Day Five in Prop 8 Trial
So, just a heads up, today (Tuesday) is officially day 6, and Friday was day 5. I'm a little behind on my summaries. Also, I'll probably be summarizing stuff a day late from now on, because testimony in CA ends around 9:00 pm here, and I've got classes starting up so I can't stay up to ungodly hours of the night any more.
To start off, here's an EXCELLENT article that summarizes day 5 much better than I do. ;)
(As always, information taken from trial transcripts provided by liveblogging via Firedoglake's Teddy and Emptywheel, as well as prop8trialtracker.com.)
Dr. MICHAEL LAMB: Social psychologist at Cambridge and before that at National Institutes of Health (NIH) where he headed developmental psychology team. Studied field since 1970s. Has a fancy British accent. Studied factors that affect children’s development and adjustment. Published about 40 books and 500 articles on childhood development.
Testimony will cover 30-40 years of research showing G&L are good parents.
Started research in 1970s with child's attachment to mother/father, originally thought male/female essential, found didn't need masculine/feminine behaving parent to be well adjusted.
Plaintiff counsel quotes from defendant-intervenor's literature: Ron Prentice's quote on "gender pathology" in children from G&L families: Lamb says no such term in psychology.
Quote: children of lesbian couples much more likely to become lesbians themselves: Lamb says familiar with study footnoted in the quote, and it doesn't say that. Does say that have less gender stereotypes, like women aspiring to broader careers, not just nurses, for example.
Quote: homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals: Lamb says studies done, proven this is "nonsense"
Quote: Dr. Joe Nicolosi says being raised in homosexual home "traumatizes" children emotionally and socially: Lamb says had no idea who Nicolosi was until trial, not in field, looked him up on internet and found he did "conversion therapy" (turning gays straight)
Quote: David Popenoe says must "disavow notion that mummies make good daddies and daddies make good mummies" because each gender necessary: Lamb says Popenoe is retired, only person currently in field who believes this is Blankenthorne (defendant-intervenor's expert witness, has not testified yet)
Wrap up: no evidence of ProtectMarriage.com's claims that children damaged by homosexual marriage
Cross examination:
(At this point, liveblogger starts referring to it as "Scopes Monkey Trial, day 5" That should give you an idea of the kinds of questions the DI is asking)
DI: says Lamb is liberal because donated to ACLU, NOW, and "even PBS"
Brings up "East Anglia Climate Change" emails to prove politics can influence science
Says most of funding is from govt, Lamb says yes but not that govt influences results
DI says Freud no longer in use, Lamb says not his particular body of research but some of his methods still used (NO IDEA what DI trying to say here, seems to contradict subsequent questions)
lots of back and forth between DI and Lamb, LOTS AND LOTS of stereotypical gender role stuff: men are alcoholics, abusive, step fathers are child molesters, women live longer, women earn less than men, men can't breast feed, more men are like Homer Simpson than not (yes, seriously). Says men and women are not interchangable, Lamb agrees but says that commonality of features of parents' behavior important to children.
DI cherry picks a bunch of Lamb's studies from 1970s to quote back at him, Lamb keeps saying that subsequent research has changed opinions, as mentioned in previous testimony (And this is the part where I start wondering where the hell they were going with the Freud thing, or really ANY of this crazy shit). DI also makes a few references to "absence of father" hurting children's development, Lamb says is in context of hetero parents, relationship to both parents instead of one parent that is important in development
Some quotes from Lamb's 1997 and 1977 books, didn't really understand this part, bad transcribing perhaps...
DI brings out a few articles published by THEIR witnesses, who have WITHDRAWN FROM THE TRIAL because they fear TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF A CAMERA. As this article contests, the reason those witnesses have withdrawn is because their depositions say no rational basis for opposing G&L marriage, and would possibly open up charges of perjury if testify.
Dr. Amato's articles: study of heterosexual parents showing long term marriages leads to less cognitive disabilities. study of African American married parents showing better health and behavior of children. (UM, HOW IS THIS IN ANY WAY COMPARABLE TO HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES? WOULDN'T THIS BE AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE??? BECAUSE THEIR KIDS WILL BE HEALTHIER AND BETTER ADJUSTED???)
Prof Doherty's article: children in married families do better than in step families, Lamb says research done for Institute for American Values (heterosexual marriage lobbying group)
DI presents a bunch of articles on step-families saying children do better with two biological parents instead of one, articles on step-fathers abusing children, etc.
DI talks about no "random sampling" of homosexual parents, Lamb says the study they have is population analysis, so no need for random sample
DI says most studies done on "well off" lesbian couples, not poor lesbians or gay fathers, trying to imply that these groups would make bad parents
(Break for lunch, after lunch: Plaintiffs point out that witness' claiming to withdraw because of cameras is a LIE, that they actually withdrew because they "COULDN'T WITHSTAND CROSS." I'm thinking that this is a bit of legalese, saying it isn't that the witness crumples under the pressure of cross, but more that their TESTIMONY crumples when put to the test. More evidence that they perjured themselves in their depositions prior to trial and wanted out.)
Judge: asks Lamb about why adopted children seek out biological parents, Lamb says origins important, wouldn't be seen as maladjustment
Judge: No reason to protect children form lesbians and gays. What about priestly abuse. How do you square your statements about that phenomenon. (I have no idea what exactly he means by this...) Lamb says many cases of heterosexual abuse by religious individuals (ha!) but homosexuals not more likely than heterosexuals to be abusers. Not saying it doesn't happen, but that it's not more likely.
DI resumes cross:
Okay, honestly, there's a lot of rambling and contradictory questions going on here, and most of them seem irrelevant. The judge seems to share my opinion to an extent, because this exchange happens:
DI: You agree that setting limits for children is important?
Judge: That’s not the only area in which setting limits are important.
[HUGE LAUGHTER]
And then we finally get to the point: I’m going to try to show that Lamb does not compare with married heterosexuals. Compares with all heterosexual parents, including those who are not married.
Lots more back and forth, and again I keep saying that this sounds more like an argument FOR same-sex marriage than it is AGAINST. Letting homosexual couples marry will result in happier kids. CASE CLOSED.
DI going through a bunch more research papers, judge asks:
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 heterosexual 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.
[Laughter]
And finally on redirect, we get this hilarious opener:
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]
Lamb says "fatherless" definition not refer to lesbian couples, but to heterosexual single moms
Discuss population analysis study based on US CENSUS which shown no difference in cognitive problems between G&L and heterosexual families. Lamb reaffirms that general conclusion in field is that children in homosexual families no more likely to be maladjusted than heterosexual families.
-----
HELEN ZIA: DI objects to having her as witness, not an expert. Plaintiffs say she's been married, can show how marriage changes people. Judge says will allow because pertinent, but will decide how much weight to give her testimony. (I actually agree with this, and think it's a smart move. While I appreciate the efforts to "humanize" the marriage conflict, I also think as a witness, this falls more into the realm of "anecdotal evidence.")
Zia: 57, Asian American author, lesbian, married
Was community organizer, women's movement, getting women into construction jobs, had a "lesbian trial" amongst friends at age 23: a bunch of women sat her down in a semicircle, said had noticed she was working in women's movement and was friends with a lot of lesbians, didn't want to have her in their "community of color" (Asians) if she was a lesbian, asked her point blank if she was a lesbian, said "no" to keep her friends, stepped into the closet. Quit work with women's groups.
Since coming out, has lost contact with family members, been disinvited from giving speeches, afraid to show affection in public. Said during prop 8 campaign, when out trying to get votes, people would come up and call her a "fucking dyke." People would read prop 8 literature on how same-sex marriage lead to polygamy, beastiality, and end of human race, and would come up to her and say this.
Left NY to be with Leah. Registered for Domestic Partnership, anti-climactic. No celebration. Married on President's Day, volunteering at licensing office and typed up own marriage license. Invited 200 people to reception, Leah's dad retired judge in Hawaii was going to come officiate affirmation ceremony, but marriage invalidated one week before reception. Finally married again in 2008.
Marriage changed relationships with extended family. Grandma had always thought was just good friend, even after 17 years, but after marriage finally got it. Families are in-laws now, have more contact with each other. Leah's father stops by Helen's brother's house to give him fruit from garden, never did that before.
Not much of a cross: tries to imply that even though marriage invalidated, still had ceremony so was all okay. Also tries to imply only reason got married was in defiance of government.
Redirect reaffirms that Domestic Partnership not emotionally equal to marriage.
(WHOO. That's it until tomorrow, kiddies.)
---
Additional references:
The Road to Perjury
Summary: The defendant-intervenor's expert witnesses withdraw due to fear of perjury, not fear of harassment (cited in text above)
Home Court Advantage
Summary: More on the sticky subject of sexuality as a "suspect" class.
Irony Defined
Summary: ProtectMarriage.com's humorous cease and desist order.
An excellent summary of the Trial's first week
A Tale of Two Lawyers
Summary: On the two lawyers doing most of the questioning in the trial: McGill (plaintiff) and Thompson (DI)
Justices Better at Precedence than Prescience
Summary: And examination in the NY Times about how the SCOTUS is bad at predicting the effects of its rulings, with a mention of Prop 8.
Savvy Marketing Surrounds Prop 8
Summary: Variety article about the media buzz surrounding the trial, and the DI's opposition to it
[MORE ARTICLES MAY BE ADDED AS I STUMBLE ACROSS THEM]
THIS ENTRY IS PUBLIC. FEEL FREE TO SHARE.
To start off, here's an EXCELLENT article that summarizes day 5 much better than I do. ;)
(As always, information taken from trial transcripts provided by liveblogging via Firedoglake's Teddy and Emptywheel, as well as prop8trialtracker.com.)
Dr. MICHAEL LAMB: Social psychologist at Cambridge and before that at National Institutes of Health (NIH) where he headed developmental psychology team. Studied field since 1970s. Has a fancy British accent. Studied factors that affect children’s development and adjustment. Published about 40 books and 500 articles on childhood development.
Testimony will cover 30-40 years of research showing G&L are good parents.
Started research in 1970s with child's attachment to mother/father, originally thought male/female essential, found didn't need masculine/feminine behaving parent to be well adjusted.
Plaintiff counsel quotes from defendant-intervenor's literature: Ron Prentice's quote on "gender pathology" in children from G&L families: Lamb says no such term in psychology.
Quote: children of lesbian couples much more likely to become lesbians themselves: Lamb says familiar with study footnoted in the quote, and it doesn't say that. Does say that have less gender stereotypes, like women aspiring to broader careers, not just nurses, for example.
Quote: homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals: Lamb says studies done, proven this is "nonsense"
Quote: Dr. Joe Nicolosi says being raised in homosexual home "traumatizes" children emotionally and socially: Lamb says had no idea who Nicolosi was until trial, not in field, looked him up on internet and found he did "conversion therapy" (turning gays straight)
Quote: David Popenoe says must "disavow notion that mummies make good daddies and daddies make good mummies" because each gender necessary: Lamb says Popenoe is retired, only person currently in field who believes this is Blankenthorne (defendant-intervenor's expert witness, has not testified yet)
Wrap up: no evidence of ProtectMarriage.com's claims that children damaged by homosexual marriage
Cross examination:
(At this point, liveblogger starts referring to it as "Scopes Monkey Trial, day 5" That should give you an idea of the kinds of questions the DI is asking)
DI: says Lamb is liberal because donated to ACLU, NOW, and "even PBS"
Brings up "East Anglia Climate Change" emails to prove politics can influence science
Says most of funding is from govt, Lamb says yes but not that govt influences results
DI says Freud no longer in use, Lamb says not his particular body of research but some of his methods still used (NO IDEA what DI trying to say here, seems to contradict subsequent questions)
lots of back and forth between DI and Lamb, LOTS AND LOTS of stereotypical gender role stuff: men are alcoholics, abusive, step fathers are child molesters, women live longer, women earn less than men, men can't breast feed, more men are like Homer Simpson than not (yes, seriously). Says men and women are not interchangable, Lamb agrees but says that commonality of features of parents' behavior important to children.
DI cherry picks a bunch of Lamb's studies from 1970s to quote back at him, Lamb keeps saying that subsequent research has changed opinions, as mentioned in previous testimony (And this is the part where I start wondering where the hell they were going with the Freud thing, or really ANY of this crazy shit). DI also makes a few references to "absence of father" hurting children's development, Lamb says is in context of hetero parents, relationship to both parents instead of one parent that is important in development
Some quotes from Lamb's 1997 and 1977 books, didn't really understand this part, bad transcribing perhaps...
DI brings out a few articles published by THEIR witnesses, who have WITHDRAWN FROM THE TRIAL because they fear TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF A CAMERA. As this article contests, the reason those witnesses have withdrawn is because their depositions say no rational basis for opposing G&L marriage, and would possibly open up charges of perjury if testify.
Dr. Amato's articles: study of heterosexual parents showing long term marriages leads to less cognitive disabilities. study of African American married parents showing better health and behavior of children. (UM, HOW IS THIS IN ANY WAY COMPARABLE TO HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES? WOULDN'T THIS BE AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE??? BECAUSE THEIR KIDS WILL BE HEALTHIER AND BETTER ADJUSTED???)
Prof Doherty's article: children in married families do better than in step families, Lamb says research done for Institute for American Values (heterosexual marriage lobbying group)
DI presents a bunch of articles on step-families saying children do better with two biological parents instead of one, articles on step-fathers abusing children, etc.
DI talks about no "random sampling" of homosexual parents, Lamb says the study they have is population analysis, so no need for random sample
DI says most studies done on "well off" lesbian couples, not poor lesbians or gay fathers, trying to imply that these groups would make bad parents
(Break for lunch, after lunch: Plaintiffs point out that witness' claiming to withdraw because of cameras is a LIE, that they actually withdrew because they "COULDN'T WITHSTAND CROSS." I'm thinking that this is a bit of legalese, saying it isn't that the witness crumples under the pressure of cross, but more that their TESTIMONY crumples when put to the test. More evidence that they perjured themselves in their depositions prior to trial and wanted out.)
Judge: asks Lamb about why adopted children seek out biological parents, Lamb says origins important, wouldn't be seen as maladjustment
Judge: No reason to protect children form lesbians and gays. What about priestly abuse. How do you square your statements about that phenomenon. (I have no idea what exactly he means by this...) Lamb says many cases of heterosexual abuse by religious individuals (ha!) but homosexuals not more likely than heterosexuals to be abusers. Not saying it doesn't happen, but that it's not more likely.
DI resumes cross:
Okay, honestly, there's a lot of rambling and contradictory questions going on here, and most of them seem irrelevant. The judge seems to share my opinion to an extent, because this exchange happens:
DI: You agree that setting limits for children is important?
Judge: That’s not the only area in which setting limits are important.
[HUGE LAUGHTER]
And then we finally get to the point: I’m going to try to show that Lamb does not compare with married heterosexuals. Compares with all heterosexual parents, including those who are not married.
Lots more back and forth, and again I keep saying that this sounds more like an argument FOR same-sex marriage than it is AGAINST. Letting homosexual couples marry will result in happier kids. CASE CLOSED.
DI going through a bunch more research papers, judge asks:
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 heterosexual 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.
[Laughter]
And finally on redirect, we get this hilarious opener:
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]
Lamb says "fatherless" definition not refer to lesbian couples, but to heterosexual single moms
Discuss population analysis study based on US CENSUS which shown no difference in cognitive problems between G&L and heterosexual families. Lamb reaffirms that general conclusion in field is that children in homosexual families no more likely to be maladjusted than heterosexual families.
-----
HELEN ZIA: DI objects to having her as witness, not an expert. Plaintiffs say she's been married, can show how marriage changes people. Judge says will allow because pertinent, but will decide how much weight to give her testimony. (I actually agree with this, and think it's a smart move. While I appreciate the efforts to "humanize" the marriage conflict, I also think as a witness, this falls more into the realm of "anecdotal evidence.")
Zia: 57, Asian American author, lesbian, married
Was community organizer, women's movement, getting women into construction jobs, had a "lesbian trial" amongst friends at age 23: a bunch of women sat her down in a semicircle, said had noticed she was working in women's movement and was friends with a lot of lesbians, didn't want to have her in their "community of color" (Asians) if she was a lesbian, asked her point blank if she was a lesbian, said "no" to keep her friends, stepped into the closet. Quit work with women's groups.
Since coming out, has lost contact with family members, been disinvited from giving speeches, afraid to show affection in public. Said during prop 8 campaign, when out trying to get votes, people would come up and call her a "fucking dyke." People would read prop 8 literature on how same-sex marriage lead to polygamy, beastiality, and end of human race, and would come up to her and say this.
Left NY to be with Leah. Registered for Domestic Partnership, anti-climactic. No celebration. Married on President's Day, volunteering at licensing office and typed up own marriage license. Invited 200 people to reception, Leah's dad retired judge in Hawaii was going to come officiate affirmation ceremony, but marriage invalidated one week before reception. Finally married again in 2008.
Marriage changed relationships with extended family. Grandma had always thought was just good friend, even after 17 years, but after marriage finally got it. Families are in-laws now, have more contact with each other. Leah's father stops by Helen's brother's house to give him fruit from garden, never did that before.
Not much of a cross: tries to imply that even though marriage invalidated, still had ceremony so was all okay. Also tries to imply only reason got married was in defiance of government.
Redirect reaffirms that Domestic Partnership not emotionally equal to marriage.
(WHOO. That's it until tomorrow, kiddies.)
---
Additional references:
The Road to Perjury
Summary: The defendant-intervenor's expert witnesses withdraw due to fear of perjury, not fear of harassment (cited in text above)
Home Court Advantage
Summary: More on the sticky subject of sexuality as a "suspect" class.
Irony Defined
Summary: ProtectMarriage.com's humorous cease and desist order.
An excellent summary of the Trial's first week
A Tale of Two Lawyers
Summary: On the two lawyers doing most of the questioning in the trial: McGill (plaintiff) and Thompson (DI)
Justices Better at Precedence than Prescience
Summary: And examination in the NY Times about how the SCOTUS is bad at predicting the effects of its rulings, with a mention of Prop 8.
Savvy Marketing Surrounds Prop 8
Summary: Variety article about the media buzz surrounding the trial, and the DI's opposition to it
[MORE ARTICLES MAY BE ADDED AS I STUMBLE ACROSS THEM]
THIS ENTRY IS PUBLIC. FEEL FREE TO SHARE.