The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Staats wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

The law can discriminate on age, competency, and family, but that's all.

Derail: why prohibit consensual marriages between family members? Given today's modern medicine, it seems like the problems of incest could be easily handled. If nothing else, same-sex inter-family marriage poses no threat to others.

Incest is the last true taboo of American culture -- mostly because it, moreso than any other topic, is very very closely associated with child sexual abuse.

Whether or not our great grandchild have this discussion concerning the right to marry relatives isn't something I'll comment on, but I don't foresee that discussion happening anytime in the next century.

[edit] ugh why did THIS have to be the beginning of a new page.

It's not a derail, I don't think, to discuss what parameters legal discrimination (in the technical use of the word, not the loaded one) can use.

My issue is simply this - there are already numerous precedents where, in legal terms, people are able to be discriminated on those three traits. From property to medical rights to employment, those three parameters are used again and again. They have been proven to be fair and equitable ways to mete out legal standing and the most ways you can differentiate between citizens while doing so.

If we want to use fewer ways to legally discriminate between people, that's another discussion entirely. But if we want to use more (such as the Prop 8 people do), it seems a malicious and needless double standard.

Incestuous relationships, by virtue of the family dynamic are much more likely to have a predisposed imbalance of power, which easily leads to abuse. Modern medicine does not a thing to address this.

Thanks Phoenix Rev for posting those summaries! Keep them coming!

My stance can be summarized thusly:
Q: Do Same Sex Marriages hurt anyone? A: No.
Q: Why hasn't this been legalized already? A: Most people are idiots, and idiots are easily manipulated.

On a side note, in my personal experience, all the gay couples I know (some of whom married during the brief legal period here in CA) are happier than a vast majority of the hetero couples I know. I still have no idea how that hurts anyone.

No, seriously. Someone PM me and explain how two consenting adult dudes or chicks loving each other and wanting to get married hurts anyone. I just don't get it.

Oh good lord, THIS.

This is the sort of day-to-day crap I've lived with and put up with that nobody thinks about too hard, put into words.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Oh good lord, THIS.

This is the sort of day-to-day crap I've lived with and put up with that nobody thinks about too hard, put into words.

Wow! That's all I can really say. I'm all for SSM and I'd never even thought about that stuff. I can't even imagine having to go through that on a daily basis.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Oh good lord, THIS.

This is the sort of day-to-day crap I've lived with and put up with that nobody thinks about too hard, put into words.

I really hope this doesn't offend you or make you feel this in any way minimizes the impact of what you're saying. If anything, I points to yet another commonality we all share bigots don't seem to want to see. I honestly had never imagined others had this type of problem.

My ex husband is a convicted criminal of a particularly stigmatized type (sorry - walking around this for kids' privacy sake). Every time I fill out a form for my kids I have to face filling out the "Father" section. They also don't usually handle the Mom-in-charge-of-household thing too well, either. His section is above mine, and often my section assumes his is filled in and only asks for mom-centered info. And when you hand it in and have to explain why it's blank or filled out wierd, it's awkward as heck. Especially when I have to explain that no, it's not just that he's not with us.

It's not just me, either. My eldest son is in the middle of getting a higher security clearance for the Army, and having to explain this to his superiors and the FBI was not a fun process for him. Father's Day is a hurdle we face every year, too.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Oh good lord, THIS.

This is the sort of day-to-day crap I've lived with and put up with that nobody thinks about too hard, put into words.

Not to detract from the seriousness of the issue, but:

What about all the homosexuals who live together happily?

What about them?

They are mighty rare birds among the homosexuals flock. Moreover, the “happy” part remains to be seen. The bitterest argument between husband and wife is a passionate love sonnet by comparison with a dialogue between a butch and his queen. Yes. Happily. Hardly.

May be the funniest (for all the wrong reasons) thing that I've read in days.

EDIT: I appreciate it'd be a lot less amusing if you were actually having to deal with this stuff, but from here it seems like a bad caricature of prejudice. I don't think my brain can actually quite handle that people could have that kind of attitude towards gay people.

This trial is absolutely fascinating.

momgamer: No offense taken! I honestly hadn't thought about it from that perspective either, and yes there's definitely some shared commonality that crops up in unexpected places.

Sonicator: It was bizarre reading that, because I read books like that when I was a kid (yes, snuck 'em out of my parent's little hidey-hole) and you don't realize that there's comments like that in there. Reading that now was more than a little jarring. Especially the whole "butch and his queen"... makes it sound like we're some sort of sub-human animal. Which come to think of it, that's sort of what the whole discrimination thing is going for.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Especially the whole "butch and his queen"... makes it sound like we're some sort of sub-human animal. Which come to think of it, that's sort of what the whole discrimination thing is going for.

The tone of it is almost like a nature documentary - you can almost hear David Attenborough. :-p

It's also very similar to a lot of the stuff that was written by explorers about "savages". As you say, it's conveying a message of superiority over the other group.

Sonicator wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:

Especially the whole "butch and his queen"... makes it sound like we're some sort of sub-human animal. Which come to think of it, that's sort of what the whole discrimination thing is going for.

The tone of it is almost like a nature documentary - you can almost hear David Attenborough. :-p

I was hearing Jane Goodall, myself, for some reason.

Day 4 -

Part 16 - Testimony of Edwin Egan
Egan is an economist with the City of San Francisco. Attorney for the plaintiffs spends an exceptionally long time talking about the economic impact of prohibiting gay marriage in California. Egan says that the losses are in the $35 million range per year. Egan also says that discrimination and bullying costs the state plenty in such things as public health costs, absenteeism, crime investigation, etc. Egan also notes that since gays can no longer marry in San Francisco the city loses a fat share of their money from the state when people file their taxes jointly.

Part 17 - Cross Examination of Egan
Prop. 8 attorney tries to get Egan to say that his studies are purely speculative and the data is flawed because you can't every really know the exact dollar of economic impact until it actually happens. Egan says his studies are based on standard techniques. Prop. 8 attorney Patterson makes the claim that gays and lesbians already have celebrations and probably won't throw another party if they get married. (Yes, I am sure he knows so much about gays celebrating.) Patterson asks if the numbers are based on "pent up demand" by gays and, therefore, is unreliable. (What an incredibly stupid comment. "Pent up." Good grief.) Egan says he never used that paradigm and Patterson actually suggests that every gay couple that got a marriage license is already married so his data can't be based on people who didn't get married. (Another incredibly stupid comment.) Lots of back and forth about statistics in California and Massachusetts. Then a discussion occurs regarding federal costs and such if gay marriage is recognized federally. Patterson then asks Egan about companies that grant domestic partnership benefits and tries to whittle away at his claim that there is some cost benefit to California in allowing gay marriage.

Part 18 - Re-Direct of Egan
Short re-direct as Egan says that you can't discount his data as it is the only thing available and says that he believes he would find the same number if other cities were included in the data.

Part 19 - Testimony of Dr. Ilan Meyer
Meyer is a professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia and begins testifying about discrimination and stigma of being gay in America. Meyer says that gays face of the stigma of being people who can't form relationships, and are incapable of true love. He says there is plenty of literature of people believing that gay people are pariahs and are undesirable citizens. He describes the book "Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask." He cites a passage:

What about all the homosexuals who live together happily?

What about them?

They are mighty rare birds among the homosexuals flock. Moreover, the “happy” part remains to be seen. The bitterest argument between husband and wife is a passionate love sonnet by comparison with a dialogue between a butch and his queen. Yes. Happily. Hardly.

(What crap.)

Meyer then starts talking about Prop. 8 as stigma. He notes that children grow up talking about wanting to get married, but you would never, ever hear someone say they want to grow up and get a domestic partnership. Meyer says he doesn't believe that domestic partnerships add any societal value at all, only a legal one. (I would agree with that.)

Meyer then turns to the stress that is cause by stigmatizing a gay person. He notes that the discrimination of gay people is what causes the stress and mentions how that leads to things such as internalized homophobia and, often, suicide. Meyer says much of the stress comes from unsupportive family members, but also notes that there is an almost accepted discrimination built into our everyday lives. He points to the issue of forms that people fill out and how there isn't a place for gays and lesbians in committed relationships to note their status. (That is very true. I have no option but to mark "single" on any government forms I fill out here in Arizona because they don't recognize my CA marriage.)

Meyer then talks about how gays are forced to monitor what is normally innocent behavior. They have to be careful about holding hands or touching or showing affection to each other as the stigma exists. (This is exceptionally true. When Rubb Ed and I were on our honeymoon in Montreal, we held hands, were affectionate to each other, kissed in public and no one batted and eye. But when we drove 70 miles south back into the U.S., we immediately were conscious about the fact that we had to be careful because you never knew who you would run into. It was jarring.) Meyer then says that Prop. 8 sends a very clear message that its okay to discriminate against gays.

Meyer then talks about how there is a lot of stress in having to hide your sexual orientation and talks about people in the military. He notes that people hide the very essence of their identity in order to keep a paycheck and says there are studies about the psychological impact of having to hide your identity. The topic turns to racism and sexism.

He is then asked about this statement from one of the plaintiffs:

“Well, I have never really let myself want it (marriage) until now. Growing up as a lesbian, you don’t let yourself want it, because everyone tells you are never going to have it.”

(Let me interject here that when I first read that, I felt like I was back in the car the day Rubb Ed and I picked up our wedding license. Rubb just sat there, hands on the steering wheel staring into space. I asked him what was wrong and he said he felt weird and couldn't believe this was happening because he had always believed that he would never be allowed to get married and it only dawned on him that he could when we actually had a piece of paper in our hands. It was an exceptionally emotional moment and I will never forget it because I realized at that very moment how much I loved this wonderful man and that we were finally going to be living something akin to a dream.)

Meyer then talks about the stress of the stigma and how it creates health problems in gay people.

Part 20 - Cross Examination of Egan
Attorney Wilson for Prop. 8 tries to impeach Egan by showing him an article he (Egan) wrote that says that gay men do not have a higher incidence of mental illness than straight men. Egan says that is true and it doesn't impeach what he said because affects of stress and stigma are not necessarily mental illness. Wilson then goes after Egan about his donations to No on Prop. 8. Egan says he proudly gave to them because he believes in marriage equality. There is then a long string of back and forth about gay stress vs. non-gay stress vs. other minority stress.

Wilson then asks about domestic partnerships and wants to know why that isn't good enough. He reads off the list of benefits and mentions that it seems like a good thing. Egan says it is still stigmatizing now matter how enticing it might be. (This is nonsense from Wilson. How about we do this: tell Rosa Parks that she still has to sit at the back of the bus, but we will put some nice new flower curtains on the window next to her seat. See? Everything is rainbows and sunshine and that uppity Negro can shut up now.)

End of testimony for the day.

This isn't about the trial itself, but thought it would be worth pointing out.

Well, lookie here. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight has some pretty telling info on marriage in this country:
Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period.

IMAGE(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/ssmstats.png)

Chart via FiveThirtyEight.

So I guess same sex marriage rights can't destroy the institution after all. But maybe discrimination can.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Femin...

One thing I've found interesting is that in all the updates and transcripts I've read, it seems the defence (Prop 8 supporters) is distinctly steering clear of injecting religion into the case.

Whether I'm reading updates from Rev or somewhere else, I keep expecting to read about an outburst from the defense claiming how it's an abomination in the eyes of God or something. Frankly, without injecting religion into it (even though that could be dispensed with even more easily than their current defense) I'm not sure how the have a snowball's chance of winning. Putting aside my own bias in support of SSM, when I just read the transcripts and testimonies of some of these highly qualified people, my most basic common sense screams "How is this defense even remotely being taken seriously in light of the barrage of facts, figures, statistics, aimed there way not to mention basic human decency?"

FSeven wrote:

...not to mention basic human decency?

Sorry for the clippy, Fseven, but that's exactly where I stand, too. Basic Human Decency. It's just that simple for me. The golden rule, you know? Treat others as you would like to be treated. In that light, I just can't fathom the pro-discrimination stance. Because that's what it is. Pro-Discrimination.

Someone else said it earlier, though, this is just the first wave of the trial. When the defense has their turn to present their own evidence and witnesses, we'll see if they can actually put together a stance that can be taken seriously.

I honestly don't understand how they can make a religious argument in this trial. Does saying "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it is EVIL" constitute any type of defense whatsoever?

Aside from religious freedom what other religious protections are there in the constitution?

Of course, just because I can't comprehend it doesn't mean it won't happen. I'm a little boggled that something like teaching evolution had to go through the supreme court and I'm completely aghast it is still an issue in some places. *shrug* This just doesn't seem to be a forum that would be condusive to spouting religious bullhockey.

FSeven wrote:

One thing I've found interesting is that in all the updates and transcripts I've read, it seems the defence (Prop 8 supporters) is distinctly steering clear of injecting religion into the case.

My friend, I brand you with the skimmer mark!

Like I said though, I have no doubt it'll come out when the defense makes its case. Right now all its doing is cross examining scholars, scientists, economists, doctors, and gay people, none of whom have been cleared (so far) as an expert on religion.

There doesn't seem to be a list of witnesses for the defense, but I can practically gaurantee you that it'll be a train of pro-America, literalist, fundamementalist-family, "PATRIOT CHRISTIAN NATION GAYS ARE ANTI-BRGHGHGHRAAAAALALALA" the likes of which haven't been seen in years.

EDIT: Full Plaintiffs'Witness List!

EDIT 2: Nope that's plaintiffs only. Still looking for defense.

I am utterly terrified that this will go all the way to the Supreme Court and then split along their conventional conservative/liberal lines.

Is there any other way this can go, really? Homosexuality and gay marriage is one of the biggest bug-bears of the Republican party and the Christian right in particular. How could any of the right-wing judges vote against it without there being a huge public outcry? I just don't think the judiciary is really as independent as all that to pass a law that allows gay marriage in the future.

Plus, the judges are hella OLD. You heard what the first witness said about the young 'uns being the instigators of all this en masse.

The FATHER of our country, George Washington, was sterile, being in a marriage with a woman who had borne children in her previous marriage.

I didn't know that. What a zinger!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

(Let me interject here that when I first read that, I felt like I was back in the car the day Rubb Ed and I picked up our wedding license. Rubb just sat there, hands on the steering wheel staring into space. I asked him what was wrong and he said he felt weird and couldn't believe this was happening because he had always believed that he would never be allowed to get married and it only dawned on him that he could when we actually had a piece of paper in our hands. It was an exceptionally emotional moment and I will never forget it because I realized at that very moment how much I loved this wonderful man and that we were finally going to be living something akin to a dream.)

With absolutley no hint of condescension implied, you guys are adorable

I am really enjoying this thread. It gives me hope for my country.

My bad Seth!

TheArtOfScience wrote:

I honestly don't understand how they can make a religious argument in this trial. Does saying "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it is EVIL" constitute any type of defense whatsoever?

Aside from religious freedom what other religious protections are there in the constitution?

I'm in the same boat as you and that's why I'm waiting for the defense to inject religion into the case. Because the way I see it playing out in my mind is the Judge throwing out any and all defenses based on religion. Then again, in my head, I always see my planned Infected attacks resulting in survivor wipes in L4D2 and the end result is me dieing 40 yards away from the survivors.

Amendment 1 is really the only religious protection in the constitution but it has a certain duality in it, in that it not only protects us by allowing us religious freedom, it also protects us from being subjected to religious dogma and separating said dogma from our government. At least that was the intent...we all know religion is intertwined even though it's a big no-no.

There's actually some really good and easily accessible information highly applicable to this case from a site I'm not keen on citing - wikipedia, but here it is:

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.

Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

Wouldn't taking into consideration a religious defense essentially run contradictory to the ruling of Justice Souter in the case cited above? Wouldn't that be the preference of a religious perspective over a non-religious perspective? Not only that but the plethora of facts and figures witnesses for the plaintiff's are supplying which reveal there is no socially eroding ramifications of SSM, doesn't that prove there is no secular purpose for a religious appeal to make SSM illegal?

Also, much like the Irish blasphemy laws and some folks who oppose it, actually violating said laws in order to shed light on their inanity, what if the American LGBT community, which consists of over 10,500,000 people in this country alone, formed their own recognized religion and established marriage as a core tenet? I'm totally on board with the fact that it shouldn't take such measures to get a basic civil right but I can't help but think doing so would not only implicate the arbitrary nature of religion thus proving it has absolutely no place in government or a court of law, but would -under freedom of religion - force the government into legalizing SSM as a core belief of this recognized religion. Hell, if L. Ron Hubbard can get the US Government and IRS to recognize Scientology as a bonafide religion (with FAR less members than a religion consisting of the LGBT population) and enjoy all the benefits and protections that come with that, what about the LBGT community?

Apparently some of the defendant witnesses decided to bail on the trial today, citing their fear that testifying would put their lives in danger. Man, that move needs to be added to the definition of chutzpa.

OG_slinger wrote:

Apparently some of the defendant witnesses decided to bail on the trial today, citing their fear that testifying would put their ability to be taken seriously ever again in danger. Man, that move needs to be added to the definition of chutzpa.

FTFY.

OG_slinger wrote:

Apparently some of the defendant witnesses decided to bail on the trial today, citing their fear that testifying would put their lives in danger. Man, that move needs to be added to the definition of chutzpa.

I'll say. Are they mobs of homosexuals waiting outside the courthouse ready to attack? Jeeez.

Trachalio wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Apparently some of the defendant witnesses decided to bail on the trial today, citing their fear that testifying would put their lives in danger. Man, that move needs to be added to the definition of chutzpa.

I'll say. Are they mobs of homosexuals waiting outside the courthouse ready to attack? Jeeez.

They're just worried that if they walk into a courtroom filled with homosexuals they might catch the gay.

I fear that a pink and purple blur will descend in the first wave, followed by a phalanx of flannel, lastly the 7 inch heels supporting 300 pound frames with 5 o'clock shadows.

muttonchop wrote:
Trachalio wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Apparently some of the defendant witnesses decided to bail on the trial today, citing their fear that testifying would put their lives in danger. Man, that move needs to be added to the definition of chutzpa.

I'll say. Are they mobs of homosexuals waiting outside the courthouse ready to attack? Jeeez.

They're just worried that if they walk into a courtroom filled with homosexuals they might catch the gay.

Sadly, this is basically what the defense tried to prove today: unless kids have one daddy who works and one mommy who stays home pregnant and cooking chicken pot pies, they will turn gay.