9 Comments Kathleen
Archives – January 14, 2010
Our wonderful Trial Trackers and a few links
By Julia Rosen
It’s been four days and we have already had an amazing 430,000 views and 2,600 comments.
But the best part is that in such a short period of time, our commenters, (we’ve taken to calling you “Trial Trackers”), have already formed a community here. There have been tears, laughter, an argument or two, but really just an amazing amount of support for one another. It’s been wonderful to see. I’ve been reading each and every one of your comments, so I can catch the few trolls that we have had and it has been an incredible to watch evolve.
So, thank you for having such interesting, civil and emotional discussions. Keep telling your stories. We all know that is the best way to build more support for equality.
If the readers tonight have time for only one thing, I urge you to read the comments on Rick’s fifth liveblog post today. I dare you not to get verklempt.
On a completely different note…
Well, we promised you increased coverage and — with six liveblog posts from Rick and seven other posts from Eden, Robert, Brian, Paul and myself — you got it. If you appreciate what we are doing, please click the button on the right, or give here.
We are working on lining up a few guest bloggers for next week in addition to the regular crew above.
Here are a few quick hits for those who just can’t get enough of reading about this trial:
- Over at the New Yorker, Margaret Talbot digs into one of “more tortured rationales ever advanced for banning same-sex marriage” that it seems the defendants are planning on using:
In a 2005 case called Morrison v. Sadler, an appellate court in Indiana concluded that same-sex couples with children did not need marriage because they were already so stable—it was so expensive and complicated for them to adopt or conceive a child that they were bound to stay together. “By contrast,” the court observed, “procreation by ‘natural’ reproduction may occur without any thought for the future.” The stork could come calling on heterosexual couples without invitation, and when it did, marriage helped ensure that the surprised progenitors would stay around to raise the children.
- Syd Peterson is covering the trial over at LGBT POV and has a good post on this morning’s testimony by Edwin Eagan.
- The Merc has been doing some liveblogging of their own and has a central location for their blogs, articles and a #Prop8 twitter feed.
- Teddy Partridge over at FDL has an powerful post called “The ‘Private Hell’ of an Inauthentic Life”, which uses Dr. Meyer’s testimony to talk about the negative impact of having to hide who you love in every day life.
37 Comments January 14, 2010
Liveblogging Day 4: Daily Summary
By Julia Rosen
Well this one was a long one, with Judge Walker continuing the cross-examination of Dr. Meyer well past 5 pm.
As has become tradition here, the compiled liveblogging from Rick Jacobs is below. You can find all of the Daily Summaries here. They will all be categorized and appear there. Same with liveblogging, all of the posts are here. Per a reader’s suggestion, we have added a category cloud on the right side bar. It should make navigating the site easier.
Rick will be back in that hard seat hammering out the live coverage of day five tomorrow morning first thing. (more…)
8 Comments January 14, 2010
This Afternoon Testimony: Homophobia on Trial
By Paul Hogarth
Rick did a great job live-blogging Dr. Ilan Meyer’s testimony this afternoon on what was clearly heavy emotional stuff to digest. Again, there was not much “law” in here per se — but it does really get to the heart of this case: homophobia is on trial. By bringing in an expert to argue that LGBT people suffer a psychological stigma that affects even trivial parts of their lives, the plaintiffs showed that merely giving legal benefits to same-sex couples in a “parallel institution” like civil unions is not sufficient.
It reminded me of the plaintiff’s case in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The problem wasn’t just that black children were being sent to inferior schools with less resources — it was the mere separation that created the stigma of inferiority. In fact, the NAACP in Brown chose Topeka, Kansas because the black segregated schools there were comparatively better than in other places. California is like Topeka, in the sense that gays comparatively have it “better” here than most states because our domestic partnership law is one of the most comprehensive in the country.
So how would Dr. Meyer’s testimony help — on a legal theory — to overturn Prop 8? Well, he argued that the mere passage of Prop 8 — taking away the rights of same-sex couples to marry — was a manifestation of the lifelong stigma that LGBT people go through in everyday lives. The plaintiffs have to prove there is no way to separate Prop 8′s purpose from animus — and what was useful about Dr. Meyer is that he said Prop 8 itself (as opposed to its supporters’ motivations) is the irrational basis.
It’s good to go after the motivations of Prop 8 supporters (see Brian’s excellent post on Dr. Tam), but what I’m worried is the Court may discount that as a few right-wing nutjob who happen to support Prop 8. Again, it’s not just enough that bigotry was a motivating factor behind Prop 8 — we need to prove that all other factors link to bigotry, that the mere act of it was animus.
Like Brown, this case is going to rely heavily on scientific data and psychology — as opposed to legal theories and precedents that normally guide these cases. It makes it an unusual case that could be groundbreaking like Brown, but the risk is that it also could be rejected if the Court doesn’t believe the science. That’s why the defense cross-examination didn’t really push legal theories like they did yesterday — e.g., asking Dr. Peplau if gay people don’t “accidentally have kids.” What they sought to do today with Dr. Meyer was to impeach his credibility by questioning the whole stigma that gay people go through.
Homophobia itself is on trial here, which illustrates how much is really at stake here.
10 Comments January 14, 2010
On William Tam, or Help I’m a Bigot, Somebody Get me Out of Here
by Brian Leubitz
Dr William Tam
This November, San Francisco voters will vote on a ballot to “legalize prostitution”. This is put forth by the SF city government, which is under the rule of homosexuals. They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda — after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children … We can’t lose this critical battle. If we lose, this will very likely happen… (more…)
62 Comments January 14, 2010
Liveblogging Day 4: Part VI finishing up
By Rick Jacobs
Sorry had some Internet issues, but I’m back online.
We’re back. 3:15.
Boies: We believe we will finish our case on Wednesday, whether we call Ms. Dia today or not.
Judge: Let’s keep moving.
Al Wilson is up for the Defendant interveners to cross-examine Dr. Meyer.
AW puts up expert report by Prof. Herrick says this 1950s is considered a classic study in the analysis of homosexuality in mental health. The study is by Dr. Hooker. The men were recruited from non-clinical settings. Half homosexual and half hetero.
AW: Is not your conclusion at odds with those of Dr. Hooker?
M: Not at all.
AW: Moving PX 1003 into evidence. Look at page 683 of the article (pagination of journal in which it was published). You write, “Despite a long history of interest in studies about gay men…” studies tried to show that homosexual men were not more often mentally ill than heterosexual men. You wrote that and you agree with that?
M: Yes. I wrote the entire article. [MUCH LAUGHTER] (more…)
141 Comments January 14, 2010
