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

There's lots of other threads regarding various posters' stances on homosexuality. I would consider it as a great personal favor if we could have this specific thread devoted to updates on the case against prop 8.

Mostly so I don't have to wade through Nomad's and Robear's multi quoted Biblically footnoted posts.

Man...just reading through the blogged testimony makes it seem like the defense is in for a loooooong week.

B: Did you see the ad this morning where Biblical Marriage is mentioned?

OBJECTION: OVDERRULED, she was in the courtroom and saw the ads.

C: Yes, I was here, and I saw it.

B: Asks that Cooper’s opening statement be displayed.

B: When you hear the term Biblical Marriage, what does that mean to you?

C: When I heard it, I was amused. The Bible has characters who practiced polygamy, so that was very amusing.

edit: nvm

It bothers me that "Biblical marriage" is a term given any legal consideration in a federal court.

In two hours, that will become an example of how the terrible liberal prosecution is "laughing at the bible".

edit: I'll even predict the form:

Bloo's Crystal Ball wrote:

The prosecution's star witness, when asked about the use of Biblical morals, said she found it "very amusing."

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Cott will be cross examined today and I am really anxious to see how she handles the "but gays already have the right to marry, it just has to be of someone of the opposite sex."

if this was already covered in the thread, I missed it:

the transcript wrote:

B: Yesterday, we talked about marriage and slavery. Have marriage laws always given members of socity equally AND FAIRLY?
C: No they have not. Other restrictions come to mind: used as a mode of governance, in dynamic tension with the zone of liberty and privacy, which modern marriage has moved towards. Mosst plentiful restrictions in the past, 41 states and territories restricted marriage between white persons and persons of color. Not only so-called Negros and mulattos; also between whites and Indians. These multiplied after the civil war, since emancipated slaves could now marry by the state. In CA and other states in the west, due to in-migration from Asia, there were restrictions on Malays, Mongolians, CHinese, Japanese prohibited to marry whites. These did not prohibit whites OR Asians OR Indians from marrying, but it limited their PARTNERING, their CHOICE of partner.

She's thrashing this defense. Right on the head. The more similarities between miscegenation laws and anti gay marriage laws she can provide, the better.

I really, desperately hope that the defense takes the above statement as a cue to start the whole "but if we stop restricting who can marry who, we're allowing people to marry horses!" nonsense. It will be such an amazing spectacle.

I found a more detailed live blog of the trial: Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I really, desperately hope that the defense takes the above statement as a cue to start the whole "but if we stop restricting who can marry who, we're allowing people to marry horses!" nonsense. It will be such an amazing spectacle.

Well, they already tried the tack of "gay folks aren't prohibited from getting married, they can always marry someone of the opposite sex", but either the liveblogger didn't catch the details of it, or Dr. Cott said something that told them to get away from that thread post-haste, since it didn't show back up again.

Thanks for the new thread Rev! Can't wait for you and Rubb to get your marriage back

Say, does this mean you two get a second honeymoon?

I'm not totally sure on which side I fall on the legalization issue though. I can see some valid arguments on both sides(not to be interpreted as all arguments on all sides are correct).

I was not trying to persecute you here or set you up. I knew your feelings on the sin aspect, but not on the legalization aspect, so I asked. No offense intended.

I wonder how populist rhetoric does in a judge trial? I guess we'll find out. Looks like the defense is already embarrassing itself pretty handily, let's hope that continues.

Robear wrote:

I wonder how populist rhetoric does in a judge trial? I guess we'll find out. Looks like the defense is already embarrassing itself pretty handily, let's hope that continues.

Ironically, the whole populist rhetoric bit would probably play much better if there was a TV audience...

Subtext to this was the judge wanted the hearings broadcast on Youtube. As a background. The US Federal courts take public trial far beyond most states. I a curious as to how, on Review, the Supreme Court will rule on that. The idea that the District or Circuit courts would be on Cspan would be huge.

Trachalio wrote:

Thanks for the new thread Rev! Can't wait for you and Rubb to get your marriage back

Say, does this mean you two get a second honeymoon? ;)

Trach, our marriage was and is secure. The CA Supreme Court, while upholding Prop. 8, said that the 18,000 couples married between their May 2008 ruling and the passing of Prop. 8 were and are completely valid and must be honored by the State of California.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Trach, our marriage was and is secure. The CA Supreme Court, while upholding Prop. 8, said that the 18,000 couples married between their May 2008 ruling and the passing of Prop. 8 were and are completely valid and must be honored by the State of California.

Good to know.

I still say a second honeymoon is in order regardless

Here is the lengthy round up for Day 2:

Part 6 – Continuation of Testimony of Prof. Nancy Cott

Attorney Boutrous for the plaintiffs reminds Cott she is still under oath and starts right in with questions about marriage and procreation. Cott says procreation is a purpose of marriage but not the purpose of marriage. She also repudiates the idea that infertility was a barrier to marriage. In fact, she notes the fact that George Washington was sterile and only had step children from Martha’s prior marriage. She said many saw this as an advantage as no heir could claim the presidency after Washington stepped down or died. (That was really a great bit of history!)

Cott then addresses the issue of the role of the state and emphatically says the state lends its prestige to all of the family members, not just to children. She said she can find no historical record that leads to the defendant’s idea that the state was most interested in the benefits and protections of children. Cott brings us the fact that the small, nuclear family living in a household is a fairly new convention and that extended and blended families were the norm in the past due to a younger life span and the propensity to remarry.

Cott was then asked about restrictions on marriage in the past and she revisits the slavery issue as well as noting that the law prohibited whites from marrying Native Americans. In the West, the marriage restrictions were mostly to prevent or severely limit white and Asians from marrying. When asked why the states would do this, Cott said the individual state with a majority white population believed that it was “God’s Plan” to never allow race mixing. (Sort of like how it is God’s Plan that marriage be restricted to one man and one woman.)

Boutrous then asks about Cooper’s statement from the day before that restriction on marriage based on race was never enshrined into the law. She said that is absolutely not true and provides the federal statutes from the early 20th centuries where American women who married “aliens” automatically lost their citizenship. She was required to take her husband’s citizenship, “even if she was from Mayflower stock.” (Good grief. That just blows my mind that you could lose your citizenship because you married “one of them.” Of course, that begs the question of where that would have put Rubb Ed and me since he is a Canadian and I am an American. Does he become an American or do I become a Canadian or both.) Cott then notes that women who married anti-Bolshevik Russians living in the U.S. in 1919 actually became “stateless persons.” (But thank God we kept that American stock pure and clean!)

Boutrous asks about the comparison between marriage restrictions based on race and restrictions based on gender and Cott says it comes back to the fact that people do not complete choice in marrying the person of their choosing. Cott also notes that in 1924, the SCOTUS declared marriage a civil right. And, in an interesting historical tidbit, the SCOTUS could have taken a case similar to Loving v. Virginia back in 1955, but decided not to address the issue in 1967. She also notes that people who believed that inter-racial marriage was wrong did so because they felt it would lessen their own marriage. (Where I have I heard that before?)

Cott is then asked about the roles that men and women played in the labor force. Cott explains that marriage was gender specific in the early part of this nation’s history because the women did the work at home and the man did the work outside of the home. Since the 1970s, when women started entering the work force outside the home, the strict gender roles evaporated. Women and men could work both in the home and outside the home. She claims that since there are no longer strict gender roles, there is no need to restrict marriage to people of opposite genders.

Cott is asked if same-sex marriage will hurt straight marriage and cause an increase in divorce. Cott says she is from Massachusetts and the divorce rate has actually decreased since gay marriage was allowed in 2003. (*grin*)

Part 7 – Cross Examination of Prof. Nancy Cott

Cott is cross examined by Attorney Townsend for the defendants. He arrives with three-ring binders and asks her about marriage in China and India. Olson objects citing that the defendants had Cott designated as an expert on marriage in the U.S. only, not globally. Judge Walker shuts down the line of questioning. Cott is asked if she was a donor to a group called “Alternatives to Marriage.” She said it was a support group for people in relationships who don’t want to get married. Townsend asks if she knows the groups also supports polyamorous relationships. Cott said she knew the founders who were a straight couple who wanted to found a group to support couples who did not want to get married. She said she does not support extending marriage or partnership rights to polyamorous couples. Townsend asks if Cott believes straight couples should be skeptical of marriage. Cott says yes. (I am not sure why that is a bad thing. Rubb Ed and I debated the marriage thing for a long time with skepticism as to whether or not it was the right thing to do. I don’t see how marriage is a panacea.)

Townsend plays an interview Cott gave where she says that allowing same-sex marriage may be the most important turning point in defining marriage. Cott says that is probably true. Townsend then starts reading from various journal articles and asks Cott if she agrees or disagrees. In almost all cases, the articles talk about gay marriage destroying straight marriage and Cott says she doesn’t buy the argument because it is unsubstantiated. Townsend asks if she can prove that divorce rates in MA have been affected by SSM and Cott says no but can only report the decline in divorce in MA since SSM.

Townsend then quotes an article written by his witness, David Blankenhorn, which states he “believes in the dignity of the child who deserves his/her biological parents.” Cott says that families, not biological links, are the most important link for a child. (I don’t see how anyone can argue that unless they want to suggest that a husband and wife with two adopted children count less than a husband and wife with two biological children. In the former, no one is biologically related.)

After a break, Attorney Thompson for the defendants resumes cross examination and heads down the path of saying that we need children to keep the republic growing. Cott says that the U.S. expansion in population is mostly from immigration both historically and today. Thompson actually asks, “Illegal immigration?” (What a douchebag.) Cott says no, immigration in total.

There are then questions about gender differences, sanctions against marriage between siblings, and biblical tenets versus law. Thompson asks Cott a question about Puritanical England. Cott makes the statement that she doesn’t deal with 16th century Puritanism. Thompson pulls out a 34-year-old article and quotes one line where Cott wrote about English Puritanism and Cott calls him on it saying that it is one line and was 34 years ago and the research has significantly changed. (This is what the defense has? Discrediting a witness by one mention in an article from 34 years ago? Please. Note to everyone: I am sure I wrote something 34 years ago that I don’t remember and/or disagree with today.)

There is then back and forth about marriage under law back in the old days and talk of polygamy in Utah and the enshrining of Christian values (like slavery?) into law. Then there is a shift to talking about the Defense of Marriage Act and Thompson finally asks, “Can’t gay men marry lesbians?” Cott says that probably has occurred and Thompson gives a long question about how California became a state after the U.S. was firmly in the one man/one woman camp regarding marriage. He then turns to the issue of coverture before Cott gets to relate more about the gay men marrying lesbians.

Thompson then asks Cott about the social meaning of marriage and says that people believe that the time to get married is when they want to have children. (Huh? Come to Sun City, AZ, buddy, and see that the senior citizens getting married are not interested in having children.) Cott says that certainly isn’t true of gay people. Thompson then lists a bunch of reasons why people would get married and the consequences of changing those definitions. Cott says yes to all and Thompson asks if those changing definitions would include a change in the law. Cott says the law has become more flexible vis-à-vis marriage and relationships, that the state isn’t interested in punishing people for infidelity. Thompson then brings up Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski engaging in oral sex. (I kid you not.) Thompson then asks if these changes are not the disestablishment of marriage. He then asks questions about Congress’ role in changing marriage and quotes Rep. James Talent who bemoans the changes in marriage that started in the 19th century. (Seriously? Talent wants to return to marriage as it was in 1880? When husbands could rape their wives? When we have coverture? Seriously? Wow, the GOP is more screwed up than I thought!)

There is a discussion about gender roles and public marriage and Cott gives rapid fire yes and no answers before Cott states emphatically that due to the fact that gender roles have changed and younger people are more accepting of gay people and people by and large believe that homosexuality is not a choice, society can change the classification of marriage to include people of the same sex.

Part 8 - Redirect of Prof. Nancy Cott

Boutrous asks lots of questions about divorce. Cott says she can't give any firm answers because she doesn't know the data well enough to state that the skyrocketing divorce rate is from no fault divorce laws, changes in views of marriage, gay marriage, etc.

Boutrous then asks if she was in favor of polygamy since she is a supporter of SSM. She emphatically insists she is not for polygamy and calls polygamy despotic, but says that two people, even of the same gender, entering into a relationship of marriage is very democratic and very American.

Interestingly, Judge Walker gets into the fray and asks Cott about why the government is involved in marriage, requesting info about the history going back to England. His questions an tone almost make it seem like he wants the government out of the marriage business all together.

Prof. Cott has completed her testimony and the court breaks for lunch.

Part 9 - Testimony of Dr. George Chauncey

Chauncey is an expert in LGBT studies and is being examined by Terri Stewart for the plaintiffs. Chauncey talks about the history of discrimination against homosexuals and it was gut wrenching to hear. A popular magazine in the the 1950s called Coronet is referenced and an article from that magazine talks about how gay men are just satisfied with having sex with each other. They need to satisfy a hunger of drug addiction, rape and, in many cases, murder. (Dear God.)

The topic then turns to Anita Bryant and her 1970s crusade in Dade County, FL. Lots of examples of Bryant's claptrap are read including her statement that since homosexuals can't naturally procreate to produce more homosexuals, they recruit young people into the "homosexual lifestyle" to continue their legacy of perversion. (And with that, I firmly believe I am justified in telling Ms. Bryant to go to Hell.)

The topic turns to Prop. 8. Chauncey does a great job of reading from the Prop. 8 ballot guide and notes that the tenor and tone of the pro-Prop. 8 statements are almost identical to the comments by Bryant and her supporters. He says the only real difference is that the Prop. 8 stuff is "more polite." Chauncey then wants to introduce print material (mostly posters) from the Prop. 8 people and they object strenuously. They don't want anyone to see those posters again. Judge Walker overrules and Chauncey describes the posters. Most of them include pictures of straight couples and children with messages about protecting the children. (Again, we don't know from what.)

Part 10 - Cross Examination of Dr. George Chauncey

Prop. 8 attorney tries to discredit Chauncey by showing that he donated to LAMBDA (a gay legal fund) and another group that advocates SSM. Chauncey says he does support SSM and that his advocacy is separate from his scholarship. He then flat out says, "My scholarship is above reproach!" The Prop. 8 attorney says nothing. (As well he shouldn't. Chauncey is a giant in his scholarly field.)

Prop. 8 attorney wants Chauncey to define homosexuality. Answers some more questions about the syntax of homosexuality in a modern world.

Then, in another twist, Boutrous states that there are more printed materials he wishes to introduce but they are under seal by a magistrate as requested by the Prop. 8 people. He says, however, the documents are public and don't betray any confidentiality. Attorney Cooper says he wants to review the documents. Judge Walker says he wants to review the documents, too. Cooper says he has to review each document separately to determine if they should be allowed to be viewed by the public. (Boy, they really don't want those public documents to see the light of day again.) Cooper then says he wants a permanent objection noted for any document under the magistrate's seal citing the First Amendment.

The court adjourns for the day.

Thanks for the summary, it's fascinating stuff.

we need children to keep the republic growing

So... if gays aren't allowed to marry each other they'll go and have a nice heterosexual marriage instead and start popping out babies? What?

“Can’t gay men marry lesbians?”

Ow. My brain.

The attorney for the defendants seems to be basing his approach on a mixture of attacking the witnesses and "think of the children!". Unless they come up with something different it seems like they're going to stomped.

Yeah, that really snapped my rage trigger. You've got this attorney representing a campaign that spent so much money and time crying about the sanctity of marriage so blithely and seriously suggesting such a blatant manipulation of the institution? What an amazing example of how few actual ideals this camp has.

If the Prop. 8 people are going to go down the road of "gays can marry straight people" I am dying to see the person who has no problem with a closeted gay man marrying his or her sister, daughter or niece.

Of course, that person doesn't exist, which makes their whole argument even more laughable.

I'd just put it down to gross stupidity/doublethink, but that's probably a mistake given this guy presumably managed to get a law degree etc. I suspect you're right.

EDIT: You know, for all I've been mocking his argument, I can't actually think of a better one that he could be using under the circumstances. I can understand religious groups not performing their marriage ceremony for gay people due to reasons of scripture, but that doesn't really have any bearing on marriage as a legal position.

I'm not familiar with US law, but my impression is that they'll only really have a shot at blocking gay marriage if they can show that allowing it would cause harm to someone. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything they could use here that they could actually support with numbers. They've already tried "it'll cause straight couples to divorce" and "think of the children", but obviously can't back those claims up.

.

Supreme Court rules today on whether the trial can make it's way to Youtube, correct? Anyone hear anything?

I want to see this.

We probably won't hear from the SCOTUS until this afternoon at the earliest. They were going to conference on the issue in the morning and then make a ruling later, possibly later in the week.

I'm falling for this Nancy Cott. Might take a few shots of Bourbon but I'd totally hit it based on her brain.

IMAGE(http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/10.17/photos/03-cott1-225.jpg)

Thanks again for the summary Rev. Muy interesante.

“Can’t gay men marry lesbians?”

Funny, I've heard this exact same argument given on these very boards before. It was crap then and it's crap now.

SocialChameleon wrote:
“Can’t gay men marry lesbians?”

Funny, I've heard this exact same argument given on these very boards before. It was crap then and it's crap now.

I've never understood that argument either. They want to "protect the institution of marriage" and one of their arguments is that us gay folk have always been allowed to enter into a loveless marriage? W.T.F?

Trachalio wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:
“Can’t gay men marry lesbians?”

Funny, I've heard this exact same argument given on these very boards before. It was crap then and it's crap now.

I've never understood that argument either. They want to "protect the institution of marriage" and one of their arguments is that us gay folk have always been allowed to enter into a loveless marriage? W.T.F?

It's mostly been used to attempt to explain why anti same-sex-marriage laws are different from anti-miscegenation laws (they aren't)/why same-sex-marriage isn't a civil rights issue (it is).

Yes, it's quite ridiculous.

Its really painfully hilarous to see the defence grasping at straws. I think they're painfully aware they have no real logical case, and are just trying to discredit the witness and play on the judges patriotism, or something. I don't think they stand a chance in hell.