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

OG_slinger wrote:

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.

O_O Buh Whah?

KingGorilla wrote:

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.

You just described my NYE.

OG_slinger wrote:

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.

FACT: I was raised by a single unpregnant, working mother, who made pies.
FACT: I have no desire to make sweet, sweet loving with another chap.

We can therefore conclude that chicken pot pies are a functional innoculation against the gay.

Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

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.

You just described my NYE.

You left out a sweater vest contingent.

bnpederson wrote:

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

One thing to keep in mind is that the issue being asked to be decided is if Prop. 8 is constitutional. That is, can a state, by a vote of the people, ban same-sex marriage?

Even if it makes it to the Supreme Court, they will only decide that issue one way or the other. That does not mean, however, that the Supreme Court will rule on whether or not gay marriage is constitutional.

If the Supreme Court says that Prop. 8 is constitutional, then we will be in the same spot we are today. That means the strategy of SSM proponents will have to change.

I am hoping for the best, but know that a loss at SCOTUS isn't a death knell.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Even if it makes it to the Supreme Court, they will only decide that issue one way or the other. That does not mean, however, that the Supreme Court will rule on whether or not gay marriage is constitutional.

Surely no one argues that gay marriage itself is unconstitutional, do they? I can see how Prop 8 might be ruled constitutional, but I have a really hard time seeing an argument that the U.S Constitution as is prohibits gays from marrying.

I will have the Day 5 update a little later this evening as I am heading out to dinner with my Dad.

However, the big news of the day is that Dr. Tam has withdrawn from testifying for the defense citing fears for his safety if he were to show up to the courthouse to testify.

Let me the first to congratulate Dr. Tam for letting the world see that he is nothing more than a gutless coward who is avoiding this trial so he doesn't have to actually substantiate his claims.

What a stunningly disgraceful lack of morality on his part.

Staats wrote:

Surely no one argues that gay marriage itself is unconstitutional, do they? I can see how Prop 8 might be ruled constitutional, but I have a really hard time seeing an argument that the U.S Constitution as is prohibits gays from marrying.

Sadly, yes.

Jonman wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

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.

FACT: I was raised by a single unpregnant, working mother, who made pies.
FACT: I have no desire to make sweet, sweet loving with another chap.

We can therefore conclude that chicken pot pies are a functional innoculation against the gay.

Interesting choice for the way you phrased the second fact... You may in fact be gay.
Signs of gayness include:

  • sexual attraction to men
  • lack of sexual attraction to men
  • sleeping more
  • sleeping less
  • you are not hungry
  • you cannot stop eating
  • you are much more irratable than usual.

hmm, on second thought that might be depression...

More seriously though:
Did I just see people dismiss safety fears because those that might perpetrate violence could be gay? Are homosexuals somehow less than human and unable to commit violence against another human being, in spite of historical evidence to the contrary? Furthermore somehow equating the decision to not testify for fear of retaliation as meaning that they were necessarily wrong I believe to be patently absurd.

Nosferatu wrote:

Did I just see people dismiss safety fears because those that might perpetrate violence could be gay? Are homosexuals somehow less than human and unable to commit violence against another human being, in spite of historical evidence to the contrary? Furthermore somehow equating the decision to not testify for fear of retaliation as meaning that they were necessarily wrong I believe to be patently absurd.

I don't think people would be poking as much fun were it not for the fact that the man in question, Dr. Tam, made a bunch of ridiculous statements (gay marriage will lead to legalization of prostitution and pedophilia), then suddenly backed down when it was time to back these statements up in court. Also, he was apparently still in the courtroom today so he couldn't have been too worried about violent retaliation.

Nosferatu wrote:

Did I just see people dismiss safety fears because those that might perpetrate violence could be gay? Are homosexuals somehow less than human and unable to commit violence against another human being, in spite of historical evidence to the contrary? Furthermore somehow equating the decision to not testify for fear of retaliation as meaning that they were necessarily wrong I believe to be patently absurd.

No, I dismissed the possibly because it was ludicrous. I don't find it impossible that people would be moved to violence over this, but pay close attention to how and where Tam has backed out citing fear to his person - the trial itself. Has there been outbreaks of violence or even shoving and pushing around the courthouse? I haven't seen any report of it (and I think if there was, the media would be very happy to jump all over the resulting circus). And look at the timing: shortly after video of his testimony - which was effectively him saying exactly what the defense is trying to prove was never said. There are a handful of reasons to see this simply as a cop-out and not a man actually in fear for his life.

And on the other hand even if he was afraid for his life, he has no more reason to be afraid than his lawyer, members of the prosecution, or those who are testifying for the prosecution. There's no reason to think the man is actually afraid for his life, but even if he is it shows that he very simply lacks the conviction he claims to.

muttonchop wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:

Did I just see people dismiss safety fears because those that might perpetrate violence could be gay? Are homosexuals somehow less than human and unable to commit violence against another human being, in spite of historical evidence to the contrary? Furthermore somehow equating the decision to not testify for fear of retaliation as meaning that they were necessarily wrong I believe to be patently absurd.

I don't think people would be poking as much fun were it not for the fact that the man in question, Dr. Tam, made a bunch of ridiculous statements (gay marriage will lead to legalization of prostitution and pedophilia), then suddenly backed down when it was time to back these statements up in court. Also, he was apparently still in the courtroom today so he couldn't have been too worried about violent retaliation.

Wait he showed up, but just refused to testify? OK that is just stupid.

Nosferatu wrote:

Wait he showed up, but just refused to testify? OK that is just stupid.

He's been in the courtroom since Day One.

I suspect that the defense knows better than to take the religious angle on this. They've been working very hard to make their case seem as rational and practical as they can muster, and going all leviticus on this will just take them more than two steps back. Religion as a basis of motivation has not done well in the courtroom lately.

Day 5 -

Part 21 - Testimony of Dr. Michael Lamb
Attorney McGill for the plaintiffs calls Dr. Lamb, a social psychologist from Cambridge. Lamb spends a great deal of time talking about all the literature that is available on children of gay and lesbian parents. He says that the pivotal development of a child comes from having loving parents, not having opposite gender parents. He says he can find no correlation between children being happier with straight parents as opposed to gay parents. Lamb says at one time (circa 1970) he did believe that children would grow up better and happier with straight parents than gay parents but doesn't believe that is the case today due to the huge amounts of data available. There is then a very long discussion on the methodology of collecting his data. He then quotes from a position paper of the American Psychological Association in 2004:

“There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents based on their sexual orientation. On the contrary, research shows that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.”

Lamb agrees based on his research and also says that there is no evidence to suggest that children have greater gender identity issues being raised by gay parents instead of straight parents.

McGill asks about the term "gender pathology" coined by Ron Prentice. (Prentice is one of the evangelicals that went to Uganda to lead an anti-gay forum that lead to the current Ugandan legislation that would impose capital punishment for some gay acts.) Lamb says in all his years he has never heard of that term and that being gay or lesbian is not a pathology. Lamb is then read a study that says that gays and lesbians have a disproportionately higher rate of molesting children than straight people do. Lamb says that is a canard and cannot be substantiated by any data anywhere.

Part 22 - Cross Examination of Dr. Michael Lamb
The attorney for Prop. 8 immediately asks if Lamb has contributed to the ACLU, the National Organization for Women and (I kid you not) PBS. The courtroom erupts in laughter. Lamb says he proudly contributed to all of those groups. Attorney then asks if that doesn't confirm that he is left winger. (PBS, people. PBS). Attorney asks Lamb if he is familiar with the emails from East Anglia citing the fudging of climate science data. Lamb says he knows of the issue, but hasn't read the emails. Attorney asks if we shouldn't be skeptical of research in his field since we know scientists fudge the data. Lamb says he is not an expert on the history of psychology.

Then, things get a bit strange. Attorney suggests that gays raising kids is cheating the kids because they can't breastfeed. Says that lesbians make less money than their straight female counterparts so a lesbian couple would not be good for raising children. (Yes. All you poor people. No children for you!) The attorney actually claims that the biology of the family is more important than family involvement with the children. Lamb says that is patently false. Attorney cites studies from the 1950s and 1960s showing that there is in fact "gender pathology." Lamb coolly says, "Perhaps you can show me something more up to date." Attorney cites more old research which Lamb continues to strike down.

At this point, the defense tells the judge that Dr. Tam and one other witness are withdrawing from the trial due to fears of their personal safety.

Attorney cites a study by a colleague of Lamb's that says that children who grow up with continually married parents have less cognitive disorders than those who don't. Lamb points out the study only deals with straight parents, not gay ones. Attorney cites another study about absent fathers leading to greater incarceration of children. Lamb, again, says the study only looked at straight people and now single heads of households. More studies are introduced and the Prop. 8 attorney starts down the road of saying that there isn't enough data to show that gay men could make good parents.

After lunch, Judge Walker asks why adoptive children seek out their biological parents. Lamb says for a variety of reasons, mostly out of curiosity as to where they came from. Judge Walker asks Lamb to explain about pedophilia in the gay community and specifically about the Catholic clergy abuse scandal. Lamb says there is pedophilia and child molestation in the gay community, but not at an incidence higher than in the straight community. He notes that the Murphy Report issued in Ireland last November stated very clearly that Catholic clergy were abusing both boys and girls in Ireland.

Attorney for defense goes back to citing studies and Lamb continues to show the problems with the older research.

Part 23 - Re-Direct of Dr. Lamb
For quite some time, the plaintiffs' attorney cites other studies that are more recent. Lamb reiterates that there is nothing to suggest that children of gay parents grow up less happy and more maladjusted than those that have straight parents.

Part 24 - Testimony of Helen Zia
Zia is a lesbian who got married before the Prop. 8 ban. Defendants object to her taking the stand saying she has no expertise in anything. Plaintiffs say she is going to testify about how it feels to be discriminated against and what it felt like to actually be married. Judge says he will hear the testimony and weigh it accordingly.

Zia said that she has been lesbian for as long as she can remember. She said that she was very active in being a community organizer and worked on getting women into the construction industry. One day, her community organizer team pulled her into a room and held a "lesbian trial." She said they had her sit in the middle of the room and they faced her in a half circle and said they suspected she was lesbian and wanted to know if she wash. Zia panicked, said she was not and went into the closet after that. She said she never dated, never hung out with women and did nothing that would indicate that she was a lesbian. She said she kept diaries of her intimate thoughts about being a lesbian, but when she moved cross country, she burned all of her diaries fearful that if she was killed in a car accident on the trip, someone would discover her secret. (Heart breaking!)

She said she met someone and fell in love but was petrified of showing her any affection at all in public. She kept her distance sat opposite at the table instead of next to her, etc. (Let me interject here that even though I am completely out of the closet, I still have that moment of pause when I want to hold Rubb Ed's hand during dinner. Just for a moment, I worry who my see me and what it might lead to. As a matter of fact, we were having dinner a couple of years ago here in Phoenix at a very posh restaurant and one of the other patrons complained about Rubb and I holding hands. The manager told her that if she didn't like it, she was welcome to leave and never come back!)

Zia said that the Prop. 8 campaign was grueling. She said she read Prop. 8 literature that said she was an abomination and that when she was marching with the No on 8 people, people from the Yes on 8 group would run up to her and others and call them "effing dykes." She said one flyer she read said gay marriage would end the human race and would harm children.

Zia was then given a copy of a printout of one of the pages from the Yes on 8 website. She reads the title: "Homosexuality linked to pedophilia." Prop. 8 attorney objects to that being introduced as evidence claiming it could be a fake. Judge says to take it up in cross examination.

Zia talks about her falling in love in San Francisco to her now wife. She said they got married when Mayor Gavin Newsome started issuing marriage licenses. Had the ceremony and then planned the reception, inviting 200 guests. A week before the reception, the State of CA sent her a letter saying her marriage was invalidated.

Zia described how it felt to be married. That is was completely different from being in a "domestic partnership." Things completely changed as her family called her spouse her "wife." At work, she didn't have the uncomfortable questions when she said that the photo on her desk was of her domestic partner. People would ask, "Your business partner?" (I got that ALL the time when people saw Rubb's photo on my desk and I said that was my DP. It was very frustrating. Now, I get to say, "That's my dashing husband!")

Part 25 - Cross Examination of Zia
Attorney for defense demands to know if Zia saw that website before the trial. Zia says yes. Attorney points out that it doesn't say anywhere vote for Prop. 8 or tie itself to ProtectMarriage.com. Judge Walker asks Zia if she saw the website before the election. Zia says absolutely and Judge Walker admits the printout of the website into evidence.

Attorney asks about Zia's membership in groups like ACLU and Lambda Legal, etc. She says yes. Attorney quotes her from an article she wrote calling marriage a "patriarchal institution." Zia says, "That sounds like something I wrote." Judge and courtroom burst into laughter. Attorney for Prop. 8 doesn't get it. Attorney questions her on her family's real views of her marriage, then cuts her off and ends his questioning when she starts to talk about how her father told her to forget about the marriage license being invalidated, that the family believed they were married. (Interestingly enough, Rubb and I had the same exact reaction from our family and friends - that no matter what happened with Prop. 8, they would consider us husbands. Period.)

Part 26 - Re-Direct of Zia
Attorney for plaintiffs ask her what it felt like to be married. Zia says, "It was like we didn't have to go to the gay and lesbian water fountain anymore. We got to go to the other water fountain and the water was sweeter there." (AMEN!)

End of testimony for the day.

Trial will resume on Tuesday of next week since Monday is a federal holiday.

Attorney asks Lamb if he is familiar with the emails from East Anglia citing the fudging of climate science data. Lamb says he knows of the issue, but hasn't read the emails. Attorney asks if we shouldn't be skeptical of research in his field since we know scientists fudge the data. Lamb says he is not an expert on the history of psychology.

So was the argument seriously "since there was some emails about climatologists fudging data, any kind of data put together by scientists is now suspect"?

edit: It seems the issue with Tam is not exactly recent, so at least I revoke my claim that he's doing this out of convenient timing.

Nosferatu wrote:

Did I just see people dismiss safety fears because those that might perpetrate violence could be gay? Are homosexuals somehow less than human and unable to commit violence against another human being, in spite of historical evidence to the contrary? Furthermore somehow equating the decision to not testify for fear of retaliation as meaning that they were necessarily wrong I believe to be patently absurd.

Except, of course, that there have been no reports either by the police or the media that Tam has been the subject of threats nor the target of violence, and Tam has yet to say that he has been threatened or targeted, only that he fears for his safety.

But I will give him credit for consistency, that to the end, he convinces himself of Boogie Men around every corner.

Edit: per Bloo Driver above, Tam expressed concern for his safety back on Jan. 10 so I withdraw my statement above, although there is no indication that he filed any reports with the police.

Still, it begs the question of why he is showing up the courthouse if he is so easily recognized and his deposition is already in the record.

But, he stilled failed his Gethsemane moment.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

She said she met someone and fell in love but was petrified of showing her any affection at all in public. She kept her distance sat opposite at the table instead of next to her, etc. (Let me interject here that even though I am completely out of the closet, I still have that moment of pause when I want to hold Rubb Ed's hand during dinner. Just for a moment, I worry who my see me and what it might lead to. As a matter of fact, we were having dinner a couple of years ago here in Phoenix at a very posh restaurant and one of the other patrons complained about Rubb and I holding hands. The manager told her that if she didn't like it, she was welcome to leave and never come back!)

This is just one of those microcosmic things that I think every gay man and lesbian goes through, no matter how long they've been out. I still find myself stopping and debating whether I should mention the chorus I'm in is the gay men's chorus if it's someone who I haven't specifically told "I'm gay" to. Hell, this past Sunday, I was at a Trader Joe's, wearing a t-shirt for the chorus which flat out says it's the gay men's chorus, and when someone stopped me and asked if I was a member, I hesitated for a second.

Believe me, with all the stories we hear over the years about GLBT folks getting hurt or killed because they didn't hide themselves to the wrong person, it's no wonder most of us have these defensive mechanisms up. It's frustrating, and I inevitably feel stupid when they kick in, but it's an ingrained mechanism. It also explains why us gay folks tend to hang around one another a whole lot: it's one of the few times in our lives, once we're aware of who we are, where we can put those guards down.

It also explains why things like the Stonewall Riots and the gay bar raid in Fort Worth are viewed as such blows to us. Gay-friendly establishments being raided can be as much an affront to our sense of safety as having our homes broken into. It removes a place from us where we can safely be ourselves.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I cannot read this any other way than that he wants to play the victim here. He goes out and spouts his horrific anti-gay diatribes, writes literature to be disseminated in churches and then has to audacity to claim that challenging him on his beliefs is "invasions of his personal beliefs."

Asshole.

Fixed for you, honey.

Double post.

Bloo Driver wrote:

edit: It seems the issue with Tam is not exactly recent, so at least I revoke my claim that he's doing this out of convenient timing.

Thanks for posting that, Bloo. I have withdrawn my statement but still wonder why he is showing up at the courthouse.

In any event, this struck me from the article you cited:

Tam also asserts in his motion that he "does not like having to comply with discovery requests," calling them "invasions of his personal beliefs."

I cannot read this any other way than that he wants to play the victim here. He goes out and spouts his horrific anti-gay diatribes, writes literature to be disseminated in churches and then has to audacity to claim that challenging him on his beliefs is "invasions of his personal beliefs."

Madness.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I cannot read this any other way than that he wants to play the victim here. He goes out and spouts his horrific anti-gay diatribes, writes literature to be disseminated in churches and then has to audacity to claim that challenging him on his beliefs is "invasions of his personal beliefs."

Madness.

Yeah, the audacity of some people. How dare we force someone into a court of law to justify how they believe and want to live their life.

The irony is choking me.

OG_slinger wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:

I think it speaks volumes about the legal weaknesses of the pro-Prop 8 position, and the commendable strength of the commitment of the attorneys involved to their professional integrity, even if they don't agree with the argument they're presenting.

It also speaks volumes about why most people hate attorneys for whoring themselves out for a couple of dollars.

As an attorney I find this offensive.

When I whore myself out, it is certainly for a lot more than "a couple" of dollars.

Awesome thread, Rev. Thanks for the updates.

Going back to the something said on the first day, if marriage is first and foremost about procreation, doesn't that mean that if you have kids then you shouldn't be allowed to get divorced?

I love that the attorneys keep asking about the ACLU. Didn't the ACLU defend Ollie North?

infinitelyloopy wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:

I think it speaks volumes about the legal weaknesses of the pro-Prop 8 position, and the commendable strength of the commitment of the attorneys involved to their professional integrity, even if they don't agree with the argument they're presenting.

It also speaks volumes about why most people hate attorneys for whoring themselves out for a couple of dollars.

As an attorney I find this offensive.

When I whore myself out, it is certainly for a lot more than "a couple" of dollars.

OG wrote:

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.

How dare you disparage the exquisite art of chicken pot pie making!

IMAGE(http://madisoncoffeehouseandlaundry.com/images/potpie_.jpg)

Here is a follow up to the Tam issue.

I found this today and it has huge potential ramifications.

But during a lunchtime press conference, plaintiff attorneys David Boies and Ted Boutrous said the tactic was just an attempt to avoid cross-examination of the defense experts by plaintiffs.

“The experts (Dr. Tam being one of them) they withdrew were ones that [gave deposition statements] that simply disagree with their thesis,” said Boies. He said plaintiffs would introduce evidence later to show that the defense’s own experts have “admitted that they did not have a basis for believing that same-sex marriages would harm heterosexual marriages and no reason for depriving gay and lesbian couples marriage [and doing so is] depriving gay and lesbian couples harm. They admit that,” said Boies, “and it guts the case of defendants.”

At this point, I think Dr. Tam has a lot more to worry about than his safety.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Attorney asks Lamb if he is familiar with the emails from East Anglia citing the fudging of climate science data. Lamb says he knows of the issue, but hasn't read the emails. Attorney asks if we shouldn't be skeptical of research in his field since we know scientists fudge the data. Lamb says he is not an expert on the history of psychology.

So was the argument seriously "since there was some emails about climatologists fudging data, any kind of data put together by scientists is now suspect"?

Not to drag this down that, as we discussed it in another thread. But those e-mails did not even provide any credence to the idea of fudging climate data.

Further, even if they do, at best the two are completely un-related. At worst the people defending Prop 8 have pretty much said all research is BS, even theirs.

Much of this rather reminds me of the 4th Act of Milk as Harvey is openly debating the gay ban in the 70's. The senator was very eloquent when preaching to his own flock. But all there was was BS and rhetoric.

I half expect, at some point, this attorney will attack someone for believing in evolution as "just a theory."

KingGorilla wrote:

Further, even if they do, at best the two are completely un-related. At worst the people defending Prop 8 have pretty much said all research is BS, even theirs.

That was pretty much my point. You would expect a little more from someone with a law degree, not the legal equivalent of sitting down, loosening your tie, giving a far off gaze and saying "Yeah man, but what do we really know?"

Bloo Driver wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Further, even if they do, at best the two are completely un-related. At worst the people defending Prop 8 have pretty much said all research is BS, even theirs.

That was pretty much my point. You would expect a little more from someone with a law degree, not the legal equivalent of sitting down, loosening your tie, giving a far off gaze and saying "Yeah man, but what do we really know?"

You work with what you got. And in this case they've got nothing but the fear and bigotry of a large number of people.