Comments on: The Road to Perjury

By: GrannieDee

GrannieDee — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:24:14 +0000

Years ago, many KKK members used their religion as an excuse for their treatment of non-white, non-Christian people.

I walked with my black brothers and sisters then, and I walk with my GLBT friends today.

I serve a loving God through a risen Savior, who stated in the New Testament that all the old is gone and to live by this rule:"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and spirit and your neighbor as yourself."

I love you all, and I will support you until you my time here is over.

By: V Abi Abad

V Abi Abad — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:30:23 +0000

My name is Abi..I am a Gay California citizen and have resided in California for 35 years. I married my partner of 33 years in 2008, when s/s marriages were legalized. I am university educated and forged a career in Social Work, from which i retired in 2000.
During my life and career, I experienced numerous personal attacks of prevailing bigotry and prejudice not only from outside individuals, but moreover from coworkers on the job. When locel news media filmed me participating in a local Gay Pride Parade and the event made local TV broadcasts, the word hit-the-fan so to speak on my job and soon after when I attempted to promote, my effort was denied. Many times I heard coworkers in clearly audible but whispered conversations in the hallways and coffee klatches along with occasional sidelong glances at me. Of course, my intuition told me what it entailed. However I could never prove anything, because no one approached me directly.
When my own sister, who considers herself a staunch Roman Catholic discovered my homosexuality, she disowned me I conclude on the basis of her religious beliefts.
What I am stating is that equality, whether in the work place or in personal life, does not exist for millions of Gays and Lesbians, and the situations I experienced definitely imposes psychological effects upon those of us who live through it. We have learned to survive and to prevail, All of these matters are encouched in basic human rights, among them being the right to marry, which has been proven in interracial marriage cases. This case only expands those arguments for basic human rights for the GLBT Community. Hatred and prejudice based on religion is not a legitimate argument to deny s/s couples the right to marry.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:18:30 +0000

how can you use it on appeal if you didn't introduce it in trial? i am not an attorney, but i ddidn't think the appeal was a place where you could introduce new facts….i thought it was to argue that the trial judge made an error of some kind with evidence he either did or did not admit, or with his analysis of the law. ???? can anyone clarify??

By: Robyn

Robyn — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:08:08 +0000

I thinks that's wrong. These "experts" are defense witnesses. The only chance plaintiff's counsel gets at them is on cross-examination (and in the deposition). Legally, either side isn't allowed any contact with the other sides witnesses except for the depo. The "we are afraid of video" is a red herring, they are afraid of cross-examination because their "experts" deposition testimony seriously undermines their defense position. (ie that it hurts the kiddies) The "they are afraid" story is a complete cover. But, they can't really say, your Honor, we aren't calling our experts because their deposition testimony totally (and I mean completely) undermines our defense position.

But, without their experts fully debunked on the record, they may have a better chance to be heard on appeal…

By: Chrys

Chrys — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:06:47 +0000

Why not call them as witnesses for oour side instead?

By: nightshayde

nightshayde — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:58:52 +0000

I really really hope we find out.

By: nightshayde

nightshayde — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:58:16 +0000

However, since Prop8 was put forth as a Constitutional Amendment, the CA Supreme Court could no longer claim that Prop8 was unconstitutional according to the state's constitution. Isn't THAT why the court couldn't overturn it without the Feds stepping in?

By: nightshayde

nightshayde — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:49:34 +0000

I'm not entirely sure that stating the opinions you believe to be true can really be called "lying," even if the facts are not correct. In order to "lie," I think you need to be aware of the fact that you're saying something that isn't true.

If they actually believe the hateful things they say (even though we know the hateful things aren't true), they're just "wrong" rather than "lying."

Right? Or is there some other legal terminology for this?

By: missdk

missdk — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:40:29 +0000

wait… for real?

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:56:26 +0000

Maybe a dumb question, but if they (pro prop 8 witnesses) were subpoenaed and treated as hostile witness, would they be required to explain there justifications (I really am interested ) or risk contempt?