Liveblogging Day 4: Part IV afternoon session begins

January 14, 2010

By Rick Jacobs

It’s after lunch and Dr. Ilan H. Meyer, Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health is up. He will testify about the stigma and prejudice gay and lesbians individuals face in society.

He’s being questioned an expert on the question of lesbian gay bisexual and transgender public health issues. He wrote an article for the journal of public health on LGBT health that was the only time the journal has ever sold out in its history. He teaches at Columbia, including Research Methodology (how to conduct surveys, required course); Prejudice, Stigma and Discrimination as Social Stressors and Gay and Lesbian Public Health. He’s a rock star. He just got qualified to offer his opinions.

{UPDATE] 1:27 Meyer: My opinion is on the nature of stigma on LGBT with example of Prop. 8. Second, model of minority stress from social stressors. And third the effects on mental health. This is a topic of my study for the last twenty years. Some of the research I have conducted; other is from doctors in the field that relies on body of evidence that allowed me to write a report.

Counsel: Define stigma.

M: I’ll be very brief because it’s a huge subject. Succinctly, group in society that has a negative attribute that is seen by society that results in their being “devalued.” Gay and lesbian people, the whole person is identified by the attribute that is devalued so the person feels devalued. In other words, the stigma devalues the entire person, not just an aspect of that person.

M: Structural stigma refers to more solid structures in society such as the law and any other institution that is central in our society. Law has a major role in determining the goods that society can provide to citizens. Laws may block or foster access to those resources. Stigmatized groups may be controlled by society from access to those institutions or goods, in this case marriage.

Counsel (Dusseault): Are there stigmas attached to gays and lesbians and what are they?

M: My work deals with the roles assigned by stigma. For example, that gay people are incapable of intimate relationships, don’t desire those relationships and may be incapable of such relationships. This is what society says. Intimate relations means marriage, husband, wife, family and community. In all of those, gay people have been described as pariahs, incapable of having those relationships, maybe even undesirable citizens.

[This is all going to be very, very interesting. Stay with us!]

[UPDATE] 1:36 M: Describes EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK. (I remember furtively reading this when I was a kid. I got it from my parents’ bedroom. It scared the shit out of me. I was sure I was going to be one of those shoe salesmen who has a foot fetish or permanently unhappy.)

Excerpt from book shown:

What about all the homosexuals who live together happily?

What about them?

They are mighty rare birds among the homosexuals flock. Moreover, the “happy” part remains to be seen. The bitterest argument between husband and wife is a passionate love sonnet by comparison with a dialogue between a butch and his queen. Yes. Happily. Hardly.

M: This is strong and clear example.

[Now we move to Prop. 8 as a stigma. This is really good.]

M: Law and constitutional part of the law is part of the social structure that blocks or gates one from attaining a goal. Prop. 8 fits into the definition of a structural stigma.

M: We all grow up thinking that we can achieve goals, but Prop. 8, a constitutional amendment, blocks people from that goal. Domestic partnership does not equate with marriage. I do not refer in stigmatization as any tangible benefit that may accrue from marriage or domestic partners. I deal with the social benefit. Young children do not aspire to be domestic partners; most young people desire and have a respected goal of attaining marriage.

M: Domestic partnerships do not have the same social meaning as marriage. I don’t know if it has any social meaning at all. It has legal value, but that’s not what I talk about with stigma.

[Moving to issue of minority stress.]

[UPDATE] 1:48 [This may sound like stuff you’ve never identified as present in yourself or your friends, but have always felt. Wow.]

General stressors are losing a loved one or a job. They are different than minority stressors. A life event is an acute stressor (beginning and end). Chronic stressor would be the result of losing a job so they can be related. Others are minor stressors such as being in a long line in a bank, if people still go to banks (laughter) or getting stuck in traffic. Other stressors are non-events, meaning nothing happened. It’s something that is expected to happen, but in this case it did not. For example, I have been in a job for a long time and expected a promotion, but I did not get it. That’s a non-event stressor, it’s something that did not happen but was expected. Getting married, having children are such events. If you ask little children, they’d say I expect to get married, have children and have grandchildren. If they don’t happen, people are stressed.

We try to separate the stressor part (the input) and the outcome that resulted from that stressor, in this case health effects.

Minority stress is an extension of this notion of stress that extends from social arrangements. In my model any stress that is related to stigma of discrimination is a minority stressor. Losing a job due to discrimination is a minority stressor of a life event. There are different impacts.

Article that I’ve written about on minority stressors is basis for hundreds of articles on the subject.

D: Does the article cover other minorities?

M: I have to explain how I got to the concept of minority stress. All the research on life events as sources of stress have been going on since the 1950s. I articulated this in the context of LGBTs. The word minority here is sexual minority and it means lgbt. Most of the things in it are quite specific to gay men and lesbians, but the general theories apply to other minorities.

D: Are there specific processes that create minority stress?

M: Yes. My specific contribution is to describe the “processes:”

1. Prejudiced events.

2. Expectations of rejection and discrimination.

3. Concealing which refers to hiding your orientation, not being out.

4. Internalized homophobia.

M: I identified these processes by relying upon work on topics of life events, internalized homophobia. I gathered it all together to explain the experience of gay men and lesbians.

[UPDATE] 2:06 Prejudice events:

M: By definition these events are related to prejudice, so they are different that life events and the like. They will include other types of events people experience, for example anti-gay violence even though it’s not discrimination. Hate crimes—the person is chosen for this crime because of prejudice.

I’ve collected data from 400 gays and lesbians. Have many thousands of life events that they reported. Chronic things such as harassment they felt as a child. If someone jumped on me and attacked me it’s an event.

D: Do prejudice events differ in magnitude?

M: How big are the events? How much adaptation does such an event require? Losing a job is a very big event; waiting in a line is a tiny matter. Another event such as a hate crime has a greater impact on the victim and that greater impact has to do not so much with the characteristics of the event, but with the social meaning of such an event. I don’t want to talk in this room about anything legal, but I understand that the Supreme Court upheld hate crimes as special crimes because of the social meaning attached to them which makes it worse.

D: Who perpetrates?

M: Interpersonal events for example might be the state, by creating certain structures, but also individuals who do something, such as in the case of hate crimes. Unfortunately, often the perpetrators are family members, parents and siblings. The survey results are quite dramatic from the respondents. What was distinctive about it was how many reported family members who perpetrated such crimes such as rape or homelessness.

D: Every day hassles?

M: In prejudice literature we call them every day discrimination events. In ways that hate crimes have social meaning so do these. They are not annoyances when they represent social disapproval. They are felt differently.

M: Examples are plentiful. I read the plaintiffs’ testimony. One of things with which I was struck was filling out forms. Gay people do respond to that. The only way I can explain it is that it’s not about the form, the form evokes social disapproval and rejection and memories of events, including large events that have happened in the past. So it’s this minor thing that people may not even remember, but they have enormous significance. Maybe one was treated in an unfriendly way by one’s partner’s parents. It’s not nice for anyone, but it has great social meaning of rejection and disrespect they have felt in the past.

Judge: What kinds of forms?

M: What I mean by forms is any kind of administrative form, particularly where you have to fill out your marital status. There is no place to put anything, so I say single even though I have been in a relationship for 40 years. I don’t want to get into a long discussion with a clerk in a motor vehicle office. It’s not demanding to cross out a form, it’s not memorable. But it’s memorable to gay and lesbian people because it means social rejection.

D: Type of form is that which you might see at a bank?

M: Yes.

D: Travel hassle mentioned by plaintiffs?

M: Yes, very similar. It’s not so much what happened but the meaning of it. A clerk asking about a king size bed is not a big deal, but for a gay person it has huge meaning.

D: Does the fact that that you draw in a box or get the right bed take away the problem?

M: No. It’s not about the result; it’s about “I’m gay and I’m not accepted here.” Someone might not get a job promotion or might not get married not because of prejudice or because they are being blocked, but for example if you are not married, and you are asked constantly if you are getting married it can be prejudice that creates stress. It has double meaning: the action of the non-event (not getting married), but also for the event that results in the continued daily hassles. Not a factor of their lives, but of the negative way in which they are viewed by society.

D: What is the relationship between Prop. 8 and marriage?

M: Quite obvious that it blocks marriage. It would certainly be responsible for gay men and lesbians having to explain why I’m not married, which includes not being seen as equal. My status is not accepted by my state or country or fellow citizens. In the very definition of structural stigma, it’s a block.

[NOTE]: More of Dr. Meyer’s testimony can be found here on thread five.

Tags: Dusseault, Ilan Meyer, Judge Walker

Brief Thoughts on the Morning’s Testimony Liveblogging Day 4: Part V Dr. Meyer continues

53594 Comments2010-01-14+21%3A32%3A12couragecampaign Leave a Comment

1. Loren | January 14, 2010 at 6:25 am

I-L-A-N H. Meyer. I thought that was a misspelling of "Ian" at first.
2. Anna | January 14, 2010 at 6:33 am

Thanks for typing out his name- I thought it was just an odd spelling of Ian, too!
3. Patrick Regan | January 14, 2010 at 6:33 am

Thank you so much for this…

And on the other hand… damn you for keeping me distracted from my job .
4. InMA | January 14, 2010 at 6:34 am

Well aren't we all just putting stigmas on ourselves since we "chose" to be this way?" (rolling of the eyes commence)
5. JeffSD | January 14, 2010 at 6:35 am

Interesting. Sounds like the Perry team is going in for the kill – they let the Pro-prop 8 side press all these week issues the last couple days trying to build up their side. Now bringing out the expert witness to knock down the arguments they have stated so far.
6. James Sweet | January 14, 2010 at 6:36 am

For example, that gay people are incapable of intimate relationships, don’t desire those relationships and may be incapable of such relationships. This is what society says.

It's also what defending counsel said, just yesterday!
7. Alan E. | January 14, 2010 at 6:40 am

Oh man I might start tearing up like Tuesday afternoon's testimony.
8. Steffi | January 14, 2010 at 6:41 am

yep, right
9. Calvin | January 14, 2010 at 6:42 am

haha it is!!! YAY Olson & Boies!!!!!
10. Louis | January 14, 2010 at 6:42 am

In response to InMa (comment #4), it is presumptuous of you to assume that homosexuality is something we tend to choose. There have been plenty of studies that have demonstrated that homosexuality can sometimes be inferred from pure genetics. Please read up on you literature before making comments that would insult others reading this proceedings.
11. Steffi | January 14, 2010 at 6:42 am

anyone can send me the list of the whitneses?
12. Calvin | January 14, 2010 at 6:42 am

InMA was using sarcasm (hence the rolling of the eyes remark at the end)
13. Frank | January 14, 2010 at 6:46 am

This is a very good line of questioning. I had a friend who has been married 4 times in the 30 years my partner & I have been together. We were having a conversation once about her troubled third (at the time) marriage. I offered some advice, but got a hand in my face — "you wouldn't understand, you're not married."
14. michael | January 14, 2010 at 6:47 am

Yes, I choose to be gay so I can be called names into adulthood.

I choose to be gay so I can pay the deductibles on my home and car to repair the damages caused by those that find my lifestyle unacceptable so they feel the need to deface my property.

I choose to be gay so I can be reminded daily that I am an "abomination" and will be going straight to hell upon my death.

I choose to be gay so I can be judged based upon my sexual preference rather than my contribution to society, work, family.
15. Barb | January 14, 2010 at 6:49 am

Amen !!
16. Patrick Regan | January 14, 2010 at 6:50 am

I'm pretty sure InMA was being sarcastic if you were saying this in response to them.
17. Eric Thut | January 14, 2010 at 6:50 am

Yeah – while I really wish the video was available – I would be getting even less done then I am now checking in tot the progress every hour or so.
18. Steffi | January 14, 2010 at 6:51 am

Oh yeah, they are really great!!!!!!
19. Alan E. | January 14, 2010 at 6:51 am

For clarity of everyone else, it's pretty clear that you were being sarcastic (before anyone else posts a negative response to this).
20. Steffi | January 14, 2010 at 6:51 am

agreed
21. ncooty | January 14, 2010 at 6:53 am

Don't be rude. That was playful sarcasm.
22. JimB | January 14, 2010 at 6:53 am

its very selfish of you to choose those things.
think of the children.
23. Steffi | January 14, 2010 at 6:55 am

No you were clearly chosing homosexuality cause of your attention seeking need to being pitied by others and to bath in the people's concentraition on your suffering of course. and the possibility to get beaten up is yus a biscuit on the way… (OF COURSE this is not what i really think!!)
24. michael | January 14, 2010 at 6:55 am

But….but…..if we think of the children, doesn't that make us pedophiles?
25. karen | January 14, 2010 at 6:55 am

Just a quick note to ask if you meant Live-blogging day 4 for this post? (It says day 3.)

Thanks for doing this blogging!
26. lisa | January 14, 2010 at 6:56 am

under court documents. there are quite a few to come.
http://firedoglake.com/prop8trial/
27. couragecampaign | January 14, 2010 at 6:58 am

Thanks karen

That has been fixed.

-Julia
28. jc | January 14, 2010 at 7:00 am

touche!
29. Laurel | January 14, 2010 at 7:01 am

Here's a more direct link: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filing…
30. michael | January 14, 2010 at 7:02 am

Speaking of getting beat up and fights, there was an article in the Los Angeles Times….I believe it was in 2004 about bars in West Hollywood were slowly being taken over by heterosexuals.

Initially, straight women liked going there because they were not getting hit upon by horny straight men. But as straight men realized (along with bar owners needing the extra business and offering the facility for, say an organization at USC to hold a meeting or party, etc) the straight males started to show up.

The sheriff's department then noticed a remarkable increase in bar fights because the straight males had invaded.

Gay men and women, are generally not violent people. Straight men on the other hand, feel some need to prove how tough they are so beating someone up apparently the best way to prove their masculinity.
31. Anna | January 14, 2010 at 7:02 am

Yeah, I hear you loud and clear- I should be cleaning. What am I doing? Writing and hitting the "refresh" button.
32. Di B | January 14, 2010 at 7:03 am

or catholic priests… OH!!!!!
33. Alan E. | January 14, 2010 at 7:05 am

Can we ask for donations of new F5 keys?
34. Alan E. | January 14, 2010 at 7:06 am

and to prove they didn't catch the gay.
35. ncooty | January 14, 2010 at 7:10 am

I think we make too much of the "choice" issue.

As a Ph.D. psychologist married to a Ph.D. geneticist, I think it's pretty clear that there are genetic, environmental, and interactional effects on the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral elements of sexual preferences… but from a legal perspective (with regard to same-sex marriage), it shouldn't matter.

There are plenty of choices that don't keep me from getting married. Religion is a choice. I choose to be an atheist and that doesn't prevent me from getting married, nor does it devalue religious marriages. I could choose to be an axe-murderer and I could still get married. I can choose to get divorced and still get remarried. Why should choice matter?

I worry that by being so adamant about refering to homosexuality as a 100% genetically determined trait (or behavioral set, or whatever), we almost sound like we're saying, "It's not my fault," which frames homosexuality negatively.

(I also think that talking about sexuality in dichotomous terms is nonsensical and unhelpful, but most Americans prefer binary categorizations.)
36. Bill | January 14, 2010 at 7:10 am

Yes, the dude was being sarcastic.

However, it is necessary to point out, to straights and gays alike, that if YOUR sexuality is in any way 'a choice' you have clearly identified yourself as bisexual.

Not that there's anything wrong with that…
37. prettyisa | January 14, 2010 at 7:12 am

Some of the gay bars in Chicago have banned (straight) bachelorette parties from coming until marriage is legal for everyone. Which is funny (and fair, i think) but also might help with some of that encroachment of straight men into a glbt safe space.
38. JC | January 14, 2010 at 7:15 am

Oh, Frank–I actually felt the sting of that when I read your story. People really are clueless until we educate them, aren't they?
39. Matt | January 14, 2010 at 7:16 am

Brilliant testimony. I was asked even today in the lunch room, "Are you married?"

I responded. "I'm not allowed to get married."

"What?"

"Because of Proposition 8."

"Oh." He frowned.

"They are fighting it in the courts," I responded.

Long pause.
40. JC | January 14, 2010 at 7:17 am

Good one, Alan! Because we all now from Day 3 testimony that it's very contagious….
41. JC | January 14, 2010 at 7:17 am

Good one, Alan! Because we all know from Day 3 testimony that it's very contagious….
42. M S | January 14, 2010 at 7:20 am

Minor thing: this is Day 4, Part IV.

I know you guys are working your fingers off to keep us informed– which we really, *really* appreciate, maybe more than words can say– but I personally hesitated to click on this link for a long time because I knew I'd already read Day 3 and I was looking for the Day 4 update.

Now I'm asking bc I truly don't know: is it easier to use some combination of the date (1-14 or Jan.14), a general time stamp (like AM or PM) and maybe the witness's name (Meyer) or their subject (stigma) to identify the different sections? Maybe it wouldn't make any difference, but since this whole thing is supposed to go on for weeks, I wonder if Day # is only going to get harder to keep track of. Please don't take it as criticism. I don't pretend to know what's fastest or most convenient for those of you who have to do the actual work, I'm just wondering aloud in cyberspace…
43. Matt | January 14, 2010 at 7:20 am

And not only that, but earlier today one of my students said.

"Did you have a serious girlfriend during high school?"

I said, "I had a serious relationship."

"Was she in your grade?" said the student.

"They were a little older than me."

"Oh. So she was older than you."

"Yes," I said.

Again, notice the deliberate omission of gender so that I wouldn't reveal my sexual orientation to my student.

I make those kinds of decisions every single day.
44. Holcombe | January 14, 2010 at 7:21 am

I always think of those awkward moments with forms as "teaching moments." i always actively describe and point out that i am not single or married, and that their form is incomplete. it is almost never appreciated…
45. gskrptr | January 14, 2010 at 7:21 am

I like Dr. Meyer. His testimony is excellent. Precise and direct on the issue.
46. Max | January 14, 2010 at 7:21 am

Ouch. =/
47. Laurel | January 14, 2010 at 7:21 am

What a brilliant way to handle it! I have always responded, "No, partnered." But your way is so much more effective at getting people to think!
48. gabe g | January 14, 2010 at 7:22 am

Thanks for that contribution. I agree that things are looked at much too simplisticly. No one understands how anything actually works in this world. It's all extremely complicated.
49. gabe g | January 14, 2010 at 7:23 am

good point!
50. Rebecca | January 14, 2010 at 7:24 am

"M: Yes, very similar. It’s not so much what happened but the meaning of it. A clerk asking about a king size bed is not a big deal, but for a gay person it has huge meaning."

That is a huge stress when I travel with my girlfriend and sometimes in smaller towns they switch our room to two Queens instead of one King and we need to go argue for the right room.

It's been tough reading this as I think of all the little things we do put up with everyday that most people could never imagine or comprehend.

~Rebecca
51. Frank | January 14, 2010 at 7:24 am

I'm sure most companies are more enlightened now, but really not too long ago, our cars were insured by the same company, but we had to sign forms agreeing not to drive each others car. The alternative was to pay double rates on both policies because they would not issue a single policy covering the two of us. We could only have individual policies and list each other as additional drivers. And this was AAA.
52. Alan E. | January 14, 2010 at 7:26 am

We all know the general "they" so well. I dated many "theys."
53. Max | January 14, 2010 at 7:26 am

Using the forms at these institutions as an example of public and legal inequality is a really brilliant tactic. Go prosecution.
54. Frank | January 14, 2010 at 7:27 am

I agree, this was a brilliant move.
55. Michael | January 14, 2010 at 7:30 am

**Assuming here** you are probably more the exception than the rule. growing up in small towns you try to blend in, and those proud, teachable moments don't come too often. but that is definitely an outlook to aspire to.
56. Frank | January 14, 2010 at 7:30 am

There is one bright spot to being unmarried.

On a trip back from overseas, the flight attendants passed out customs forms. "One per household" We filled out one form only to find out we were considered separate households despite living in the same home. The bright spot: we could bring back double to amount of goods without paying duty.
57. M S | January 14, 2010 at 7:33 am

Sorry! Y'all had already fixed the "Day 3 thing" by the time I finished blathering about it. :-/ Duly retracted! Now offering all reverence to the Speedy Gonzalez's on staff…
58. AMC | January 14, 2010 at 7:33 am

Well, even bisexuality does not really involve a "choice" of sexuality, right? I don't choose who to love based on gender, and I can't choose to be "straight" any more than I can choose to be "gay" — nor would I want to.
59. Barb | January 14, 2010 at 7:33 am

Before reading the testimony I would have said we might go through several of these 'stressers' a month, then after reading the testimony and seeing the examples, I started having anxiety. There was no doubt these little 'stressers' happens daily.
60. Carl E. | January 14, 2010 at 7:34 am

Frank, if the defense uses that fact in their line of questioning, you're going to get a lot of flak…
61. Nettl | January 14, 2010 at 7:35 am

I hadn't even thought about some of the things that I face on a daily basis as being "stressors" but she's right! Filling out forms that don't offer anything but "Married", "Divorced", "Single" do bother me on a deeper level. I always put "single" because I'd rather not put "divorced". But I'm not single. Some companies such as auto insurance companies are starting to recognize partnerships. My auto insurance company does, and I made it a point to thank them for that recognition. I don't display pictures of my partner at my desk at work because I fear the consequences of having to explain to someone who she is. I refuse to lie and tell people that she's my "best friend". She is my best friend, but she's so much more than that to me.

Wow. The hurt runs deeper than I even thought…
62. Bill | January 14, 2010 at 7:38 am

@ #52 Rebecca

"It’s been tough reading this as I think of all the little things we do put up with everyday that most people could never imagine or comprehend."
~Rebecca
___________________________________________

I relate completely, but disagree. People CAN imagine and CAN comprehend what this does to an LGTB citizen. That is PRECISELY the reason that they do it. To dehumanize, assert their feelings of superiority, and further stigmatize us. It is INTENTIONAL, it is CELEBRATED and it is TAUGHT to young children to be carried out on us for all eternity. While they scream there heads off about morality. Indeed.

If it was simply an 'oops' than it would not hurt us as deeply as it does. This is INTENTIONAL. Meaning they have a choice to act like a human being or an animal. Most heterosexuals choose the latter. And if they are capable of this kind of treatment toward THEIR VERY OWN OFFSPRING, where will they stop? Really??? Where DO heterosexuals draw the line???
63. Bryan | January 14, 2010 at 7:38 am

Rebecca — so right on! While my spouse and I were traveling thru Utah (yes, unfortuately there was no way around that State), we had to stop for the night. When we asked for a room, the clerk immediate "suggested" that "…two beds are better than one!" No Joke!!

I am one of the lucky 18,000 married in CA, but until DOMA is repealed or struck down, my "piece of paper" isn't worth the ink on it.
64. Jesse Saxon | January 14, 2010 at 7:39 am

My two moms have a similiar situation. Although they were among the 18,000 legally married, their car insurance still refuses to cover then as a married couple because they "haven't done the research on whether same-sex couples are as likely or not to get into accidents as opposite-sex couples." It's so screwed up.
65. Bill | January 14, 2010 at 7:40 am

You CLEARLY owe taxes on the 6 Tobelerones you brought back from the Duty Free. Ya bitch! ; )
66. Vaati | January 14, 2010 at 7:40 am

Ouch indeed! Well when her latest marriage ends up in the next episode of Divorce Court maybe she'll regret not having the advice of someone who's in a strong 30 year relationship, married or not. More power to you, Frank!
67. JefferyK | January 14, 2010 at 7:41 am

And what about the suitcases full of Cher CDs? !
68. Lance W | January 14, 2010 at 7:43 am

Yes, we need a less awkward neutral pronoun in English.

PS, you could have replaced "They were" with "No," and the last "Yes" with a "What did I just say?" That way you don't have to agree with the "she" and you don't use the awkward "they". xP

We should come up with a new neutral 3rd person singular pronoun ('it' sucks) and see if it makes the dictionaries in a few years. lol
69. Janet | January 14, 2010 at 7:47 am

For me, the choice is choosing to be myself. Choosing not to be in the closet. Choosing not to change pronouns (never did that), or just not saying anything about my personal life (did do that). This is the choice that I recognize.
70. Calvin | January 14, 2010 at 7:51 am

As a transperson, I'm reminded of the day to day things that I have to say to clarify when people ask a question that they don't find offensive but is a pretty big sting.
But then I'm reminded that when I changed my name to Calvin from my former female name that the DOT here in Iowa apologized for having to put "sex: F" on my license and I have to feel a bit better. Allies are what keep me going, I know that.
There is some good out there in the face of so much bad. This trial reminds me of all of those feelings too.
71. Rebecca | January 14, 2010 at 7:53 am

Bill,
You literally made me cry. I agree with everything you wrote.

~Rebecca
72. AMC | January 14, 2010 at 7:54 am

If they would like to consider switching to another company, I can say that State Farm recognizes my same-sex marriage (also one of the 18,000 in CA) as a real marriage. They've always treated us with respect.
73. Brian | January 14, 2010 at 7:56 am

This "forms" argument is fascinating. When I traveled internationally last year with my husband our children (we also are among "The 18,000"), we filled out one form for our household, and it was stressful because I didn't know if we were going to have to fill out a second one (we weren't). And Federal tax forms? "Single" is a lie, isn't it? And the forms are under penalty of perjury!

I had jury duty last year, before the CA Supreme Court issued its ruling on the retroactivity of Prop 8. One of the standard questions is "marital status," and I answered "unclear." People laughed b/c they probably thought I meant I was referring to marital problems, and the lawyers never followed up, but how many straight couples have to wait for a court to tell them whether or not they're married?

I really like this line of attack.
74. JefferyK | January 14, 2010 at 7:59 am

I agree, too, and I wish I could figure out what to do with my anger.
75. Frank | January 14, 2010 at 8:00 am

Oh, great, I hadn't considered that!
76. Erwin | January 14, 2010 at 8:02 am

Sarasota FL here. My partner "husband" works for USPS (yes that quasi-government agency). One of his supervisors asked if he was married. He responded — "well, not LEGALLY anyway." The supervisor had a perplexed look for over two hours before returning to ask what he meant by that.
77. Bill | January 14, 2010 at 8:06 am

Rebecca and JefferyK –

We are RIGHT to be angry. But anger on its own only hurts US. It is what we do with that anger, and how we channel it that will free us.

This is OUR time. This is OUR moment. And even though we are likely to lose when this reaches SCOTUS, at least the young LGTB people coming up the ranks behind us will see this and KNOW that we are FIGHTERS. And that we will NEVER give up. WE must teach them to do this. Because our creators have only shown us their capacity to abuse us and withhold from us every single thing that they can possibly get away with.

Because the young LGTB population will have to take the reins from us at some point. Because after 40 years of this, I am, quite literally, EXHAUSTED!!! And I have no doubt that they will and that they will see this through to its ONLY possible conclusion.

God (or Universe, or whatever you want to call her) will not have it any other way.
78. Colt | January 14, 2010 at 8:12 am

Not to be a nitpicker, but I've never seen an animal discriminate against LGBT people … just other people.
79. Cassie | January 14, 2010 at 8:27 am

I'm slightly confused. There are so many names of the lawyers asking the questions, it's hard for me to keep it straight who is the prosecution and who is the defense. (Except, od course, by reading the way their questions are phrased.) Who are the lawyers for the prosecution and who are the defense lawyers? I've seen too many names… Help? Much appreciated. I'm 17 and I hope so deeply that people will see that they are stipping away our rights. That we are human beings just like everyone else. That there is NO reason to not let us marry.
80. dtwirling | January 14, 2010 at 8:37 am

GEICO, too, has always treated my wife and I well. We're in the 18,000.
81. Bill | January 14, 2010 at 9:02 am

I stand corrected.

And I owe the animal kindom an apology for the comparison. ; )
82. Bill | January 14, 2010 at 9:06 am

They should file a lawsuit against the insurance company. If your moms are legally married, they will win.

It is going to take the LGTB community filing MILLIONS of lawsuits, if necessary, to protect oursleves.

The other side has made their intentions VERY clear.

And when someone shows you who they truly are, you'd damn well better believe them.

Seriously, your moms need an attorney. If they are legally married, an insurance company has absolutely ZERO right to treat them as anything other than legally married.

Sue them! Sue them! Sue them!!!!

It is the only way.
83. michael | January 14, 2010 at 9:10 am

Someone above brought up auto insurance.

Try renting a car.

2 years ago we rented a vehicle from Budget to go on a 3 week vacation.

The form didn't allow the other person to drive the vehicle unless they paid an additional $50 or were legally (heterosexual) married.

We just paid the $50 to avoid the hassle, but it's another example of the things you may not think about that end up costing you more, not just tax benefits and social security.

I won't even get into the cost of our wills that would not be necessary were we able to get married.
84. Prup (aka Jim Benton | January 14, 2010 at 9:11 am

Along with strongly echoing Janet's comment, let me thank ncooty for his contribution, and add one further factor. One lesson that society teaches, around adolecence — unconsciously but powerfully — is that we HAVE to 'make a choice' we have to choose whether to want sex with our own or the opposite gender 'if you have the hots for Steve, forget Jane' or vice versa — whatever your gender is.

Fortunately, I never learned this lesson. As an adolescent 50 years ago, I knew I wanted sex with girls, but then I got the opportunity to have sex with guys, reciprocated, and realized that I liked that too, and wanted to repeat it, but I still was as attracted to girls, only now I had to say 'too.' Once I tried them, I liked that to, and couldn't understand why I needed to give up either for the other. I found both attractive in different ways, both overall and genitally. (I did found that I only wanted emotional relationships with women, something I have never understood and have always described as a weakness. And certainly I find certain types uninteresting, so I am a bit turned off by large breasts or by 'bears' — but my wife would seem to be an exception, since she has seriously considered — for herself, not because of my own preferences — breast reduction surgery for her own — in her mind — too large ones. (Great legs and cute face when I met her, I just didn't care about her over-endowment. Besides, it was her intelligence and sense of humor that ws my main interest.)

But I've always told anyone I was involved with that I was bisexual — my wife says I can't meet anyone for more than 30 seconds without mentioning it.

So when I hear 'we were made that way' I have no doubt that there probably is a genetic compoent for some people, but I wonder how much of it is a response to that 'you gotta choose which team to play for' mentatlity.
85. Prup (aka Jim Benton | January 14, 2010 at 9:25 am

This actually follows on my comment below. I do choose to stress the gay part of my identity, to accept the hassles, the danger, the discrimination for a very good reason. If I didn't, then I couldn't fight tem as well as I can, and because I am damned if anyone is going to get away with telling me there is something wrong about liking or having sex with anyone. The same way I stress my atheism, because I'm damned if I am going to be told that there is some mythical sky-daddy who is the reason for what I consider to be a strong ethical sense that has nothing to do with any sort of mystical belief.

Most of all I fiht against any form of discrimination — even criticising people who come down inappropriately, against 'Christians' because the worst mistake you can make is assume that any individual human being is defined by one facet of himself, his color, religion, appearance or choice of bed partners. (Okay, maybe I have a little prejudice against people who watch reality tv — but I'm fighting against it.)
86. truthspew | January 14, 2010 at 9:33 am

Meyer nails it from a sociological viewpoint. I should know, I ended up with a Sociology specialization on my I.S. degree.

The anti-Prop8 crew is really bringing in some heavy hitters, people whose credibility cannot be impeached despite the efforts of the H8 crowd.
87. Frederick Kahrs | January 14, 2010 at 12:11 pm

Thank you. I am having the same challenge. I cannot seem to make heads or tails over who is saying what about what. I think it would have been great to see this whole thing broadcast but, alas… I appreciate so very much that you are all doing this wonderful service but it really making very very little sense to me. I think I am not alone.
88. R_Genesee | January 14, 2010 at 1:23 pm

I want to speak for a small group of LGTB folks, those of us who sustain a belief in God, and who strive to live by one or another Faith tradition. My perspective centers within Judeo-Christian arena, but several thoughts carry over into many other groups

It is so very interesting to me that, under closest scrutiny, the religious teaching by which we were raised do not truly match our respective group's scriptures. Throughout our lives, family and friends point out, "but, the Bible says [this, or that]."

My formal education centered upon Philosophy, Religious Studies and Linguistic Analysis. With those tools, and many years of using them, I am relieved to know that my God and my scriptures do not judge me in the way my peers have done.

It is not difficult to understand why so many LGTB persons have chosen atheism, and to view God as 'some mythical sky-daddy' idea (Prup – please allow me to borrow). I ask them, though, to consider that they have brothers and sisters who may take such comments as offensive. Some, like myself, take a bit more offense at that than having to trip over the social ostracism I experience from straight society.

While we struggle to oppose Proposition 8, I hope we can also teach ourselves not to struggle against one another.
89. rhythmia | January 14, 2010 at 5:07 pm

Not religious in the least. But I wanted to say, well put. We are a plurality, and divide and conquer is not the way to go.
90. James Sweet | January 15, 2010 at 1:46 am

Eh, I dunno, I think that disallowing scrutiny of religious ideas because some people might find it "offensive" is exactly what got us in this mess to begin with. I'm sure many people find it "offensive" when you say that the Bible does not condone homophobia, for instance… but that idea ought to be brought under the most intense scrutiny.

Religion ought to be subject to the same scrutiny as any other idea, if you ask me… Some people on this blog are fiscal conservatives, and some are not, for instance, but we don't ban discussion about that. I shouldn't be afraid to say that I think any reasonable person ought to be in favor of universal healthcare, even though some people might disagree with me. I also shouldn't be afraid to say that I think all religions are a myth, even though some people might disagree with me. What's the difference? Simple: One idea has historically been given special deference. Which as I say, is exactly what got us in this mess to begin with.
91. Kim H. | January 15, 2010 at 6:26 am

Hi everyone! Terrific comments–some funny ones thrown in there too that made me laugh aloud. I'm a straight, married, 40+ mom in Orange County, CA. I want you to know how much support you really do have among straight people in my community. Every single person–even my Republican husband–I have talked to about this topic believes gay people should absolutely have the right to marry.

I think that there was a bit of complacency among the straight crowd when prop 8 came up. No one seriously expected it to pass–after all, it is discriminatory on its face. After that eye-opener, I've become much more attentive to the battles the gays & lesbians face on a daily battle, just to have the same rights I do as a married heterosexual. I wish you all the best–as do all my friends, family, and co-workers. We, like you, want to stop the H8!
92. Rick Jacobs: Olson & &hellip | June 14, 2010 at 11:34 pm

[...] received over two million hits and 30,000 comments. Whenever I wrote about a piece of the testimony that struck a nerve, people all over the country and the world chimed in with their comments, engaging in an online [...]
93. Olson & Boies Exorcis&hellip | June 15, 2010 at 12:54 pm

[...] received over two million hits and 30,000 comments. Whenever I wrote about a piece of the testimony that struck a nerve, people all over the country and the world chimed in with their comments, engaging in an online [...]
94. Ha Ha Ha, Gay Bashing! Ha&hellip | July 7, 2010 at 12:07 pm

[...] a miracle of perfect timing, you should head on over to the Prop 8 Trial Tracker and read the Day 4 testimony of Dr. Ilan Meyer, an expert on stigmatization of gays and lesbians. I wish I could be there in [...]

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!

Equality On Trial

Login

Quick Hits

Recent Comments