Comments on: Liveblogging Day 11: Part VI

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:08:18 +0000

Oh, and while we're talking about institutions… how about the fact that legalizing same sex marriage will be a move toward deinstitutionalizing bigotry.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:59:02 +0000

I'm so sick of listening to these people talk about the "biological foundation" of marriage. They say women voting "didn't do a thing to change the meaning and importance of voting." I contend that allowing same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to change the meaning and importance of marriage. It's precisely because of the "meaning and importance" of marriage that it's so important to extend this right to same sex couples!

By: Tigger

Tigger — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:21:37 +0000

That sums it up! Compared with what the pm.com blog says (DB said all this fancy stuff about the deinstitutionalization of marriage, with no mention of how his position disintegrated under cross). Then they end with:

"Outside the courtroom, the plaintiffs’ attorneys sharply criticized the notion that redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships would contribute to the deinstitutionalization of marriage. That argument, they said, is like saying that extending the right to vote to women “deinstitutionalized” the voting process.

"Nice sound bite, but the analogy fails. Securing women’s right to vote didn’t do a thing to change the meaning and importance of voting. By contrast there is no doubt that re-defining marriage to include homosexual relationships would ipso facto divorce the institution itself from its fundamental, biological foundation. Nice try."

Oooh! they used Latin words, just like in a real courtroom!

By: Karl

Karl — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:04:53 +0000

No – James Hartline is NOT God's punishment on humanity for anal sex. He's God's punishment for the Velour jumpsuit. A common mistake, though

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:22:41 +0000

Here's the AP story of yesterday's trial, as reported in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/27/us/AP-... We weren't the only ones who perceived this witness as being an ineffective defense witness.

By: David

David — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:25:37 +0000

Tommy, the reason is it is a yes or no answer is that the wording of the question does not suggest or hint for anything but a yes or no answer.

By: William

William — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:44:30 +0000

On the SCOTUS issue, can't Obama appoint two or three additional Supreme Court justices that might be expected to be more in sympathy with the minority in that case (and also in this case)? As far as I know there is no limit on the number of justices, although it's been traditional for several decades to limit them to nine. Thus the origin of the otherwise obscure saying, ”A switch in time saves nine.“

By: Gus

Gus — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:19:41 +0000

And all their ‘history’ is gleaned from 1950’s movies. Look at the westerns, man strikes out to the west after a failed business or just poverty in the east. Gets his land and his family follows after a few years. What crap, the man left his family back east and made a new one in the west.
And their religion is all Cecil B DeMille.
This is why they fight so much to bring back 1950's and 1960's style television thru AFA and other organizations.

By: Livebogging Day 11: Part V « Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Livebogging Day 11: Part V « Prop 8 Trial Tracker — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:50:25 +0000

[...] Liveblogging Day 11: Part VI [...]

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:48:02 +0000

Did I misread, or did DB say that same-sex marriage was good? And if so, how come Boies didn't bring it up?