I put this out on Twitter earlier today because I didn't have time to put up a post, but for those who don't follow UTF on Twitter, here's the great news from the Honolulu Advertiser:
"The Senate voted 18 to 7 to pass a civil-unions bill. The bill now moves to the House for consideration with a veto-proof majority. The bill would give same-sex and heterosexual couples the ability to enter into civil unions and receive the same state rights as marriage. The Senate gallery was overflowing with people as the Senate prepared to vote. Sen. Kidani offered a floor amendment to change the effective date of the civil-unions bill from Jan. 1, 2010 to Jan. 1, 2011. Kidani said the amendment is to correct a technical flaw and would give the Department of Health more time to implement civil unions. A retroactive date would not make the bill legally invalid, but could invite a veto by Gov. Lingle on technical grounds. Amending the bill could also delay its passage and allow opponents to put more pressure on Democrat senators who appeared ready to pass the bill today. Sen. Ihara, who supports civil unions, said he felt compelled to correct the technical flaw to remove a reason for a veto."
The pressure is on the House now to pass the bill. They actually passed a similar bill last year, so hopefully we can get a repeat performance. A decision will be made next week whether they will take up the measure.
I have not been to the gym since the Prop 8 trial started two weeks ago. I can’t even think of going to the gym in the morning when I have to race to San Francisco, go through the security obstacle course at the Federal building which includes taking off my shoes, jacket, turning my lap top on, going through a metal detector, surrendering my camera, bending over and coughing - okay it’s not that bad, but close.
Then I take the elevator to the 19th floor, slam my coffee, compliments of Billy the Rockstar, turn on my computer, connect to the network, bring up Twitter, Facebook, AOL, my website, and word and stake out my territory.
At lunch, I stuff my face with carbs, since the salad bar line is way too long, and then extra carbs to numb out the pain of the tortuous cross-examination. Girlfriend, I’m putting on the pounds!
TODAY STINKS-LITERALLY!
Being in the court room today feels like sitting in a college statistics class. It’s just hella boring, maybe because it’s my 40th birthday today and I came to the courtroom instead of getting a massage and doing something even mildly more fun than this today, like getting a root canal for example.
Maybe it’s because there is something way too human transpiring in this room today. The overflow room is filled with people and for whatever reason there are terrible odors!! Who the hell keeps farting? What’s with the severe body odor and the hacking coughs?
We gay people need some self-care. If you are sick, get into bed and drink plenty of liquids. Bathe-it does a body good. Wash your clothes. Leave the room if you need to pass gas.
Oh shoot, now I’m sneezing.
This may be my last blog for the day, especially since Yeson8 counsel is now talking about a lesbian who was married to a man and must have enjoyed having sex with him. I don’t think I can take listening to argument the Yeson8 counsel is trying to make.
Just because gay people may have had str8 sex, that doesn’t mean they are str8. It means that we were straight-curious or hadn’t come out yet.
The case will continue Monday and Tuesday and Judge Walker indicated today that the closing arguments will likely be scheduled in February. Marriage Equality USA plans to hold a vigil on the last day of closing arguments. There will also be a rally day of decision which will likely be within 90 days of closing arguments.
In the meantime, send thoughts of equality to Hawaii, Indiana, and New Hampshire where opponents of equality are trying to move us backwards.
Witness called today is Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. a Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis. He will testify about the nature of sexual orientation; how mainstream mental health professionals and behavioral scientists regard homosexuality; the benefits conferred by marriage; stereotypes relating to lesbians and gay men; stigma and prejudice directed at lesbians and gay men; the harm to lesbians and gay men and their families as a consequence of being denied the right to marry; and how the institution of domestic partnerships differs from that of marriage and is linked with antigay stigma.
I started the morning with gulping down my latte. While I was doing this and admiring the historic photos of San Francisco on the 19th floor in the federal building, I struck up a conversation with the other person in the hallway. It turned out that I was talking to Brian Woodward from the California Family Council. We talked about how we could find our commonalities and exchanged business cards.
I then tossed my cup in the trash and found that the trial was already in full swing with psychologist Dr. Gregory Herek from the University of Davis. As a psychologist myself, I’ve been following Dr. Herek’s work for decades and even had the opportunity back in 2005 to be on a panel for marriage equality with him.
Dr. Herek has an impressive record of publications on sexual orientation and hate crimes.
Dr. Herek discusses the American Psychiatric Association’s removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) in 1973.
Dr. Evelyn Hooker, a psychologist who published "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual" about her research on psychological testing of gay men and heterosexual men, helped create a body of psychological research that led to homosexuality being removed from the DSM.
Hooker assessed both gay and straight men and then had experts review the tests and select who was gay . The experiment, which was repeated by other researchers, demonstrated that most gay men demonstrated the same level of social adjustment as heterosexual men in the general population.
Dr. Herek spoke about how most gay, lesbian, bisexual people do not believe that their sexual orientation is a choice. He referenced a study completed in Sacramento, California with 2,200 participants. Subjects were asked if they felt being LGB was a choice.
-87% gay men said they believed it was not a choice
-70% lesbians said they believed it was not a choice
-59% bi men said they believed it was not a choice
-45% bi women said they believed it was not a choice
Herek was asked if he believed if reparative therapy was effective. Reparative therapy, sometimes called conversion therapy, is intended to change a gay person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual.
Herek said “When we use the word effective with therapeutic intervention it means it consistently works, produces the outcome that we expect without causing harm to the individual…No, it is not effective.”
Herek notes that a taskforce was created to evaluate the effectiveness of these therapies. According to Herek, “the taskforce provided a report on their effectiveness and safety of reparative therapy. In their review of the literature, they found that there were not many high quality studies that had been done to speak to the effectiveness of these studies.”
Studies were then conducted and the APA Taskforce concluded that reparative therapy does not reduce same-sex attraction, has a limited effectiveness, and does some harm to individuals, including depression and anxiety.
Herek reported that the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counselors Association, American Teachers Association, and the American Pediatric Society do not support reparative therapies, believe they are ineffective, and they believe that this harms youth.
Herek mentions a survey of married same-sex couples in Massachusetts released in May 2009 by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health entitled the Health and Marriage Equality in Massachusetts Survey.
According to an executive summary of the survey published by the Williams Institute (May 2009), the survey found that same-sex married couples reported that marriage had a positive impact on their lives. Seventy-two per cent (72 %) of the married individuals reported “feeling more committed” to their spouse and “70% felt more accepted by their communities.”
Individuals also reported other important benefits from marriage, including “feeling that they have to worry less about legal problems (48%),” being able to give their same-sex spouse health insurance (30%), coming out to co-workers (82%), and health care providers (82%), and for those raising children, feeling that their children are “happier and better off as a result of their marriage (93%).” Especially notable was the finding that 62% of individuals reported that being married increased their family’s acceptance of their partner.
1 IN 5 LGBT PEOPLE EXPERIENCE VIOLENCE IN THEIR LIFETIME
Herek discusses the stigma against LGBT people. He says that many heterosexuals experience “negative feelings towards lesbians and gay men, they even feel disgusted” by gay people. Herek mentions the violence against LGBT people and how the FBI and State of California track hate crimes against LGB people.
According to Herek, 1 in 5 LGBT people experienced some sort of violence in the course of their lifetimes. Others, he reports have had some experience of discrimination in employment.
Herek speaks about how if two men walked down the street holding hands that would attract violence and harassment.
FYI-January 30 is international same-sex hand holding day.
LGBT YOUTH ARE BULLIED IN SCHOOL AND HARMED BY THE NOTION THAT THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION CAN BE CHANGED THROUGH THERAPY
Herek also mentions harassment and bullying against youth in schools.
While not discussed by Herek, I present you with findings from GLSEN’s 2007 National School Climate Survey which I found shocking.
• 91% of LGBT middle school students said they experienced harassment at school because of their sexual orientation.
• 59% reported physical harassment
• 39% reported physical assault, compared to 20% of high school students
• 82% heard names like “faggot” and “dyke”
• 63% heard staff make homophobic remarks
• 50% of LGBT middle school students surveyed reported missing at least one day of school in the past month because they felt unsafe.
• LGBT students who missed school because of safety had lower GPAs than other LGBT students (2.4 to 2.9)
• 57% of students who experience harassment never report it because they fear the teachers won’t help or it will only make things worse.
• School safety influences academic success.
• LGBT youth who feel unsafe, miss school more frequently, and have lower GPAs than youth who are not threatened, this leads LGBTIQ students to drop out.
• Approx. 28% of gay and lesbian youth drop out of high school because of discomfort (due to verbal and physical abuse) in the school environment. Remafedi, Gary. (1987). "Male Homosexuality: The Adolescent's Perspective." Pediatrics, Issue 79. pp. 326-337.
• Bullying and violence is even higher for gender non-conforming kids.
On a side note, the movie Prayers for Bobby is a great resource on illustrating the harm done to LGBT youth when they are pressured to change something they cannot change.
KINSEY’S CONTINUUM
During the cross-examination, Herek is asked about sexual orientation and how it is defined. He mentions Kinsey’s continuum of sexual orientation, which I’ve provided for you below. Herek says that as a culture we’ve shortened Kinsey’s continuum to 3 categories.
1. Heterosexual
2. Homosexual (gay/lesbian)
3. Bisexual
However, Kinsey’s continuum is more exact and people's behaviors, attractions, and identity are not always consistent. For example, someone’s sexual experience/behavior might be a 0-exclusively heterosexual, but their attraction is to members of the same-sex. Additionally, someone might have the experience of a 3, below, but identity as heterosexual.
• 0- Exclusively heterosexual experience
• 1- Predominately het exp. only incidental homosexual exp.
• 2- Predominately het exp. but more than incidental homosexual exp.
• 3- Equally het & homosexual experiences
• 4- Predominately homosexual exp. but more than incidental het exp.
• 5- Predominately homosexual exp. only incidental het exp.
As an Official Proponent of Prop. 8, Tam is responsible for putting the initiative on the ballot and taking over its defense in court by intervening in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. On the stand today, he confirmed that he “supervised the preparation of the appropriate language of Proposition 8.”
Boies questioned Tam about several statements against marriage equality, including a pro-Prop. 8 email that stated: “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;" that "The San Francisco City Government is under the rule of homosexuals” and that gay men were twelve times more likely to molest children.
The court has previously viewed Yes on Prop. 8 ads urging voters to “protect our children.” Now it’s apparent that this message was working in concert with the type of discriminatory communications we heard today from an Official Proponent of Prop. 8.
"That [Same-sex marriage] would lead to incest. That would lead to polygamy. If this is a civil right, what would prevent other groups form asking for the same right,” Tam testified in court today.
"It is very important our children won't grow up to fantasize or think about ‘should I marry Jane or John when I grow up,'” Tam testified in court today.
Tam was also questioned in court about a media interview he gave regarding his work to pass Prop. 8 in which he said: “We hope to convince Asian-Americans that gay marriage will encourage more children to experiment with the gay lifestyle and that the lifestyle comes with all kinds of disease.”
Tam also testified to working with ProtectMarriage.com, the lead pro-Prop. 8 campaign committee, on signature gathering, messaging, rallies, debates, weekly grassroots conferences and in signing a "statement of unity" between himself and the campaign, which laid out a formal campaign structure including him and his organization, the Traditional Family Coalition. He also noted that he spent the majority of his working hours on passing Prop. 8 from January to November 2008.
Today also continued the cross-examination of plaintiff expert Dr. Gary Segura, who testified yesterday about the relative political power of gays and lesbians as a class of citizens, and their level of political vulnerability.
Guest blogger Davina Kotulski will be back blogging tomorrow from the court room - due to a last minute scheduling change of the trial, she wasn't able to cover it today. So here's a good roundup of blogs and articles about today's hearing. (See day 8 preview post.)
CORRECTION: Numerous blogs yesterday, including UTF, reported that the following quote came from an LDS document submitted as evidence:
With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved.
In actuality, court transcripts (PDF pgs 1628-1637) indicate that the above quote was plaintiff witness Professor Gary Seguara's characterization of the document, but he was not quoting the text itself.
Q. As a political scientist, what is it about this document and these statements that is relevant to analyzing the balance of political power between gay men and lesbians and religious organizations to the extent they're involved in political activities in California?
A. Well, with respect to the Proposition 8 campaign, it makes it clear that there was a sort of two-way flow of information, where strategic talking points were being provided to religious leaders by the campaign. And, in turn, the religious leaders were providing volunteers to the campaign. But there was this cautious strategic not-to-take-the-lead notion so as to provide a -- I don't know, plausible deniability or respectable distance between the church organization per se and the actual campaign.
The actual document that Segura read and referred to stated:
"He has also been hired by the coalition to do polling work for Prop 8. The main California grass roots leaders are in the process of being called as, quote, area directors, end quote, with the responsibility for areas that generally correspond to each of the 17 LDS coordinating councils for the LDS mission boundaries. Thereafter, priesthood leaders will call local prop coordinators over each stake and leaders by zip code within each ward - potentially working not only with LDS, but also LDS volunteers."
This is perhaps the most explosive bit of all, from a document between the LDS Church and the campaign:
With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved.
Get that? The LDS Church intentionally worked to hide behind the scenes to disguise their involvement in the public realm. The LDS Church is well aware that the general public does not have the most favorable opinion of them. Attention on their involvement could have hurt their cause, namely passing Prop 8.
For about half an hour, Boutrous and Pugno were arguing about the admissibility, and then the names of people, in a document from a Mr. Jansson The interesting part of this is just how these two organizations became two sides of the same coin for about six months in 2008.
Going over all these documents, we learned that over 20,000 Mormons were out door-knocking on the final few weekends. We learned that Mr. Jansson was playing a dual role, both as a leader within the Mormon hierarchy as well as in the protectmarriage.com executive board. We learned that Mormon/LDS Church leaders were powerful in the structure throughout the campaign. Of course, that was no real surprise.
Unfortunately, guest blogger Davina Kotulski has to work today so will not be able to cover day 7 of the Prop 8 trial. I also have to work today (which is why I'm delayed in posting), but I will try my best to round up today's coverage. Check back to this post for further updates.
American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) Summarizes Day 6
AFER, the group behind the challenge to Prop 8, released this summary of day 6 of the Prop 8 trial which was Tuesday, December 19.
The court has so far been presented with compelling testimony from gay men and lesbians about the discrimination they have experienced first-hand, in addition to eminent experts from Yale, Cambridge, Harvard, UCLA and other prestigious institutions who have testified to the harm caused by Prop. 8 and the lack of a justification for its denial of fundamental rights, creating a powerful, fact-based record of evidence pointing to the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8.
Testifying today under the direct examination of City Attorney Dennis Herrera was Jerry Sanders, the current Republican Mayor and former Police Chief of the City of San Diego. He spoke about his decision, as Mayor, to support the City of San Diego’s participation in an amicus brief advocating against the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and why he concluded supporting marriage equality was and is in the best interest of local government and the larger community (powerful video of that announcement can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAOkwjQdm6Q).
"If government tolerates discrimination against anyone it is very easy for citizens to do the same thing," Sanders testified in court.
"I had been prejudiced,” Sanders testified in reference to his previous opposition to marriage equality. “I was saying one group of people did not deserve the same respect, did not deserve the same symbolism of marriage, and I was saying their marriages were less important than those of heterosexuals."
“I think denying marriage equality is just as wrong as telling blacks that they couldn’t use white-only drinking fountains. It’s government action that’s founded in prejudice,” Sanders said to reporters at the courthouse. “The first step towards equality in society is equality under the law.”
Testifying after Sanders was M.V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D., a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who spoke about the harm caused by Prop. 8.
"Prop. 8 has inflicted substantial economic harm on same-sex couples and their children who live here in California,” Badgett testified. “I have the opinion that letting same-sex couples marry would not have any adverse effect on the institution of marriage or on different sex couples.”
After testifying, Mayor Jerry Sanders and his lesbian daughter Lisa spoke to reporters. Journalist Rex Wockner has coverage of the press conference on his website.
Witnesses for Day 7, January 29
From AFER:
- Ryan Kendall, a gay man who will testify about the “conversation therapy” he underwent in his youth and how he has been affected by discrimination
-Gary M. Segura, Ph.D,Professor of American Politics in the Department of Political Science at Stanford University. He will testify about the relative political power of gays and lesbians as a class of citizens, and their level of political vulnerability.
Video of Witness Depositions
Again, the amazing AFER comes through. I'll just quote them directly. Again.
The Olson/Boies legal team today introduced into evidence videos of the depositions of Paul Nathanson, Ph.D. and Katherine Young, Ph.D., who are among the experts dropped by the defendants from their witness list. In the videos, Nathanson and Young make several statements that are harmful to the defendants' case and that support the plaintiffs' position.
Both are professors at McGill University. They were questioned by David Boies.
AFER provided video of the depositions. Here they are below. First, Katherine Young, Ph.D.
Paul Nathanson, Ph.D.
Nathanson and Young both state that equal marriage would increase family stability, improve the lives of children, and that gay men and lesbians have faced a long history of discrimination including violence. They also acknowledge broad scientific and professional consensus in favor of equal marriage.
The backers of Prop. 8 told the court this week that they were dropping four witnesses from their witness list, leaving only two. They claimed this was due to a reluctance to testify because of cameras in the courtroom. The trial, however, is not being broadcast. We have now seen three depositions of the withdrawn experts, which would form the basis for their cross-examinations, that resulted in the experts making admissions that disagreed with the backers of Prop. 8's case, which is what actually led to the last-minute witness list reduction.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys last week introduced video of the deposition of Loren Marks of Louisiana State University, who had been expected to testify for the defendants that the ideal family structure is for children to be raised by two married "biological" parents, which Marks said meant the genetic parents.
Marks admitted that he only read parts of the studies he relied upon in making his conclusion. It was then pointed out that those studies actually defined "biological" parents in a way that included adoptive parents -- not just genetic parents. Marks then stated that the word "biological" should be deleted from the report he prepared for this case, and also admitted he considered no research on gay and lesbian parents, effectively revealing his research as fatally flawed.
Live Blogging
Live blogging of the trial can be found at Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker. (One a side note: Prop 8 proponents are suing Courage Campaign for Prop 8 parody logo they're using for their site. Interesting development. Read about it here.)
Today should prove even more interesting in the court room of the Prop 8 trial. Dr. William Tam, who claimed during the Prop campaign that if the initiative did not pass that gays and lesbians would next try to legalize sex with children, will be taking the stand as a hostile witness.
An excerpt from his deposition:
Question: “And it is your understanding that part of the gay agenda is legalizing underage sex?” Answer: “Right.” (Page 43 of deposition)
“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.” (Pro-Prop. 8 email by Tam, page 78 of deposition)
“We hope to convince Asian-Americans that gay marriage will encourage more children to experiment with the gay lifestyle and that the lifestyle comes with all kinds of disease.” (Pro-Prop. 8 media interview by Tam, page 77 of deposition)
The taped deposition was played in court last week by the plaintiffs last week. Though Tam dropped out as a witness for the defendants (and they were probably grateful given that they want to hide this element of the Prop 8 campaign from the court), the Olson/Boies team as called him to the stand anyway.
- Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. a Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis. He will testify about the nature of sexual orientation, how mainstream mental health professionals and behavioral scientists regard homosexuality, benefits conferred by marriage, stereotypes relating to lesbians and gay men, stigma and prejudice directed at lesbians and gay men, the harm to lesbians and gay men and their families as a consequence of being denied the right to marry, and how the institution of domestic partnerships differs from that of marriage and is linked with antigay stigma.
Last week, I posted on filmmaker John Ireland's project to produce reenactments of the Prop 8 trial. Today, he and fellow filmmaker John Ainsworth have posted a trailer.
Ireland told the Advocate, "we jump right into the plaintiffs story. They tell firsthand why it is important for them to be married. That narrative is then propelled through the rest of the drama by the professionals—the litigators and the academics. There’s quite a drama that unfolds after the plaintiffs arrive, but really it’s about those people’s stories."
Available immediately are the transcripts from all past days of trial. Yesterdays transcript is still forthcoming.
Please note that while we hope to post these transcripts daily, their availability is subject to change.
Please note these transcripts may be read, linked to and quoted from, but not reposted or sold in any way.
It's great to see AFER do an amazing job of keeping the Prop 8 trial transparent and accessible. Though we faced a setback with the Supreme Court's ruling banning the broadcast of the trial, thanks to AFER (and many live bloggers), the public still is being made aware of what happens in the court room, with truth being revealed everyday.
This morning, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee passed Senate Joint Resolution 13 (SJR-13) by a vote of 6 to 4. Approving the bill were Senators Bray, Zakas, Head, Holman, Schneider, and Steele. Voting no were Senators Lanane, Randolph, Taylor, and Broden. Senator Alting was not in the room for the vote. The Marriage Discrimination Amendment is now eligible for consideration by the full Senate.
So called “pro-family” organizations like Advance America, the Indiana Family Institute and the American Family Association of Indiana are keeping the pressure on Indiana legislators to advance this harmful proposal. It is not time to rest – we need to keep our own pressure going to stop this legislation.
If the state legislature votes in favor of the amendment, both House and Senate, it will then go to the electorate as a ballot initiative. If it passes, the state's constitution will be amended to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Attorney for the Proponents of Prop 8, Charles Cooper, is cross-examining Lee Badgett, Ph.D., a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and the Research Director of the Williams’ Institute at UCLA.
Cooper asserts that research suggests that many straight couples in the Netherlands are choosing to register as partners and not marry, and he is blaming this on gay marriage. How the heck he can scapegoat gay people for this I do not know. It seems quite obvious to me that straight people in the Netherlands are choosing to be registered partners because it’s an option. Just like same-sex couples in the Netherlands are choosing to marry, like my friends Martha (American) and Lin McDevitt-Pugh (Australian), who met while both were living in Amsterdam and fell in love.
I CAN BRING MY DOG BACK TO THE COUNTRY BUT NOT MY WIFE
Despite the fact that Martha and Lin are legally married in the Netherlands, the United States will not recognize their marriage under the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Martha, can bring her dog back to the United States, but her wife and her step-children are not recognized as legal family because of the DOMA law. I am hopeful that this case, or the case filed on behalf of married Massachusetts couples filed by GLAD, will lead the United States Supreme Court to find DOMA unconstitutional or Congress will find a way to undue this shameful law that they passed in the first place in 1996 during a panic over gay marriage.
Before I go any further in sharing Cooper’s challenge to the research that the Williams’ Institute at UCLA has conducted insinuating that their numbers are exaggerated, I ask, why should a huge number of people have to be harmed by marriage discrimination before we step up and treat people with respect and dignity? Witnessing the harm marriage discrimination has on even one family is wrong. As Americans, should we not speak out and work for equality for all people? As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. taught, shouldn’t we assert the inherent worth and equality all people?
Badgett estimates that their were approximately 18,000 legal same-sex marriages.
Cooper asserts that Massachusetts couples do not have the option of domestic partnerships or civil unions, only marriage. His point, “presumably some people would choose to register as domestic partnerships, just as they do in California and in the Netherlands. Shouldn’t your 60% marriage rate be adjusted to account for the same-sex couples who would have opted for a domestic partnership?”
Badgett- I don’t think so. People voted with their feet - 25% of California same-sex couples got married in five months, and you double that for the whole year instead of just that six months.
Cooper-So I take it your answer is no.
Cooper-There are some disincentives for CA same-sex couples to marry that same-sex couples in MA don’t have, correct?
Badgett-No
Cooper-I was just advised by one of my colleagues that I was wrong about whether a document had been submitted.
Cooper-After 205, Domestic partnerships became less popular as an option among same-sex couples. Would you agree with that?
Badgett-No, I don’t think passing AB 205 had anything to do with it.
He notes the number of dissolutions of same-sex couple relationships by year.
2002-- 296
2003--733
2004 --2,513
He is trying to make the point that people ended their domestic partnerships because they were given rights.
My observation is that people who ended their domestic partnerships were in relationships that had already ended where partners had been slow or lazy about filing their dissolution papers, like many straight people do with their divorce papers. When these individuals realized that if they didn’t file a dissolution their ex-partner would have access to their community property and it would require them to go to court, not simply file a notarized piece of paper. They got online found the dissolution forms and got their butts to a notary.
Cooper is also suggesting that people terminated their domestic partnerships because they didn’t want to share community property rights and notes that Massachusetts is not a community property state.
I would argue that heterosexuals who get all of their rights at once, including the 1,138 federal rights that come with marriage, are able to do pre-nups, whereas same-sex couples had no opportunity to consider how this new status would affect their tax status as it became law on January 1, 2005.
Badgett echoes my belief in her testimony by stating that “many tax attorneys advised same-sex couples to dissolve their domestic partnerships” until they understood the impact of this new law. Badgett notes that domestic partnership was a unique status created in California and an unknown quantity.
I would also note that people chose not to become domestic partners because now Senator Mark Leno was simultaneously working to pass a marriage equality bill in the legislature. Also, many people who didn’t want to wait to get married, and were not inspired by domestic partnership, went north to Canada to tie the knot. Those same California couples might have chosen to get married in Massachusetts did not because of the 1913 law preventing couples from marrying in states that had mini-DOMA laws like California’s Knight Initiative.
It’s been an hour now into the cross-examination and Cooper continues to belabor the point that he believes the calculations Badgett has come to in the Williams’ Institute Reports are exaggerated.
As we make these estimates, things keep changing, now Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut and New Hampshire allow same-sex couples the right to marry and so our financial estimates for Massachusetts may change based on the couples who get married in those other states.
Cooper asks Badgett-Would you change your opinion if it cost the government money rather than save it?
M.V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D., a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and the Research Director of the Williams’ Institute at UCLA. She was called to testify about the private harms caused by Prop. 8 and the impact of same-sex marriage on the marriages of different-sex couples.
Badgett has a BA in economics from the University of Chicago (1982) and a PhD in economics from UC Berkeley (1990). Her book, “Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men” (University of Chicago Press) presents her ground-breaking work on sexual orientation discrimination and family policy. Her new book “When Gay People Get Married” asks whether same-sex marriage will change marriage or change GLB people, drawing on the U.S. and European experiences with same-sex marriage.
Professor Badgett’s Opinions Fall into 4 Categories
1. Prop 8 has inflicted economic harm on same-sex couples residing in California and their children
2. Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not adversely affect heterosexual couples or marriage
3. Same-sex couples are similar to different-sex couples in most economic and demographic characteristics
4. Prop 8 imposed substantial economic losses on California and its counties and municipalities.
THE INABILITY TO MARRY INFLICTS ECONOMIC HARMS ON SAME-SEX COUPLES IN MANY WAY
-Marriage confers numerous economic benefits many of which are not provided by DPS
-Greater specialization of labor
-Reduced transactions costs
-Additional health and insurance benefits
-Greater economies of scale-marriage pulls two people together, when they move in together they can live together more cheaply as a couple, than as two individuals
-Stronger statement of commitment-the value of the statement of commitment underlie all of these economic benefits. Secondly it is a statement that is recognized and reinforced by people outside the marriage.
-Greater validation and societal acceptance of relationship
-More positive workplace outcomes from reduced discrimination-psych research, gay and lesbian people in workplace facing discrimination have different work experiences and economic gains from the workplace.
-Same-sex couples who are not allowed to marry may feel in their workplace that they are treated differently from heterosexual couples who are allowed to marry, and that being unable to marry may affect their ability to get promotions, raises, etc.
-Some of these costs may not be quantifiable, but they are substantial and are imposed on virtually all California same-sex couples who would marry if they could.
Frank and Joe Capley-Alfano, the first same-sex couple recognized within the Free Masons, are registered domestic partners who were married in 2008. Frank is an elevator mechanic and gets his health insurance benefits from the National Elevator Industry Health Benefits Plan (NEIHBP) through the International Union of Elevator Constructors (IUEC) Local 8.
Joe has a degenerative physical condition that requires medical treatment for he will lose the ability to walk. He and Frank petitioned the IUEC beginning in 2004 for medical benefits. Because of DOMA, IUEC does not have to provide a member’s domestic partner or same-sex spouse the health care benefits it provides to opposite-sex spouse.
After six years of petitioning Local 8, who could have simply chosen to begin recognizing state sanctioned same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, Local 8 agreed to provide Joe and Frank and others same-sex couples married ONLY in California during the 5 month period before Proposition 8 passed access health benefits.
However, because of the fall back on the federal DOMA, they are refusing to recognize marriages performed in other states and California registered domestic partners. A lesbian whose family is affected by this inequality spoke at the vigil on 1-11-10. One partner is having to work a second job to provide for her partner and infant child.
MARRIAGE EQUALITY IS THE GOLD STANDARD
In 2008, the number of same-sex marriages in California far exceeded the number of domestic partnerships: 18,000 marriages and 2,077 domestic partnerships.
SAME-SEX COUPLES ENTER INTO MARRIAGE AT HIGHER RATES THAN OTHER INSTITUTIONS
Below is the percentage of same-sex couples who entered into these institutions the first year they were legal.
37%=Marriages in the first year that they were allowed to marry 12%=Civil Unions 10%=Domestic Partnerships
In California only 5% of couples registered as domestic partners in the first year (2000).
11:00 AM
Boies asks Badgett about couples who chose not to enter into domestic partnerships and the financial impact on this because of this choice. Badgett says they are numerous financial drawbacks for same-sex couples not to enter into domestic partnerships, but many LGBT people may choose not to because it relegates a second class status and when evaluating “the value” of domestic partnership it is significantly less than marriage.
Badgett also discusses the benefits of same-sex marriage to couples and their children. Counsel submits a document entitled “The Effects of Marriage Equality in Massachusetts,” that reports that “Over 72% of respondents felt more committed to their partners, almost 70% felt more accepted by their communities, and 93% of those raising children in their homes agreed or somewhat agreed that their children were happier and better off as a result of their marriage.”
This shows again that marriage helps stabilize relationships and keeps people together. It’s reminiscent of how the right wing chastises gay people for not being able to stay in long-term relationships and yet wishes to deny gay people access to marriage which supports long-term commitments.
THE MONEY YOU COULD BE SAVING WITH MARRIAGE EQUALITY
According to Badgett, the state and local governments are losing out on $40 million dollars by denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
According to the Williams Institute’s reports, same-sex marriage would save state governments money on state means-tested public benefits programs. They found that because a single person’s benefits are based on their income alone and a married person’s income is based on the couple’s combined household income, fewer people would be eligible for state benefits, saving the state significant amounts of money.
I have a whole chapter on this in my new book “Love Warriors: The Rise of the Marriage Equality Movement and Why It Will Prevail”-April 2010
Driving rain and wind gusts of up to 51 mph reported in San Francisco. Day 6 of the Prop 8 trial begins. Today’s witnesses are Lee Badget, Williams Institute, UCLA, Jerry Sanders, current mayor of San Diego who has a lesbian daughter, and Ryan Kendall, a gay man who experienced conversion therapy.
The morning started with Judge Walker having a bit of a challenge with Mr. Cooper whose response to Walker’s question about when he would return a response in regard to discovery and he stated to City Attorney Dennis Herrera, “Attorney, Mr. Flynn needs counseling on proper objections in deposition. Do a little wood-shedding of some of your lawyers.”
Dennis Hererra then called Mayor Jerry Sanders to the stand.
Jerry Sanders is a Republican, mayor for 4 years of San Diego. He’s in his second term. Sanders was a 1973 police recruit, Sgt. in 1979, policing squads of officers, Lt, 1981, swat commander, director of Police Academy, 1986 promoted to Captain, Commander 1990, Asst. Chief, Chief of Police 1993, retired in 1999, United Way 1999-2002. He is on his second marriage and has two daughters, Jamie straight, Lisa lesbian.
Sanders said Lisa “called in her sophomore year of college said she wanted to talk to us in person. When she got home, she sat down and told us she was a lesbian and in a lesbian relationship.”
He said that when she told him he “felt an overwhelming love, but I realized how difficult it was for her (emotion in voice) to come out to her parents. We told her that we loved her more than we ever would and we would support her every step of the way. I thought it was tough on gay people in society, I was proud of her for letting us know.”
Sanders was a police officer in San Diego for 26 years and said “I’d seen what happened to people who were gay. It was the 1970s, San Diego was very conservative. We had a Sergeant who came out and told us he was gay and he was literally driven out of the police department. I’ve seen violence against the gay community simple because people were gay, gay bashings, death in the early 90s, I heard the slurs and the comments that people make.”
GROUNDED IN PREJUDICE
"I used to believe civil unions were a fair alternative. In September 2007, the city of San Diego, City Council passed a resolution supporting San Francisco in a lawsuit in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples. I had to make a decision to veto or sign the resolution - my decision was to sign the resolution.”
Sanders stated that his previous belief that civil unions are fair is grounded in prejudice and when he realized that he was prejudiced he decided not to veto the resolution in support of marriage equality.
You can see the videotape of the press conference on why he is signing resolution in support of marriage equality on YouTube.
Here is a transcription.
“My plan was to veto the resolution. My opinion on this issue (gay marriage) has evolved. The arrival of the resolution, to sign or to veto, in my office late last night, forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do. I’ve decided to lead with my heart, which is probably obvious at the moment. (He says choked up with emotion.) To do what I think is right and to take a stand on equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is to sign this resolution.
For three decades, I’ve worked to bring justice, enlightenment, and equality to all parts of our community. As I reflected on the choices I had before me last night, I could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy, or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than anyone else simply because of their sexual orientation.
A decision to veto this resolution would have been inconsistent with the values I’ve embraced over the past thirty years. I do believe that times have changed and with changing time and new life experiences come different opinions. Two years ago I believed civil unions were a fair alternative. Those beliefs in my case have changed. The concept of a separate, but equal, institution is not something I can support.
I have close family members, friends and members of my personal staff who are gay. I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones—to for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back. Someone whom they can grow old together and share life’s experiences, and I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I couldn’t look them in the face and tell them that their relationship, their lives, were any less meaningful then the life I share with my wife.”
In his testimony Sanders shared that “gay people would walk by my house and tell me ‘we are a family just like you are,’ and they shared with me how marriage discrimination hurt them.”
“I supported the resolution because I think it is in the interest of government. I know how easy it is to discriminate against people when you see it in the leadership” Sanders said. “If government tolerates discrimination for any reason it’s an excuse for the public to act the same way, and this had led to violence against gays and lesbians in San Diego.”
Sanders went on to say that “when the government denies fundamental rights to people it empowers others to commit hate crimes.”
“In the early days, there were a lot of gay bashings.” Sanders reported in his testimony. “Young men would get drunk and go out and gay bash people. In 2006, an individual brought a baseball bat to gay pride and beat several people with a baseball bat, and almost beat one man to death.”
Sanders spoke about how when he “was a young cop in the 70s, I participated in the slurs and the comments in the locker room. There was a sergeant who was a good cop and he was driven out of the force. I felt fundamentally that was not right!”
When discussing his own prejudice, Sanders asked, “How can someone who has been committed to equality for all people be prejudiced against anyone? I was on the board of director for Christians and Jews, I was a board chair, I participated in diversity workshops, two rounds of diversity training with the city, yet the fact that I still believed that civil unions were equal, really shook me, because the decision I made was grounded in prejudice, I was discriminating against my own daughter and her relationship.”
Sanders spoke about his daughter-in-law, Megan who married his daughter, Lisa in Vermont in December 2009. “She’s been an excellent partner for my daughter, but Megan is like another piece of my family…they deserve to have the same rights.”
When asked what he thought of the Yes on 8 campaign materials, Sanders said, “I don’t know why children would need to be protected from my daughter, Lisa, who is the most loving compassionate person I know.”
CROSS-EXAMINATION 9:20 AM
Brian Raum began the cross-examination of Mayor Sanders.
Raum is asking Mayor Sanders questions to show that his belief that there is no discrimination against LGBT people because there are openly gay and lesbian members of city council, there are fewer hate crimes against gays since the 1970s when he first started working in the police department, and because the police department has worked to reach out to improve relationships with the gay and lesbian community.
Raum is showing Sanders a Yes Prop 8 commercial. “Marriage between a man and a woman is hardly a controversial idea….Marriage binds men and women for one reason the raising of children.”
The rest of the commercial talks about how the supporters of Prop 8 have called Yes on 8 supporters “intolerant, offensive, bigots,” and how they vandalized and stole Yes on 8 signs, damaged the property of Yes on 8 supporters and intimidated Yes on 8 supporters.
Raum is making the case that No on 8 people were violent against Yes on 8 supporters. I can’t speak for everyone, but I can say that I personally experienced intimidation on numerous occasions by Yes on 8 people in my own neighborhood.
The federal trial over the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 will continue Tuesday, January 19 at 8:30 am. The legal team, led by Theodore Olson and David Boies, will continue to illustrate the discrimination and impact of the initiative.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights launched the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case and brought together Olson and Boies to lead the litigation.
This past week ten witnesses, including Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo and five eminent experts, clearly and convincingly demonstrated critical points during its opening week, including the importance of marriage in American society; that Proposition 8 perpetrates irreparable, immeasurable and discriminatory harm for no good reason; and that by denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 causes grievous harm to the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered. Taking the stand tomorrow will be, in order:
Jerry Sanders, the current Republican Mayor and former Police Chief of the City of San Diego who is the father of a lesbian daughter. He will testify about his decision, as Mayor, to support the City of San Diego’s participation in an amicus brief advocating against the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and why he concluded supporting marriage equality was and is in the best interest of the local government and community. City Attorney Dennis Herrera will conduct the direct examination of Mayor Sanders. [UTF note: See video below of Sanders' press conference announcing his decision to support marriage equality. Amazing.]
M.V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D., a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who will testify about the private harms caused by Prop. 8 and the impact of same-sex marriage on the marriages of different-sex couples
Ryan Kendall, a gay man who will testify about the “conversation therapy” he underwent in his youth and how he has been affected by discrimination
Witnesses on Friday included Dr. Michael Lamb, a Professor and Head of the Department of Social and Developmental Psychology at Cambridge University told the court, “We have a substantial body of evidence documenting that a child being raised by same-sex parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.” Dr. Lamb also testified (referring to children of gay and lesbian parents) that: “For a significant number of these children, their adjustment would be promoted were their parents able to get married.”
He was followed by Helen Zia, the last witness of the week. She is an Asian American author and a lesbian. She testified about her experiences with discrimination, the effects of being denied the right to marry and the importance of being able to be married in 2008. "My mother, an immigrant from China, she really doesn’t get what ’partner’ is," Zia said. "Marriage made it very clear that I was family, that we were family, and I was where I belonged."
UTF Note: Also read Karen Ocamb at LGBT POV for further information regarding witnesses.
Since the Supreme Court was fooled by the Prop 8 proponents' weak argument that they feared retaliation and therefore didn't want their already well-known prejudices broadcast to the nation, gay filmmaker and father John Ireland of the Get to Know Us First campaign has decided to produce re-enactments of the Prop 8 trial proceedings and will post them on YouTube beginning Tuesday.
“People want to see this drama unfold and there is a tremendous narrative that was propelled by that first day of testimony,” Ireland told On Top Magazine on Sunday. “This is the first time that gay and lesbian people have talked about their lives in federal court. It's historic from that point of view.”
“We've been in a fast and furious process of auditioning yesterday, confirming and booking last night, late into the night, and this morning at 9:30 we were all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and started filming,” he said.
This is great news. One of the biggest advantages of this trial (beside the obvious chance of winning back our rights) was that America would finally be able to hear the truth behind the motivations of those who actively work to strip our rights away and see for themselves the prejudice and bigotry (not to mention how Americans have been manipulated). However, the Supreme Court drastically hindered this by overstepping their administrative authority and blocking filming of the trial.
John Ireland is providing a means for us to overcome this hurdle and get the word of the trial back out through the ubiquitous YouTube.
Unite the Fight will be sure to post the re-enactments as soon as they go up. Be sure to pass them on!
There will be no trial proceedings today for the federal case challenging Proposition 8 due to today's importance of remembering the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
In celebration of King's legacy, I want to post video blogger Sean Chapin's visual piece containing MLK's historical "How Long?" speech.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights, the group behind the federal challenge to Prop 8, issued the following roundup of the first week of trial.Ten witnesses, including Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo and five eminent experts, clearly and convincingly demonstrated critical points in the federal trial on the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8 during its opening week:
• Marriage is vitally important in American society;
• By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 causes grievous harm to the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered;
• Proposition 8 perpetrates irreparable, immeasurable and discriminatory harm for no good reason.
DISCRIMINATORY MOTIVATIONS OF PROP. 8
The court also viewed video footage from the deposition of William Tam. Tam is one of the five Official Proponents of Prop. 8, and as such was personally responsible for putting it on the ballot and for intervening in this case to take over the defense of the initiative.
The video footage of his deposition included statements from Tam such as this one, from a pro-Prop. 8 email he wrote: “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.”
Please see this link for additional quotes and details.
DEFENDANTS DROP WITNESSES
The backers of Prop. 8 told the court this week that they were dropping four witnesses from their witness list, leaving only two. They claimed this was due to a reluctance to testify because of cameras in the courtroom. The trial, however, is not being broadcast. Attorneys for the plaintiffs note that their depositions of the withdrawn experts, which would form the basis for their cross-examinations, resulted in the experts making admissions that disagreed with the backers of Prop. 8’s case, which is what actually led to the last-minute witness list reduction.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys this week introduced video of the deposition of Loren Marks of Louisiana State University, who had been expected to testify for the defendants that the ideal family structure is for children to be raised by two married “biological” parents, which Marks said meant the genetic parents.
Marks admitted that he only read parts of the studies he relied upon in making his conclusion. It was then pointed out that those studies actually defined “biological” parents in a way that included adoptive parents — not just genetic parents. Marks then stated that the word “biological” should be deleted from the report he prepared for this case, and also admitted he considered no research on gay and lesbian parents, effectively revealing his research as fatally flawed.
[UTF adds this ABC video report]
OPENING STATEMENT BY OLSON
The trial began with an emotional and compelling opening statement by Theodore Olson, who with David Boies is leading the legal team assembled by the American Foundation for Equal Rights to litigate Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Olson and Boies notably faced off in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case that decided the presidency.
“This case is about marriage and equality,” Olson said. “Plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry, and the right to equality under the law. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly described the right to marriage as ‘one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men;’ a ‘basic civil right;’ a component of the constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, association, and intimate choice; an expression of emotional support and public commitment; the exercise of spiritual unity; and a fulfillment of one’s self.”
The court then heard powerful testimony from plaintiffs Zarrillo, Katami, Perry and Stier, who comprise two couples who want to get married but cannot because of Prop. 8.
Boies conducted the direct examination of Zarrillo and Katami.
“The word ‘marriage’ has a special meaning. …If it wasn’t so important, we wouldn’t be here today,” said Zarrillo. “I want to be able to share the joy and the happiness that my parents felt, my brother felt, my friends, my co-workers, my neighbors, of having the opportunity to be married. It’s the logical next step for us.”
Zarrillo continued, “When someone is married, and whether it’s an introduction with a stranger, whether it’s someone noticing my ring, or something of that nature, it says to them these individuals are serious; these individuals are committed to one another; they have taken that step to be involved in a relationship that one hopes lasts the rest of their life.”
“When you find someone who is not only your best friend but your best advocate and supporter in life, it’s a natural next step for me to want to be married to that person,” said Katami. “I can safely say that if I were married to Jeff, I know that the struggle that we have validating ourselves to other people would be diminished and potentially eradicated.”
Katami continued, “I just want to get married…it’s as simple as that. I love someone. I want to get married. My state is supposed to protect me. It’s not supposed to discriminate against me.”
Olson conducted the direct examination of Perry and Stier.
“I want to marry Sandy. I want to have a stable and secure relationship with her that then we can include our children in,” Perry said. “And I want the discrimination we are feeling with Proposition 8 to end and for a more positive, joyful part of our lives to be begin.”
Perry and Stier have four children.
“Certainly nothing about domestic partnership as an institution — not even an institution, but as a legal agreement — indicates the love and commitment that are inherent in marriage, and it doesn’t have anything to do for us with the nature of our relationship and the type of enduring relationship we want it to be. It’s just a legal document,” Stier said.
“I’m just trying to get the rights that the Constitution already says I have,” she added.
The plaintiffs’ testimony was followed by testimony from eminent experts who demonstrated the history and harm of discrimination, the importance of marriage to individuals, and the fact that allowing people to marry harms no one, and in fact would create benefits.
EMINENT EXPERTS TESTIFY
**Nancy F. Cott, Ph.D, the Jonathan Trumbull Professor of American History at Harvard University, testified on the history of marriage.
Dr. Cott challenged statements made by attorney Charles Cooper during his opening statement that procreation is the “central and … defining purpose of marriage.” Cooper represents the backers of Prop. 8.
“I would certainly agree it is one of the purposes, but certainly not the central or the defining purpose,” Dr. Cott said. “It’s a surprise to many people to learn that George Washington, who is often called the father of our country, was sterile.”
**George Chauncey, Ph.D, a professor at Yale University, testified about the history of discrimination experienced by gays and lesbians in the United States. Dr. Chauncey testified that the 2008 campaign to pass Prop. 8 played on stereotypes used historically to portray “homosexuals as perverts who prey on young children, [who] entice straight people into sick behavior.”
After viewing several pro-Prop. 8 television ads and videos, Dr. Chauncey said the language and images suggesting the ballot initiative was needed to “protect children” were reminiscent of efforts to “demonize” gay men and lesbians ranging from police raids to efforts to remove gay and lesbian teachers from public schools.
“You have a pretty strong echo of this idea that simple exposure to gay people and their relationships is somehow going to lead a whole generation of young kids to become gay,” Dr. Chauncey said. “The underlying message here is something about the undesirability of homosexuals, that we don’t want our children to become this way.”
**Dr. Letitia Peplau, a Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, testified that there is no evidence to suggest that marriage equality would harm others.
“It is very hard for me to imagine you would have a happily married couple who would say, ‘Gertrude, we have been married for 30 years, but I think we have to throw in the towel because Adam and Stewart down the block got married,” Dr. Peplau said.
**Edmund Egan, Ph.D. Chief Economist for the City and County of San Francisco, testified that Proposition 8 is a drain on government budgets, and that legalizing same-sex marriage would generate significant revenues and increase personal wealth, and would also reduce the burden on government services from people without health insurance and other benefits.
“It’s clear to me that Proposition 8 has a negative material impact,” Dr. Egan said.
**Ilan H. Meyer, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, testified about the stigma and prejudice gay and lesbians individuals face in society, saying that they are meant to feel they are “not equal, not respected by my state, my country, my fellow citizens.”
Dr. Meyer said that domestic partnership is not an adequate substitute for marriage, and said he doubted that society places any value on domestic partnership. “I don’t know if it has any social meaning,” Dr. Meyer said. “I think it is clear that young children do not aspire to become domestic partners. But they may desire to become married.”
**Dr. Michael Lamb, a Professor and Head of the Department of Social and Developmental Psychology at Cambridge University told the court, “We have a substantial body of evidence documenting that a child being raised by same-sex parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents,” Lamb testified.
Dr. Lamb also testified (referring to children of gay and lesbian parents) that: “For a significant number of these children, their adjustment would be promoted were their parents able to get married.”
HELEN ZIA
**Helen Zia was the last witness of the week. She is an Asian American author and a lesbian. She testified about her experiences with discrimination, the effects of being denied the right to marry and the importance of being able to be married in 2008.
“My mother, an immigrant from China, she really doesn’t get what ’partner’ is,” Zia said. “Marriage made it very clear that I was family, that we were family, and I was where I belonged.”
CROSS EXAMINATION
Attorneys defending Prop. 8 cross-examined plaintiff witnesses extensively, sometimes lasting several hours, yet accomplished very little. The witnesses were not shaken from their conclusions, their credentials stand, and very few items were actually allowed into evidence. Against eminent researchers, the cross examining attorneys cited Carrie Prejean, “Will and Grace” and studies from 1954.
Posts
I put this out on Twitter earlier today because I didn't have time to put up a post, but for those who don't follow UTF on Twitter, here's the great news from the Honolulu Advertiser:
