not based on “objective data or discernible methodology,” and that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are instead based on his interpretation of selected quotations from articles and reports.

The court permitted Blankenhorn to testify but reserved the question of the appropriate weight to give to Blankenhorn’s opinions. The court now determines that Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.

Ouch. That’s gotta hurt. And Walker says it a few more times, too. You see, Walker didn’t just dismiss Blankenhorn’s testimony; he took the time to dismantle it. (And there is a lot more detail in the decision than what I’ve excerpted here!)

In regards to Blankenhorn’s opinions on the definition of marriage (p. 43-44):

Blankenhorn’s interest and study on the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure are evident from the record, but nothing in the record other than the “bald assurance” of Blankenhorn suggests that Blankenhorn’s investigation into marriage has  been conducted to the “same level of intellectual rigor” characterizing the practice of anthropologists, sociologists or psychologists. Blankenhorn gave no explanation of the methodology that led him to his definition of marriage other than his review of others’ work.  The court concludes that Blankenhorn’s proposed definition of marriage is “connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit” of Blankenhorn and accordingly rejects it.

Strike One!

In regards to Blankenhorn’s opinions on the ideal family structure and children (p. 44-45):

Blankenhorn’s conclusion that married biological parents provide a better family form than married non-biological parents is not supported by the evidence on which he relied because the evidence does not, and does not claim to, compare biological to non-biological parents. Blankenhorn did not in his testimony consider any study comparing children raised by their married biological parents to children raised by their married adoptive parents. Blankenhorn did not testify about a study comparing children raised by their married biological parents to children raised by their married parents who conceived using an egg or sperm donor. The studies Blankenhorn relied on compare various family structures and do not emphasize biology. The studies may well support a conclusion that parents’ marital status may affect child outcomes. The studies do not, however, support a conclusion that the biological connection between a parent and his or her child is a significant variable for child outcomes. The court concludes that “there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Blankenhorn’s reliance on biology is unsupported by evidence, and the court therefore rejects his conclusion that a biological link between parents and children influences children’s outcomes.

Strike Two!

In regards to Blankenhorn’s opinions that same-sex marriage will lead to the “deinstitutionalization of marriage” (p. 48-49):

Blankenhorn stated he opposes marriage for same-sex couples because it will weaken the institution of marriage, despite his recognition that at least thirteen positive consequences would flow from state recognition of marriage for same-sex couples, including: (1) by increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage
might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more children growing up in loving adoptive and foster families; and (2) same-sex marriage would signify greater social acceptance of homosexual love and the worth and validity of same-sex intimate relationships.

Blankenhorn’s opinions are not supported by reliable evidence or methodology and Blankenhorn failed to consider evidence contrary to his view in presenting his testimony. The court therefore finds the opinions of Blankenhorn to be unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.

Strike Three! You’re Out!

The problem with Blankenhorn isn’t just that he speaks out against the rights of gays and lesbians. It’s that he’s wrong. Like so many believers, he puts the cart before the horse, and thus looks for studies that support his opinion instead of drawing opinions from studies.

I hope he sees this decision as an important check on his credibility as well as the authenticity of the work coming out of his so-called Institute for American Values.

Ultimately, science won this case. There is no getting around the solid facts about sexual orientation that make it quite clear that Proposition 8 was discriminatory and wrong. Anyone who disagrees needs a lesson in science.

For in-depth looks at the decision, I recommend:

» Chris Geidner
» Shannon Minter and Christopher Stoll from NCLR
» Ari Ezra Waldman
» Nan Hunter

Looking to see what various people thought of the decision? Towleroad has an extensive list of reactions, both positive and negative. If you really want to see all the ugly negative ones, Pam and Louise have those.

Need to be reminded that our President is not a fierce advocate and is not a supporter of same-sex marriage? Read Joe Sudbay’s response to the anonymous White House aide and then today’s piece about David Axelroad on The Hill. If that’s not enough, read more on Politico, The Washington Post, and FiveThirtyEight. Most importantly, go here and sign the open letter to the President to get his head out of his appeasing-the-religious ass. (The letter words it more nicely than that.)

Need a constant flow of information about the case? The Prop 8 Trial Tracker is still hard at work.

On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann showed an encore of his special comment about love from November 2008. Rachel talked to Boies and Olson and also spent another segment showing how flawed the proponents’ arguments were. (Thanks to AMERICAblog for the links.)

Look ahead with Evan Wolfson to what’s next for Freedom to Marry.

Lastly, watch these two videos. The first is a video showing the reaction when folks first heard the results of the decision. The second then follows Vanessa Judicpa & Maria Ydil as they attempt to get a marriage license during the brief window before Judge Walker’s temporary stay.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFJfz0cTQS8

www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6hP9nvgzDE

DEFENDERS OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE TO APPEAL FEDERAL RULING INVALIDATING PROPOSITION 8

SACRAMENTO – Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Proposition 8, released the following statement today in response to the ruling of U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:

“Today’s ruling is clearly a disappointment. The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. But this is not the end of our fight to uphold the will of the people for traditional marriage, as we now begin an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Pugno must have missed the part where Walker wrote, “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as ‘fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’” We can thank the Jehovah’s Witnesses for that precedent.

It is disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.

Actually, the court doesn’t say that. What he says is that the proponents of Prop 8 had discriminatory intent, which they spread through fear-based propaganda that fed into untrue stereotypes. The law is discriminatory, whether the voters understood it to be or not. (See Findings of Fact 45, 47, and 57-68, 79, and 80.)

But the reality is that Prop 8 was simply about restoring and strengthening the traditional definition of marriage as the unique relationship of a man and a woman, for the benefit of children, families and society.

At trial we built a solid record to show that marriage has served as the foundation of the family and society as a whole, has universal functions and features attributable only to unions between a man and woman, has been defined in both law and language as a union between a man and a woman, and acts as the predominate relationship in which to create and support children.

It’s a cute line, but it’s simply not true. The experts’ testimony showed that the “traditional definition of marriage” was quite shortsighted and that given the equality of individuals in marriages, there is no compelling interest in maintaining only opposite-sex marriages. (See Findings of Fact 21, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35, among others.)

It’s amazing (but unsurprising) that Protect Marriage continues to encourage the evil misperception that gay and lesbians put children at risk. (See  Findings of Fact 70, 71, 72, 76, and 79.)

We are confident that the trial court record we built will help us ultimately prevail on appeal and reverse today’s ruling.

You mean like how your star witness’s testimony was thrown out?

Reversing today’s decision will also serve as a reminder that the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law only as enacted by the people and their elected representatives, not to impose new social policies.

Andy, did they not teach you at McGeorge School of Law that the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, not the whim of a simple majority? (I’d be embarrassed to be a McGeorge alum today!)

And federal precedent is clear that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To prevail in the end, our opponents have a very difficult task of convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to abandon precedent and invent a new constitutional right.

Actually, after today’s decision, that is simply wrong. Today’s decision affirmed that marriage is a constitutional right and that to prohibit same-sex marriage is simply to discriminate based on sex and sexual orientation. There is nothing new in this decision except validation for the lives of gays and lesbians throughout time and space.

Best of luck to Andy Pugno and the Protect Marriage team. You’re going to need it.

By the way, I don’t believe in luck.

These concise points address the information presented in trial amazingly. They are straight-forward and compelling. Here is, essentially, what everyone should learn from this trial. The facts stack up nicely, but get particularly interesting—I think—starting down at #38.

All emphasis in green is my own and I have omitted citations for ease of reading,  but page numbers are provided. I have included the whole list, but I think people ought to pay particular attention to the following: 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 54, 55, 56, 58, 62, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 76, and 77; I have highlighted those numbers as facts I think are particularly compelling and noteworthy.

Let’s dig in (p. 54).

The Players

The first 13 or so facts simply outline the players in the case (many of whom are players in name only). Scroll over each for a description: Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, San Francisco, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Edmund G Brown, Jr, Mark B Horton, Linette Scott, Patrick O’Connell, Dean C Logan, and the Defendant-Intervenors.

Now we learn a little bit more about who these folks are who promoted Proposition 8:

14. Proponents dedicated substantial time, effort, reputation and personal resources in campaigning for Proposition 8. (p. 57)

15. Proponents established ProtectMarriage.com —— Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal (“Protect Marriage”) as a “primarily formed ballot measure committee” under California law. (p. 57)

16. The Protect Marriage Executive Committee includes Ron Prentice, Edward Dolejsi, Mark A Jansson and Doug Swardstrom. Andrew Pugno acts as General Counsel. David Bauer is the Treasurer and officer of record for Protect Marriage. (p. 57)

17. Protect Marriage was responsible for all aspects of the campaign to qualify Proposition 8 for the ballot and enact it into law. (p. 58)

18. Protect Marriage is a “broad coalition” of individuals and organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the “LDS Church”), the California Catholic Conference and a large number of evangelical churches. (p. 59)

This description of Protect Marriage is important. It recognizes who was involved, what they tried to do, and how they were financially supported.

Should California Refuse to Recognize A Couple’s Marriage Because Of Their Sex?

19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law. (p. 60)

20. A person may not marry unless he or she has the legal capacity to consent to marriage. (p. 60)

21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate. (p. 60)

Given that the entire case is about the right to marry, Walker walks us through the way that marriage is defined and has been defined throughout history.

22. When California became a state in 1850, marriage was understood to require a husband and a wife. (p. 61)

23. The states have always required the parties to give their free consent to a marriage. Because slaves were considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained. (p. 61)

24. Many states, including California, had laws restricting the race of marital partners so that whites and non-whites could not marry each other. (p. 61)

25. Racial restrictions on an individual’s choice of marriage partner were deemed unconstitutional under the California Constitution in 1948 and under the United States Constitution in 1967. An individual’s exercise of his or her right to marry no longer depends on his or her race nor on the race of his or her chosen partner. (p. 62)

26. Under coverture, a woman’s legal and economic identity was subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage. The husband was the legal head of household. Coverture is no longer part of the marital bargain. (p. 62)

27. Marriage between a man and a woman was traditionally organized based on presumptions of a division of labor along gender lines. Men were seen as suited for certain types of work and women for others. Women were seen as suited to raise children and men were seen as suited to provide for the family. (p. 63)

28. The development of no-fault divorce laws made it simpler for spouses to end marriages and allowed spouses to define their own roles within a marriage. (p. 64)

We can see how other forms of identity were used in defining marriage in the past.

29. In 1971, California amended Cal Civ Code § 4101, which had previously set the age of consent to marriage at twenty-one years for males and eighteen years for females, to read “[a]ny unmarried person of the age of 18 years or upwards, and not otherwise disqualified, is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.” (p. 65)

30. In the 1970s, several same-sex couples sought marriage licenses in California, relying on the amended language in Cal
Civ Code § 4101. In response, the legislature in 1977 amended the marriage statute, former Cal Civ Code § 4100, to read “[m]arriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman * * *.”  That provision became Cal Fam Code § 300. The legislative history of the enactment supports a conclusion that unique roles of a man and a woman in marriage motivated legislators to enact the amendment. (p. 65)

The “tradition” of one-man/one-woman marriages is very much founded upon not just gender roles, but gender inequality.

31. In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that certain provisions of the Family Code violated the California Constitution to the extent the statutes reserve the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples.  The language “between a man and a woman” was stricken from section 300, and section 308.5 (Proposition 22) was stricken in its entirety. (p. 66)

32. California has eliminated marital obligations based on the gender of the spouse. Regardless of their sex or gender, marital partners share the same obligations to one another and to their dependants. As a result of Proposition 8, California nevertheless requires that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. (p. 66)

This is an important question. If all the other changes to marriage have removed gender imbalances, why does California still require a man and a woman?

33. Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality. (p. 66)

34. Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents. (p. 67)

35. The state has many purposes in licensing and fostering marriage. Some of the state’s purposes benefit the persons married while some benefit the state: (p. 67-68)

Here Judge Walker offers six benefits: a) cohesive family units, b) liberty, intimacy, and free decision-making for spouses, c) stable households, d) legitimating children, e) assigning care-providers, and f) facilitating property ownership.

36. States and the federal government channel benefits, rights and responsibilities through marital status. Marital status affects immigration and citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules and social benefit programs. (p. 68)

37. Marriage creates economic support obligations between consenting adults and for their dependents. (p. 68)

38. Marriage benefits both spouses by promoting physical and psychological health. Married individuals are less likely to engage in behaviors detrimental to health, like smoking or drinking heavily. Married individuals live longer on average than unmarried individuals. (p. 69)

Number 38 is important, because it’s the first (of many to come) that establishes psychological and sociological research as facts in the case. Here are a few more:

39. Material benefits, legal protections and social support resulting from marriage can increase wealth and improve psychological well-being for married spouses. (p. 70)

40. The long-term nature of marriage allows spouses to specialize their labor and encourages spouses to increase household efficiency by dividing labor to increase productivity. (p. 70)

41. The tangible and intangible benefits of marriage flow to a married couple’s children. (p. 71)

I think it’s pivotal that the decision recognizes the intangible benefits of marriage.

Should California Differentiate Between Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Unions?

This section outlines a lot of important history about the gay community as well as information about same-sex couples. Important definitions are entered into the record as fact regarding the nature of sexual orientation.

42. Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human history. The concept of an identity based on object desire; that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex (homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late nineteenth century. (p. 71)

43. Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of sexual, affectional or romantic desires for and attractions to men, women or both sexes. An individual’s sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior or attraction. The vast majority of people are consistent in self-identification, behavior and attraction throughout their adult lives. (p. 71-72)

YES! Sexual orientation refers to which sex a person is attracted to, not which sex a person is attracted to in reference to their own.

44. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’ assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence. (p. 72)

45. Proponents’ campaign for Proposition 8 assumed voters understood the existence of homosexuals as individuals distinct from heterosexuals. (p. 73)

46. Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation. (p. 74)

I think there is incredible power in the stipulation of these qualities as facts. This essentially puts the legal kibosh (for the sake of at least this particular ruling) on any debate about whether sexual orientation is a choice.

47. California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California. (p. 76)

48. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex. (p. 77)

49. California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology. Approximately eighteen percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children. (p. 78)

50. Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive. (p. 79)

51. Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals. (p. 79)

This kind of makes me laugh, but also makes me sad for all the sham marriages out there motivated by internalized homophobia.

Domestic Partnerships

One could easily insert “civil union” for DP in each of these statements and the same would be true. But, California has never had civil unions.

52. Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States. (p. 80)

53. Domestic partners are not married under California law. California domestic partnerships may not be recognized in other states and are not recognized by the federal government. (p. 81)

54. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships. (p. 82)

55. Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages. (p.83)

56. The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry. (p. 84)

Did Prop 8 Enact a Private Moral View Without Advancing a Legitimate Government Interest?

57. Under Proposition 8, whether a couple can obtain a marriage license and enter into marriage depends on the genders of the two parties relative to one another. A man is permitted to marry a woman but not another man. A woman is permitted to marry a man but not another woman. Proposition 8 bars state and county officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It has no other legal effect. (p. 85)

58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society. (p. 85)

59. Proposition 8 requires California to treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples. (p. 86)

60. Proposition 8 reserves the most socially valued form of relationship (marriage) for opposite-sex couples. (p. 86)

61. Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to codify distinct and unique roles for men and women in marriage. (p. 87)

62. Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples. (p. 89)

63.  Proposition 8 eliminates the right to marry for gays and lesbians but does not affect any other substantive right under the California Constitution. (p. 90)

64. Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments. (p. 90)

65. [The City and County of San Francisco] would benefit economically if Proposition 8 were not in effect. (p. 91)

66. Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same-sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage. Domestic partnership reduces but does not eliminate these costs. (p. 91)

67. Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents. (p. 93)

68. Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships. (p. 94)

Yes, the stigma against same-sex couples is now part of court record.

Same-Sex Couples as Parents

69. The factors that affect whether a child is well-adjusted are: (1) the quality of a child’s relationship with his or her parents; (2) the quality of the relationship between a child’s parents or significant adults in the child’s life; and (3) the availability of economic and social resources. (p. 94-95)

70. The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology. (p. 95)

Seriously, read that one again. Not only does the evidence show that same-sex couples make good parents, but the question is not even up for debate.

71. Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted. (p. 95)

72. The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes. (p. 96)

73. Studies comparing outcomes for children raised by married opposite-sex parents to children raised by single or divorced parents do not inform conclusions about outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents in stable, long-term relationships. (p. 96)

Discrimination Against Gays and Lesbians

74. Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of discrimination. (p. 96)

75. Public and private discrimination against gays and lesbians occurs in California and in the United States. (p. 97)

76. Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes. (p. 98)

77. Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. (p. 101)

78. Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians. (p. 103)

Can you feel the validation, folks?

79. The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that  parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child. (p. 105)

80. The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships. (p. 108)

So there you have it! THOSE ARE THE FACTS. If you have any question as to why this decision is what it is, it should be answerable by those facts. If you don’t like those facts, tough. You cannot disagree with them; they are facts.

Proposition 8 is unconstitutional!

According to the decision, it violates both due process and equal protection. The decision is brimming with amazing detail about the lives of gays and lesbians and will certainly serve as precedent for the future of our movement.

While in the past, I have covered court decisions in one long sweeping post, I think I will handle this decision in several posts over the next 36 hours or so. Here is what you can expect to see here on ZackFord Blogs tonight and tomorrow:

» The Conclusions of the Case
» The 80 Facts
» Defining Expertise
» Follow-up discussion re: my adoption post

History has been made today, and I hope you’ll take the time to understand why. Stay tuned.

Blankenhorn is a cry-baby-sissy-pants. He claims this week that he’s been unfairly targeted for his anti-gay views:

“I’m losing friends, being told I’m on the wrong side of history, I’m like Bull Connor,” he said, referring to the top Birmingham, Alabama law enforcement official who in the 1960s used police dogs and fire hoses to attack pro-integration protesters. Blankenhorn has been mocked in the gay blogosphere.

“This is the single worst experience I have had in my public life,” he said of joining the debate over same-sex marriage. “I dreaded getting into it… I tried to avoid it for a long time. I feel like the issue hunted me down.”

If you can recognize that you are comparable to Bull Connor for your actions, where do you get off asking for sympathy? I didn’t hear any apology.

The aspect I found most galling about Blankenhorn’s remarks is this attempt to reach a hand out in pseudo-friendship with passive-aggressive umbrage:

“I just think you’ve got to be careful when you seek to deduce a person’s, when you seek to deduce homophobia or anti-gay views from a person’s policy position,” he said. “It can be a real act of hubris.”

This is what Blankenhorn must “wrestle with,” he said, to distinguish between himself and those who dislike homosexuals. When he has spoken to groups made up of such people, he tells them he does not share their anti-gay views.

Oh, so you like us?

Honestly, why should that matter?

Here’s the thing… you either understand the whole “being gay” thing or you don’t. If you understand, then you support gay rights. If you don’t understand, then you oppose gay rights. That might seem a bit boilerplate, but it’s the truth. It doesn’t matter if you like us. It only matters if your head is screwed on tight.

If you like us, great! Then you shouldn’t be working against us. If you’re working against us, that means you don’t understand us (or you refuse to). If you claim to like us, then you should work harder to understand us. You should take time to listen. You should respect the plethora of research from mainstream social science organizations (APA, etc.). You should care more about the lives we lead than the artificially constructed values you “put before the horse.”

David Blankenhorn wants to be right and to be liked. He’s currently neither. Distinguishing himself from Maggie Gallagher or James Dobson doesn’t make a difference. He’s still wrong about our lives and he is still working against our equality. The distinctions he makes in a plea for sympathy are moot and a bit pathetic.

Honestly, he and Tony Hayward should hang out. Maybe they can help each other get their lives back.

Of course, I will be providing a thorough reading with excerpts for those who want to see some of the language of the decision without scouring through the (what is sure to be a) monstrosity of a document. You can expect that up later tonight.

It should come as no surprise that the blogosphere is humming with anticipation. There is a lot of content out there. If you’re prone to seizures, you might just want to stay away from the #prop8 Twitter hashtag entirely.

Here are a few basics you need for today:

» List of today’s rallies. Kudos to Rex Wockner for keeping this updated all day.

» Decision Day FAQ. If you’ve been living in a cave, Chris Geidner is here to make sure you know why today’s a big day.

» Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Eden James has a nice summary to catch us up to today.

There is a LOT of other content out there, but the most important thing is that you understand what is happening today and its significance. This was the first time LGBT issues and our community’s history were aired in a public forum, and Judge Walker’s decision will be an indication of the progress we’ve made given the discrimination we’ve endured.

Sure, given appeals, the war is not over. Still, today could still be a game-changing victory, because if we win, people will ask why. It’s an important opportunity to take a big step forward in raising awareness and creating visibility. And as we move forward, we have reason and love on our sides.

If you want a good laugh, take a look at the argument made by the defense to try to stay today’s ruling?

» Prop. 8 proponents file hilariously awkward motion

As always, you can revisit the archive of Prop 8 coverage here on ZFb to get day-by-day accounts of what took place in the trial.

And while we wait, you should pray. Don’t just pray because it’s the most productive thing you can do, pray because some blonde from ADF told you to:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqx4oW9nYo0

On the other hand, you could just look forward to the feeling of not being less than:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDbzYMXXpCM

Between the answers to the questions offered by Judge Walker and the closing arguments, there doesn’t seem like there’s much of a leg for Prop 8′s proponents to stand on. They have the same old nonsense: children (subtext: gays are pedophiles), tradition (subtext: gays are less than), and “deinstitutionalization” (subtext: “we’ve got nothing”).

It was a big day as arguments wrapped up in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, but in a way the final dance between the lawyers seemed anticlimactic. Given that only one person clapped for Cooper’s defense of Prop 8, it didn’t seem like many were thrilled with his performance. He didn’t have much substance to share. And while there were not many surprises, the day wonderfully summarized the extensive testimonies we heard five months ago. Lots of media outlets have been covering the day, but here are some of the highlights.

Official court transcript of the day’s proceedings (PDF).

Liveblogging by Teddy Partridge and Marcy Wheeler at Firedoglake and Rick Jacobs at Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

Christopher Stoll (NCLR): Closing Arguments Recap

Keen News Service: Prop 8 proponents lose pre-closing skirmish, Mid-day report: Prop 8 trial closing arguments, Prop 8 closing: Fear v. Equality

The Advocate: It’s in the Judge’s Hands Now

Huffington Post: Prop 8 Challengers To Deliver Closing Arguments Today

Edge: Closing Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial: the Recap

Bilerico: Family Values: Who is it Trying to “Destroy Marriage” Again?

Good As You: A variety of coverage, including responses to various conservative news sites.

Examiner: An eyewitness perspective on the day’s proceedings

AP Video: Closing Arguments Made in Prop 8 Court Fight

New York Times: Closing Arguments in Marriage Trial

San Jose Mercury: Prop. 8 trial closing arguments: Live coverage from the courtroom, Prop. 8 trial: Judge troubled by lack of evidence from defense

The vicious National Organization for Marriage decided to start doing their own coverage. Good for them. Maggie even admitted that Prop 8 is probably going to be overturned.

Kate Kendell from NCLR is optimistic:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=G25KMlkjSAU

And now we wait for the grand finale when Judge Walker makes his decision. Soon, we might celebrate an apotheosis of equality.

At face value, Rich’s piece is great. The case against Proposition 8 needs all the attention it can possibly get by the media. The questions Judge Walker has raised in preparation for the closing arguments suggest that this will be a defining point in the historic march toward marriage equality. And yes, we do care about people’s marriages and divorces and yes, Limbaugh is a great example of conservative social hypocrisy, and these examples probably help readers find relevance to the trial.

But Rich does not do much to mention same-sex couples, even though it’s the point of his piece. He doesn’t even mention the plaintiffs’ names, just that their children have sat in the courtroom. Otherwise, he lets Boies speak for him. His piece seems overly concerned with the politics of the trial and not as much the lives it affects. In fact, his concern actually seems to be for heterosexual people and the “shadow” on their marriages because of inequality. I suppose it might be an effective way to paint things for some people, but is heterosexual guilt a good reason for same-sex marriage? I don’t think it carries a lot of weight with most of us truly affected by the issue.

We’re reminded about how clandestine the trial seems without much media access, but again, Rich approaches this from a political angle. His concern isn’t all that we could learn from the experiences of the plaintiffs or the expertise of the plaintiffs’ experts; he just wanted the foolish defendants’ experts to be embarrassed.

This brings us to David Blankenhorn. Rich has been slamming Blankenhorn a lot lately for having read some of George Rekers‘ research in preparation for his testimony. Blankenhorn is feeling beat up about it. As far as that point goes, I’m willing to let Blankenhorn off the hook. Attempting to reduce all of his testimony to one article he read by a hypocrite doesn’t exactly seem fair. Here are a few things Blankenhorn has said in trying to separate himself from George Rekers (from 6/2/10 and 6/5/10):

For example, I told the court that I believe that we are all born equal in rights and dignity.  I told the court that I believe in the equal dignity of homosexual love.

I have publicly stated my support for gay adoption.

The fact that I did not recall even having read Mr. Rekers’ report reinforces my main point, which is that there is no substantive link between Mr. Rekers’ views and anything that I either wrote in my expert report to the court or discussed in two days of testimony on the stand.

The problem here is that despite all this lovely verbiage coming from Mr. Blankenhorn is that he still maintains that it is “possible to be for gay rights and against gay marriage.” No, it’s not. And whether Blankenhorn has a connection to Rekers or not, Rich is perfectly fair in comparing the two. I think this piece on Slate‘s Double X blog makes the point most concisely (kudos to Mr. Blankenhorn for linking us to posts against him):

Because no matter how elegant and defensible your arguments against discrimination may be, when you make them, you lay down with others who make a less appealing case.

And at the heart of both arguments is some form of the exact same anti-gay stereotyping. Any “compromise” that Blankenhorn comes up with to defend his oxymoronic position is still going to privilege heterosexual couples! It’s still going to perpetuate the very untruths that all the plaintiffs’ experts debunked in their testimony. He won’t truly be supporting gay rights, as he claims, until he stops making concessions for heterosexuals, which anything short of marriage equality does.

And so while I credit Rich this point, I’m incredibly disappointed by the final point he makes about Glee. While offering a somewhat poignant aside about Jane Lynch’s new wife’s troubles with adoptive visitation, he makes the bigger point that Glee, in the way its characters’ families are set up, offers a realistic portrayal of America’s families. More importantly, he suggests “we’re lucky that the era when they could banish a show like “Glee” from network television seems to have passed.”

This, to me, sounds much like the people who suggest that we’ve made progress because of shows like Will & Grace and movies like Brokeback Mountain. This is exactly what the defense explicitly tried to do during their cross-examination of Professor Letitia Peplau on the third day of the trial. To suggest that a single piece of media is itself an example or guide post of progress is misguided. Certainly, we have made progress in the way issues of same-sex orientations are able to permeate the mainstream, but legally, we have made almost no progress. And given the fact that Proposition 8 passed (which was only six months before the pilot of Glee premiered), we certainly have a long way to go in terms of educating the public.

All in all, I’m glad Frank Rich is taking the time to write about these issues in a venue where they will get a lot of attention. I just wish he could get to the heart of it instead of playing politics and taking cheap shots. Discrimination persists.

I’m not ashamed of who I am; I’m proud of who I am.

And even though this month we celebrate not being ashamed, we must remember that we are still, nonetheless shamed. Freedom to Marry reminds us of the struggles we still face.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvH6K3qhRak

Click here to sign their pledge.

And amongst all our partying during these summer months, our historic struggle toward freedom will progress.

Next week, Judge Walker will hear the closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case of Proposition 8. In preparation for these arguments, Walker issued questions to the lawyers to guide their arguments. (Read more about these questions here and here.)

Truly, these questions and closing arguments bring the discussion of marriage equality to a new forefront of public discourse. Questions of tradition. Questions of discrimination. Questions of equality. Next week, we take a stand for our rights as people and as citizens.

While we must celebrate our individuality and self-respect, we must also continue to work against those who still wish to shame us and indignify us.

Stay tuned to these important proceedings. Share them with your friends. Remember that pride isn’t just about parades; it’s about the march toward true freedom.

(Click below to visit my archive of posts related to the trial to catch up on what you may have missed.)

This week, we see what this campaign is all about. There are now several videos of well-known celebrity actors dryly reading from the Perry v. Schwarzenegger transcripts in public places. It’s awkward and boring as hell. Here’s a video of Michael Urie and Cheyenne Jackson. See if you can endure the full 14 minutes:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW41g6CxmEo

The ultimate goal of the campaign is to encourage people to submit their own readings and reenactments of select scenes from the trial.

Now, I have been incredibly impassioned about bringing the Prop 8 Trial to the public forefront. Without a doubt, the testimony that was shared is valuable and deserves to be part of widespread knowledge, particularly the testimony of the plaintiffs and the research dispensed by the expert witnesses.

But I don’t think this campaign is effective at delivering on that widespread attention. At least not yet. I love that so many celebrities are showing their support, but these videos could not be more boring. The celebrities certainly aren’t displaying their acting chops. And if the idea is to create a guerrilla theatre impact, there needs to be both real theatre (something deserving attention), and an audience (people around to be distracted by it).

Is the idea novel? Sure. And I can’t complain that the Wall Street Journal and Variety Magazine were willing to write articles about it. But is it captivating? I really don’t think so.

The bigger question is: if this is all there is, why did Courage Campaign need $100,000? Did they have to pay the celebrities to get their support? That’s insincere. Did they pay web designers incredible sums to design a simple webpage for simply viewing videos? I sure hope not. Did they pay off the WSJ to get coverage for their campaign? Well, I doubt it; that would be illegal.

So what gives? Are we really supposed to be super excited that this is what they came up with? Deadpan readings in empty parks by celebrities?

I am not impressed.

Now, apparently, this is just Phase 1. And apparently the lifeless script-reading without production was an intentional decision. In Marisa Tomei’s letter of support, she wrote:

But Phase 1 of “Testimony” — reenactments of key scenes from Perry v. Schwarzenegger — is not about professional actors and producers making a film. It’s about people like you grabbing a video camera, a couple of friends and bringing this trial to life in your own town square, living room or park.

So while Partricia Clarkson, Alan Cumming, Ellen Greene, Cheyenne Jackson, Josh Lucas and Michael Urie all made videos, there was no script memorizing, no crew, not even a director.

I can only hope that if people out there attempt these guerrilla readings, they try to bring them a bit more to life than the professional actors have. Even with the intrigue of a public performance, I can’t imagine cold readings really holding people’s attention. Maybe I’m wrong.

And maybe the other phases will be more compelling.

After the huge ask of cash and the piddly results so far, I’m not holding my breath.

(And for those of you who are eager to support every pro-gay campaign that comes down the track, that’s fine. I’ve decided to take an approach of scrutiny and accountability.)

That’s why I was incredibly disappointed by the email I got today from the Courage Campaign. In this “URGENT” message from Rick Jacobs, we got news of their new campaign, called “Testimony: Equality on Trial.”  And what are the vague goals of this “new” campaign?

In the days before and after Judge Walker’s historic ruling — and the media firestorm that will surround the case as it eventually makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court — “Testimony: Equality on Trial” will:

• Bring the Prop 8 trial to life, as Americans actually hear the evidence for the first time.
• Expose the lies and manipulation that Frank Schubert, Andrew Pugno and the rest of the right-wing campaign cabal used to pass Prop 8.
• Help pave the way to full and equal protection under the law for LGBT people in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states.

Throughout our nation’s history — from Plessy v. Ferguson to Perry vs. Schwarzenegger – equality has been on trial. And now, with your help, “Testimony” will change how Americans think and feel about marriage equality and full equality.

Yawn. I’ve heard it all before. Isn’t this what your campaign is supposed to be doing already? You know… raising awareness, correcting lies, moving us toward equality? So what’s different?

Well, they’re asking for $100,000. By tomorrow. To “start this new campaign.” A campaign that does the same thing they’ve always done, but with a new logo.

I’m sorry, but that’s just distasteful. I chastised HRC for asking for $150,000 for their “new campaign” on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I chastise Protect Marriage for asking for money in almost every single one of their posts. And now I must chastise the Courage Campaign.

We know from experience that successful activism does not work this way. You don’t just give lots of money to a small group of people. It has to be a large group of people being invited to participate actively. Donations are passive and free the donors of any real responsibility to the cause. A system based on raising money also gives those working for the cause the incentive to live off the activism in luxurious ways, like Joe Solmonese in his Dolce & Gabbana suits.

Further, there is no accountability. We know absolutely no details about what makes this campaign interesting or different. We have no understanding of why there is suddenly an urgent need for a very large sum of money. We are just expected to fork it over, because they—the Courage Campaign—are who we are hiring out to do our activism for us?

That is patronizing and disrespectful. We should no more be pawns to groups like HRC and the Courage Campaign than our opponents are pawns to Protect Marriage or the Alliance Defense Fund.

It’s time we, as the Netroots, start holding our advocacy groups more accountable. We should be looking for ways to participate, not ways to just give.

Courage Campaign, your Prop 8 Trial Tracker was fantastic. I thought you were better than these shallow corporate tactics. I guess not.

Back on March 30th, Andy Pugno wrote “What Goes Around, Comes Around. Maybe.” This was another whiny post about why he thinks the No on 8 side should have to turn over all their internal documents. Not much to be missed from this post:

Not surprisingly, Equality California and the ACLU have appealed Judge Walker’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And Judge Walker has already issued a ‘stay’ of his own order for document disclosure for a week, while our opponents ask the Ninth Circuit to intervene. This means that even now – months after our side was forced to disclose internal campaign records to our opponents – we continue to wait while our opponents refuse to disclose the same kind of evidence.

As always, we appreciate your support and will keep you posted as the process continues.

They are really petulant, spoiled children. They complain about every little thing they can think of to complain about and then expect to get more donations so they can continue whining.

On April 2, Ron Prentice chimed in with a vomit-inducing posts I’ve ever read on ProtectMarriage.com, which is saying something. And I’m not using “vomit-inducing” in a sophomoric way; the gushiness of this post, called “Spring is in the Air,” truly made me nauseous. After pandering to Christians (for Easter) and Jews (for Passover), Ron starts waxing poetic:

Regardless of one’s religious views, though, this is also the time when spring is in the air! Nature all around us is beginning to come alive — wildflowers bloom, the grasses are lush with greenery, a new generation of animals are born to the flock, and the air is filled with the sounds of birds chirping and nature awakening.

Some truths are simply enduring. Spring follows winter. Rivers flow to the sea. The sun rises at dawn and sets at dusk. It takes the fruit of a man and the womb of woman to make a baby.

Blech. Essentialism makes my brain hurt.

Last week, Andy Pugno sent out an “Update on Perry v Schwarzenegger Case” with a snapshot of their closing arguments and evidence. When you read it, it sounds like they’d like to undo feminism entirely.

And while it is true that the traditional model of marriage between a man and a woman has been disputed of late in the United States, a set of universal functions of marriage remains:

• Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle;
• Providing children with both a mother and a father whenever possible;
• Providing children with their biological parents whenever possible;
• Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes; and,
• Providing men with a stake in family and society.

In addition, there are corresponding universal features of the institution of marriage, which include the following:

• High social and legal authority and attractive incentives supporting the institution;
• Maleness and femaleness;
• A definition of eligible partners;
• A public dimension;
• Encouragement of procreation under specific conditions;
• Mutual support between men and women and duties toward children; and
• An emphasis on complementary parental roles and relationships.

Here’s my interpretation:

• We need babies EVERYWHERE!
• Orphans, foster kids, potential adoptees, and actual adoptees can SUCK IT!
• Single parents, divorcees, elderly couples, and heterosexual couples who can’t naturally procreate can SUCK IT!
• Men should get to own their wives—and everything in the marriage—just like in the old days!
• Women, you better have the house clean and the dinner ready or you aren’t doing your God-mandated job!
• Anybody who doesn’t like our ideas of reinforcing hypermasculinity and the oppression of women can SUCK IT! We’re throwing everybody, including all women, under the bus just to stick it to the gays!

And of course, they ask for more financial support for their “epic battle” to reset cultural norms back at least 60 years.

And in the latest post that just went up yesterday, Ron Prentice wants to tell us about “The Impact on Children.” In his first big paragraph, he makes this vacuous claim:

Further, experts around the globe agree that the ideal family structure for a child is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.

He goes on to say:

The contention that there is no discernable difference in the impact on the cognitive, emotional and social well-being of a child between opposite-sex married couples and homosexual couples just isn’t borne out by social science.

Apparently, he has doesn’t know how to google the American Psychological Association:

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.

Yet, Prentice just keeps on spreading the lies. His post is chock full of them. It’s disgusting. I don’t even feel like quoting any more of it. As someone who never has and never will meet my biological parents, I just can’t explain how angry it makes me to be scapegoated by idiots like Prentice specifically to serve his oppression of me. It’s slimy.

And if it weren’t bad enough that he’s disseminating misinformation, he’s using it as a scare tactic to purloin more money from his mindless followers. I feel bad for these people. They are brainwashed enough to believe this shit (without citations) and scared enough by it to keep forking over the dough.

I can’t wait for Protect Marriage to lose and equality to win. I like the idea of a “social experiment” called justice.

In case you’re interested, these four posts included the following memes:

» “Wait” (It’s a “social experiment.” We don’t know the long term effects!)

» “Reverse Discrimination” (It’s not fair they didn’t have to release their documents. This hurts the institution of marriage!)

» “Special Rights” (Why should we risk our children to suit the “political agenda and desire of adults“?)

» “Traditional” (There are historic universal truths about the nature of marriage.)

» “Essentialist” (Simple biology explains how and why we should recognize relationships.)

» “Children” (It doesn’t matter how untrue our lies are, our children are still at risk, so be scared and give us more money!)

» “Victim” (Thousands of Californians voted for Proposition 8 and their votes need to be respected!)

» “One Man & One Woman” (We subscribe to gender norms and we intend to force everybody to do the same. Male power!)

That’s a whole lot of BS.

Normally, when a PM blog post goes up, I quote the entire thing verbatim and analyze it. I’m not going to do that this week, because most of the post is quoted itself directly from a different source. Apparently, Mr. Prentice was never versed on the blockquote tag, which is why his post reads like plagiarism. What’s most interesting about this phenomenon is the way the quoting happens. It’s not all surprising that a group with narrow-minded motives would be selective in what they quote, but what is interesting is that Prentice selectively quoted an already-conservative news site.

I’ll let Mr. Prentice set up the issue at hand. (Note my expert use of the blockquote tag to distinguish his writing from my own.)

Behind-the-Scenes Tactics of Homosexual Activists

A cornerstone of the plaintiffs’ legal strategy in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case is the political powerlessness of homosexuals. On cross-examination, our legal team was able to tear giant holes in this bogus assertion, noting that the homosexual lobby has reliable and active allies in the White House, our State House and in cities and counties across California.

Now comes news of strong-arming another influential association into submission, underscoring the political success of those who want society to accept gay “marriage” as normal.

LifeSiteNews.com reported an alarming behind-the-scenes look at how same-sex marriage advocates bullied the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) into flip-flopping its long-held position on traditional marriage.

I can’t help but think of “homosexual lobby” as a lobby that has been diagnosed as having unnatural attractions to lobbies of the same sex.

At any rate, therapists were “bullied” into supporting marriage equality. When I think of bullies, I think of physical threats in order to take something away; I think of holding up a fist to try to take lunch money. I don’t think of holding up decades of scientific DATA confirming the mental health benefits of encouraging individuals to develop stable same-sex relationships to encourage an organization to adjust its views to fit the standards of their profession as “bullying.”

Obviously, Ron Prentice reaches for nonsense wherever he can get it. And his motives are not at all surprising.

I’m not going to quote all the nonsense about the evil “tactics” of how members of CAMFT rallied their own organization from within to take a stand on marriage equality. It’s not all that interesting, and it’s kind of a bummer to see a positive change written about in such a negative way. Here, though, is a very important paragraph from LifeSiteNews that Ron Prentice neglected (intentionally, I’m sure) to include in his plagiarizing blog post:

East Bay CAMFT asserted that “homosexuality is not a condition needing treatment or cure,” and described “scientific facts” it considered the basis for “affirmative therapeutic approaches,” including the notion that “same-sex sexual behavior, attractions and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality.”  The group now condemns change-oriented therapy as having no “enduring benefit” and only causing “harm,” and blames the prevalence of mental illness among homosexuals on “stress as a result of social prejudice against homosexuality.”

Now, just ignore the mocking quotes around scientific facts and you’ll see what’s really happening here. It’s been over 30 years since the APA stopped diagnosing homosexuality as a mental illness, but CAMFT is still willing to treat it as such. That’s just bad practice. Plus, it maintains the stigma cycle… gays are condemned, gays seek therapy, gays are condemned… you get the picture.

And of course Ron ignored that paragraph because it conflicts with his true motive for (re)writing this drivel on PM’s blog:

A celebratory announcement on CTME’s website credits “countless hours and the efforts of hundreds” who pressured CAMFT for the shift in viewpoint. So much for the homosexual lobby being powerless. And so much for CAMFT holding to an objective, research-based platform.

We depend on your generous support to continue to fight against the homosexual marriage activists whose relentless bullying is paying off, little by little. Their strategy is to chip away at groups, one by one, until marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is commonplace and marriage between a man and a woman is a relic. Please help us fight this ongoing battle.

Actually, Ron, CAMFT’s position change REFLECTS a research-based platform. It’s just not research you like. It’s modern, relevant, and valid.

You just want money. You want people to be afraid their marriages will be ruined, you want people to be afraid of gay people for being “bullies,” you want people to continue to be ignorant about what the research really says, and you want people to keep paying you to help keep them ignorantly paying you. It’s a sham, a Ponzi scheme. You are milking Prop 8 for as much as you can.

Sorry, Ron, but I just have to keep calling you out on your nonsense. You use people to hurt people and you hurt people to use people. How do you sleep at night? Probably quite comfortably with all the money you’ve purloined.

A Promising Development

Last week, we finally received some good news about our efforts to level the playing field in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case. As you may recall, when the live testimony phase of the trial concluded in late January, our opponents “rested their case,” but our outstanding team of attorneys defending Prop 8 did not. The reason? Even at that late hour we were still waiting for Chief Judge Vaughn Walker to rule upon our significant pending motion, by which we asked the Court to direct the leaders of the No on 8 Campaign to release to us the same types of internal campaign memos, strategies, and communications that we at ProtectMarriage.com had long before already been forced to hand over to them to use as evidence during the trial.

I get when they use the mocking quotes to belittle our identities and such, but I still don’t get it when they use them for legitimate legal terms.

The thrust of this post is this idea that No on 8 should have to pour out all of their own documents. I’m not sure of the relevance of this, but I’ll let Andy blab for another paragraph before I explain why.

Under normal circumstances, judges ensure that the discovery and disclosure of potentially relevant evidence occur well before trial, and certainly no later than during the evidentiary portion of the trial. That is exactly what Judge Walker had ordered ProtectMarriage.com and the proponents to do. However, even as the trial was drawing to a  close, Judge Walker still had not taken up our “motion to compel discovery” which would have ordered the opponents of Prop 8 to also disclose any of their internal documents of the same kind we had been compelled to disclose. Of course we disagreed from the outset with the idea that any of these internal campaign records should have to be produced— by either side.  But once the ground rules had been laid to force us to disclose our confidential records, it was shocking and upsetting to see those rules not applied equally to our opponents.

Here’s the thing: Perry v. Schwarzenegger is about whether Prop 8 is constitutional. It’s not about whether Prop 8 is not constitutional. The Yes on 8/ProtectMarriage.com documents reveal the tactics and language that were used to promote the proposition, so they are directly relevant to the intentions behind the proposition. As we saw during the trial, the Yes on 8 Campaign clearly used intricate alliances among religious organizations to spread demonizing messages about gays and lesbians.

What relevance does the No on 8 Campaign’s materials have on a case on the constitutionality of Prop 8? Arguably, NONE. The No on 8 Campaign had nothing to do with the promotion of Proposition 8, which should be painfully obvious. The relevance is not the same.

So after the live testimony in the case had concluded, Chief Judge Walker referred our request for equal treatment to U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero.  Despite being outnumbered in the courtroom by 10-to-1, our attorneys clashed once again in the San Francisco Courtroom, arguing forcefully that the “No” campaign should be held to the same legal standards that the “Yes” campaign has had to endure in this case.  Last week, Magistrate Spero ordered the No on 8 groups (Equality California, Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights, an ACLU campaign committee, and the No on Prop 8 umbrella campaign) to produce to our attorneys copies of all their internal documents “that contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8.”

They have until March 31 to produce these documents to us.

Damn; they never miss an opportunity to portray themselves as underdogs.

I disagree with Magistrate Spero’s decision. Arguments against Proposition 8 do not speak in any way to its constitutionality.

This is clearly about vengeance. Protect Marriage wants an eye for an eye. They had to go to all the trouble to reveal their internal documents, so they want their opponents to have to do the same thing. You know, just because.

So Andy, when you get all the documents on March 31, what are you going to do with them?

While this is good news for us, it clearly requires more work on our end to comb through potentially thousands of pages of memos, notes and emails in order to analyze and extract their impact on the case.  Even though the Perry case has been out of the headlines, the work for our legal team has not slowed. This is why we ask for your continued financial support as they work tirelessly on your behalf.

Ah, the true motive revealed. This is just to drain more money from gullible bigots. I can just see the thoughts of the average narrow-minded Yes on 8 Californian: “This gay marriage shit is messing up my life. I’m sick of it. Why’s this all still in question, anyways? Isn’t anyone working out there to make it all go away once and for all? Oh, Protect Marriage needs more money to go through a whole lot of irrelevant documents? Here’s a donation!”

I’m going to offer here and now that the documents will have a negligible “impact” on their case. The only difference they’ll make is allowing Pugno, Prentice, and team to live off the case longer. It’s pathetic, selfish, manipulative, and mean-spirited. Then again, so is everything about Protect Marriage.

Notably, when we sought to protect some of our internal documents as being confidential and privileged, our opponents cried foul.  Yet the executive director of California’s most influential homosexual activist organization is trying to make the case that records of communications from and to his group should be out of bounds.

Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors argues that, because EQCA “is a nonparty and because it worked to oppose Proposition 8, its internal campaign communications are not relevant and production would be unduly burdensome.” The ACLU is trying to sing the same song, arguing that the documents we seek are “irrelevant and privileged.”  Of course, prior to being mandated to turn over thousands of our own documents, we made almost exactly the same arguments to the court and yet were denied relief!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I

It’s not fair!! We had to turn over our documents. Make them do it with theirs too!

Magistrate Spero noted in his ruling that “as was the case with the proponents, the documents and communications at issue may shed light on the meaning and impact of the messages that were sent to the voters. Thus, the subpoenaed documents are relevant and must be produced to the extent the documents…contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8.”

As I wrote above, there is little compelling explanation for the relevance of arguments against Proposition 8 as they were submitted to voters. If this were a debate, I could see it. But it’s not a debate. This is a case in the federal court system about the constitutionality of a law. The motives of the people who pushed for it are what matters.

But the legal shenanigans of our moneyed opponents continue: EQCA has appealed Magistrate Spero’s ruling to Chief Judge Walker, who has granted a hearing on Kors’ motion.  The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 16.

Remember, if you want Protect Marriage to properly “protect your marriage” (whatever the hell that means), they need money! Their opponents have it! And they’re involved in shenanigans! So PM needs more money too! To keep up with the shenanigans!

Did Pugno use “shenanigans” just because it’s St. Patty’s Day this week?

Perhaps we will hear something today about the outcome of the appellate hearing. In the meantime, how about you send us out with an inspirational message, Andy?

We will continue to keep you informed about the progress of this issue and how it may affect the scheduling of a date for closing arguments.  In the meantime, please continue to pray for our attorneys and their staff and all who are involved in this epic battle to preserve traditional marriage.

Yes, because they are so insecure they need to feel that they are doing the work of God. They can only do that if you waste your time spiritually stroking their egos!

What bollocks.

» There was a chance the closing arguments might be televised. But, it doesn’t seem like they will.

» Olson and Boies have filed a 294-page report detailing the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8. (Click here for the PDF.)

» Olson and Boies were on PBS’s Bill Moyers Journal over the weekend.

» Episodes of the Prop 8 Trial Re-enactment continue to come out. I will make sure I try to keep the Perry v. Schwarzenegger archive is updated! (I have been negligent with keeping up with these updates! My apologies!)

Now, let’s check in with the latest spin from Ron Prentice at ProtectMarriage.com!

Political Powerlessness in Action

We already know from the title that this post will be another attempt to show that the “homosexual movement” is incredibly powerful, and that’s exactly why they don’t deserve their rights. Right.

Dear Friends,

We are certainly not friends. Maybe we’re not supposed to be reading this?

You may recall from one of my earlier e-mails that the plaintiffs’ lawyers, in their bid to overturn Prop 8, asserted during the Perry v Schwarzenegger federal trial that homosexuals are “politically powerless.” They tried to make the case that this alleged political disadvantage is so extreme that it must be corrected by providing homosexuals special protection under the United States Constitution.

Well, when the majority votes not just to prevent our rights but to remove them, then yes, I’d say we need more protection.

When our team of able legal experts questioned the plaintiffs’ witnesses on this matter, they were forced to acknowledge that the “gay agenda” has a bevy of esteemed and active elected officials in their stable of support, including both California U.S. Senators, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Governor, the current, openly homosexual California Assembly Speaker, several openly homosexual state senators and/or assembly members, the current mayors of California’s largest cities and the state’s Attorney General.

How nice of them to actually call it the gay agenda! It’s refreshing to hear us called by the words we choose to identify with.

The problem here is that when you can count the number of supporters on two hands, they are still exceptions. Further, it doesn’t matter if they say they are supportive if their actions don’t speak power to their words. When I think of Nancy Pelosi, for example, I don’t think of her as an advocate for LGBT issues. She certainly hasn’t gone out of her way in the slightest, and the plaintiffs’ witnesses spoke to this empty kind of support in their testimony.

By that measure alone, it is difficult to accept the notion that homosexuals are a politically powerless lot. Let’s not be naïve, the homosexual lobby holds powerful sway over what goes on in the halls of our state Capitol.

No, Ron, let’s not be naïve. If we really had sway, then all the blatantly discriminatory laws against would be repealed and all the protections would be passed.

Further, last Friday was the final day lawmakers could introduce legislation in the current session. And guess what? California’s largest homosexual advocacy group, Equality California, sponsored three bills to further advance their agenda, one of which would eliminate what they consider a barrier to legalizing same-sex marriage.

Think about this. Ron is trying to give us credit merely for introducing bills.

Senate Bill 906 was introduced by openly-gay Senator Mark Leno, who has carried the gay lobby’s water since he was elected.  It removes from current law any obligation by clergy to “marry” same-sex partners and prevents their refusal from having any negative implications on a synagogue or church’s tax-exempt status.

While “divorcing” religious marriage from civil marriage, this bill further exemplifies just how cunning the homosexual lobby can be.  In fact, much can be read into Senator Leno’s comment in the Bay Area Reporter when he said religious entities “have no business interfering with the fundamental right of everyone’s access to marriage.”

We go out of our way to provide unnecessary extra protections for religious organizations and leaders and we’re still the bad guys. We’re cunning and manipulative? Look in the mirror, Ron.

Equality California may promote this bill as nothing more than a way to clarify the issue for people who are “confused about the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage,” but what they are really after is a way – any way – to invalidate the votes of 7 million Californians who voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Parsing words the way they are with SB 906 is just another clear example of how powerful the homosexual lobby is in exerting its political influence on the rest of society.

Who’s saying that? You’re saying that, Ron. Oh, and now we’re back to “homosexual lobby.”

On another note, Friday was a big day for our legal team in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case.  After weeks of work following the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the trial, our team submitted our post-trial briefings to Judge Vaughn Walker.

Really??? Where are they? You can read the plaintiffs’ above, so where can we read yours? I see nothing posted on ProtectMarriage.com or ADF’s site whatsoever. Are you so insecure about your arguments you won’t even share them widely? Perhaps you’re still looking for an answer to that question about how same-sex marriage hurts heterosexual marriages.

We appreciate all of your prayers and financial support throughout these trial proceedings. This is just the first step in a long legal battle to preserve traditional marriage. We are now waiting for Judge Vaughn Walker to announce the date for closing arguments and we will have much work to do for that step in the journey as well. We ask for your continued support through both prayer and financial sacrifice during this time as we move closer toward the completion of the district court trial and then on to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

We will keep you informed as we learn more from Judge Walker.

Financial sacrifice. Be a martyr for bigotry, folks. Your penitence to Jesus could be tribute to inequality!

And here at ZackFord Blogs, we will keep you informed of all the nonsense and bigotry that continues to come spewing forth from ProtectMarriage.com.

Demonstrating the intolerance of ‘the tolerant’ and the power of ‘the powerless’

They never get tired of the mocking quotes. I’d rewrite this headline as ‘Demonstrating’ the ‘intolerance’ of the tolerant and the ‘power’ of the powerless. But that’s just me.

In public, the leaders of the same-sex marriage movement portray themselves as tolerant and loving, seeking only to access marriage as a way of validating their “loving and committed relationships.” In court, they claim to be politically powerless, requiring judicial intervention to overturn our state constitutional provision defining marriage as between one man and one woman, thus forcing homosexual marriages onto society. However, outside of court they are anything but powerless or tolerant. Two recent examples illustrate this.

Let me take a moment to confirm everything Ron is telling us here. First, all same-sex interactions are carnal and sporadic, and second, the queer equality movement is secretly tyrannical and Christian-hating. It is actually the fact that we are so secretly powerful that we need judicial intervention to force every single person into getting married to someone of the same sex, regardless of whether they claim to be heterosexual.

As an activist, I do confirm that this is the image I see in the mirror every morning.

In Oakland, Mayor Ron Dellums re-nominated Lorenzo Hoopes to continue to serve on the board of directors of the nonprofit Paramount Theatre of the Arts, where Hoopes serves as president. At 96 years of age, Hoopes is a revered figure in the Oakland community and has been credited with helping save the Paramount from bankruptcy and the wrecking ball. He was a top executive with Safeway, served on the local school board and also was a local leader of the LDS church, where he helped lead numerous charitable and community improvement projects. None of this matters, however, to those who oppose Proposition 8, because Hoopes donated funds to support its passage. As far as they are concerned, his perspective on marriage and support of Prop 8 makes him ineligible for community service and should subject him to protest and public ridicule. “It’s so insulting,” one homosexual rights leader told the Oakland Tribune about the re-nomination of Hoopes. “Outrageous,” said another. Homosexual activists immediately began to organize, including forming a Facebook group to coordinate their efforts to derail the continued service of this venerable community volunteer. And they succeeded when Mayor Dellums withdrew the nomination before it came to a vote.

Awww… but Mr. Hoopes is such a nice man! He does charity and stuff!

Let me say that I’m a little bit of a theatre queen. I have a music degree, after all. The theatre community is incredibly gay-friendly. Not every single male actor is a queen, but it doesn’t matter that some are. The entire community has been very supportive of gay rights issues for a long time. Now, I don’t know much about nonprofit theatre company boards, but I do know how I feel about dirty money. I don’t want it.

And while we’re talking about money, let’s talk about these trifling funds Hoopes donated to Prop 8. It was $26,000. Yes, twenty-six thousand dollars.

So, I can’t speak for the Paramount Theatre of the Arts, but if they are even the least bit supportive of the gay community, I think it’s easy to see why they wouldn’t want someone like Hoopes representing them anymore. For a struggling gay actor, $26,000 could be a year’s worth of income. That is outrageous.

Aggressive protests like the one aimed at a 96-year-old community volunteer are, unfortunately, all too representative of the type of intimidation and harassment that has consistently been demonstrated by the homosexual marriage movement during and since the Proposition 8 campaign. In fact, the examples of harassment are so extensive and have become so well documented (they were chronicled in this report by The Heritage Foundation) that they have begun to be mentioned by various commentators, experts and courts, including the United States Supreme Court.

Really, Ron? Aggressive protests? Demanding a hateful old, rich, white guy not be allowed to represent the theatre community is “intimidation and harassment”? Do you sue people who poke you on Facebook? I mean, how sensitive are you?

I love the way they cite that Heritage Foundation report. You know, the one that ignored any anti-gay harassment and only documented the little incidents here and there against Prop 8 supporters? Real thorough investigation, that Heritage Foundation report!

When the backers of Washington state’s Referendum 71 turned in their petition signatures last year, they sought protection in federal court from having to reveal the identity of those who had signed the petitions, fearing that they would be subjected to harassment by pro-homosexual activists. They cited the extensive harassment of supporters of Prop 8, in addition to documented harassment of Referendum 71 backers, and in an 8-1 ruling secured an order from the United States Supreme Court protecting the privacy of the petition signers until the court hears the matter. In our own Perry v Schwarzenegger case, the US Supreme Court’s ruling preventing the broadcast of the trial was based, in part, on the extensive record of harassment of Prop 8 supporters. Of course, the issue of harassment toward those who participate in the political process is not limited to same-sex marriage cases. In their recently decided case Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, the court said that forcing the disclosure of the names of campaign contributors, “would be unconstitutional as applied to an organization if there were a reasonable probability that the group’s members would face threats, harassment, or reprisals if their names were disclosed.”

Yes, Ron, very good. Defend your paranoia by comparing yourself to corporations in the Citizens United case. That is sure to win over more supporters.

ProtectMarriage.com is also involved in a lawsuit concerning disclosure of initiative backers, ProtectMarriage.com v Bowen. This case, brought following the passage of Proposition 8, seeks to protect the identity of initiative contributors and is currently pending in the federal courts. When an initial request for a preliminary injunction was denied, ProtectMarriage.com fully disclosed all information as required by law. However, the case remains pending and is being undertaken by the able legal representation of the Alliance Defense Fund.

Yawn. A whole paragraph about nothing, just to remind us of another way PM is some kind of victim.

Ron Prentice always neglects to remind us of all the ways ProtectMarriage tried to intimidate businesses who openly opposed Proposition 8. (Hey, Jeremy, can we see that again? Yeah, that’s the one. Thanks buddy.) Yeah, Ron, that’s your signature right there intimidating Prop 8 opponents. There’s a saying about pots and kettles. You’re a smart guy, I’m sure you can figure it out.

The issue of public disclosure was the subject of a February 6th opinion column in the Sacramento Bee, authored by California Fair Political Practices Commissioner Ronald Rotunda. Mr. Rotunda noted the inherent tension between disclosure laws and privacy rights and, speaking purely from a personal point of view and not in his capacity as a Commissioner, opined that the First Amendment may trump disclosure laws in an initiative campaign. He said the First Amendment, “prevents the government from aiding those who disagree in a most disagreeable way.”

Nobody, certainly not Mr. Rotunda nor Mr. Prentice, has yet explained to me how someone who signs a public legal document like a petition is entitled to privacy. Ironically, it is surely the intention of disclosure laws to prevent the government from allowing anyone to utilize political power without public accountability. That’s a good thing. Democracy without disclosure laws would become oligarchy. Of course, that’s what Ron wants.

The response from homosexual marriage radicals like Equality California was swift and, well, radical. Like those who demand the scalp of a 96-year-old community volunteer in Oakland, Equality California has demanded that Rotunda be removed from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). On February 11th they demanded that California’s governor and legislature immediately begin impeachment proceedings against the commissioner. Equality California also falsely claimed that the FPPC will be asked to decide if Protectmarriage.com has failed to disclose its contributors, which we have already done.

Radical radicals? You’re so witty, Ron!

So now we’re scalping a man? Is Ron playing “telephone” by himself?  What is the bounty these days for a Mormon elder’s scalp? Let’s meet up at the trading post and make a deal!

Apparently we have power just because we speak up when people put us down. Does that make sense? We’re being put down to reinforce that we don’t have power. So the mere fact that we try to defend ourselves means we actually are powerful. Get it? Let me know if you do and I’ll help you un-get it.

Perhaps Equality California hasn’t gotten the memo from the plaintiff attorneys in the Perry case, that homosexuals are politically powerless. The impeachment threat against Commissioner Rotunda is no idle one. It is an exercise in raw political power by one of the most powerful special interest groups in the entire state. They know that they have the political strength and reliable legislative allies to make this a very viable threat against a dedicated public servant.

I like it when Ron talks us up. He makes us sound so epic. It’s a “threat,” an “exercise in raw political power.” You know Ron doesn’t actually think Equality California’s one of the most powerful special interest groups, because he knows Prop 8 passed. He’s not intimidated at all, but he has to pretend to be so he looks vulnerable. He says such nice things about us for his own gain!

When I hear the words “exercise,” “raw,” “power,” and “strength” together like that, it makes me think of the Rocky Horror Picture Show when Dr. Frank N. Furter first unveils his creation. Ron Prentice, in just seven days, I can make you a man!

This is what we are fighting, and why we continue our multi-pronged effort to preserve marriage in California. Not only have we had to wage epic initiative and court battles, we must also battle our radical opponents in the legislature and court of public opinion, where with a straight face and a sympathetic media, the intolerant demand tolerance, and the powerful feign powerlessness.

Please help us continue our fight. We need your prayers, activism and continued financial support.

Yes, paranoid haters often use pitchforks when they’re chasing people out of town. Is that what you meant by “multi-pronged,” Ron?

This backwards portrayal is just bizarre. If I didn’t know better, I’d wonder if it was a Poe. I mean, I could write the same thing about ProtectMarriage and it would actually be true. Here, watch, I’ll do it: Not only have we had to wage epic initiative and court battles, we must also battle our radical opponents in the legislature and court of public opinion, where with a straight face and a sympathetic media, the intolerant demand tolerance, and the powerful feign powerlessness. Our faces aren’t as straight, but we’re the ones discriminated against. We want everyone to have the same rights; that’s tolerance. PM doesn’t; that’s intolerance. It’s just bizarre how Ron and his PM minions see things.

Sincerely,

Ron Prentice, Executive Director

The scariest part is that Ron might really be sincere. My bet is that he’s a manipulative bigot, but there is always the disturbing possibility that he actually sees truth in everything he’s written here.

Whatever the case, he doesn’t want to know what you think. Comments, as always, are closed on the ProtectMarriage blog. Not here, though! Please, comment away!

Testimony Concludes But The Battle Is Just Beginning

The live testimony in the federal trial of Perry v Schwarzenegger, the historic court battle over the definition of marriage, finally came to a close.

I love how it only takes Prentice one sentence to go on the defensive. Obviously, it’s a “battle” to defend the definition of marriage. They’re fighting! They’re crusaders! But is it about the definition of marriage? Or is it discrimination against gays and lesbians? David Blankenhorn even conceded that he’s okay with polygamy to defend his definition of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman (each polygamous marriage is still one man and one woman, apparently). It seems that in the battle to defend marriage, Protect Marriage’s team is ready to demolish any other understandings of marriage just to ensure it’s not open to same-sex couples. That sounds more like discrimination than preservation to me.

Our lead trial attorney Charles Cooper and the rest of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a superb job defending the will of the voters and the institution of marriage itself under extremely difficult circumstances in this San Francisco courtroom. As we consistently saw in most of the critical pre-trial rulings, virtually all of Judge Vaughn Walker’s significant rulings during the trial went against us.

Did I read that wrong? The Judge kept ruling against you, but you feel you did a superb job? You know you’re not doing so hot when you’re giving yourself points just for effort.

For example, Judge Walker’s insistent efforts to broadcast the trial proceedings worldwide on the internet, in violation of federal laws, caused two-thirds of our expert witnesses to withdraw from the case just before the trial started. Quite understandably, these experts were fearful of the likely harassment and retribution they would suffer, personally and professionally, if their live testimony was broadcast worldwide as Judge Walker had ordered. As the trial started, the cameras were still rolling and there was no way to guarantee the witnesses that their testimony would not be broadcast. Even though the US Supreme Court later overruled Judge Walker and prohibited the broadcasting of this case, it was too late.

Wow, now they’ve sunk to calling Walker a criminal! And “quite understandably” there’d be “likely harassment and retribution”? Yes, it’s so hard to publicly support discrimination. I don’t think the witnesses are getting off any easier than if they had been broadcast; their testimonies were still embarrassingly lacking when it came to “expertise.”

I can’t say I have any sympathy whatsoever for their witnesses’ lack of courage.

The loss of four witnesses put tremendous added pressure on our team of defense attorneys to find other ways to get our critical evidence into the record. So during over 30 hours of our cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, our attorneys succeeded in moving key studies, statistics, reports and other evidence into the record, and obtaining critical concessions from the other side’s witnesses on many subjects, such as child-rearing and monogamy. Thankfully, our legal team was extremely successful in this regard.

Critical evidence? I don’t think it’s critical when it’s out-of-date research or doesn’t make the points you claim it makes. Studies of fatherless children include absolutely no research on same-sex couples, for example. And a letter Freud wrote to some mother of a gay kid? That’s history; it doesn’t hold much clout against modern research.

After weeks of 20+ hour days, our attorneys finally were able to get a good night’s rest. We appreciate your prayers for them and your words of encouragement. Starting today, they will be working for the next 30 days to submit additional briefings to the judge. They will also start preparing to go back before Judge Walker sometime in March to present final closing arguments. And then we will await the court’s ruling.

Awwwww… defending discrimination is such hard work! I’m so glad they get to take their little nappie-poos. I’m grateful for people’s prayers too. It’s a lot of time that they’re not spending actively demonizing and discriminating.

No matter how Judge Walker rules, all sides agree that this is just the first stage in a much longer journey that will ultimately end at the U.S. Supreme Court. No matter which side wins this first legal test, the case is surely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and eventually to the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even though the live testimony has ended, we must continue our efforts to secure the resources needed for a strong legal defense of Prop 8.

Here comes the part where Prentice really lays the self-pity on thick, because he wants money.

Every person involved in our legal defense has made tremendous sacrifices. Lead trial counsel Charles Cooper and his team from the Cooper & Kirk law firm have done a spectacular job. Special thanks is also due to the excellent attorneys of the Alliance Defense Fund who donated literally thousands of hours of legal work as part of the defense team.

Does that include all the time they spent tweeting in the overflow room to reinforce the demonization and make sure their followers only saw what they wanted them to see?

In particular, we are also extremely grateful to our own General Counsel, Andy Pugno. Not only has he worked tirelessly for months on end and represented us ably in the courtroom, his entire family has paid a price as Andy has been fighting for the institution of marriage. We owe him, and his family, a debt of gratitude.

Given the amount of nonsense we’ve seen him blog or say live at press conferences, it must be terribly embarrassing for his family.

Below is a statement Andy released to the media late yesterday about the case. It’s an excellent summary of how this show trial unfolded. The video of the full press conference can be view on our website.

I’m impressed that PM actually left the full press conference up and didn’t just crop the video down to the part where Pugno speaks. Oddly enough, Prentice bothers here to quote everything Pugno wrote in his last post. Just click here to read that while I skip to the end of Prentice’s.

Thank you for your continued help through prayer, financial support, encouragement, and spreading the word. We – all of us – are responsible for the shape of our society when we hand it off to future generations.

Ron Prentice, Executive Director
Protectmarriage.com

It wouldn’t be a Protect Marriage post if it didn’t remind its readers that children are at risk.

Of course, comments and pings are closed. They want people to spread the word, but they won’t humor any discussion. We wouldn’t want anything on the site that gets off message, now would we? Just keep praying and letting us spoon-feed you our narrow scope of the trial!

I wonder if PM will respond any further to the recent outing of Judge Walker? Until then, stay tuned to the Prop 8 Trial Tracker for regular updates about everything that’s going on!

There is still a considerable amount of posting happening over at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, including a recent post on why the courts are an important venue for marriage equality and some interesting background on Andy Pugno’s possibly illegitimate activities with Prop 22. Check there for regular updates.

Also, if you were not aware, the first of the trial re-enactments is now online! I expect more will be online soon, and I am linking to each “episode” on my archive, so it’ll still be your one-stop shop for coverage. I highly recommend you follow the transcripts while you watch; the recordings do not seem to have been edited much. There’s one point in the first episode where “Olson” takes one of “Walker”‘s lines. Still, the re-enactments are hopefully an effective way to spread the word of the trial.

I really think that’s the most important thing we can do between now and the closing arguments. The transcripts are out there, the videos are coming, and there is a ton of coverage and analysis. We must continue working to make sure our friends, family, and communities understand the importance of these proceedings and how much there is to learn from the testimonies. If you have any ideas for how this site can be a better resource for spreading the word, please let me know!

In the meantime, check out this cool video from Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s website hitRECord. It was made to address the SCOTUS decision to block broadcast of the trial.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1sxXVcQzHA

Also, I want to share an SNL skit from this weekend in tribute to Rick Jacobs, Teddy Partridge, and the other livebloggers from the trial. Normally, this skit probably wouldn’t be that funny, but when I think of the folks who typed away for three weeks on our behalf, it seems a fitting tribute.

Presentation of Evidence Concludes in Perry v Schwarzenegger Federal Trial

Today concluded the presentation of evidence in the federal trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging Prop 8’s definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. Our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a remarkable job in defending the will of over 7 million California voters who passed it into law.

You know, I think “remarkable” is an apt descriptor. Certainly, many have remarked about the job they’ve done depending Proposition 8. Are they positive remarks, though? Well, that’s probably why Pugno chose a word that would keep him from outright lying.

What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best.  The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.

This is Pugno’s favorite spin. It’s the people’s right to vote! As the defense’s own witness, Dr. Miller, pointed out, the initiative process can be extremely unfair to minorities. The burden of proof is not just on the plaintiffs. The defense has to prove that there is a compelling reason for Prop 8 that outweighs the harm the plaintiffs have demonstrated from its passing. None of the testimony demonstrated any foundation for maintaining marriage between a man and a woman, but Pugno, like Blankenhorn, still believes it’s true.

Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose.  A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a mother and father. It’s that simple.

Yes, Pugno, and both of your witnesses also agreed that same-sex marriage benefits the children of same-sex couples. And all the myths about “a mother and a father” were debunked by research your witnesses hadn’t even read! They’re all just archaic gender stereotypes (even more archaic than the “scholarly” documents your witnesses cited).

And for the record, I’m still offended as an adoptee. And so is some woman out there who gave me up for adoption 24 years ago. Sorry for these idiots’ condemnation, birth-mom-I’ve-never-met-and-never-really-care-to-because-I-have-two-amazing-parents-who-have-raised-me-with-all-the-love-in-their-hearts.

The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals.  But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.

Awww, Pugno is trying to use the “expert” mocking quotes back on the plaintiffs (OH YEAH? WELL YOURS ARE “EXPERTS” TOO!). Sorry, Pugno, the plaintiffs’ experts actually demonstrated their expertise, unlike yours. And all of that evidence was totally relevant, because it all stacks against your claims about the importance of “traditional marriage,” and I have to use the mocking quotes for “traditional marriage” because Dr. Cott, the expert on the history of marriage, totally contradicted your claims of what “traditional marriage” even is!

You also ignored all of the continued discrimination, hate crimes, and denial of equal access on the law that gays and lesbians experience. I guess freedom and equal access aren’t legal issues either? Have you read the US Constitution lately?

I don’t know how much more we’ll hear from Pugno before the court reconvenes for closing arguments, but I’m going to keep following. His whole MO is to control the message to his followers, and I want to continue to interrupt that.

[Brian Leubitz also responded to this post over on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker.]

Boies: Are you aware of marriages in other societies that have not been limited to people of the opposite sex?

Blankenhorn: Well I am certainly aware that assertions have been made in the popular and infrequently scholarly press but I have troubled myself to try to understand such assertions but I have views about them which I am happy to share.

Are you aware? Yes, I am aware. No, I am not aware. I am not sure whether I am aware or not. Those are the answers to pick from. Here’s my best translation:

I don’t really know anything, I just comment on what other people say.

Quite the expert indeed.

Brian Leubitz points out some other choice excerpts from Blankenhorn’s testimony:

Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus would likely reduce instances of marital unhappiness and divorce.

…

Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.

…

Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.

Thanks, Mr. Blankenhorn!

So what was the defense’s case again? It’ll be interesting to see it when they reconvene in a few weeks for closing arguments.

Here’s your last roundup of links. It’s early in the day, so I’ll update this throughout the evening.

P8TT: Complete Transcript Summary, This is a Witness for the Defense?, POLL: The burning question: Who was the worst witness?, Trial Trackers: Stay involved with the Courage Campaign

Firedoglake: Morning 1, Morning 2

Shannon Minter (NCLR): Day 12 Recap

Pam’s House Blend: Prop 8 trial: defendant witness David Blankenhorn withers under Boies’ questioning

San Jose Mercury: Prop. 8 trial Day 12: Live coverage from the courtroom

Los Angeles Times: Witness argues against same-sex marriage as Prop. 8 trial testimony concludes

San Francisco Chronicle: Prop. 8 witness warns of societal upheaval

San Francisco Appeal: Testimony Ends In Trial To Overturn Prop 8

Keen News Service: Prop 8 trial closes; Boies expresses confidence

New York Times: Same-Sex Marriage Case, Day 12: The End (for Now), Proposition 8 Trial Pauses, but Not for Ruling, Same-Sex Marriage Case: The Post-Mortem (Video of the press conference!)

Wall Street Journal: Defense Rests in Gay-Marriage Trial, Gay-Marriage Ban Comes at What Cost?

Law.com: Proposition 8 Trial Wraps, but Will It Find a Wider Audience?

Box Turtle Bulletin: Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day twelve summary

And some last-day Protect Mawwiage tweets!

AHA! #prop8 witness cites long list of probs SSM will cause! Wait, those are benefits? OMGWTF! @ADFMedia Does our side have ANY witnesses?!?

CAN I GET A WITNESS?! No seriously we need a witness who won’t make us look like giant assholes. Writing Craigslist ad now. @ADFMedia #prop8

Defense expert believes SSM wld, of course, meet the sordid desires of homosexuals, but also begin the zombie apocalypse.#prop8

Sooooo anyone wanna bolt from #prop8 early and check out Apple’s presentation? Heard they have a shiny new toy! Sigh. This witness sucks.

Blankenhorn and Boies now dueling with wizard wands! #prop8#protectmarriage

Pro #prop8 witness tries using Avada Kadvara curse on lawyer! Lawyer deflects, fires back with Confundus charm!#protectmarriage

Spaghetti Strategy

Once again, religion was on trial this morning as a lawyer for the challengers to Prop 8 cross-examined political scientist Kenneth Miller. In their desperate attempt to make something of their case stick, the anti-Prop 8 lawyer spent extraordinary time – four hours, in fact – trying to get the witness to concede that the margin of victory for Prop 8 in the November 2008 election was driven solely by “religious” voters.  But Dr. Miller’s testimony provided an impenetrable roadblock, establishing that—while religious views were certainly one of many factors that informed some voters’ support for Prop 8—no exit poll or voter study has shown that religion alone determined the result of the election.

In case you’re curious, “impenetrable roadblock” means unable to answer any of the questions.

And actually, this study shows that religious attendance, party, and ideology were the most significant factors in Prop 8′s passing. So, it’s nice that Andy Pugno is ignorant of this fact, but that doesn’t mean he’s right. In fact, it means he’s wrong! Oh, and just in case you don’t feel like bothering with reading through that whole study, here’s a graph that shows what had the biggest impacts on “Yes” votes. (Click to embiggen.)

But let’s assume for a moment that it could be shown that religious views formed the basis for even most of the voters who supported Prop 8.  So what?  Are we to understand that the votes of California’s faithful shouldn’t be counted?

So just in case there is a study, Pugno wants to make sure we know he doesn’t care. It doesn’t matter to him that religious beliefs were used to take a right away, or that those religious groups conspired to ensure the proposition’s passing, or that those groups all used the same messages of demonization to appeal to their congregations. No, Pugno just wants to ensure people can vote the way their hearts pastors tell them miseducate and frighten them to vote.

In any event, the plaintiff attorneys then changed gears and made another run at proving their claim that gays and lesbians are a “politically powerless” minority in California, entitled to extraordinary protection under the US Constitution.

Andy neglects to mention they did a pretty good job. In fact, he tries to say the opposite.

They hit a wall there, too, when they attacked California’s initiative process.  Their theory: that allowing the people to vote for or against ballot initiatives is unconstitutional because the voters on the losing side don’t get their way.  So, they claim, Prop 8 violates the rights of gays and lesbians because they couldn’t get enough votes to defeat it at the ballot box.  Seriously?  But the notion that gays and lesbians can’t win ballot contests in California fell apart when, on cross-examination by Prop 8 Legal Defense team member David Thompson, it came out that in every election in recent history where voters were asked to pass initiatives to increase discrimination against homosexuals, the people of California rejected them.

Actually, they claimed, using the witness’s own writings, that there is not a proper check on ballot initiatives because they allow the majoritarian will to outweigh the representative authority of the legislature and the jurisdiction of the courts.

Pugno’s right that Prop 6 didn’t pass back in the 70s, but he ignores all the times that voters did vote to discriminate against same-sex relationships. (Remember…? That’s the whole point of the trial? Hellloooo?)

The plaintiffs continue to throw things against the courtroom wall in hopes that something will stick.  The trouble is, their target isn’t the law. They’ve missed the mark in terms of legal arguments and therefore have to rely on strictly emotional appeals for sympathy.

Actually, they’ve made quite a few compelling arguments, and also provided plenty of evidence to combat any “arguments” the defense still plans on making.

Now, let’s see Andy remind us how awesome we are. We should be so lucky!

But no matter how loud the pleas for sympathy become, there is simply no legal basis for the fantastical, unsupportable claim that the homosexual community in California is “politically powerless.” Does Equality California, California’s biggest gay lobby organization, think of itself as powerless? Does the Human Rights Campaign, which featured President Obama at their latest dinner, believe they are politically powerless?  Are we to believe that these groups are politically powerless despite their ability to raise $43 million to oppose Prop 8, and to attract the support of the entire political establishment, Hollywood and the media?  Not with a straight face we can’t.

Is that a pun? You don’t think a group’s politically powerless when despite being a minority with a lot of support, they still lose? Do you even believe that such a thing as “politically powerless” exists?

I loved during Kenneth Miller’s cross-exam when, after he cited the passing of hate crimes protections as evidence of political power, Boies asked, “Would you view the passage of Megan’s Law as demonstrating… the political power of little girls who are raped and killed?” Miller said, “No.”

I have to say, Pugno’s getting very verbose these days. These posts go on forever. Maybe they just seem so long because they are so lacking in substance.

The afternoon brought the testimony of our second witness, David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, who provided his expertise on the institution of marriage, fatherhood and the family structure. He rejected the suggestion by plaintiffs that marriage is purely a private construct between two adults.  Rather, he explained, marriage between a man and woman is a globally recognized and historically public institution.  In fact, it is the only social relationship with a “biological foundation” found in the complementary nature of man and woman and their ability to procreate.  Across all cultures and times, no other human relationship has been more closely connected to the ultimate goal of uniting the biological, social and legal dimensions of parenthood for the raising of children.

Actually, he didn’t have any real expertise. He just had a lot of opinions. He couldn’t cite support for any of them and was astonished he would even be asked to do so. He’s an expert, you know! He shouldn’t have to defend his expertise opinions beliefs.

As held by more than 50 experts in the field, the best environment for a child is to be raised by a biological mother who is married to her biological father.  This is not to say that only a mother and a father can do a good job raising a child.  But marriage serves to promote the ideal.

What field? And are those experts still alive? Most of the studies he was citing were 40-50 years old.

I’d like to take this moment to again voice my utter contempt for these claims as an adoptee. I know nothing about my biological mother or father and I turned out pretty okay. I dare anyone to suggest my parents weren’t and aren’t stellar.

Blankenhorn also testified that allowing same-sex marriage would contribute further to the already-existing “deinstitutionalization” of marriage, which means the process of unraveling the purpose, rules and common understanding of the marriage institution as a whole.  “Deinstitutionalizing” marriage, the witness explains, leads to higher rates of out-of-wedlock birth, more unmarried cohabitation, higher divorce rates, and more children being raised outside the scope of optimal conditions provided by their biological parents.

I thought this was so funny when I was reading the transcripts. Blankenhorn admits that marriage is falling apart all by itself, but that’s just an excuse to not add fuel on the fire by allowing more people to get married (as in us). It’s our fault, but we’re blaming you even though you’ve always been excluded from it. Besides, it’s your fault just for suggesting such a thing as same-sex marriage. You’re ruining it for the rest of us. Yeah, shut up.

Doesn’t marriage mean, in the eyes of the law, whatever the law says it means? Isn’t the “institution” of marriage whatever the law wants it to be? This whole idea of some greater “institution” is just bogus. It’s all rhetoric; no substance.

Outside the courtroom, the plaintiffs’ attorneys sharply criticized the notion that redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships would contribute to the deinstitutionalization of marriage.   That argument, they said, is like saying that extending the right to vote to women “deinstitutionalized” the voting process.

Yeah, and it was a good argument. Look at this snappy retort (i.e. Nuh-uh!):

Nice sound bite, but the analogy fails.  Securing women’s right to vote didn’t do a thing to change the meaning and importance of voting.  By contrast there is no doubt that re-defining marriage to include homosexual relationships would ipso facto divorce the institution itself from its fundamental, biological foundation.  Nice try.

Stop making stuff up. It hurts enough to be discriminated against. Having to watch you make a fool of yourself is just a twist of the knife.

[Brian Leubitz also responded to this post over on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker.]

This morning continued the cross-examination of Dr. Kenneth Miller. We learned that he does not know why psychiatrists, psychologists, university professors, or legal associations support same-sex marriage. He does know that religion led people to vote for Prop 8. We also learned that he has written at length about how voter initiatives enable discrimination against minorities, and that when minorities’ rights are restricted, their only recourse is the courts. He also admitted, as the LA Times repeated in their headline this afternoon, that prejudice helped pass Prop 8. Interesting!

Then we met Mr. David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values. (Apparently, they do their own internal peer reviews. I don’t like how he throws the word “scholarly” around so much.) He’s not an expert in anything he was testifying about, and Judge Walker admitted as much, but still allowed him to testify. Given how the defense had trumpeted his “research,” the judge was probably just curious to see what this guy is made of. We learned that it’s not much.

After citing a lot of old studies and talking about the deinstitutionalization of marriage (whatever that means), Blankenhorn told us that none of those studies actually even referred to same-sex marriage. I think this quote sums up Blankenhorn’s “expertise”: “I did not know that every view I expressed had to be linked to a document I relied upon.” One thing he did tell us that seemed informed is that “same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.” Fancy that!

Truly, you should read the transcripts of Boies’ cross-exams. It’s riveting stuff. Rick Jacobs’ occasional editorial comments as he liveblogs on P8TT are quite enjoyable as well. There will be more in the morning, but then the proceedings will be over for a while until Judge Walker reconvenes for closing arguments.

By the way, if you’re curious to see how desperate the defense is getting, you should see how pathetic Andy Pugno’s post was after yesterday’s proceedings. Click here to see my analysis of it. I’m sure we’ll see more of that after today’s proceedings!

Here’s your roundup of the coverage! I’ll keep it updated throughout the evening!

ZFb: A Few Prop 8 Tidbits To Start Day 11

P8TT: Complete Transcript Summary, 0 for 2: Blankenhorn Looks Lost (Some great excerpts)

Firedoglake: Morning 1, Morning 2, Afternoon 1, Afternoon 2

Shannon Minter (NCLR): Day 11 Recap

San Jose Mercury: Prop. 8 trial Day 11: Live coverage from the courtroom, Prop 8 trial: Attorney, witness engage in bitter argument as testimony drawing to close

Los Angeles Times: Prejudice helped pass Prop. 8, professor testifies, Gay marriage could lead to fewer heterosexual marriages, witness says, The Prop.8 case trial memos

San Francisco Chronicle: Gays have political power, Prop. 8 defense says

Keen News Service: Mid-day report: Day 11 Prop 8 trial, Final Yes on 8 expert concedes ‘no scientific evidence’ of harm

Huffington Post (AP): Proposition 8 Trial: Defense Witness Says Gays Face Job Bias

New York Times: Same-Sex Marriage Case, Day 11: Churches

Wall Street Journal: Witness Assails Gay Marriages (They’ve got a sharp-looking interactive map, but it’s nothing new.)

Prop 8 on Trial: Defense witness, on direct, describes gay political power, Defense witness on cross: bans on same-sex marriage discriminate

LGBT POV: CA Congressmember John Garamendi on Prop 8 trial (An ally acting like an ally!!)

Queerty: Protect Marriage’s 1st Witness Admits DOMA is Discriminatory. Is Their Entire Case Doomed?

So, I cited Reuters yesterday, and I found another article today, but it mentioned nothing about any of the cross-examinations! It just said what the witness said under direct exam. So, I’m not going to cite Reuters anymore. If they’re going to ignore a significant portion of what takes place in the courtroom, they’re not worth linking to.

To round out the day, here are a few more Protect Mawwiage tweets. They didn’t say much today… maybe they thought the witnesses were hurting their own case enough as it is. I do like that they mentioned the guy who caused a small disruption this morning.

#prop8 witness: religions never ever do anything mean to minorities. Not once in human history. Don’t look it up, just trust us! @ADFMedia

@ADFMedia where did you hire the Bible thumper that burst into the #prop8 court screaming FAGGOTS? I liked his fanny pack. #protectmarriage

!HOMOAGENDA ALERT! Gays sending cyborg Gov Schwarzenegger back in time to kill Mary & Baby Jesus! #prop8 #protectmarriage

I noticed today that on ADF’s page full of info on the trial, they’re now linking to the official transcripts! I’m impressed! I hope they’re readers take a look and start to see through all the spin!

As always, the transcripts and all my past coverage can be found on the Perry v. Schwarzenegger archive!