January 15, 2010
By Julia Rosen
Wow! Can you believe it’s only been week one of the trial?
The plaintiffs have not made it through all of their witnesses yet, so we have quite a ways to go. It’s a long weekend remember, so we won’t be back liveblogging the proceedings until Tuesday.
As is tradition, below is the daily summary of the liveblogging in chronological order. Remember that the categories over on the right column are a useful way to navigate through the site, for example to find all of the liveblog postings, or the daily summaries.
It’s 0845. The judge came in and said good morning, but then the screen went blank up here. Maybe Protect Marriage has finally gotten its wish and the whole trial is going to be held in a dark room in a basement? As you’ll see shortly, they are going to every possible length to hide this trial from the public. As the NYT opinion blog says, the more LGBT activists and our friends come out of the closet, the more Protect Marriage goes in. Hide!
I’ve been reading some of the comments and look forward to reading more. This truly is your trial.
Brian Leubitz’s piece this morning says it all. As usual, Brian has nailed it.
We’ll be back as soon as the screen comes alive.
[UPDATE] 8:52 The judge closed the courtroom to lawyers only. He kicked everyone out from the courtroom, too. I’m guess it’s about the documents that were under seal. We’ll report as soon as we are back in session.
[UPDATE] 8:55 The feed is live. The judge is getting ready. We’re baaaaaaaaaaaaaack!
[UPDATE] 9:05 Michael McGill is with Gibson Dunn on our side. He just called Dr. Michael Lamb.
MM: Current occupation?
L: Social psychologist at Cambridge and before that at National Institutes of Health (NIH) where he headed developmental psychology team. Studied field since 1970s. (This is going to be fun. He speaks with one of those fancy English accents.) Studied factors that affect children’s development and adjustment, meaning the factors that allow them act effectively in their environment. A healthy kid can interact well with adults and kids, do well at school. One sign of maladjustment in older kids would be anti-social behavior.
MM: Talk about volume of literature with regard to children of LG parents.
L: Lots of such of info by now. Huge volume. All peer-reviewed.
[(By the way, that Dr. Tam who wants not to be a defendant any more is in the court room. I hope we get to hear from him!]
[So the back and forth now is to show that this guy is hugely qualified.]
Authored or edited about 40 books on child development and adjustment and published 500 articles, in professional, peer-reviewed journals or for other professionals in their books. On editorial boards of several journals (or have been), Child Development and Developmental Psychology, and others. Provides peer review for about 100 articles a year for a total of about 2,500-3,000 peer reviews in my career. Award for lifetime contributions to psychology from the Association of Child Psychology.
[UPDATE] 9:17 Will show that GL parents are good parents. Substantial research over past 30-40 years that show (on slide put up by MM):
1. The quality of the relationship that children have with their parents and those that come after them. Large body of evidence that children do best when with loving parents and do worse without.
2. The quality of the relationship between the parents or other significant adults. Kids do better when parents are happy with each other than not.
3. The availability of adequate economic and social resources.
What makes a good parent?
L: Good parents guide, set boundaries, provide love and care for kids. Then their children are more likely to be well adjusted. What makes for effective parent is same whether mother or father.
MM: Puts up second slide, Cooper’s opening with Obama quote:
We know the statistics; that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.”
L: First, the quote does not compare to what. 9 or 20 times more likely than what? Most likely this refers to kids from heterosexual homes, not compared with gay homes. No context. Suggests its absence of father that causes these outcomes. Research shows that absence of father is not crucial. Children are more likely to have some of these problems when they’ve suffered separation from a parent, when there has been significant parental conflict and/or economic deprivation. Important for researcher to ask why these differences exist rather than just put up stats. Does not acknowledge fact that majority of children who grow up without father is perfectly well adjusted.
MM: Did you ever hold view that children due better with father/mother family?
L: Yes, because I began my research in early 1970s. First research was attachment baby’s form with mothers and fathers. Did children need to be raised by masculine and feminine parent? Result of my research and almost all other research since then showed that this is not true. Effective parent comes from having a mother or father. Children do not need a masculine behaving parent to be well adjusted. Same with feminine; not necessary.
L: Field began to coalesce around this view by early 1990s.
ML: If I could get into Cambridge and take a class in dev psych, is this what I’d be taught today?
[UPDATE] 9:52 Describes in detail the methodology of research. Introduces a bunch of exhibits.
MM: What is a “convenient sample?”
L: It’s a sample that (he describes) and is used often in dev psych studies.
MM: More exhibits are entered as evidence. More discussion about longitudinal and cross section design. Enter more exhibits including study by Susan Golombach “Children of Lesbian Parents: A Community Study.” These partially informed L’s views.
MM: Dr. Lamb, based on all these studies, what conclusions have you drawn on children adjusting with gay or lesbian parents?
L: Articles document conclusively that children raised by g or l parents are just as likely to be well adjusted as those raised by hetero parents. Based on great volume of study of children of different ages. Further buttressed by results that affect children of broader range of children. Generally accepted by field.
L: Sexual Orientation, Parents and Children, 2004 from Am Psych Assoc. (Reads)
“There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents based on their sexual orientation. On the contrary, research shows that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.”
“ Overall, results of research suggests that” …gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be good parents as hetero.
AM Ac Child Psych, Pediatric and Adolescent, Am Psych, Child Welfare league, National Assoc of Social workers all have policy statements from (8 groups, but Id did not catch them all; I think you get the point) on gay and lesbian parenting.
MM: Have you ever heard the view that children raised by homo parents more likely to have gender identity disorder than raised by hetero?
L Yes. Field has studied a lot. Gender id disorders are extremely rare and no evidence that more prevalent with gay and lesbian parents.
MM: Email from Ron Prentice that says “21 Reasons why Gender Matters.” Admitted as PX2350
One of the main examples of gender confusion is what some are calling gender pathology. This the term used to describe homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgender relationships. IN these and other causes, there is a major distortion or disordering of the male or female gender, and a confusion of both gender and sexuality”
L: I’m not familiar with content of “gender pathology. “ Does not exist in field. G, L, H, not considered by pathology.
“While various studies indicate that around two-to three per cent of person have ever practiced homosexual behaviors in their lifetime, a study in Developmental Psychology found that 12% of the children of lesbians became active lesbians themselves.”
L: Does not contradict what I’ve said because study they footnote for this is Susan Golombach’s and it does not say what she says. Some studies show that children raised by homo parents have less sex-stereotyped attitudes than homo. Positive attribute means that children aspire to wide careers, vs. sex stereotyped views that may mean girls think they have to be nurses.
“Sad truth is that homo abuse of children is proportionately higher than hetero abuse of children. It must be stressed that most homos do not abuse children and most are not pedophiles, but it seems a significant number do and are.
It is the right of the child to know and have a relationship with their biological mother and father. It is the right of the child to be protected form sexual exploitation. Gender disorientation pathology greatly increases the risk that children will suffer sexual exploitation. It is our duty to protect them.”
L: This is fairly old canard. Published since 1970s and into 1990s that this is not true. Carol Jennings Are Children at Risk from Homo parents from pediatrics in 1994 says that there is no evidence the above is nonsense.
MM: Children of g and l are bullied?
MM: Kids are teased but
“There is also the question of how children fare when raised in same-sex families. One person who has spent a lot of time looking into this question is psychologist Dr. Joe Nicolosi. He argues that kids raised by homosexuals are traumatizes emotionally and socially.”
MM: Evidence to support this?
L : No. I had no idea who Nicolosi was. I searched internet. He does “conversion therapy.” (In other words he is a self-hating charlatan.)
[UPDATE] 9:56 [This is also from our friend Ron Prentices homosexual version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.]
David Popenoe: “We should disavow the notion that “mummnies can make good daddies’ just as we should disavow the notion of radical feminists that “daddies can make good mummies”… The two sexes are different to the core and each is necessary –culturally…”
Popenoe is retired. Only one in field who shares above is Dr. Blankenhorn. [You go!]
MM: Any evidence that lack of bio parents and/or opposite sex parents improves chance of kids doing well?
L: No. Lots of studies about adopted kids and bio born kids that are just as likely to be well-adjusted as bio parent raised kids.
[UPDATE] 9:58 MM: Finishes by showing that there is no evidence that supports that bullshit (and forgive me, but I have to say it that way) that Prentice and Team Hit and Hide at Protect Marriage promulgate.
Cross is about to begin.
Going to switch to a new thread for the next update. It’s here.
[You GOTTA read this sh*t. You gotta. It’s both sad and very, very funny.]
Prop. 8: Gave money to ACLU, NOW, and a bunch of other orgs and “even PBS.” [Laughter] SO we can agree you are a committed liberal? You are committed liberal
Prop 8: Goes after L because he has not interviewed gay kids. Is political. Is influenced by ideological forces, politics, etc. If there is a prevailing ideology in a society manifests at universities and think tanks take ideological view, charitable orgs take pov. Funding often provided by govs, think tanks, major charitable orgs? (Object).
L: Funding usually provided by govs.
Prop. 8: Govs determine what is studied.
L: I think your question presumes that govs decide what is studied. It’s all under peer review. Vociferously disagree re: gov demanding results.
Prop. 8: You’ve read the “East Anglia Climate Change” emails that show that politics can enter into science?
L: I’ve heard about them, but not read them.
Prop. 8: You would agree that the sci community is littered with theories that are discarded, such as phrenology.
L: Not an expert on history of psych. Some people believed it. Point out that many were not scientists. [Lots of laughter.]
Prop. 8: Freud is no longer in use?
L: Probably true if you are referring to body of scientific research, not as true for clinical work. Pockets where analysis holds. My view that Freudian analysis not a major player in field today.
[You gotta be here for this. It’s the entire Scopes Monkey Trial!}
[UPDATE] 10:22 [Documents that Prop. 8 gives are upside down, as noted by judge, so both judge and witness have to turn entire big binders over. Perfect analogy. This sh*t is upside down.]
Prop. 8: Reading from one of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psych that says that Assoc opposes any discrimination against L, G, B, T. Not rich literature of children of B and T so this is based on politics not studies?
L: I suspect that rights. Not member of APA so no idea.
Prop. 8: Accepted conclusion is that g and l is about 2% of pop.
L: Not demographer, but sounds right.
Prop. 8: Your studies are about gender orientation and sexual orientation interchangeably, yes?
L: I confess that I do, but I’m trying to be better behaved. (Laughter)
Prop. 8: Many differences in our society between men and women. Men go to prison, alcoholics, violent. Women live longer than men. Death of parent traumatic event for child. Men and women get diseases at different rates. Intelligence of parents can have a psych effect on well being of children.
L: All above yes except last. Not sure that better educated people are always better parents. You could make the case that people who have extremely low levels of intelligence could affect well being of children.
Prop. 8 is trying to say that if you have single sex parents you will end up with a collection of seriously bad people as parents.
More men are like Homer Simpson than not?
L: I cannot say that. Some worse.
Prop. 8: did not know any could be worse. Men can’t breast feed and breast feeding is important. Economics matter. Women earn less than men. Lesbians have higher or lower income level than hetero? There are differences between earning power of gay m en and lesbians?
[So Prop. 8 I s being as reductionist as possible. It’s just way funny, but it’s sad.]
Prop 8 quotes Lee Badgett: contrary to popular opinion, gay male income in California is 4% higher than hetero and female is 7% lower.
L: This study all homos, not just parents.
Prop. 8: Women spend more on children than men. Some occupations are specific to genders. Men are more likely to perpetrate sexual abuse than women. Step fathers more likely to molest children, abuse children than women. Molestation is bad for kids. Evidence that men who are married to women drink and gamble. You are not saying that men and women are completely interchangeable.
L: Same feature of parents behavior important to children’s development.
[UPDATE] 10:46 Prop. 8: Fathers predisposed to treat kids differently than mothers? From 2000. Fatherhood in 21st century which you coauthored, page 130. [Reads out article.]
L: It’s from David Poekenoe.
Prop. 8: You thought Poekenoe sufficiently significant to mention?
L: Scholars like to be sure they don’t leave out things.
Prop. 8: Studies that show that attachments between mothers and babies are strong.
L: If you are talking about babies being raised in two parent families, both important.
Prop. 8: Evidence that shows that bio is more important than involvement in raising kids?
L: Not the case.
Prop. 8: Attachment and Affiliative Symptoms.
L: I do recall writing this even though written in 1970s and published in 1982.
Prop. 8: Reads from article that suggests that L believed then that bio is more important than involvement.
L: Testified earlier that finding has not held up in subsequent research.
Prop. 8: So science was wrong?
L: Science is a cumulative process in which studies grow and develop. Both mothers and fathers can play different roles when children are being raised by heterosexual parents when both are deeply involved in raising children. Often qualitative differences in ways in which mothers interact with children, but those differences in and of themselves do not affect children’s’ adjustment.
Prop. 8: It is disturbing that role of fathers has diminished in 20th century.
L: You have done a great job of refreshing my memory of very old documents. I hope you have in some of these other tabs my more up to date research (Laughter).
L: Some findings have held up that boys do better with fathers and some don’t.
Prop. 8: Article from 2000 that shows that your research shows this is true? Boys without fathers do worse in school, have less self-control?
L: No causal connection between father absence. Relationship with and between parents and economics explain.
Prop. 8: Nurturing fathers can contribute greatly to daughters and contribute greatly to their success in further hetero relationships?
Prop. 8: Failure to achieve same sex identity may be pathogenic? Go to role of father in childhood development, 1976 version.
L: Citations here are from 1950s, 1960s. We have learned more and there are subsequent editions of this book that show that. I was a student then.
L: When children are living with or have two parents, children do better with involvement of both.
Prop. 8: Moral development hurt by father absence?
L: Early. Now move from “moral development” to more concrete such as delinquency and encounters with police.
Break until 1055.
[Amazing. They cherry pick 1970s literature. They show that because he is ACLU, NAACP, Amnesty International, NOW, Nature Conservancy and even PBS that he’s a liberal and therefore a bad scientist. We are at the Scopes Monkey Trial. Evolution did not happen. History stopped. Pretty soon, they’ll ask, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” My friend Michael Keegan over at PFAW has it right: They want to bring to back McCarthy. They are McCarthy.]
[(Scopes Monkey Trial, Day 5, returning from late morning break.]
Prop. 8 tries to use early studies to show that L agrees with Prop. 8 on early father absence studies of Blankehorn. In other words, L puts stuff in his 1997 book in context.
L: It is true that children in hetero families do better when they have good relationships with fathers and might have negative consequences of bad relationships.
Prop. 8: Our expert wrote a book Fatherless in America. You reviewed?
L: You said easily the most provocative social commentary on 1995. He thought I was negative, but I’m glad I couched it in those diplomatic terms.
Prop. 8: Well you said it deserved to be read and widely discussed. Probably beneficial for children to have relationships with people who are different.
L: The more different people you have intimate relations with, the better.
Prop. 8: Relevant for boy to have role model?
L: Both boys and girls copy people in some ways.
Prop. 8: Not irrelevant for boy to have role model. Yes or no?
L: Society is replete with role models so it’s good.
Prop 8: Yes?
[Prop. 8 keeps pushing for him to say that man and woman are necessary. L used the word “any” in context of statement that there isn’t any evidence that foster parents need to be man and woman.]
L: Yeah. Whenever I hear the word “any” my antennae start to wiggle. When children do have father, important to have him involved. Having an important relationship with those who raise you is key. There are some circumstances in which children do perfectly well when raised by someone other than biological mother.
Prop. 8: Is there rich and empirical literature in your field showing that mothers are irrelevant in a child’s psychological well-being?
L: Need to define “mother” in that context. Person who raises but who was bio mother? Child needs good relationship with mother if she’s involved. We know the gender of that person is not crucial to child’s development.
P: You define traditional family as usually married bio mother and father?
L: Usually refers here to stay at home mom, bread-winning father as traditional.
P: Evidence that show this is best?
L: Some in society believe. Consensus in the field is that family structures like those are not causally important for a child’s well being.
P: Genetics. Personality under genetic influence?
L: Can be, but with two bio parents, common for child to be like one parent and not like another. Not always that child is similar to parent in temperament to bio parents. If there were similarities between parents and children, might influence child’s outcome. Could conceive of situation in which someone’s temperament might affect a child’s adjustment.
P: Going to depo. Believe that marriage is correlated with child outcomes, ways in which they affect are complicated.
P: Look at reconstituted family structure, i.e., addition of step father into home is negative.
P: Don’t think family structure affects family process?
L: In that case, yes. Entry of stepfather will change dynamics with resident mother and children, for better or worse.
Prop. 8: 1977 edition of L’s book. [They only use old editions of stuff. I think they don’t use globes either, because those show that the earth is round.]
[THEY NOW SAY THEIR WITNESSES WITHDREW BECAUSE THEY FEAR FOR THEY SAFETY. This is the same team that is trying to shut down this website. And they just heard a week of testimony about how gay people have literally been killed for being gay. And now they think they are victims????]
P: Goes to COLE depo from five weeks ago. Looking at P. 93, but L can’t find it. Now found it.
How does married bio family structure than cohab couple. “I don’t think family structure affects family processes.” In Depo.
P: If we randomly select 1,000 each gay and homo families, we’d find differences?
P: Goes to Trans Resources Group. She won ASA distinguished research award?
L: I was not aware, but certainly deserves it.
(Objection by our side.)
Judge says witness can be asked about the article.
P: We withdrew two of our experts because they were extremely concerned about their personal safety so they did not want to appear with any recordings whatsoever. We ask you take judicial notice.
Judge: Put before witness and get reaction.
[UPDATE] 11:58 P: Now going to show article from Dr. Amato whom L respects. Research currently demonstrates that children growing up with continuously married parents are less likely to suffer from cognitive disabilities, even through maturity.
L: Yes, but it’s study of hetero parents.
P: Better if they are happily married.
L: Yes, he accurately summarized literature as I testified.
P: Marriage for African Americans, a Comprehensive Review.
(We object. Judge says okay to have judicial notice and ask questions.)
“Af Am married parents receive better infant health, fewer behavior problems, have moderately better ed outcomes. Marriage itself appears to be contributing strongly for betterment of AA children.” Generally reflect research?
L: It’s on shaky grounds if it suggests more than possible correlation. Not enough data.
[This lawyer is trying every which way to conflate studies of hetero populations with studies of homo populations and to blur the lines. Prop. 8 hate science.]
P: Prof Dougherty article. He’s well respected (L agrees).
L: Accurately summarizes literature for heteros raising families. Again, it’s about heteros.
P: Report from Institute for American Families. “But marriage matters. Children in average intact married families due better than children in step families.”
L: On average, it’s true.
Judge: Is that statement based on evidence based on opposite sex couples? So it does not include same sex couples?
L: I believe yes. Institute for American Values is a lobbying group that promotes a particular view of marriage between hetero couples. Most of their research is of hetero according to what I see here.
P: This team includes William Dougherty, Brad Wilcox, Norville Glen. P tries to debunk that this is lobbying firm because these are eminent scholars.
L: Glen is highly regarded, but quite ideologically committed. I’m not a sociologist, but I think he’s highly regarded.
P: “Progressive Policy Institute.” As we will see, a large body of evidence shows that in the aggregate intact two parent family is best suited to raising children.” Agree?
L: It depends. Children raised by two hetero parents than with single parent of hetero.
P: Sarah McLanahan wrote the next article.
L: Familiar with study, based on very large data set. Know and respect McLanahan.
P: Children who grow up in household do better with both parents than with one bio parent.
L: Accurate summary of different family configurations for children of heteros.
P: Adolescent Well Being of Children of Single Parent Families, by Kathy Lamb, no relation to our Lamb.
L: 13,000 was sample size of whole of that sample. Not that many in step families.
P: Adolescents do better when child is bio offspring of both parents in a hetero family.
L: All research gives same conclusion.
P: Sarah McLanahan and Cynthia Harbor: Father Absence in Youth Incarceration.
Results from longitudinal event history analysis, sizable portion of risk of father absence could yield early motherhood, etc. Prison highest risk. Highest risk still for prison is stepfather.
L: True, but same qualifications.
P: Another article. Very large sample size.
L: Drawn from large sample size, but small group actually studied.
P: Is that a potential problem?
L: No, just being clear.
P: Another study shows that adolescents do better with two parents.
P: Paul Amato study on Parental Absence and Depression in later life.
Whites and African-American, male and female, score higher on depression scale than single parent families.
P: Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Higher Risk for Teen Pregnancy? (article)
Impact of father absence on early sexual activity and early pregnancy studied in US and NZ, totally of 762 people studied.
Father absence highest risk factor.
L: Interesting one for you to raise. Most recent issue of Child Development brings about one weakness that authors acknowledge because they could not control for genetics. So this study is proven to be wrong.
P: Prevalence and Seriousness of Incestuous Abuse, Stepfathers v. Bio Fathers, by Dianna Russell.
[This is the same thing. They want to scare people to show that gay men are child molesters.]
P: One out of 17 were sexually abused if in stepfather relationship, but 2% in general population.
L: Much more new research. None of it contradicts the conclusion that daughters in stepfather relationships are more often abused than not, but numbers are different.
P: We’re half way home your honor. (It’s noon).
[UPDATE] 12:07 [Now, we’re in gay parenting attack. Hang onto your hats.]
P: No study draws on random sample of all gays and lesbians in US?
L: I’m only interested in those who do have children.
P: But no study that shows ability of gays and lesbians to raise children?
L: I don’t think so.
P: No random sample of children’s adjustment with gay and lesbian parents?
L: You don’t have a random sample when you sample the entire population. We use census data, which is better.
P: Do you know of a study that purports to be random sample of all gays and lesbian parent children?
L: Don’t mean to be argumentative, but we have one that is all gays and lesbians raising children so it’s not a sample, it’s a population analysis. There’s another study of lesbian mothers which is a sample.
P: Do you know the number of same sex male couples that have children?
L: I think around 20%, but not sure.
P: APA policy statement on sexual orientation parents and children. Many lesbians and gay men are parents. In 2000, at least 20% of male same sex couples reported a child under 18.
P: Most of studies focus on lesbian mothers, not gay fathers.
L: Yes. Gay fathers more difficult to locate.
P: Lesbians tend to better off than average?
L: I don’t know about that.
P: Who’s Gay Community…from Sociological Quarterly, pg. 454.
[Prop 8 is going after the idea that there is not enough data to know if gay fathers are good at being fathers. And not enough data about lesser income lesbians.]
P: If the ability to mobilize is one of the incentives for identification, than the individuals we observed from invisible groups likely to be more politically active. Thus it’s self-selecting because sorts of individuals who come forward are activists.
L: I have no idea about this literature. It has nothing to do with my field of studying children. Yes, people who choose to have children in these relationships are more likely to identify themselves.
(Prop. 8 is trying to prove that the people who were studied are self-selecting wealthier folks who do not represent the entire population of gay and lesbian parents.)
[Broke for lunch until 1:00PM at 1210.]
Boutrous (plaintiff’s lawyer): Mr. Thompson said that witnesses were withdrawn because of the cameras. In fact, they withdrew them after the Supreme Court issued the temporary stay. We predicted in the pre-trial that they would withdraw because they could not withstand cross.
Thompson (defense lawyer): We in our papers explained that witnesses were concerned. Boutrous exacerbated situation when on Monday he insisted on having taping continue.
Cross-exam of Dr. Michael Lamb continues…
Judge: Why do adoptive children seek out their biological parents? Just asking as a layperson.
L: Because people want to understand literally where they came from. Does not relate to maladjustment.
Judge: NO relation to antisocial behavior?
Judge: No reason to protect children from lesbians and gays. We’ve all read the reports of priestly abuse in Catholic Church. How do you square your statement with that?
Data show that individuals who have same sex orientation are no more likely to abuse children than heteros. They do abuse children just as heteros due. Not familiar with church issues completely, but know that in Ireland huge report that heteros in the church abused children. I don’t want to convey the fact that homos never abuse children; no more likely than heteros.
Judge: Any study? Focused on the children more than the individuals who are thought to be the abusers?
T: Why is it that if genetic connection is not important couples go through in vitro expense rather than adopt?
L: Some people do find this genetic connection important, but data that children created in any way are equally likely to be “normal.” The children are what they are.
T: Research on gay fathers has been conducted with homogeneous groups?
L: Not sure about term homogenous in this context.
T: Fourth edition of role of Father in Family Development 2004. Charlotte Patterson wrote a chapter called Gay Fathers, whom L holds in high regard.
T: Samples of gay fathers have been mainly Caucasian, affluent, in urban centers. Although the evidence suggests that gay men are more likely to live in urban centers, cannot conclude that this is all accurate. For conclusion, caution is required because it’s new area of research.
L: True at time in 2002. I am starting a study of my own on gay male parenting in UK and want to do so in US. Want to match as many issues as you can, including nature of parents’ prior relationship.
T: Most do not do that?
L: Some do. Some don’t.
T: Combined income of $100,000 with one child, and second with $100,000 with ten children, resources available to children different. You’ll try to control for that in your study?
L: Yes. No studies on which I would rely have no control groups.
T: Do you have any data on parental age and how it matters?
L: What would be important would not to mix teen parents with mature parents and likewise not to mix when older people have children? Not linearly related to parenting.
T: You’ll ask in your study if parents are sexually exclusive?
L: Nature of relationship between parents important. To the extent that sexual exclusivity is important to consider, we might study this. As I told you at depo, we might look at this. True of both homo and hetero couples in terms of study.
T: Many of the studies on which you rely are single time snapshots?
L: Some do. UK study will include those adopted at birth.
T: Ed background, income available, relate to parenting. Important to consider?
T: Most of yours deal with white middle class lesbians?
L: Some do, yes. Reason we don’t have control is we did not need for studies.
T: Average better to have two parents?
L: Average, yes.
T: But your studies compare lesbians to single mothers?
L: Some do, but some don’t.
T: Kids of lesbians only do as well as single mom family?
L: Some do. Large body of work. Missing the point. Look at level of adequate schooling, etc.
T: Many are of young children so not enough data?
L: Some and some look to GPA.
T: none of studies look at difficulty of schools or difficulty of course work? Would want to compare native intelligence to attainment?
L: Nice if you can, but hard to get to it?
T: Not one single study that has tried to compare these children’s’ educational attainment and native intelligence?
T: Do not hold constant in studies for number of siblings even though sibling is a good thing?
T: You don’t compare community college v. Cambridge for kids? Not one study compares financial resources grandparents make available?
L: Not financial resources, no. But resources of grandparents are taken into account.
T: We’re looking at hundreds of studies you’ve done children of gay parents. None takes into account grandparents’ financial capacity to help kids?
L: Not none.
T: Lots of researchers have shown that depression can indirectly affect children (referencing Dr. Meyer’s testimony about how LGBs can get depressed from too much social stigma).
L: Depression of parents can indirectly affect kids.
T: Talking about witness from Canada same-sex marriage “battle” and a guy who is “unfortunately deceased at the present.” [That’s his construction; unfortunately, he’s deceased at the present.]
T: Would you agree that coming to a settled definition of homosexuality is important to doing effective research on this issue?
L: Neither me nor Knox is an expert on these definitions. We do research on same-sex oriented v. opposite-sex oriented.
T: It is necessary to use those correlational data…
L: Need to use multiple techniques to learn.
T: Page 18 of Knock (Knox?) affidavit. Agree that researcher must ID how info is to be obtained from sample?
T: Before gathering a single datum from a sample must first translate concepts of what is to be measured. (Line of questions to say that a moveable definition of homosexuality is key and without same, none of this research matters.)
Althea Nagi (?) and Lerner reached conclusion that same-sex parenting literature not sufficient to draw conclusions about same sex parenting skills.
L: Yes, they drew that conclusion ten years ago.
T: Walter Shum of Kansas State Univ: What was really learned from Golubmach/Tasker?
L: I did see it. He has published in journals in which you have to pay to get published, so I see it in that light.
T: You have “squared off” against him before?
L: I have seen him in trials, yes. Always useful for researchers to exercise caution (in response to Shum saying the body of work is too small as are samples of gay fathers.)
T: “One relatively new line of inquiry is the dev and adjustment of children living with parents of LGB parents.” “The persistent limitation of these studies is that most rely upon white middle class previously married lesbians and their children. As a result we cannot be confident of the generalizability of the findings.”
L: You would have to be careful if you were relying on a small group of individuals to do research.
T: “Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter” by Dr. Julia Stacy at USC.
L: Familiar with her work. Not sure she is advocate of ss marriage.
T: Reads from her writing. “However on other measures such as occupational goals and sartorial style, they (children of lesbians) find more gender conformity.” [T now realizes that he goofed and wants to read more.]
L: On some measures such as play preferences and hostility.
T: “Minuscule sample” can be too restrictive. [This is footnote. Trying to make point that not enough data for any of what L does is useful.]
T: Virginia Schiller of Yale writes in very last sentence, “Given that opponents make egregious statements about children of g & l, are we justified in lower scientific standards in medical community?” Is this okay?
L: I don’t know of such lower standards in any studies.
T: You don’t know of bias previously against GL?
L: I had understood you wanted me to comment on that statement above?
T: That’s okay. Let’s move on.
T: You “ignored” a study.
L: This study is a complete outlier of the research. By own admission, problems with its methodology. (Study compares childhood outcomes.)
T: This study has the largest sample ever?
L: This one has 58 children of lesbian mothers. Two control groups. Not by a long shot the largest sample for study. [L knows much more about the studies than the lawyer, which is embarrassing the lawyer. He keeps on moving because he is looking for ways to discredit Lamb which is just not working.]
T: You agree that setting limits for children is important?
Judge: That’s not the only area in which setting limits are important.
T: I’m going to try to show that L does not compare with married heteros. Compares with all hetero parents, including those who are not married.
Judge: He’s your witness; ask him.
L: Did not exclude people who were not married in the hetero group.
T: You just don’t know how many of these studies compare bio same sex couples with lesbian couples?
L: Compare bio parent-raised kids with lesbian couples, not necessarily just married couples to lesbians.
[Lots of this. Going on and on to make clear that there is not control group of married bio parents. L says we did not exclude people who were not married with bio children.]
T: Five of 38 rated children, 17%, shown with psych disorder lesbians compared with 12 of 104 or 9% of hetero couples.
L: No. Read preceding sentence. Difference is not large enough because it’s not statistically different.
T: Keeps pushing to say that it’s 50% greater for homos, but it’s not statistically significant because sample size is so small. Lamb keeps saying it’s not statistically significant.
Thomas goes through every single study to show that heteros in samples include all heteros, not just married.
L: I have not gone through all of these, but I think we did not exclude people who were not married. However, most were married, especially in the early studies.
T: Wants to have him look at a mathematical formulation on cognitive competence.
L: Appears true that cognitive competence of married parents’ kids is higher than lesbians in this study.
[Thomas is sort of proving our point, namely if gays and lesbians could marry and live equally with heteros, kids would all do equally well. If there is no stigma, than kids will do well.]
[UDATE] 2:12 Judge: Isn’t this going to be the same for all documents?
T: (Waiving hands) We’re trying to show that optimal way to raise kids is in hetero households.
Judge: We are trying a case. There is a way to ask these questions so we move along quickly. Why not just list documents and ask questions at end?
T: Good suggestion.
[Series of these]
[Delay because they are marking up documents on all of this.]
Finally on redirect of Dr. Michael Lamb.
G: Do you need a break?
L: See the end in sight. My eye is on the door.
G: Let’s get in a time machine and go back from before that cross all the way back to when you first said that kids are better off with a father, back before I was born.
[LOTS OF LAUGHTER]
Judge: (Laughing) He’s your witness!
G: Has fatherless family term ever included lesbian mothers?
L: Some, because we want to see what happens without men, but in main it’s children being raised by hetero women without hetero father/man.
G: Conclusions about lesbians based on these fatherless studies?
L: Studies provide one way to see how kids do without male figure? Cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever on fatherless family studies as they relate to lesbian mother families.
G: Any conclusions to draw from divorce studies re: g and l families?
L: No. Not looking at sexuality of parents.
G: Who is Dr. Marks?
L: Expert on other side.
G: Did you review Dr. Marks’s depo? May I play clip?
Prop. 8 objects to it being in evidence but not to it being played.
[Video of handsome, dark haired guy in white shirt with tie.]
“Married lesbian couple that adopted child after birth. No bio connection. Like hetero family, need separate category and I did not use that this in my report.”
G: Do you agree?
G: In course of T’s examination of you, you mentioned study by Rosenfeld.
L: Important because it’s only study we have, compares all children in country with respect to family environment in which reared. Couple of thousand children raised by lesbian, couple of thousand gay couples, compared with hetero couples against index of kids being held back at school. Shows no difference whatsoever among kids.
G: Is a sample based on US census of adequate size?
G: Why need to maintain as control group for gay and lesbians as heteros raising kids.
L: Unmarried and married in all groups (debunks completely Thomas’s idea that you have to use married hetero couples compared with g and l couples vs. all who have kids.)
L: Children adopted into two-parent family often included with children bio parents. Would include some of parents who have no genetic relationship to child.
[UPDATE] 3:10 Longer clip:
Prof. Marks again. Lawyer reads to him “teens living with both bio parents significantly less likely to use illicit drugs, alcohol and tobacco. “both bio parents.” Why?
M: Going to point that bio is important in marriage.
Lawyer reads out: Data from National Council on Drug Abuse, teens living with both bio parents are less likely to abuse than parents.
M: I don’t know if researchers use term bio parents in same way as I do, but there are always exception.
Lawyer: If researchers in this report define bio parents differently from authority they cite, wouldn’t that mean their conclusions are not correct?
M: Yes, I’d say that’s a mistake then.
[The video is erratic up here. Maybe Rush got hold of the signal. The sound is scratchy and the video in and out, but we can here and this guy does not have a leg to stand on.]
Lawyer: What is Johnson’s (researcher’s) conclusion in this study 1996 study?
M: Don’t recall.
Lawyer: Most studies do not distinguish between bio and adoptive families. Did you read footnote before signing report?
M: I don’t recall reading that report.
M: I will delete the word biological from my definitions.
G: Was Marks correct to withdraw his emphasis on the word bio?
L: Yes, he was. The word biological is not supported in this context.
G: Take judicial notice.
T: We object to taking notice without report in totality.
Judge: We’ll take it up when we get to evidentiary admission phase. What I’d like right now is the page and line.
G: Right now?
Judge: Of course not!
G: Fatherless in America—Blankenhorn’s book.
L: Concerned that Mr. Blankenhorn had not properly used gender. Confused issues of correlation and causality. Misrepresented data and studies available of that time.
L: Reads excerpt from review of book: “Blankenhorn’s tendency to paint alternative visions in absurd or ridiculous terms in order facilitate his dismissal of them undermines his own conclusions.”
L: Not a favorable review. (Laughter).
[This undoes Mr. Thompson’s effort to say that L favorably reviewed Blankenhorn’s book.]
G: Anything else you wanted to say about Seranticos study that T brought up with you?
L: Key problem is noted by Seranticos himself. Groups of two hetero and two same-sex parent groups not appropriate. Children had experienced parents’ divorce and moved home and all factors that affect their adjustment as well. In many ways more illustrative of effects of divorce than on same sex parents. All of data gathered by interviewing teachers. Seranticos acknowledges that teachers had homophobic views which biased their reports. Finally, not good ways of getting study samples. While results are out of step with rest of research literature, understanding context makes clear why results are outliers. Results have never been duplicated. Expect to find local variations with large body of literature. No other study shows same results of Seranticos. Published in Children Australia. I don’t think it’s peer reviewed, not on electronic data bases that appear in my field. None of my colleagues have never cited this study and have same concerns about study that I do.
L: The hundred or so studies I have cited and used in my work show consistency in the healthy raising of kids. Also consistent with other research. Children of conflictual lesbian parents are less well adjusted than children of conflictual hetero families. So data are consistent. Having a gay or lesbian parent does not make children more likely to be mal adjusted than children of hetero parents.
L: I think that I feel comfortable opining about gay parent children because we look at totality of research. We can see that gender or sexual orientation of children not important. Growing number of studies that look directly at children raised by gay parents. Overall body makes confident that children raised by gay fathers and lesbian mothers and hetero parents all similar.
G: At outset of cross, Mr. Thompson said you are a member of ACLU, NAACP, Nature Conservancy, and even PBS. Did CPB influence your opinion in this case? Did anything other than your own findings guide you?
3:00PM Totally unimpeached and unflapped, Lamb steps down.
[UPDATE] 3:18 Prop. 8 opposed to having witness author Helen Zia. Think we just want to put her up to counter Dr. Tam. She’ll only testify regarding messaging and her own feelings about discrimination.
Danny Chu: (City Attorney) She will testify to her own discrimination experiences during Prop. 8 and how it affects city of SF.
Prop. 8: We’ve had four experts on this. For one person to come off the street to speak is cumulative. Her opinion is not probative and she is not an expert. Her experience with same sex marriage is not probative.
Danny Chu: She has actually gotten married. She demonstrates that marriage does change things for people. She’s the only in the case who has gotten married. That’s the point of this whole case.
Prop. 8: That kind of testimony is for experts. Need to provide sample size. One single person cannot do.
Judge: One advantage of a bench trial is that evidence can be submitted and weighed. Defendant-interveners have made point that it’s not weighty. It does appear that witness can speak to issues relevant. I’ll allow witness to testify and decide how much weight to give. She’s being offered on issues overall pertinent.
[Once again Prop. 8 wants to stop stories and the truth from getting out.]
Z: 57, from NJ, in CA 18 years five sibs, four alive, mom in bay area. JFK HS in NJ. College at Princeton. Graduated with Bachelors of Arts. Honorary Doctor Laws from CUNY School of Law. Writer. Written two books and edited a bunch. “Asian American Dreams: Emergence of an American People” about Asian Americans and civil rights trials and tribs over last forty years. “MY Country Vs. Me” about Wen Ho Lee who was falsely accused of spying at Los Alamos for PRC. I co-wrote. Was exec editor for Ms.
C: Lesbian all my life.
C: When did you come out?
Z: Coming out is process. Lots of ways to describe. First became aware might be lesbian in college when I first learned term lesbian. Look back now and see clear signs of what team I was on at 6 or 7 (laughter).
Z: 6, or 7 or 8, at school, neighbor lady asked me what I wanted to do when grow up? Want to get married when grow up? No, I don’t want to get married. Lady was very surprised. Here I was little girl and didn’t ‘t want to get married. Could not imagine getting married to a man. Not in my worldview or imagination.
C: When did you come out?
Z: I guess clearest way to say was had first relationship with woman in 1980s, twelve years after college.
C: Why did it take so long?
Z: There were many social pressures to …
[READ THIS. Just do.]
Z: Well society did not want me to come out. I had a lesbian trial. I went to med school, but for a time was community organizer like our president. Trying to help get women into construction trades. One day, called to meeting and all of my friends in movement asked me to sit down in middle of semi-circle they had formed. Was also involved in work in women’s movement.
“We’ve noticed that you seem to be working with a lot of women and lesbians. In our community of color, Asian community, we don’t have lesbians, homosexuals. We would not want to have a homosexual work with us because homosexual said homosexuality is petty, white bourgeois. African American woman said same. If you are homo, we don’t want you. So Helen tell us, are you a lesbian?
“I was about 23 then. Looked at people I trusted who said that. I knew lesbians. I knew that I had attractions to women, didn’t have girlfriend, didn’t have membership card, toaster over saying welcome to lesbianism. So I said no, I’m not.
“Meeting disbanded. Trial over. I had stepped into the closet and slammed the door.
“I got the message very clearly that I thought I was not a lesbian. Work in women’s movement. Lesbian not okay. Stopped seeing all of my friends in women’s movement in Boston. Stopped all contact. Really did shut the door.
[I’m about to cry again. That thing my stomach, ‘cause I did this too.]
“Kept diaries. Had written down thoughts that maybe I’m a lesbian. I find so and so attractive. I have these feelings. After trial, I was going to leave Boston for Michigan and I was going to drive. Worried that I’d get into accident and someone would see that I thought I might be a lesbian, so I burned my diaries in a construction fire.
“Was discriminated against. Was invited to give speech in early 1990s at Notre Dame where lots of anti-gay stuff going on (in country, too). Person who invited me asked if I would say anything about being a lesbian? Well I said now that you have asked, I might. So she rescinded invitation.
“When I was delivering a lecture in NY area, I have cousin out there. Interested in books I had written. Came to my lecture. Talked about discrimination people of color give toward lesbians. Small part of my talk. Tried to talk to him. Won’t talk to me at all now.
“I feel constantly aware that my sexual orientation could for whatever reason provoke violence toward me or my loved ones. As I walk through life, especially when with my wife, I feel very aware of whether we hold hands in public, show affection. My wife is very affectionate. There are times at movie or other times when Leah wants to show affection and I push her away and say look where we are. Even in my own neighborhood I feel fear.
[I’m truly having the tear thing now. Have you felt this? I have and do, even here in this courtroom now. My partner is a few feet away, but should I kiss him here? Of courses, but I feel self-conscious.]
“Prop. 8 messages were that I am an abomination, that my relationship to Leah is wrong. When we were out on street on Oakland working to get no votes, people would come up to me and say, excuse my language Your Honor, “you fucking dyke.” To read the literature of the Yes side and see that my marriage to Leah would cause the end of the human race, lead to bestiality, more polygamy. People would look at our literature and say, “No more people. You end human race.”
“Said essentially we are so offensive, we are not worthy of same rights of every hetero to be married, that we’d end human race. What do you do when someone is going to end human race, harm your children, what do you want to do? You want to stamp them out. It all made me feel endangered.
Helen Zia’s emotionally powerful testimony continues.
Zia Reads from Prop. 8 website:
Homosexuality linked to pedophilia. Studies show that homo is linked to pedophilia…link to more (from a Prop. 8 website).
Lawyer: You found this hurtful?
L: I’d like to move this into evidence
Prop. 8 Lawyer: No indication that this is official Protect Marriage document.
Judge: YOU made a 403 objection; I’ll reserve until your cross.
Z: Leah Shigimura is my soul mate in life. I love her. She’s the person I want to spend the rest of my life with. She’s the most important person to me. Met her in 1982 (I think). Both involved in civil rights effort around hate crime against Detroit man Vincent Chin. I lived in Detroit, but we met here in SF. We started dating many years later.
Z: I moved from NY (where I was living at the time). I was well entrenched in my journalism career. Was Exec Editor of Ms. and would have been Editor in Chief. Then I met Leah. Had always wanted to be editor of Ms. Met Leah and left NY and the East Coast and the job I had always wanted.
Z: Registered as domestic partners first in SF in 1993 shortly after I moved here to be with Leah. We were excited to register as DPs. Anti-climactic. Went to window where they issue dog licenses. Walked away with little certificate like kid gets for perfect attendance. Framed it, but did not feel like much. Did not send out notices to friends, no party.
Z: 2003, when state DP available, we registered again. No dog license window this time. Downloaded form signed and mailed. Got form back in mail. Not anything to write home about.
Z: Got married President’s Day weekend 2004 when first possible in SF. First did not think it was real. Thought about it. Wanted family around. Dad and Mom elderly. Would have to stand in rain for eight hours. Mother called. Said you and Leah can get married. That was Mom, so okay.
Z: Had friends who worked in SF recorder’s office who were in charge of processing marriage licenses. Wanted volunteers to help process thousands of requests. We both know how to type and file. Came in on Monday, Pres. Day. Office kept open through volunteers. Worked eight hours. Line around block. I was ahead of Leah in process and my part of work was done. I looked at Leah and said should I type out an application for us? Would you marry me? “ Leah, “I can’t talk now. I’m busy filing these things.” While she was busy, I filled form and took it to her. Here’s the marriage license; would you marry me?
Z: She said, okay.
Z: We were last. We got witnesses and had JP ceremony.
Z: We celebrated after we had our marriage license and were married. Then we started to talk about celebration. Wanted to have big wedding reception like every other couple would have.
[Teddy from FDL sitting across from me just did what I want to do: he burst into tears.]
Z: Picked August 20 as date. Sent invitations to 200+ people. About 150 came. Our loving wonderful supportive families came from all over, form Leah’s Hawaii to my NY/NJ. Came to our marriage, our wedding party, ceremony. Leah’s dad was 86. Retired judge in state of HI. He came, brought judge’s robes. Was going to officiate with affirmation ceremony at wedding banquet.
Z: Our marriage was invalidated a week before our wedding reception. We felt sad. We grieved. Marriage that had brought us so much joy was invalidated. Our relationship was invalidated. We felt pretty awful.
Z: We got married in June 2008 as soon as opportunity became available.
Z: Getting married has changed so many multitudes of ways, tangible and intangible. Still discovering ways. Mostly changed with family. Niece only has known us Aunty and Aunty. At 16, came to wedding party.
Z: She said after wedding, “Aunty Leah, now you are really my Aunty.” I was surprised because she had always and only known her as Aunty. Made a difference to how our parents related to each other. Work engagements. “Who is this person who is hanging onto you awfully close?” “She’s my partner? Partner in what business.” “Partner in life.” Looked to see if they got it. Some thought, “What business is life? DO you mean life insurance?”
Z: With my Chinese-born grandmother, she always said Leah must be a good friend because she has been around for seventeen years at all of this family stuff. When we got married, Grandma got it. She said, ‘oh, this is your wife.’
Z: You don’t insult someone’s wife. Our families relate to each other differently. Our families are in laws to each other now. After we got married, Leah’s father would stop by my brother’s house (in HI) and give him fruit from yard. Never did that for 15 years before we got married.
Z: Extended families are stronger.
[The point is that family is good. It makes America stronger. I hope everyone gets this. Everyone.]
Z: Leah’s father died in hospice about two months ago. Her father explained to nurses that Leah is my daughter and this is my favorite daughter in law. Leah said “he said daughter in law.” I said, “He said favorite.”
Z: When obituary is written and who sits where in mortuary, immediate family sits together. No question I was Leah’s wife. I was her spouse. I was right there, in first row with family. I had my responsibilities with family.
[Cross now begins. Big Binders.]
Crossing Ms. Zia
Prop 8 (P): Look at document where it says …
Z: “Californians have said twice to keep marriage between one man and one woman.”
P: Twice, once Prop. 22. Do you recall being involved in case?
Z: Yes. (Did not recall Prop. 22, but remembered case).
P: Remember that people passed Prop. 8.
Z: I’m not sure everyone knew what they are were voting for.
P: This document says twice people voted, but you say you saw this document prior to people voting second time.
[Object, but has wrong document. Judge, you may proceed.]
Z: I said I saw website. Possible website changed.
Judge: Moving as evidence?
P: No. When did you see document 2199?
Z: This actual piece of paper?
P: When when did you first see it?
Z: Seen on website prior to election. Saw doc printed on paper this week.
P: Nothing that says it’s in support of 8?
Z: This document is all about the point of Prop. 8.
P: Nothing in this document says Prop. 8?
Z: Does not say Prop. 8.
P: Nothing in document that says from Protect Marriage? Nothing that tells how many people viewed?
Z: No. Don’t know who wrote or how often it was viewed, but you can check website for page views.
P: Object to admission.
Judge; You saw during election?
Judge: Very well, document will be admitted.
P: You’ve written about things for the homosexual community? Advocated by perceived gender and sexual orientation?
Z: Yes and hate crimes.
P: Member of API Equality? [Reads out purpose]
P: Prior to Nov. 2008, that organization held press conference opposing Prop. 8. Distributed flyers opposing Prop. 8. You attended rallies.
P: you are advisor to Horizon Foundation? Events by EQCA, LAMBDA , NCLR, HRC, ACLU. Donated money to LAMBDA, NCLR, ACLU. So you are member of ACLU?
Z: Yes, but status with ACLU lapsed.
P: Member of Courage Campaign?
Z: I don’t believe so.
P: Did you write that Asian American queer activists do not allow agree on what stands to take on marriage?” “Some gay rights activists fighting for gay rights marriage is too petit bourgeois, too patriarchical, too many bad things for which marriage stands.” You wrote that?
P: Your marriage did not affect your view of marriage as a patriarchal institution. Married Ms. Shigimura because you wanted to express your defiance of the war mongering, hate filled machine in Washington.
Z” That sounds like something I would write.
P: goes through all that happened at marriage banquet. Traditional bonsai toast, wedding banquet in Chinese tradition. You state that this wedding party brought our families together. Quotes writing from “Where Queer Zone Meets Asian Zone” about how great it was for families. So even though your license from Newsom was invalidated your families recognized you as married.
Z: Everyone there knew there was a cloud over it because a week before we heard in the news that our license was no longer valid. Even Leah’s father, the judge, said that courts sometimes make mistakes and then he went ahead with vows.
[This room has about 50 in it. Everyone is on the edge of their seats for this.]
Chu: When Mr. Rahm interrupted you, do you want to finish?
Z: Difference between night and day having marriage certificate than DP. Suddenly within those six months between time we were married to time invalidated, we had taste of being out of closet, of not being on back of bus. We tasted freedom. Our families related together quite differently. For brief moment in time, we experienced equality. We could go to fountain that was not for G and L only and we tasted water there and it was sweeter there. Our families came together in ways DP could not.
Judge: On eve of three day weekend, which I trust you all will enjoy. Any other matters?
T: Courts ECF system is going down for weekend? Is there an email address for the court?
Judge: I’ll ask clerk.
Clerk: Email also down.
Judge: I would suggest you spend a restful weekend.
Judge: Very well. 0830 Tuesday morning.