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

I just wish they would all be a bit honest and say that it boils down to two things for them:

1. They believe homosexuality is a sin and what would God think if they didn't do something, anything to stop it.

2. Gay male sex is icky.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I just wish they would all be a bit honest and say that it boils down to two things for them:

1. They believe homosexuality is a sin and what would God think if they didn't do something, anything to stop it.

2. Gay male sex is icky.

This is exactly what is going through their minds, but if they said that, it would end the preceedings right then since we don't make policy based on what God thinks. Or at least I'd really like to live in a world where policy isn't made based on religious beliefs.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I just wish they would all be a bit honest and say that it boils down to two things for them:

1. They believe homosexuality is a sin and what would God think if they didn't do something, anything to stop it.

2. sex is icky.

FTFY.

Nosferatu wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

I just wish they would all be a bit honest and say that it boils down to two things for them:

1. They believe homosexuality is a sin and what would God think if they didn't do something, anything to stop it.

2. sex is icky.

FTFY.

No you didn't. Give me a break, the anti-SSM folks do not find sex itself icky. They may want to control the who, when, where, why, and how of it, but sex in and of itself isn't distasteful to them.

PR had it right from the get-go, anti-SSM folks base their entire argument either on religious foundations, or on the "ick" factor of two people of the same sex wanting to have sex with one another, and even that they'll ignore when it's two really hot women (likely pretending to be lesbian).

Rubb Ed wrote:

PR had it right from the get-go, anti-SSM folks base their entire argument either on religious foundations, or on the "ick" factor of two people of the same sex wanting to have sex with one another, and even that they'll ignore when it's two really hot women (likely pretending to be lesbian).

Of course.

Almost every single "straight" porn film produced today has to have the requisite lesbian sex scene in it in order to sell. Both Ron Jeremy and Jenna James have said as much in interviews I have seen.

Well, in this one area, I'm afraid I'm a horrible person, because I just don't like to watch guys having sex. Handholding wouldn't bother me a bit, but much more than that and I do get a little grossed out. *shrug* Can't help that part, but I would never ask for a law banning such behavior, or trying to stop gays from getting married.

The way I figure, my reaction is my problem, not yours.

The way I see it, Malor, as long as "eww" doesn't turn into "ewww, make it illegal", feel free to "ewww" all you want.

I'd NEVER try to make it illegal, and I wouldn't be in your face about it, either. It's my problem, not yours. Within another generation, I think even that will mostly go away.

I dunno where I got it from, but I had it programmed into me at a young age, and I guess I haven't spent enough time around gay men to ever unprogram it.

Oh, I bet I know where I got it... school. Even now, the word 'gay' is an epithet among the teen crowd. I'm sure it was much worse when I was growing up. Combine the teen fear of sexuality, the teen desire to form cliques and fit in, and the religious crowd yelling about evil, and the combination is pretty toxic. Even the kids that aren't raised religious (like me) end up conditioned wrong.

The New Yorker has a great background article on Perry v. Schwarzenegger in this week's issue. Very interesting read on the how it got to trial, the stakes, and the entire SSM battle here in California. It also has some good insight into legal fight itself and what has to happen for a victory.

OG_slinger wrote:

The New Yorker has a great background article on Perry v. Schwarzenegger in this week's issue. Very interesting read on the how it got to trial, the stakes, and the entire SSM battle here in California. It also has some good insight into legal fight itself and what has to happen for a victory.

Thank you for linking that article, OG. It was fascinating reading and I was particularly interested in the part about the ads being constructed that include more gay people living every day lives.

Rubb Ed and I were livid that during the Prop. 8 campaign, the No on 8 group refused to produce and show ads featuring gay people. The horrible consultants they hired kept insisting that showing gay people would cause the public to embrace the initiative. I never understood their reasoning and the description of the conservative types saying the ad about the father and his gay son was very effective undercuts the lack of vision the No on 8 consultants had.

In any event, thank you again. It was great reading!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Rubb Ed and I were livid that during the Prop. 8 campaign, the No on 8 group refused to produce and show ads featuring gay people. The horrible consultants they hired kept insisting that showing gay people would cause the public to embrace the initiative. I never understood their reasoning and the description of the conservative types saying the ad about the father and his gay son was very effective undercuts the lack of vision the No on 8 consultants had.

When Prop 8 was just about to be voted on and during the "wtf how?" aftermath among along of gay media afterwards, I saw alot of articles trying to examine just how fully the No on 8 campaign had fell on its face. I can try and find some of the articles tomorrow morning (or in a few hours) when I'm a little more coherent, but the recurring theme was that several of the senior staff were completely plagued by hubris. Questions of "should we be more active with fundraising?", "should we more aggressively campaign on paper?", and "just how visible do we need to make our case?" were all met with the complicated version of "lol no it's California this'll never pass guys, let's go get a beer!"

It does make me wonder if California could have been the state the finally broke the obnoxious rallying cry of "every state that's had a vote on gay marriage has banned it". Would it have been any different if the No on 8 people had been a little more serious in battling the false inferences and fearmongering of their opposite campaign? It's something I wonder about when I read these bits from the trial, though I do have to say it's satisfying to see the arguments against same sex marriage being blown away like so much dust in a way that a political advertising campaign could never allow.

Nevin73 wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

I just wish they would all be a bit honest and say that it boils down to two things for them:

1. They believe homosexuality is a sin and what would God think if they didn't do something, anything to stop it.

2. Gay male sex is icky.

This is exactly what is going through their minds, but if they said that, it would end the preceedings right then since we don't make policy based on what God thinks. Or at least I'd really like to live in a world where policy isn't made based on religious beliefs.

See, they just need to hide it better. There are close to giving away the whole pie like the Discovery Institute on Intelligent Design in science books. They need to be more crafty, like AA.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I just wish they would all be a bit honest and say that it boils down to two things for them:

1. They believe homosexuality is a sin and what would God think if they didn't do something, anything to stop it.

2. Gay male sex is icky.

It's funny, you rarely hear people say this, but I think this is where the whole thing pivoted, honestly. By whole thing I mean that there was this wave of legalization going on prior to 2004. It happened here in Portland, Oregon. It happened in San Francisco. And I think if the news had just showed hot, lesbian couples kissing after being declared sealed we might not be here.

Instead, they (predominantly, I feel) showed men and older dowdy (for lack of a better non-offensive term) women. I remember thinking back then "this won't turn out well". I'm just imagining people who barely tolerated Will and Grace, who finally came around to being okay with Ellen and how they'd react to two guys with beards getting married.

It turns out, not in a very dignified manner. Apparently hetero PDA is A-OK, no matter how overweight and homely you are. But if you're gay then they'll try to make laws to infringe on your very rights.

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

Hahahahaha. That's just gold. "I don't like having to comply with court orders to produce evidence to back up my testimony."

Malor wrote:

Well, in this one area, I'm afraid I'm a horrible person, because I just don't like to watch guys having sex. Handholding wouldn't bother me a bit, but much more than that and I do get a little grossed out. *shrug* Can't help that part, but I would never ask for a law banning such behavior, or trying to stop gays from getting married.

The way I figure, my reaction is my problem, not yours.

I find myself gawping whenever I see two guys kissing in the real world. Honestly, I think it's because it's such a rare thing to see. It takes at least a couple of seconds for my brain to catch up and say "oh, they're gay, right", then about another second to realise that I've been gawping, at which point I feel like a Bad Person.

I would rather we eliminate PDA with old people. Way grosser seeing some boozed up 50, 60 year old broad slopping all over her Viagra fueled Bo.

Jonman wrote:
Malor wrote:

Well, in this one area, I'm afraid I'm a horrible person, because I just don't like to watch guys having sex. Handholding wouldn't bother me a bit, but much more than that and I do get a little grossed out. *shrug* Can't help that part, but I would never ask for a law banning such behavior, or trying to stop gays from getting married.

The way I figure, my reaction is my problem, not yours.

I find myself gawping whenever I see two guys kissing in the real world. Honestly, I think it's because it's such a rare thing to see. It takes at least a couple of seconds for my brain to catch up and say "oh, they're gay, right", then about another second to realise that I've been gawping, at which point I feel like a Bad Person.

The rarity is the real key here. I rather think that being surprised/fascinated/uncomfortable at witnessing things you're not used to is quite natural. To compare, it isn't a character flaw to be a bit embarassed by breastfeeding or public urination or accidentally bank shotting a fart off a church pew.

As character flaws go, it's another thing entirely to lobby for a separate but equal PDA ordinance.

Malor wrote:

I'd NEVER try to make it illegal, and I wouldn't be in your face about it, either. It's my problem, not yours. Within another generation, I think even that will mostly go away.

I dunno where I got it from, but I had it programmed into me at a young age, and I guess I haven't spent enough time around gay men to ever unprogram it.

Oh, I bet I know where I got it... school. Even now, the word 'gay' is an epithet among the teen crowd. I'm sure it was much worse when I was growing up. Combine the teen fear of sexuality, the teen desire to form cliques and fit in, and the religious crowd yelling about evil, and the combination is pretty toxic. Even the kids that aren't raised religious (like me) end up conditioned wrong.

Acceptance of something and enthusiasm towards it are not the same things, which is something a lot of the anti-SSM/anti-gay crowd seems to either be unable to comprehend or deliberately obfuscate for the purposes of their agenda. Being OK with gay marriage does not mean I intend to hook up with my next door neighbor Bob after a few beers.

Jonman wrote:

I find myself gawping whenever I see two guys kissing in the real world. Honestly, I think it's because it's such a rare thing to see. It takes at least a couple of seconds for my brain to catch up and say "oh, they're gay, right", then about another second to realise that I've been gawping, at which point I feel like a Bad Person.

I don't think you are a bad person. It is typical human behavior.

Unfortunately, it won't be less rare until gays and lesbians are more comfortable showing affection openly in American society.

DSGamer wrote:

It's funny, you rarely hear people say this, but I think this is where the whole thing pivoted, honestly. By whole thing I mean that there was this wave of legalization going on prior to 2004. It happened here in Portland, Oregon. It happened in San Francisco. And I think if the news had just showed hot, lesbian couples kissing after being declared sealed we might not be here.

So in other words, the likelihood of a law being accepted by the social mainstream directly correlates to amount of wanking material it generates on the evening news. With that in mind Obama should have made sure the health care bill emphasized government subsided breast implants. :p

Oh, this is excellent:

John Ireland, a Los Angeles-based freelance journalist and actor, has announced that he is filming daily reenactments of the Prop. 8 trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and will broadcast them in daily installments on YouTube beginning Tuesday.

I wonder if the Prop. 8 people will try to get an injunction to prevent Ireland from uploading them to YouTube.

Yeah, pretty much. I think that little of the American people as a whole.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Oh, this is excellent:

John Ireland, a Los Angeles-based freelance journalist and actor, has announced that he is filming daily reenactments of the Prop. 8 trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and will broadcast them in daily installments on YouTube beginning Tuesday.

I wonder if the Prop. 8 people will try to get an injunction to prevent Ireland from uploading them to YouTube.

This sounds familiar. Didn't they re-enact the Michael Jackson case as well?

--google fu says yes.

Day 6

Part 27 - Testimony of Jerry Sanders
Sanders is the Republican Mayor of San Diego. He says he rose through the ranks of the police department and then entered political life. He is in his second term as mayor of SD. Sanders says he has two daughters, one of which is lesbian. He says that prior to 2007, he was in favor of civil unions only, claiming they were "fair." His daughter did not push him on the issue because she realized his position politically. SD City Council passed a resolution to file an amicus brief in the San Francisco marriage equality case. Sanders said he debated a long time before deciding to sign the resolution. He says he was going to veto it and told his family and friends what he was going to do, but he saw how incredibly hurt they were and changed his mind and signed the resolution. (I encourage you to watch Sanders' emotional statement about why he was signing the resolution. It is a tear jerker. The video is here.

Sanders says that his daughter is in a relationship and in July 2009, they entered into a domestic partnership. He says there was no party or ceremony, that he just got a text message from his daughter saying the paperwork for the DP was complete. (Which is exactly how I would have handled it. I can't imagine having a celebration saying, "We just went through a lot just to make sure they can't make the house away form Rubb Ed if I die.")

Attorney for plaintiff asked how he felt about seeing the Prop. 8 signs saying that Prop. 8 was meant to protect the children. He says they were ridiculous. "I can't imagine why anybody would need to be protected from my daughter."

Sanders is asked if his daughter's marriage has harmed his marriage. He says no, not in any way, shape or form. He is asked if his daughter and her wife is planning on having children. He says he doesn't know but would like them to.

Part 28 - Cross Examination of Mayor Sanders
Sanders is asked by attorney for the defense if he has reached out to the LGBT community. Sanders says he has and says there are several openly gay politicians in California. He is asked if he once considered civil unions to be valid. He says yes, but feels that his opinion at the time was clouded in bigotry and prejudice. Attorney asks if Sanders believes that some people can oppose SSM without prejudice and animus. Sanders says people can lack the hatred, but their opinion is still being grounded in prejudice. Attorney states that some people oppose SSM because of their religion. Sanders says that still doesn't mean their opinion isn't based on prejudice.

Attorney for Prop. 8 brings up a paper by their star witness, Blankenhorn, that says that the purpose of marriage is to ensure that children would be raised by those who's sexual union brought them into the world. Sanders says that is still based on prejudice and that as a cop he saw plenty of biological parents that were terrible parents. Attorney says some people voted for Prop. 8 for historical reasons. Sanders again says that is still grounded in prejudice.

There is back and forth about the mayor's involvement in the No on 8 campaign and a question on whether or not he thought it appropriate for No on 8 supporters to deface or take down Yes on 8 sighs. Sanders says it was a poor move.

Part 29 - Re-Direct of Mayor Sanders
Sanders is asked if he has voted for LGBT resolutions out of fear of the LGBT community. He says it is more likely the opposite, that he voted against many LGBT resolutions out of fear of the Republican community.

Part 30 - Testimony of Lee Badgett
Lee Badgett is from UCLA with a Ph.D. in economics. He says he has written hundreds of articles on the economic impact of gay marriage. Badgett gives a protracted recitation of how gay marriage is actually good for the economy both on a macro level for the community and for the micro level of the personal economy of the two people in the gay marriage. She notes that gays, like straights, see marriage as exceptionally important and points out that in California there were 18,000 gay marriages and only 2,000 domestic partnerships. (It should be noted that CA has had DPs for several years now.) She also says that her research indicates that gays want gay marriage not domestic partnerships because they see DPs as second class citizenship.

Attorney asks her about children in these relationships and she cites the statistics that gays who have children want marriage and not DPs. She is asked about an article that states that children of gays and lesbians are harmed by not allowing SSM. She says she knows about the study and that she agrees, especially because married people have better benefits and rights under the law than DPs. She notes that marriage almost always means better health insurance for a family as well.

She is asked about a study from the Netherlands that the defense will enter that says that gay marriages are on the decline in Holland. She says that is true, but it is also true of straight marriage and is true throughout Europe, particularly as divorce laws become more liberalized.

She is asked about economic costs and she mentions the millions of dollars that will be lost if gay marriage is not allowed. She also says there is an strong economic cost to being discriminated against in that people who feel like they are being treated unfairly are less productive as citizens and in the workplace.

Part 31 - Cross Examination of Lee Badgett
Attorney Cooper for the defense asks if Badgett is for SSM. She says yes. She is asked about the number of DPs that were initiated between 2006 and 2008 and Cooper points out that they are in decline and wonders if that may be because gays were losing interest in protecting their relationships. (Please. How about they are cheap imitations of marriage?) Cooper then points out that there are approximately 84,000 same-sex couples in California and only 18,000 of them got married and asks doesn't that prove that gays aren't really interested in marriage. Badgett says that is a stretch. (Indeed.)

Cooper asks about the decline in the number of same-sex couples from 2008 to 2009. Badgett says that may be caused from relationship identifying problems because a couple that has been together for years think they are husband and husband but can't really mark that on a form since there is no legal apparatus for them. Cooper then goes back and forth about DPs vs. marriage and wonders why other states have eliminated DPs when they allowed gay marriage while CA kept both. Cooper then cites that the number of DPs has decreased since 2003 and hints this is because gays are not interested in permanent relationships. There is then a back and forth over the number of people covered by health insurance in DPs vs. marriages.

Cooper challenges Badgett on her claim that CA will lose millions of dollars now that gay marriage is illegal. Badgetts says that gays will take their money elsewhere and Cooper states that there really aren't that many gay couple who want to get married, so the loss isn't that great. (Let me interject here that Rubb Ed and I spent about $3500 on our wedding including the reception we held at a restaurant. For the sake of argument, let's say that each year 18,000 couples marry. At $3500 per couple spent on a wedding, that is $63 million that is not being spent. Everyone I know said that our wedding expenses were at the low end, which they were, so the dollar amount would be much greater. I don't know of a single state or city that would beg for a $63 million dollar influx of cash to the local economy each year.)

Cooper then engages in a hypothetical and throws up various numbers and finally asks if it isn't true that the amount of money lost to CA is negligible. Badgett says no. Cooper wants to know if she knows anyone who would support SSM simply for economic reasons. She says she doesn't know.

Cooper turns back to the Netherlands and show graph after graph about how fewer gay couples are getting married and more unmarried couples are existing in Holland. Badgett says the changes are statistically insignificant.

Part 32 - Re-Direct of Lee Badgett
Badgett says that there has been a minute downward trend in marriage since the 1960s and that if Cooper has shown data prior to 2003, he would have seen that. She states that when you look at 2003 - 2009 on that graph the decline in marriage during that time period is minuscule. She also notes that Massachusetts has the lowest rate of decline of marriage in the country since the allowance of gay marriage. She also notes that since gay marriage has been allowed in MA, divorce has decreased as well.

Judge Walker adjourns the trial early today as he has a judges' meeting.

End of Day 6.

Attorney asks if Sanders believes that some people can oppose SSM without prejudice and animus. Sanders says people can lack the hatred, but their opinion is still being grounded in prejudice. Attorney states that some people oppose SSM because of their religion. Sanders says that still doesn't mean their opinion isn't based on prejudice.

Attorney for Prop. 8 brings up a paper by their star witness, Blankenhorn, that says that the purpose of marriage is to ensure that children would be raised by those who's sexual union brought them into the world. Sanders says that is still based on prejudice and that as a cop he saw plenty of biological parents that were terrible parents. Attorney says some people voted for Prop. 8 for historical reasons. Sanders again says that is still grounded in prejudice.

Seems like the defense didn't help themselves at all there - if anything, I'd say they strengthened the prosecution's case.

I'm not quite sure why they're using economic arguments. It's not to say that they're wrong, I'm just not exactly sure how they apply to a legal case.

It deals with the argument that to *not* do this will be economically harmful, and variants of that. It speaks to the possible effects of the decision on the state's economy.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Cooper then points out that there are approximately 84,000 same-sex couples in California and only 18,000 of them got married and asks doesn't that prove that gays aren't really interested in marriage. Badgett says that is a stretch. (Indeed.)

I'm guessing Cooper doesn't think that all of the unmarried straight couples out there prove that straights aren't really interested in marriage.

Are they not allowing cameras in because it would be revealed that some of these people need to wear helmets at all times?

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

Cooper then points out that there are approximately 84,000 same-sex couples in California and only 18,000 of them got married and asks doesn't that prove that gays aren't really interested in marriage. Badgett says that is a stretch. (Indeed.)

I'm guessing Cooper doesn't think that all of the unmarried straight couples out there prove that straights aren't really interested in marriage.

Are they not allowing cameras in because it would be revealed that some of these people need to wear helmets at all times?

This idea has merrit, and bears investigation.

Robear wrote:

It deals with the argument that to *not* do this will be economically harmful, and variants of that. It speaks to the possible effects of the decision on the state's economy.

I understand that, but isn't that a policy issue, as opposed to a legal issue? I wasn't under the impression that doing things that were bad for the economy was illegal or unconstitutional.