Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Liveblogging Day 7: Part V Wrapping-up

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

[I'm back in the hot seat for the rest of the day.]

Prof Segura: Not surprised that UNITE HERE gave $100,000 to campaign. UNITE HERE represents hotel and restaurant workers as well as needle trades. Both are frequented by LGBT folks.

S: Geoff Kors (EQCA) comment in press release that this shows long standing relationship with organized labor reflect his view, not sure it’s accurate.

Thompson: $1.7 million from unions to No on 8. Do you know of any to yes?

S: No.

T: Story dated Oct. 26, 2008 from Sac Bee. Influential Latinos including the Los Angeles mayor and can you help me with the pronunciation—

S: Villaraigosa.

T: Yes, that’s it! [Wants to make the point that Villaraigosa is Latino. Really racist.]

T: All tech companies support gay rights. And they have power?

S: They do and so do other companies have power, but they may not be influential or powerful on all issues. Silicon Valley and large corporations are powerful in that they make large campaign contributions and have lots of lobbyists.

S: I’m not aware of large corporations working against LGBT?

T: HRC 1996 annual report, page 13. “Big businesses like Microsoft support state legislation that would help GLBT people.” Nike also supported GLBT legislation in 1996. Do you doubt this?

S: I would clarify the statement. First this is the advocacy organization speaking about how wonderful they are so that they can raise more money. Second, it says that more and more businesses are supporting fair-minded legislators, which makes clear we need to change. Third, not clear that corporations are donating

Judge: Does losing elections or failing to obtain favorable legislation show political powerlessness?

S: Losing elections do not necessarily mean that. Initiatives are different. It’s the only means by which voters vote on the rights of others. We have 150 elections in which LGBT have lost. That’s extraordinary. Does each act warrant judicial intervention? No. If we have passage of a bill where a majority party votes for and minority against, when power changes, could be reversed. And we could see it all reversed by initiative. I would want to look at the range of events. Loss rate shows that long standing prejudice is shaping political outcomes.

Judge: How much time do you have left with Prof. Segura? Perhaps you can do as you have done before and spend this evening honing those questions.

T: I will endeavor to do that.

Professor Herrick will go on if he is not ill as he was today. Otherwise, we’ll just put Mr. Tam on. Then we have documents. Those are our two live witnesses. Possible we may have to call Mr. Prentice to authenticate some documents.

Judge: Okay. I understand Magistrate Judge has resolved the matter discussed before the break with some of the documents. Can counsel inform me of the outcome? Mr. McGill, you were involved. Can you inform us?

McGill (Lawyer for our side): Says we are working it out.

Judge: Is it plaintiff’s intention to introduce some of those documents?

Boies: Yes, if we can authenticate some of the documents.

Judge: Unduly optimistic that plaintiff could rest tomorrow?

Boies: Challenging, but possible to finish tomorrow, but certainly Friday.

Judge: Defense should be ready tomorrow or at the latest Friday morning.

T: We’ll have Prof. Ken Miller here on Friday morning.

Boutrous: Judge Magistrate ruled against the motion to quash.

Judge: Very well. See you bright and early at 8:30 tomorrow morning.

Tags: , , ,

99 Comments

  • 1. Jeff  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Wait, they're putting Tam on the stand for the plaintiffs? Did I miss something?

  • 2. JeffSD  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:49 am

    "Boutrous: Judge Magistrate ruled against the motion to quash."

    Little background on this?

  • 3. Lucrece  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:50 am

    If the prop 8 lawyer is racist, you are then ignorant.

    Latino is not a race, wish some of you obtuse Americans would get that through your heads.

  • 4. David  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Thanks for blogging!

  • 5. DonG  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Perhaps if you weren't so hostile, we would be able to understand what you are trying to say.

  • 6. Bry  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:54 am

    I've been hearing it over on firedoglake too so apparantly the way he said it was really prejudiced towards ethnic groups, with obvious malice.

  • 7. Josh  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:56 am

    I think he's just trying to make the point that "Latino" doesn't constitute a race, but an ethnic group.

    And of course, only us thick-headed Americans make such a mistake, right?

  • 8. Tom  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:00 am

    The defense attempted to object to documents that explored the churches' role in the Prop 8 campaign, so they sent the question up to the Judge Magistrate to rule on the motion.

  • 9. JeffSD  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:05 am

    So the documents will be admitted then?

  • 10. Pandora  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:05 am

    I think the racism comes from purposely stumbling over Villaraigosa's name. It's a tactic designed to mark him as exotic and other, and either a) of lower status than non-Latin@ people or b) nonrepresentative of non-Latin@s.

  • 11. Allison  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Sadly, "really prejudiced towards ethnic groups, with obvious malice" doesn't quite role off the tongue, or the fingertips when you're trying to liveblog a trial.

  • 12. Ben  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:06 am

    I LOVE the irony that you think it's fine to paint with such a broad brush with "obtuse Americans" when dispelling some meaningless point about the differences between race and ethnic group.

    According to Webster's, race is defined as "any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race." Therefore, "Latino" most certainly is, by that definition, a "race."

    By the way, in the immortal words of Avenue Q: Learn to speak god-damn English, busboy.

  • 13. Tom  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:07 am

    Probably heavily redacted, but yes, as far as I can tell.

  • 14. Michael Adrian  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Another riveting day of trial coverage. Thanks! I wish this was live-streamed online like the first prop 8 trial in CA Supreme court was. But I guess there's no use in bringing that old issue up again.

  • 15. matt  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:08 am

    HAHA! "You americans are so bigoted." It just broke my irony meter…

  • 16. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:13 am

    What he said was:

    "you Spanish people and your funny names!"

  • 17. Jan  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:13 am

    Quote from Anthony Pugno on the ProtectMarriage.com website:
    "The trial testimony also swerved way into “irrelevant” territory today when plaintiffs called to the stand a young man who was, as a child, forced by his Christian parents to undergo conversion therapy by a therapist because of his sexual attraction to men. No matter that this witness has never resided in California, was wholly unfamiliar with the Prop 8 campaign, was not a willing participant in his conversion therapy, and emancipated himself from his parents as a minor. What the personal experience of a person from Colorado who experienced a deeply troubled family life has to do with the constitutionality of Prop 8 is beyond me. "

    What about the Netherlands studies??

    It's a shame that the Prop 8ers just continue to miss the point…

  • 18. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:14 am

    Exactly!

  • 19. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:16 am

    Jeez, dog.

    I'm all for making your point and all. Rock on with that.

    But, flies or honey, my friend?

    Choice is yours.

  • 20. Lucrece  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:17 am

    Because there's hardly any other population that routinely refers to Hispanics as a race.

    How about you link the entire text? See the number besides the definition you cherry-picked?

    See how marriage in Webster's is defined to include same sex couples in some contexts, but it isn't a widely accepted definition?

    Meaningless point? How about you stop parroting Muppets and keep your poor understanding of race and ethnicity to yourself?

  • 21. Lucrece  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:18 am

    It's called xenophobia.

  • 22. Lucrece  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Obtuse=/=bigoted.

    Don't make me put the cone on you and sit you in a corner.

  • 23. Larry K Little  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:20 am

    If Willian Tam is to testify, lets put a little shine on his allegation that gays have a pact with Satan and make sure he brings him as a witness to substantiate his claims admit to fear mongering.

  • 24. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:21 am

    They don't miss the point. They willfully ignore the point and mislead their walking talking ATM's. It is obvious that they are only working to keep the money coming in, hide the dirty details, and are working towards a massive Outrage and Social Firestorm when this gets decided. For them its all about the Money and the Power Baby and they will walk over as many good people that they have to to keep it.

  • 25. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:22 am

    They are kinda dumb. I mean, even just reading the transcripts, you can tell that the differences in opposing council's education is vast.

    Pugno, with all due respect, just seems like, well…

    …not the sharpest tool in the box.

    But amongst the homoligious, he is a hero right now. He is in that courtroom defending GOD.

    And he's the 'normal' one.

    Yikes.

  • 26. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:23 am

    666 forEVA, bitches!!!

  • 27. Andrea  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Initiatives are different. It’s the only means by which voters vote on the rights of others.

    Wait, what does the initiative amendment process provide again?

    means by which voters vote on the rights of others.

    I didn't just hear that, did I?

    vote on the rights of others.

    Republican form of government FAIL.

  • 28. Jan  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:25 am

    You are absolutely right, Michael

  • 29. Jesse  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:29 am

    Forgive -my- ignorance, but then if someone is discriminating against or hateful toward Latino people, then what do you call them if not racist? Ethnicist? Boy that's hard to say…

    I ask not to be confrontational, but purely out of priviledged-white person ignorance/curiosity.

  • 30. Steffi  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Ok, What the hell does it matter whether this attorney now is a racist or a – what was the term again? – xenophobic. He's prejudiced that's what's wrong here. as you seem to be…

  • 31. Lucrece  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:39 am

    Xenophobe. Motherfucking xenophobe if you're feeling forceful.

  • 32. Steffi  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:40 am

    I hate the defence for indicateing "if only you would have been truely willing to try and change it would/might have succeded" this makes it sound that it was this guy's fault that therapy went wrong and his family remained hateful, that he could have changed his family situation and make them all happy including himself if only he would have been willing.
    I was crying reading this testimony even though I wasn't alone and others could see me.
    And I am still terribly sad by everything I read what his family said and did. the mere thought of it….

  • 33. Lucrece  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Dear Steffi:

    You erase a Latino's racial identity by conflating race with ethnicity.

    Cuba had a large population of Asian immigrants, mostly from China (note all Chinese are not Asian; Chinese is a nationality).

    Such people would not take it kindly if you didn't refer to them as Hispanic or Asian. They're both. Hispanic ethnicity, Asian race.

    There can be Asian, black, white Hispanics. That's why you see in census forms and anthropological surveys where ethnicity is separated from race.

  • 34. Aconite  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Lucrece, "racist" is a label often used by Americans to refer to those prejudiced against Latinos for a cultural reason: in the US, most of the people prejudiced against Latinos define "Latino" as a race, not an ethnicity.

    To state that another way, the prejudiced people believe their prejudices are based on race, so we often refer to them as racists*.

    They are, not infrequently, the same kind of person who refers to the "Jewish race."

    *Personally, I just call them "idiots," because it defines them so well.

  • 35. Moriah  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:45 am

    "To suggest that the people of California cannot consider their own political, moral and religious views when casting their vote on Prop 8 is preposterous."

    if you're really religious, then aren't your moral and political views *synonymous* with your religious views? Isn't that the whole reason why all these religious fundamentalists are refusing to see reason? That statement was a bit pointless, on Pugno's part… Silly Pugno, making silly, unconvincing arguments again…
    http://www.protectmarriage.com/blog/

  • 36. Steffi  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:45 am

    It's Satan too, that gave gays the power of recruiting-vampires so they can keep numbers despite the fact they can't reproduce (at least notreproduce homosexually)

    I keep coming back to this argument, forgive me but I just like this image of bad-boy-vampire-gays recruiting for their case :D imagine Twillight would have been written under that aspect….

    oh and if ever you DO come across one of those vampire-gays… send them my way :D

  • 37. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Sookie?

    That you? ; )

  • 38. Roy  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Bizarre & interesting segment in the protectmarriage.com blog …

    "The trial testimony also swerved way into “irrelevant” territory today when plaintiffs called to the stand a young man who was, as a child, forced by his Christian parents to undergo conversion therapy by a therapist because of his sexual attraction to men. No matter that this witness has never resided in California, was wholly unfamiliar with the Prop 8 campaign, was not a willing participant in his conversion therapy,…"

    irrelevant??

    odd how this witness is jumped on for having 'never resided in California' …(gee, the LDS stuck its nose in our affairs all the way from, gosh, OUT of state)

    and its disgusting their belittling the experience this man went thru because he 'was not a willing participant…' … WTF? why would he be a WILLING participant in a harsh brainwashing? so only if you gleefully join in , then you are considered 'relevant'…

    bite me.

  • 39. Stine  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Racist white people would disagree with you. "Not white" is the only discrimination needed. Why bother with figuring out countries when they're all the same anyway? (See?)

  • 40. Ben  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:01 am

    In this instance, it is meaningless. The point being made by the blogger was that the opposing attorney was subtly attempting to use the Mayor of Los Angeles' name as a way to plant seeds of discriminatory thought against him.

    As the holder of a doctorate degree from an Ivy League institution with a dissertation focusing, partially, on the history of racism in America, I think I'm slightly better qualified to define racism in this country than you (or Websters for that matter).

    You can call it whatever you want, but in this country, when one identifiable group based on culture, ancestry, language, and history holds beliefs of superiority over and takes action against another identifiable group similarly defined, it's called racism.

  • 41. Ben  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Implying that all Americans are obtuse is, by definition, bigoted.

  • 42. Lucrece  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Their definition is ignorant, but the label is irrelevant. They're xenophobic nonetheless, since most attacks against Hispanics are cultural (mocking of language, English Pronunciation, jobs they end as; immigration status, which deals far more with xenophobia than racism).

    Of course, there can be some racism involved in the bashing, and we look at prejudice toward Mexicans. Most of the Mexican immigrants- and this is the largest Hispanic immigrant block in the US– tend to be of Native American/mixed race descent, thus the erroneous association that Mexican=Hispanic=Brown.

    But this is a product of ignorance toward race and ethnicity. The case with Villaraigosa doesn't even stand to such scrutiny. His emphasis on last name is less about physical attributes of race and more about the quality of being of foreign descent, i.e. a xenophobic angle.

  • 43. Steffi  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Of course this is all true and I do see the importance of making the difference in science. nevertheless the key fact here – and this is not a scientific paper nor a site claiming correct phrasing on everything they write – is that this lawyer is being prejudiced and it doesn't matter if he's now rightfully called a racist or a xenophobic. He seems to be a bigot so if it were me I wouldn't give a damn whether he now insulted me because I belong to a race or because I belong to an ethnic group. he just insulted so I would still get the point if anyone calls him a racist and would support this view

  • 44. Lucrece  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:07 am

    As a holder of the identity of Hispanic, I say you're full of shit. Just like heterosexuals are in no position to pretend to tell gay people what their identity is.

    The quip on Villaraigosa's pronunciation is a swipe at his foreignness, which falls under the realm of xenophobia, not racism.

  • 45. Lucrece  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:08 am

    And the full of shit part is not directed at Steffi.

  • 46. Tanya  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:10 am

    I can't thank the bloggers enough for keeping us all informed. I've taken similar notes for a court, and it was absolutely exhausting trying to keep up with the process and get all the important information in. You guys are heroes for those of us who can't be there. Thank you SO much.

  • 47. Aconite  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:11 am

    You have to keep in mind–and this is hard–that the opposition really, truly, honestly see being educated as a *liability.* Education is secular, and it shows that you are too much of this world instead of the next, and you obviously don't have your priorities straight. You can't trust educated folk; they think funny.

    (You just missed Sookie. She and Eric were headed…oh, I don't remember where. To kick somebody's "brooding ass"–Edward? Angel? –one of those names with a vowel.)

  • 48. Steffi  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:12 am

    No one is questioning your identity! no one denies that hispanic is an ethnic and not a race. nevertheless a person who's prejudiced/hatefull against ethinic groups can still be called racist /see ben's def.) even though the more correct term would – as you keep saying rightfully – be Xenophobic

  • 49. Michael Herman  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:12 am

    I know I posted this earlier, but I'd like to repost it for more people to see.

    Unlike Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, I stand before you not one of your own, but as an ally. I am here to fill you with hope, courage, determination, and resolve. The law is clear. This cannot go on any further!

    Eleven score and three years ago, our forefathers drafted a document that formed a more perfect union, established justice, ensured domestic tranquility, provided for the common defense, promoted the general welfare, and secured the blessings of liberty. This document, the supreme law of the land, is now threatened by those who wish to disregard the very foundations of this great nation. Time and time again, this document, the Constitution of the United States of America, has defended freedom for the minority against the tyranny of the majority. From the end of slavery to racial discrimination and even gender discrimination, the Constitution has been used to keep freedom alive for all Americans. Today, your freedom is on the line.

    No more must you tolerate being treated as second class citizens. The Constitution is clear! From Articles 4 and 6 to the 1st and 14th Amendments, it is in clear black and white that this discrimination cannot continue. From Chief Justice Marshall, “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” The California Supreme Court was legally bound under Article 6 of the United States Constitution and the ruling of Marbury v. Madison to overturn Proposition 8, and yet completely disregarded the Supreme Law of the Land. The so-called Defense of Marriage Act is in direct violation of Article 4, section 1, which says, “Full Faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state,” and yet it is still law. By this alone, Proposition 8 is Constitutionally null and void!

    The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution declares, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Same-sex civil unions are denied equal rights. A gay couple cannot even visit one another in a hospital or make medical decisions for their partner. The rights that the law refuses to grant to homosexuals are the same rights that heterosexuals take for granted. This can go on no more!

    In the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt, “The moment a mere numerical superiority by either states or voters in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority, and for their own selfish purpose or advancement, hamper or oppress that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and equal rights — that moment will mark the failure of our constitutional system.”

    Brothers and sisters, the time has come! No longer can you remain silent. Speak and be known! Continue to march the streets. Continue to open dialogs, and prove that you are no different from anyone else and you deserve no different treatment. You did not ask nor choose to be this way. You are who you are, and nothing can change that.

    It is time we heterosexuals realize that the people affected by discrimination are our friends and neighbors, even our family members. They co-exist with us, and most of us don’t even know when we meet a gay man or woman. Yet the “law” still treats them as inferior. There are many who think that only gays support gay rights. They are wrong. As I stand here today and speak out against oppression, I prove them wrong. I am here to say, enough is enough! We can no longer continue to use and abuse the right to marry when there are countless Americans denied that same right! I am here to prove that the so-called “Religious Right” is the Religious Wrong! Even President Obama has said America “is not a Christian country, but one of many faiths.” Not every American believes the same way you do! There are many religions in the world, most of which conflict. None can be proven right or wrong, and that’s why it’s called “faith!” Faith should stay in your own heart, and out of the laws of this country.

    Some say that marriage is strictly a religious rite. If that is true, marriage should be removed from law entirely, including heterosexual marriage. But if they would read their bibles entirely, they would realize that it teaches love, acceptance, and brotherhood. It also says that they should follow the word of God and not bother with the governments of Man! These hypocrites only take what they want from the Bible and ignore the rest.

    Some also say that marriage is for procreation. Either these people are blind and deaf, or they refuse to see the countless infants born out of wedlock, and countless wedded couples who are incapable of bearing children. Should these couples be barred the right to marry as well? These paranoid homophobics are looking for any and all excuse to justify their wrong, but it is still wrong. They have the right to disagree, but their right to swing their fists end where another man’s nose begins!

    Go forth and flood your county offices! Demand marriage certificates! They will refuse, but declare your Constitutional rights! You may be arrested, but this is necessary to send a message across the country that your rights have been taken away! Civil disobedience is one of the strongest messages you can send. It has worked in the past, and will work again. If you truly want equality, you must be willing to do whatever it takes. Flood the jails! Send your message loud and clear!

    You are not alone in this fight for freedom. It will be long and hard, but you have allies. In time, you will win this fight. Your freedom cannot be denied forever! Stand up for what’s right, and claim what is rightfully yours! Your courage will be tested, but you must stand your ground. We fight with the truth on our side, and the truth will prevail!

    No more can you stand in the shadows as outcasts. Your day is approaching! No fight for freedom comes either quick or easy, but this battle has been long in the making. Though the course of history, minorities have fought, and died, for their freedom, and through determination and an iron will, they have pulled through. History will hold true, but it cannot happen alone. You must make it happen.

    The time has come!

  • 50. Steffi  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:18 am

    might be a little off topic but speaking of white racists, which lead my thoughts directly to nazis who were/are not only hateful towards jews, non-arians and disabeld but also towards Homosexuals I had to laugh real hard at this one newspaper article I once read (and which is ever since on my pin-board to make me laugh) where at a meeting of some neo-nazis some people stood up, saying that "only because we are gay doesn't mean we aren't "true Germans"" (by which they of course meant true nazis!)
    Isn't that hilarious :D

  • 51. Lucrece  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:20 am

    OK, fine Steffi, I'll sit tight and stop protesting.

    But only because I'm partial to cute names.

  • 52. Aconite  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Okay, let's try their argument with a group that falls under "suspect class":

    "So, you're saying you're not being allowed to marry because you're Jewish."

    "That's right."

    "But you could chose to convert and not be Jewish, and then you'd be able to marry, so you're not being discriminated against."

    Religion definitely can be changed, and yet we give it privileged status when it comes to defining a suspect class. Whether or not sexual orientation can be changed should be just as irrelevant.

  • 53. Lucrece  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:23 am

    " You Americans are so bigoted" was the misrepresentation of my statement.

    I made no protest to accusations of being bigoted against Americans.

    Because I'm feeling bigoted toward Americans after having to swallow a Desperate Housewives episode where Carlos tells Gaby "We've been letting our children think they're white, when we're Mexican."

    Hello! There are white Mexican people!

  • 54. Steffi  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:27 am

    *loooool* now you actually made me grin

  • 55. David from Sandy UT  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:43 am

    A much stronger witness would have been a woman or man who had been sent as a teenager (assume against her/his will) to a conversion camp in Utah (see for example <a&gt <a href="http://;http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/02/18/8916)” target=”_blank”>;http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/02/18/8916)

    Or reports of the torture conducted by so-called researchers at Brigham Young University.

  • 56. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:44 am

    I am a somewhat Consercative Republican from Pasadena (which means progessive or liberal by national standards) and I was involved in NOH8.

    Please see the amazing, heart-warming article of Cindy McCain, joining our fight.

    Most of you have NO IDEA how many allies you have.

    Please stop disparaging people and especially for hating Republicans, who you cannot win without their support. Most people are loving, compassionate, and believe in equal rights for everyone. Remember, Due Process, Equal Access, and Equal rights are for all, and THESE are the CORE Republican principles, at least, popular until about 1988 or so, but still true.

    We have a friend in CIndy McCain. Moreso that in Barack Obama. He is no true ally, since he supports DOMA and DADT and has REFUSED federal court orders from the 9th Circuit Ct of Appeal to allow domestic partner benefits to federal employees, to name a few. We are still the "slaves" of today…..
    http://cbs2.com/local/cindy.mccain.gay.2.1439011….

  • 57. Moriah  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:52 am

    True that.

  • 58. Moriah  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:56 am

    And yet, her husband is opposed to same-sex marriage… allies are nice, of course, don't get me wrong. But I think she's just she exception that proves the rule :) most conservatives are against same-sex marriage.

  • 59. Charles  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:58 am

    The videos of the witnesses have been removed before I had a chance to see them… has anyone got them before that and can repost them?

  • 60. Daimeon  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    Well when one graduates from Regent, Liberty, or Oral Roberts Universities…what do you expect? I mean clearly the basics of the Constitution weren't even discussed.

  • 61. Rob  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    If you mean the videos of the two depositions which were shown they can be found in the web site for the San Jose Mercury News at the following URL. Not sure if you need to register to see these posts but it doesn't hurt to try and reach them. Scroll down to the heading:

    11:41 a.m.: Video depositions played in court can be viewed on the net
    http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_142

  • 62. Erwin  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    Judge: How much time do you have left with Prof. Segura? Perhaps you can do as you have done before and spend this evening honing those questions.

    T: I will endeavor to do that.

    PRICELESS!

  • 63. Charles  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    Unless I'm particularly stupid (which is possible), you can only find the transcripts on the link you gave me.

    Towleroad posed the youtube viz, but the "user" removed them…

  • 64. De'Angelo  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    so i went over to protectmarriage and according to them "religion itself was put on trial today".

    I found that quote very humorous.

  • 65. draNgNon  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Actually since the 'therapist' was based in Encino, which IS in California, I thought the testimony more relevant than I was expecting from an anecdotal witness.

    Not that it matters what I think.

  • 66. De'Angelo  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    i also notice how there comments are disabled. I found that kind of weird.

  • 67. Rob  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    You're right! I viewed the videos a couple hours ago but now I see only the written transcriptions are left at these links. Frankly, it was pretty boring. It went very, very slowly, but the satisfaction to actually see the faces of the witnesses who are trying to hide themselves made the effort worthwile.

  • 68. Jane  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    GREAT DAY!! Thanks for keeping this up!!

    Loved the part where anything about what the churches did BEFORE the election they want protected by the separation of church & state —

    Amazing stuff — will probably be played out in their press that churches are being attacked even though they really weren't involved. LOL

  • 69. Erwin  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    I went over to protectmarriage and read all of Mr. Pugno's summaries of the trial. So, I'm confused. Is he attending the same trial?? He seems to think his team is running a slam-dunk on us. He seems to think that they are shredding the witnesses in cross. No wonder the supporters of prop 8 are still supporters — they are being fed wonderful news despite anything of truth.

  • 70. Jane  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    I know Erwin — I started reading their site over the weekend. The spin doctors are hard at work. This is the real reason they didn't want trial broadcast — they could continue to say whatever they want to and people will believe them — .

  • 71. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Yes, I have little doubt, they will blame their loss on "the judge was a liberal", which is the same silly argument they gave, when this matter came to trial following Prop – (sorry I can't remember the name of the proposition.

  • 72. Doug  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    No worries here…. marriagetrial.com will act it all out. Next best thing to live coverage.

  • 73. SpoonmanTX  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    Some of my best friends are Republicans Bill… heck I was even raised by two of the most conservative ones in this hemisphere. We might not agree to everything, but it's nice to know we could sit at the same table and enjoy a meal and conversation. I like that analogy… I might use it again.

    I would like to thank you for your support!

  • 74. SpoonmanTX  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    A point I found interesting in this was bringing up big businesses… I work in the tech industry and yes, I get great protections and benefits from my employer.

    That is most definitely not the norm. Probably the largest example is when Exxon and Mobil merged. Mobil was very progressive and if memory serves correctly highly ranked by HRC, but Exxon did away with those protections and benefits. (My father worked as a contractor for Exxon, so I looked them up).

    Wouldn't this go against Prop 8's logic?

  • 75. Doug  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    I can only give my own example with regard to this, but my company gives me health insurance for $40 per month. Very reasonable. However, if I want to add my domestic partner my premium goes to over $600 per month. I don't know for sure but I have asked around and those straight employees with a husband or a wife don't pay that much for both of them. DPs are more of a health risk so that is why the premium is so much higher. *sarcasm font*

  • 76. Jeffrey  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    I do not mean to feign righteous indignation. I am as imperfect as the next guy. But people, can we stop attacking one another. We are all here, hopefully, because we have interest in demanding rights for gays and lesbians. we are all here because we clearly see that all people should be treated with equal civil rights because we have more similarities than differences.

    If that is so, why should we keep arguing over our differences? Race this, ethnicity that. We are humans. We have dignity, end of story.

    I am an anthropologist, and i have formally studied the history of the belief in "biological race" which posited that people were fundamentally, biologically different. But that simply doesn't exist. Instead, we have cultural, even adaptive differences (according climate, elevations, etc), but relatively no differences at all.

    Yet, all we keep doing is arguing about our supposed fundamental differences. Terms like ethnicity, or race, or sexual orientation don't matter outside the political realm, because in the moral accounting of things, we are all human, all deserving of human and civil rights, and we should all treat each other with love and respect.

    this sounds preachy, im not trying to be. but i am constantly amazed that people cannot grasp this simple truth. ironically, it is a religious credo, and I am not even religious: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    why can't people just see that?

    ps as for the rest of the bible, well go figure…:-/

    jeff

  • 77. SpoonmanTX  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    Interesting, but sadly due to the way health insurance laws vary from state to state I would venture to guess that these sorts of disparities between what is offered in one location to another are rampant.

    Yet another example of how DPs and other "separate, but equal" measures leave large gaps that GLBT have to navigate.

  • 78. Dave in Canton, MI  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    The fact that the anti-gay side (let's stop calling them anti-marriage, because they flat out are anti-gay) sees this sort of horrific abuse as irrelevant makes me ill.

  • 79. SpoonmanTX  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    Is this where we hold hands and sing Kumbaya around a campfire? ;-D

  • 80. Jeffrey  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    I think it is a bit sappy. Sorry :-), but point taken. All i know is there is a lot more to be done in this country than arguing about who has what ethnicity, race, or whatever. These are the easy questions. Were all equal. There. Look at the state of health care, war, poverty, education, etc etc etc, and what are we doing, arguing about this crap. What a waste of time.

  • 81. Sandy  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    Thank for being an ally.
    Not enough yet, though. Especially when one considers the courting of religious right by the Republican party.
    I hail originally from Ontario, and I know it to be fairly conservative, but compared to where I currently live, VERY conservative.
    Having a no on 6 (yes, old school) sticker on your car gets you followed by a carload of guys yelling dirty names at you, then when you park and walk away briskly & alone they take your coil wire from your car, leaving you stranded there.
    I still got pelted with a full pespi bottle and called names, just for the terrible "sin" of holding a No on 8 sign legally.
    These things are the result of being a person that is a suspect class.
    We do appreciate the support, but winning over LGBT to embrace the party that touts family values, then gets caught in scandals of all sorts, gives me pause.
    I come from a Republican family and see some value in having budgets balance, but the borrowing and debt was allowed to fester under Republican leadership. Starving the beast is the strategy, which is why we in CA never get our budget done. The same 2/3 majority for budget, but now we see it takes 2/3 for anything, except for voting away the gay.
    Yes, I'm bitter. I see the conservative as a person that has what they deem as good judgement for others, for the best of others, but that is not freedom. They see that attacking someone will somehow make things better for them.
    There is the matter of "we know what is worthy of spending your tax dollars and don't worry the free market will take care of itself, but regulating is out of the question". The bank bailouts are becoming a pattern. Let the banks handle their own regulation and everything will be fine, not for gov't. to meddle with any ground rules. Allow mergers and acquisitions to build mega corporations,(too big to fail?) so they can donate back to a party and get favors in return.
    Privatize the military and everything else (costing more?). Social Security should be privatized?
    OK, I have friends that are conservative and they are mostly nice. Except when someone listens to Limbaugh to get "ammo" to use to bait liberals, then entertain themselves by taunting and trying to get to the liberal or trying to get themselves to look like the victim. They send me emails that are quite annoying, just as annoying as they find some of my views. Yes we see things very differently.
    Then again, the Constitution is where many of us find common ground, not all of us, but many.
    The conservative lawyer is arguing for us. I am impressed, but I am wondering "should I feel worried?" They are better at lip service than the Democrats.
    Cindy McCain is a rare exception. I feel a political party recruiting is the idea. I am in need of some proof.
    I have to be leery about how a conservative is being supportive, since we see areas in the reddest part of country travel far, come to town for protesting a funeral, saying horrible things AT A FUNERAL for someone that was killed for being gay, or suspected. You know the ones, God Hates Gays.
    Then there seems to be the claim that Republicans are more reverent to God and anti abortion.
    It is a major miracle there are any LGBT going to any religious places after so much rejection.
    Kind of like a dog cowers when a hand comes near, there is a reason for that. Then there is aggression for the same thing.
    Just hope you are right, but when you see continued Major Republicans, yes John McCain that ran for president last year, Ron Paul is for DOMA and hands off leave it to the states, hard to find any major candidates from last election to say they are for gay marriage. The Republican Party is going to have to prove it, even more than the Dems, some of whom actually say on the campaign trail, unafraid I am for gay marriage and single payer health care.
    When I see the Republican Party send back the money from Focus on the Family and all the other such PACs, I will be more convinced.

  • 82. Sandy  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    Yes, thank you all for doing this difficult, tiresome job.
    We appreciate it :-)

  • 83. Sandy  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    Not from California, they worry now about not being from California???
    Unbelievable, well maybe par for the course is more like it…

  • 84. Sandy  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    They are playing the victim again… how sad for them

  • 85. Jeanne  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    My health insurance company started offering coverage for domestic partners last year, so of course I thought it would save money since the company I work for is larger. It's strange, but on my check I noticed it showed I was paid an exact $160, which I was taxed on, then the same amount was deducted, along with the added insurance premiums on the "after tax" deductions. I called to find out why and was told that it was the amount the insurance is (estimated to be) worth, the amount of which I am taxed on top of the actual premiums. In other words, I was told, it is a penalty I pay for adding a person who is not my spouse….a penalty for not being married. I asked "how can I be penalized for something I am not allowed to do?" If we were given the option, I could maybe see their point, although it would still be unfair.

    I would think they would just be glad to have the added premiums, but no. Now I pay taxes on an extra $320 each month for money that I never actually received. Is this the norm with most insurance companies who offer domestic partners benefits?

    On top of the added cost, I had to send in proof of both names on our residence, checking account, loan documents and car insurance. After 10 years together you would think we would at least be considered "common law"…but I guess we are not equal enough for even that option in Texas.

    I guess we could have kept our insurance separate, the way it was…but I thought it would make us feel like a "married couple" to share something so simple. Another "simple" thing that makes us feel even more inferior even though we have been together longer than any of the married couples at work. Just another part of the "special rights" I would love to have.

  • 86. Linda  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    Pugno doesn't think he's winning, he just wants his followers to think that. It's all about the spin. I doubt the prop 8 folks are bothering to follow the trial like we are; they are simply relying on Pugno to fill them in at the end of each day. Imagine their outrage when the judge rules against them! Why, it will be downright scandalous! Shocking! And 'that activist judge' will be at fault. Their anger and outrage will spur even more donations, and 'protect marriage' will have a good bank roll for their appeal.

  • 87. Dieter M.  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    Here it is everyone, the TRAILER for the youtube broadcast re-enactment of the prop 8 trial…full sessions starting tomorrow. http://www.MarriageTrial.com

    and check out my "don't divorce us" video on youtube to see where this all began: at http://www.youtube.com/watch

  • 88. Dieter M.  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    Here it is everyone, the TRAILER for the youtube broadcast re-enactment of the prop 8 trial…full sessions starting tomorrow. http://www.MarriageTrial.com
    they cannot stop us

  • 89. Lymis  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    Of COURSE they can consider their political, moral, and religious views when casting their votes. That's the point.

    Because the real point is that there are things that aren't supposed to go up for a vote in the first place. Once we get to the point where people are following the basic rules, they get to play the game the way they want to.

    It is no different (but far more important) than saying that telling a basketball player they can't kick the ball is a violation of the player's right to consider their moral and religious views when playing.

    Of course, the irony of anyone following a religion whose founder said that one of the top two rules is "Love your neighbor as yourself" fighting to permanently prevent those neighbors from being treated equally would be appalling if we weren't so used to it..

  • 90. Lymis  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    The fact that he is unwilling is irrelevant, and yet their claim is that since all gay people can change, none of us should have equal rights.

    What about the rest of us who are unwilling to change? If the conversion therapy doesn't work on the unwilling, then it won't work on us, which is pretty much the whole idea of immutable, eh?

    I'd say the testimony of someone WILLING is the irrelevant point. But I've said that about the ex-gay movement since I heard about it. "Good for you, leave me alone."

  • 91. Lymis  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    Actually, I think they will blame it on "our witnesses were harassed and threatened and in fear of their lives and for their families, so we weren't able to make our case, and the liberal judge did nothing to stop it."

    I think they know they are on incredibly shaky ground and are setting up the spin now so they have an unbroken record of it.

    It won't matter whether the trial videos are released – it wouldn't matter if they were already out. The people they are speaking to wouldn't be watching them anyway.

  • 92. Lymis  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    Jeanne, it is not only the norm. It is the law, at the Federal level. It is one of the many reasons that DOMA has to go, and one of the many reasons the people who say "they get all the benefits of marriage" are full of it.

    By the way, that extra tax applies on federal income tax even if you are married in one of the states that allow it. Since the Feds don't recognize marriage, you can't be getting any married benefits, so it's extra income, and taxable, even for married same-sex couples.

  • 93. Jane  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    Catching up on Pugno's blog his comments about the "emotion", "emotional", testimony and making that out to be meaninglesss I couldn't help but wonder — Imagine if civil rights in the 60s had been put to a vote of the people & had taken the same course that this issue has. Pugno would surely have been defending the bigots. His blog at the end of the day would read:

    Mrs. Parks continues to be emotional about having to sit in the back of the bus — when no one is preventing her from utilizing the bus to get where she needs to go.
    More "emotional" testimony about having to drink from a different fountain even though they are not denied water.

    SNL — are you paying attention to this trial — there's great fodder going on here.

  • 94. Sandy  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:09 am

    The name for that "charge" is "imputed income".
    I feel for you, sister. The same thing happened to me.
    I know the lawyers are aware of this, I assume they know anyway. If they don't they will and this needs to be told to our coworkers, family, friends at every opportunity to highlight specific ways DP is not equal to marriage.
    Also, the married with children folks also need to provide "proof" of spouse and children for coverage by my employer. That is equal.
    I learned the same expensive lesson of being taxed for income for my DP health insurance "estimate". That is NOT equal, unless you are able to legally marry and choose not to do that for whatever reason.
    It would be great if some married couples that want to help us out check and verify they do not have that "imputed income" on THEIR W2 forms.
    The DP was a bone thrown to the dogs, even then they said we have to offer DP to opposite sex couples or it is not equal…..
    Lymis is correct, DOMA is the huge boulder in the path that needs to be moved.

  • 95. richard  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:24 am

    You aren't ignorant, Jesse. Tell Lucretia to check Rogets
    obtuse synonyms=====dull, stupid

    sorta hits home, eh, Lu?

  • 96. Aconite  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:24 am

    Jeanne wrote: "On top of the added cost, I had to send in proof of both names on our residence, checking account, loan documents and car insurance."

    I do not know a single straight couple who ever had to prove they were married in order to get all spousal benefits.

    Just one more way your nose gets rubbed in the inequality and the lack of dignity of DPs compared to marriage.

  • 97. Cam  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:37 am

    man there are more people for prop 8 nan aren't, so get over it, I don't have anything against gays, if you Choose to be gay that is your problem, but do be that cry baby on the play ground that just cause something doesn't go there way they cry about it until it changes to there favor….. the people have voted and yall lost…..

    Thank you

  • 98. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:17 am

    I am old enough — 63 — that when I was growing up in NJ the FDR/Galbraith/Warren/MLK progressive ideals were the 'consensus paradigm' assumed as defining post-War America. Even the Republicans we knew — Case, Javits, Keating, Lodge and Saltonstall — shared the basic consensus — one which today few of the 'far left' Denocrats would defend — and the few Republicans and the Southern racists who opposed it were the reactionary villains. (And this was in the Catholic schools I attended, even more than in the public schools some of my friends attended)

    'Anti-Comunism' was an argument that shook this, but most of the textbooks, at least by implication, accepted the 'Communism is bad, but so is/was McCarthyism and HUAC' meme of the Kennedys and Humphrey.

    The only reason I mention this is because the books gave great praise to the three 'great Progressive innovations' of the initiative, recall, and referenda. No one could have imagined how they would become the tools of groups who would use them to destroy a minority group, or to financially cripple a state like California. Every day I read this, and see in my mind the pages of my old textbooks, I weeo.

  • 99. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 22, 2010 at 1:18 am

    'weeo' = weep and I wish I were more awake.

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