Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 5: Part I

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

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?

L: Yes.

[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?

L: Yes.

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.

Tags: ,

87 Comments

  • 1. James Parmley  |  January 15, 2010 at 1:52 am

    God Damn!!! I had a suspicion it was going to happen!

  • 2. Rebecca  |  January 15, 2010 at 1:52 am

    My heart drops every time there is a delay. I have learned so much from this trial and while I live in Massachusetts, it is my hope that marriage equality will be available to ALL at the federal level.

    Thanks for all of your efforts. Keep fighting the good fight.

  • 3. SherylC  |  January 15, 2010 at 1:53 am

    Do we have anyone in the actual courtroom who can let us (or you) know what's going on during times like these? Even if it's only during a recess or after the day's session?

    Makes me nervous every time this happens.

  • 4. Patrick Regan  |  January 15, 2010 at 1:54 am

    Damn… I hope it's just a technical difficulty. That way I know the judge hasn't sided with the fundies.

  • 5. Nicki  |  January 15, 2010 at 1:56 am

    me too James , not liking this at all, and call for the peeps in SF to demonstrate if they shut down the overflow room. This is dispicable ! pause breath reflect ..as Shark Fu would say.

  • 6. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 1:57 am

    I was worried there might not be the live blog here today, but many thanks to Rick and all who have been a part of this trial.

  • 7. Nicki  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:01 am

    All the bloggers it appears to me are in the overflow room , CC and FDL – they go to great lengths to get a seat. And do the best they can in transcribing a feed from the actual courtroom. Yesterday they the civil servants came in to overflow room and asked if any media was there . First Amendment anyone ? INAL but i object dammit !

    Olsen and Boise ought to move for a mistrial , if this can't be open to the public. Its a trial, not a Secret Grand Jury Proceeding. And the bottom line for me is that this Trial is all about public opinion of lgbtQ,

  • 8. Carl  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:03 am

    Thank you so much for doing this. I miss SF and wish I could be there especially now but am glad that after moving, I can still feel connected through your posts.

    I'm happy we're taking the higher road in all these bigoted arguments. It's not just about taxes and visitation rights, it's about being completely equal in the eyes of every citizen.

    Even if I have the same rights on paper, I still feel like I'm being denied something essential – an ideal. I feel without this, we as gay people will always be second class citizens. Maybe it's because all the movies glamorize love and marriage as being part of the same package that it is something that I want for myself. But then again while growing up, it wasn't prominent in the media that being gay in public is okay, is normal – because it isn't. It's not the norm because we still aren't able to have gay marriage in our legislation. Without that, we still won't be able to fully be free to love in public without others' scorn.

    I feel we need gay marriage not just to be equal in love, but to show the next generation of questioning gay youth that it is normal to be gay. I grew up with a gay uncle and cousin but it still took a while for all of us to be open and out. Even me, who even knowing it was okay in my family, still found it hard to be okay with myself. I felt weird whenever I saw two guys in public being affectionate. I want the next generation to have an easier time being out in middle school or high school, have an open relationship – or maybe just out to the extent of it not being an issue to dwell over in life. I want that for the future, to ease the process that was relatively painful and stressful for me in the past. Sure, I've considered the whole coming-out process a rite of passage – through it, I discovered strength and individuality – but I don't think we ever want our friends or kids to be in pain.

  • 9. n c  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:03 am

    I can't believe that something this important is now completley being blocked. I'm hoping its only because of these documents.
    On another note- How can they say domestic partnership carries the same benefits as "marriage benefits". When someone is married to another from a different country they can't sponsor their spouse…hm BIG DIFFERENCE in that alone.

  • 10. Nicki  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:03 am

    okie dokie all systems are GO – yay team. sealed documents ..ok.

  • 11. Natalie  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:08 am

    Is there anybody there for the defense that Protect Marriage could use as justification for no-cameras, any of the people who've said that they're afraid of reprisals?

    It's absurd that there even needs to be a trial; it's basic human rights. Best of luck to everybody involved, be it blogging, testifying, etc.

  • 12. Natalie  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:08 am

    Oops, I took too long writing that; ignore the camera part.

  • 13. Tiffany  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:08 am

    GOOD!

  • 14. Nicki  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:11 am

    Carl that was so beautifully said. It made me cry.

  • 15. Nick  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:14 am

    It's good to be back-I think we are back….:-) Sealed documents-what else is being hidden…?

  • 16. ron  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:14 am

    Unfortuniatly this all feels like trying to see or hear about a trial in China or North Korea. Is this open Justice at work in the US?

  • 17. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Well, at least this guy has impecable qualifications, but then all of those testifying have!

  • 18. Sheryl Carver  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:23 am

    I think you're right about there not being bloggers in the actual courtroom, Nicki. I was thinking more along the lines of an observer that Rick might be able to talk to during a break. Of course, if everyone is kicked out except the lawyers, that's different.

  • 19. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:25 am

    I love what I heard on the GoodAsYou tweets about how Lamb is saying this is all basic stuff taught in developmental psychology classes.

    I'd like to add that I heard about it in my INTRO Psych class, my Social Psych class, my Physiological Psych class, and my Psych of Women class (along with a beautiful SCIAM article I truly hope they bring up in this debate proving that LGBT is in part a brain-developmental product. Gay man's brain = similar to female's brain in some areas. Lesibian woman's brain = similar to man's brain in some areas. This simple piece of data would destroy their entire argument and I'm pretty sure SCIAM is respected by all sides (pfft….who am I kidding, they don't trust the APA)

  • 20. Grant  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:26 am

    Yes on 8 stole their logo from Jewish Family Services. You can see JFS logo at: http://www.jfsla.org

  • 21. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:31 am

    Sounds like one of those legal beagle things that they do during the commercials on "Law & Order" so we never see it… ;)

  • 22. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Wow Grant, amazing! What hypocrites!

  • 23. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Haven't studies shown that the problems with fatherless children have more to do with poverty (single income mother, often in low-paying job) than with the actual absence of the male parent? That would not be the case in a secure same-sex relationship. I was raised by a single mother from the age of 11 onward, and I'm tired of hearing that I was supposed to turn out like a piece of crap…but we were a white family in a middle-class neighborhood, and my mother made more than my dad anyway, plus the Social Security and Veterans' survivor benefits (he was a WWII vet) brought our family income close to what it was when Dad was still around anyway.

  • 24. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Indeed, this is GONNA be SWEET

  • 25. ron  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:37 am

    We are Fighting the group that burned witches

  • 26. Kate G  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:38 am

    Is there a way to send all of the plaintiffs & their lawyers mail? I'd love to thank them for the amazing job they're doing. This laywer is doing a great job exposing what the defense might call "holes" in the case and then systematically sealing them up with fact. I'm so grateful that all of this is happening.

  • 27. Warren  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:38 am

    Yes, and the child of a same sex couple today would not necessarily receive those SS and veteran's benefits because the parent entitled to them is a legal stranger to the other parent!

  • 28. Nick  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:38 am

    That is great-now that should go to the lawyers as well…very good research, thanks for sharing!

  • 29. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:39 am

    I've been raised by a single mother with the help of my grandma from the day I was born, I've barely spent 7 days worth of my life with my father at age 21. And I'm counting that in hours, not events, if it was events it'd be far lower. I've turned out just fine….moderately depressed but that's because of other issues, otherwise fine.

  • 30. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Correction: we are fighting a group who accused people of being witches, pushed them off a cliff with a rock, and if they died, woops. If they lived/knew how to swim, THEN they were burned.

    Sounds far stupider that way, ne? ^^

  • 31. Sergio  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:43 am

    All of the testimonies up on till now have been from our side, right? I want to to see what the defendants are going to bring into the table :P

    Thanks for the hard work guys!! :)

  • 32. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:43 am

    I agree I am hoping that at the end of this trial – there will be someway we can send them our thanks!

  • 33. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:43 am

    Here we go, they're starting to use the old Pre DSM-II (or is it III at that point) study about the "Gender Disorientation" bullshit. Time for Psychology to make amends for that one by knocking this out of the ballpark once and for all! GOOOO LAMB! Cite that evidence that's been around for over 30 years!!!!!!

  • 34. Matt in Seattle  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:44 am

    And after a quick search on the JFS website I discovered:

    JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF LOS ANGELES OPPOSES CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8
    http://www.jfsla.org/index.php?/news/details/jewi

    Maybe the good people at the JFS need to send a cease and desist letter to the folks at ProtectMarriage

  • 35. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:44 am

    Well, the child would still receive them (the surviving partner would have to be designated as legal guardian) until age 18, or 22 if they're a full-time college student; the surviving partner would not receive any widow's benefits (which my mom didn't get anyway since she was making too much money on her job). This was back in 1970, when my dad died of a heart attack at the age of 47.

  • 36. ron  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:45 am

    Bry-Thanks for correction

  • 37. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:47 am

    Hang in there, Bry — I think anyone who's aware of what's really happening in this crazy-ass world we're in can't help but be at least a little bit depressed.

  • 38. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:48 am

    Yes. American Foundation of Equal rights has the witness list from our side with info on our Lawyers. Look for Witness list.

  • 39. Warren  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:49 am

    This is the testimony on which the case could turn. Lamb is the world expert on child development. He is able to show that 1) gay parents are at least as good as straight ones if both of them are present, and 2) not allowing children of gay parents to marry is detrimental to the children. This is the main reason the other side has put forward to justify the rationality of prop 8, that the state has an interest in promoting 2 parent families of opposite sex couples. His testimony says the state's interest is to promote two parent families regardless of their gender. His science is voluminous and overwhelming. On this basis prop 8 should not stand.

    Of course 5 Supremes may disagree, but we now have the ammo in open court and it will likely be key in the dissent, and lower court favorable rulings which will build for a future victory at the supreme court level.

  • 40. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Plaintiff gets to go first — can't think what the other side is going to offer up other than the same old tired arguments and testimony from alleged "Christian" psychologists and such.

  • 41. Jason R  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:50 am

    So Lamb appears to be arguing about stability and effect of parenting on children. Any chance he'll be talking about immutability of sexual orientation? Now I think would be the time to bring that up…

  • 42. Kate G  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Thank you!

  • 43. ET  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:51 am

    Read the initial 'blackout' post and forgot to breathe… just kept thinking 'No, no no, ah HELL no…' repeatedly. Can't TELL you how relieved I was to see the update continue!!

    Oh, yeah…

    *gasps for breath*

  • 44. Kate G  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:51 am

    any word on how the judge is feeling about all this today?

  • 45. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:52 am

    I want to be at the huge party when all of this is over. There should be a fund for that as well! It could be like a huge wedding reception.

  • 46. David Kimble  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:54 am

    I have not had an update, since the 9:17 am I missing something?

  • 47. R_Genesee  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:54 am

    WARREN–
    A slight typo, but we know what you meant by "2) not allowing children of gay parents to marry is detrimental to the children.

    Of course, none of us want to prevent children of gay parents to marry.

    RG

  • 48. Roberta K  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:56 am

    I wasn't too worried — I remembered there were times when I've served on juries that the judge told us to come in a little later or take a longer lunch break because of "court housekeeping" between him and the lawyers. Figured it was something of that nature.

  • 49. Tom W  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Good morning Rick. Settling into my daily refresh, refresh, refresh of the site. Very hard to get work done as I am rivetted by your reports. Have said it before but I'll say it again. Thank you soooooo very much for all you are doing to get the word out. I can't imagine how hard it must be to get all this written down but you are doing a spectacular job. Keep up the awesome work. We all need to buy you dinners and a trip to Hawaii after this is over.

  • 50. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:58 am

    American Foundation for Equal Rights. Look for our Work, Tab- Our Filings
    View All Legal Filings
    Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibit List

    See also Trial Briefs

    Looks really Good. Really Good

    Fingers and Toes Crossed!

  • 51. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 2:59 am

    Your welcome Darling..Winks and Smiles

  • 52. Frank  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Well if for some reason the H8'ers get the feed to the overflow courtroom shut down, maybe the trial can be moved immediately across the street to the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium so that more people can observe. That would be amazing to have thousands of our supporters in the same room.

  • 53. Bill  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:00 am

    You have every right to feel as you do.

    And there quite simply is NOTHING lofty about expecting to be treated as a human being.

  • 54. Benjamin Geiger  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Hanged, not burned, at least in the US. But yeah, the same 'logic' applies.

  • 55. Jim  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Yeah David,

    Me too. They might be having technical issues.

    Try this link. It lacks the personal touch/legal analysis, and is more of a transcript, but the link is still good.
    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/15/live

  • 56. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:02 am

    The Tweet coverge on this is incredible, Lamb is knocking out the "21 Reasons Why Gender Matters" article now, they appear to be trying to say Psychologists are politically biased at this point. Just like I half-predicted above that they would. This ought to be interesting.

  • 57. Calvin  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:03 am

    hahahaha Roberta, I LOVED that comment.

  • 58. De'Angelo  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:04 am

    i am currently a college student who follows EVERY WORD of this blog. I sneak little sections in between classes and sometimes during (when we're not talking about anything important. Keep up the good work guys!

  • 59. Juliette  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:04 am

    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!

    I'm clearly not up on what's going on, but this sounds like really good news. Can someone fill me in please?

  • 60. Jenny  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:06 am

    This testimony is making me angry! I can't believe there are people that believe this crap. I am a straight child of a gay father. Kids at school knew my dad was gay, I was never teased. My dad was never abusive. I had a completely normal childhood. I had friends with married hetero parents who were totally messed up. It makes NO difference!!

  • 61. gskrptr  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:06 am

    Can someone clarify this segment for me….why the segway into abuse? I'm lost?

    “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.”

  • 62. LT  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:07 am

    lol, team hit and hide… precisely! like wimpy bullies being confronted by adults

  • 63. Bry  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:10 am

    "Gender disorientation pathology greatly increases the risk that children will suffer sexual exploitation. It is our duty to protect them.”"

    This is that early 70s DSM-I DSM-II (early) crap about gay = mental illness. I mentioned it above. Gender Disorientation Pathology isn't even a Psychology term, Prentiss made it up. The proper term back then was "Gender Confusion Disorder" or something. It's evolved since then into "Gender Identity Disorder" but it means something entirely different from being GLBT…. Unless I'm getting my facts wrong and it's disappeared entirely. All the same, Gay hasn't = mental disorder since about 1976-1979, over thirty years.

  • 64. Nicki  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:16 am

    their work is such dreck , really even the word psychologist ought to be in quotes too Roberta, That Nicolosi is a QUACK – one quick read and one will see – really these people are neither theological experts, nor psychological experts. They are opinion and religion pushers and abusers of their flocks of sheeple. They are the very reason, lgbtq people, esp children grown or otherwise get literally shunned – shunned to death. cause its better to be right with jeee zus doncha know, than love and learn about one's own child. I have seen this up close and personal.

  • 65. rpx  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:17 am

    FRANCE is logged on and following the action. Last night was a tough one as I kept waiting for the last 15 minutes to display. I cna't remember but I think it was around 3am my time. Hoping for a glitch free day (or in my case night) today.

  • 66. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:22 am

    Is there a typo here?????? The same person said all of these things at once?

    “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.

  • 67. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:23 am

    If children of gay parents are at risk of becoming gay, then how did i turn out gay when both of my parents were hetero?

  • 68. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Is there a typo here?????? The same person said all of these things at once?

    The lawyer was reading from a pamphlet by pro-bigotry crusader Ron Prentice, and then asking Dr. Lamb — someone who is, you know, actually qualified to comment, unlike Prentice — whether Prentice's assertions were supported. I see how it may have been confusing.

  • 69. Ray  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:29 am

    Carol Jennings DESTROYED that argument that homosexuals were more likely to molest children. Her study was done in Denver's Children's hospital where they collected data on ALL children who were admitted because they had been the victim of molestation. Of the 377 cases, ONE of the cases involved a homosexual. Another was not absolutely determined but the perpetrator was identified as a "friend of the father." So, even if you add this second person, that still means less than ONE PERCENT of all sexual abuse as associated with a homosexual. That means that NINETY NINE percent of the perpetrators were heterosexual. And, since gays make up only 3 to 5 percent of the population, there would have to have been at least more than 3 percent of the perpetrators in order to confirm that gays were more likely to molest children.

    That's not the only study that proved that point. The Connecitcut Penal system did basically the same study by surverying what the sexual orientation of ALL incarcerated persons in their system was. The found ZERO homosexuals. So this withness is absolutely dead right on that mark. Nicolosi has a habit of saying that a perpetrator is homosexual IF the perpetrators victimm is of the same sex. He has NEVER attempted to determine the sexual orientation of a perpetrator and some of his data shows that the biological FATHERS of the victims were the perpetrator while liviing in the household with their wifes.

  • 70. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:30 am

    It's almost funny in a way that they use the argument that children of same-sex parents are bullied more because of the stigma of same-sex relationships, therefore same-sex relationships should be further stigmatized.

    Incidentally, for those who don't know, this is the same argument that the Mormon church uses to justify why they didn't allow non-whites to hold the priesthood until 1978. (No, that is not a typo. I know you were thinking 1878, but it really wasn't until the year I was born that LD$ Inc. decided to let blacks be fully equal members.) Anyway, the argument goes: Black men were already dealing with enough problems at that time due to racism, etc., that it would be unfair to give them further responsibility.

    In other words, group A has a tough time because they are stigmatized, therefore we should stigmatize them further.

    (Of course, the real reason that LD$ Inc. was so anti-non-white for so long is because their holy book specifically states that people with non-white skin got that way because their ancestors were wicked. No shit.)

  • 71. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:33 am

    It's the no true Scotsman fallacy. "Well of course anybody who would molest a child must be a homo by definition!"

  • 72. ron  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Ya and if we win you can finally all get married. And my yearly trip to Canada with my spouse will be over.

  • 73. Jane  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:35 am

    Thanks James!!!

    Also, regarding your note about LDS — In South Africa during the Dutch Reformation movement their bible said people of color were born of the devil — hence apartheid started. Over the years apartheid morphed into a black and white thing, but that's not how it started.

  • 74. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Old views disproved but still supported and purported by pro h8ers. They are dismantling all their arguments with a real expert.

  • 75. ron  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:37 am

    So dos LD$ have a test they use to check if any members are gay or do they only suspect unmarried members:)

  • 76. michael  |  January 15, 2010 at 3:40 am

    And the Government should foot the bill!

  • 77. James Sweet  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Well you get a yearly interview with the bishop of your ward from the time you are twelve where he asks if you're gay, if you masturbate, etc. Of course, they use Mormon code: "Have you abused your body at all?" We all knew this meant spanking the monkey, of course.

    Creepy, eh? Luckily for me my sexual orientation happens to be compatible with their bigoted dogma, so I only had to lie about the masturbation part. Still sucked, though… :/ Humiliating, degrading, dehumanizing.

    So even though I know you were kidding — they don't "test" per se, but members are constantly asked about it.

  • 78. Michael Herman  |  January 15, 2010 at 4:22 am

    Here's why the Prop 8 side didn't want this televised- their lies were going to be exposed.

  • 79. Nicole  |  January 15, 2010 at 5:50 am

    Thank you.

  • 80. Hayden  |  January 15, 2010 at 6:28 am

    Your statistics supposes that gay couples are just as likely to have children as heterosexual couples. You can't directly compare the "2-3%" figure like you did.

    Not saying the research proved otherwise, just that you can't simplify it like you did.

  • 81. Timothy Kincaid  |  January 15, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Dr. Joe Nicolosi is not "self-hating". While he is a big proponent of ex-gay therapy, he's not actually an ex-gay himself.

    While Nicolosi is a quack (very little doubt about that) and an egomaniac, he doesn't hate himself or his own orientation. Just ours.

  • 82. Box Turtle Bulletin &raqu&hellip  |  January 16, 2010 at 12:16 am

    [...] to liveblogging from Courage Campaign and [...]

  • 83. Doug Bearden  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    That is to funny. Maybe Jewish Family Service should sue ProtectMarriage.com for intelectual property rights or whatever it is called. Sorry just a laymen here.

  • 84. Doug Bearden  |  January 16, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    I am having trouble finding the Witness List. Can you guide me to it please? Thank you.

  • 85. Doug Bearden  |  January 16, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    Not seeing Our Filings. Am I just being blind?

  • 86. Reshard  |  January 19, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Many of my friends from around the world got married in California and spent large amounts of money on the marriage etc—-so other states wasn't the only possible revenues.

  • 87. Reshard  |  January 19, 2010 at 8:11 am

    I traveled extensively in Thailand and Burma and the number one buyers of little girls and boys ages 18 months to 9 years are so called hetero.

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