Day 6 in Prop 8 Trial
Oh, god. Day 6.
(As always, information taken from trial transcripts provided by liveblogging via Firedoglake's Teddy and Emptywheel, as well as prop8trialtracker.com.)
Before we begin, it's probably a good idea to read this to understand what the plaintiffs are hoping to accomplish with Jerry Sanders' testimony. Remember, this trial is all about animus vs. rational basis.
JERRY SANDERS: mayor of San Diego, republican, cop for over 30 years, married, 2 daughters, one is gay.
Originally opposed gay marriage, felt domestic partnerships were fair alternative. Changed position in Sept 2007. Plaintiffs showed video of his announcement:
(If you're like me, you'll need a minute to collect yourself. There's been several times that the livebloggers watching this trial have had a very visceral, emotional reaction, but this is the first time I had one as well. I imagine it's completely different seeing it live as opposed to reading the transcripts. See, THIS is why the DI doesn't want the trial televised. How dare anyone EMOTIONALLY EMPATHIZE with the G&L people like Sanders did? They're afraid of everything that Sanders stands for, that normal people might realize they are wrong, that they never MEANT to hurt anyone but now they see that they are, and they'll change their minds. This is the everyman that the DI is afraid of seeing this trial.)
Sanders says was emotional because felt had almost made a terrible mistake, realized he was being prejudiced.
Daughter didn't ask him to sign it, was very understanding of political situation and wanted to see her dad get reelected, but when explained position to friends and members of staff, saw how hurt they were, and realized how much he was hurting them.
Plaintiff asks how could he be discriminating against them if he's someone committed to equality, had participated in the G&L community for years? Sanders says by telling them their relationships are less than equal to marriage.
(Okay, I'm skipping a lot of stuff here, because I got up late and I have class in a few hours, so I'm gonna do more paraphrasing than normal...)
Sanders says daughter deserves right to wedding, and she got DP then married a few years ago, her marriage hasn't hurt his marriage at all, saw "Protect our Children" campaign materials and couldn't imagine why anyone would need to be protected from his daughter.
Cross examination: Lots of questions about how active he was in the G&L community, how he never felt hatred for G&L but supported civil unions. Sanders says never felt hatred, but believes he was prejudiced. DI spouts off a bunch of possible reasons for people to vote yes on 8 that not motivated by hatred or animus: religion, believing marriage is about procreation, history/tradition. Sanders says believes none motivated by hatred, but all motivated by prejudice.
(And then we get to the part that really turns my stomach.)
DI asks if supported hate crime legislation, Sanders says yes. DI asks if opposed to violence based on race, sexual orientation, or religion, Sanders says yes. THEN DI PLAYS A VIDEO OF PROP 8 SUPPORTERS CLAIMING TO HAVE BEEN BEATEN BY GAYS, SIGNS STOLEN, PROPERTY VANDALIZED.
DI also asks if has marched in Pride Parades, gone to Log Cabin Republican meetings (implying used them to influence GOP, win reelection), given speeches at G&L centers, Sanders says yes to all.
Redirect: Plaintiffs ask how many parades walked in, overall? numerous parades every year. How many Log Cabin Republicans in San Diego? 4. How many speeches/debates? Over 75, only 2 at G&L center. Asks if ever saw or heard of events like the ones described in the video? Says no, but his home and every other in his neighborhood with a "No on 8" sign had GOD'S LAW chalked on their driveway.
-----
Now, DAVID BOIES (YAY) is questioning Dr. LEE BADGETT
Dr. LEE BADGETT: PhD in economics, 2 books about gay marriage, numerous articles, etc.
(Okay, this sounds a lot like Dr. Egan's testimony on day 4, but I'm guessing economics are very important in CA right now. Anyway, I'm gonna be doing a lot of cut and paste...)
1· Prop 8 inflicts substantial economic harm on same-sex couples residing in CA and their children.
2· Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not adversely affect different-sex couples, children, or the institution of marriage.
3· Same-sex couples are similar to different-sex couples in most economic and demographic respects
4· Prop 8 imposes substantial economic losses on California and its counties and municipalities.
So, basically, she (the witness) is giving a big slide show. Let me summarize the above points very briefly:
1: harm on same sex couples: less benefits/higher taxes to same sex couples costs more money that doesn't go to children
2: compares examples from Netherlands (which DI's expert was going to discuss before he got scared and pulled out) with Massachusetts, Mass more applicable b/c less cultural differences, no effect on opp sex marriage
3: both raise children, both seek out partners similar to selves (race, age, socioeconomic status), both seek econ benefits of marriage
4: roughly $40 million for the state
Cross examination: LET'S TALK ABOUT THE NETHERLANDS!
Okay, so this goes on forever, and I'm just going to BRIEFLY summarize so I can get to school. I might come back and summarize in more detail later, but it's unlikely. ;)
Gist is that because more people are choosing domestic partnerships in Netherlands over marriage, then likely to expect the same thing here. But Badgett counters that more likely to see data like in Massachusetts.
DI shows data claiming that AB 205 (which extended rights of domestic partnerships to be similar to marriage) resulted in less registrations and increase in dissolutions, trying to show that G&L don't want "permanent" relationships. (I really don't understand this tactic. I mean, obviously they DO or they wouldn't be fighting so hard for it. And even if only a handful of people wanted to get married, shouldn't that be their CHOICE? And if a bunch of them didn't want to get married, how would that be any different than what we have now, where a BUNCH OF G&L PEOPLE AREN'T MARRIED? HOW WOULD THAT BE DAMAGING, CONSIDERING IT'S HYPOTHETICALLY NO DIFFERENT FROM THE CURRENT LAW, WHICH THEY'RE TOTALLY HAPPY WITH? SO HOW WOULD CHANGING THE LAW AFFECT ANYTHING????)
Lots of back and forth trying to show Badgett's conclusions based on flawed data. Judge Walker gets bored and a bit snippy.
Lots MORE discussion about the Netherlands. The DI is constantly hauling out this giant binders for the plaintiff's expert witnesses to go through with a bunch of trumped up data on the Netherlands, and so far nobody's bought it. I'll direct you to this article, which I think speaks volumes about what the DI is willing to do with the numbers.
Badgett doesn't seem particularly impressed with all this, either:
B: Doesn’t make any sense to me. 5.6% in 1994 and 6.4% in 2008 and call that a 150% increase does not make any sense to me.
Or the judge, for that matter:
Walker: Are we done with the big binder?
Redirect: Boies does a BANG UP JOB of putting up the chart linked above, then EVISCERATING the DI's use of the chart showing only data from 1994 onward. Also shows data of US divorce rates compared to Massachusetts divorce rates, showing overall US rate is declining, but Mass rate is declining even faster since same sex marriage approved in 2004.
In fact, Boies shows that rate of increase in unmarried couples with children was HIGHER in the 4 years before gay marriage legalized in Netherlands than it ever was AFTER gay marriage legalized.
(And the judge had to adjourn early, so that's it for now.)
----
Sorry, no time for looking up articles and commentary today, but I'll see if I can find some after class today. In the meantime, here's an update on the Prop 8 lawyers' lunacy: They are now suing prop8trialtracker.com (where I get most of my info) over the use of their parody logo. Yeah. Clearly, they are trying to shut down the press coverage of this in ANY. WAY. POSSIBLE.
THIS ENTRY IS PUBLIC. FEEL FREE TO SHARE.
(As always, information taken from trial transcripts provided by liveblogging via Firedoglake's Teddy and Emptywheel, as well as prop8trialtracker.com.)
Before we begin, it's probably a good idea to read this to understand what the plaintiffs are hoping to accomplish with Jerry Sanders' testimony. Remember, this trial is all about animus vs. rational basis.
JERRY SANDERS: mayor of San Diego, republican, cop for over 30 years, married, 2 daughters, one is gay.
Originally opposed gay marriage, felt domestic partnerships were fair alternative. Changed position in Sept 2007. Plaintiffs showed video of his announcement:
Click to view(If you're like me, you'll need a minute to collect yourself. There's been several times that the livebloggers watching this trial have had a very visceral, emotional reaction, but this is the first time I had one as well. I imagine it's completely different seeing it live as opposed to reading the transcripts. See, THIS is why the DI doesn't want the trial televised. How dare anyone EMOTIONALLY EMPATHIZE with the G&L people like Sanders did? They're afraid of everything that Sanders stands for, that normal people might realize they are wrong, that they never MEANT to hurt anyone but now they see that they are, and they'll change their minds. This is the everyman that the DI is afraid of seeing this trial.)
Sanders says was emotional because felt had almost made a terrible mistake, realized he was being prejudiced.
Daughter didn't ask him to sign it, was very understanding of political situation and wanted to see her dad get reelected, but when explained position to friends and members of staff, saw how hurt they were, and realized how much he was hurting them.
Plaintiff asks how could he be discriminating against them if he's someone committed to equality, had participated in the G&L community for years? Sanders says by telling them their relationships are less than equal to marriage.
(Okay, I'm skipping a lot of stuff here, because I got up late and I have class in a few hours, so I'm gonna do more paraphrasing than normal...)
Sanders says daughter deserves right to wedding, and she got DP then married a few years ago, her marriage hasn't hurt his marriage at all, saw "Protect our Children" campaign materials and couldn't imagine why anyone would need to be protected from his daughter.
Cross examination: Lots of questions about how active he was in the G&L community, how he never felt hatred for G&L but supported civil unions. Sanders says never felt hatred, but believes he was prejudiced. DI spouts off a bunch of possible reasons for people to vote yes on 8 that not motivated by hatred or animus: religion, believing marriage is about procreation, history/tradition. Sanders says believes none motivated by hatred, but all motivated by prejudice.
(And then we get to the part that really turns my stomach.)
DI asks if supported hate crime legislation, Sanders says yes. DI asks if opposed to violence based on race, sexual orientation, or religion, Sanders says yes. THEN DI PLAYS A VIDEO OF PROP 8 SUPPORTERS CLAIMING TO HAVE BEEN BEATEN BY GAYS, SIGNS STOLEN, PROPERTY VANDALIZED.
DI also asks if has marched in Pride Parades, gone to Log Cabin Republican meetings (implying used them to influence GOP, win reelection), given speeches at G&L centers, Sanders says yes to all.
Redirect: Plaintiffs ask how many parades walked in, overall? numerous parades every year. How many Log Cabin Republicans in San Diego? 4. How many speeches/debates? Over 75, only 2 at G&L center. Asks if ever saw or heard of events like the ones described in the video? Says no, but his home and every other in his neighborhood with a "No on 8" sign had GOD'S LAW chalked on their driveway.
-----
Now, DAVID BOIES (YAY) is questioning Dr. LEE BADGETT
Dr. LEE BADGETT: PhD in economics, 2 books about gay marriage, numerous articles, etc.
(Okay, this sounds a lot like Dr. Egan's testimony on day 4, but I'm guessing economics are very important in CA right now. Anyway, I'm gonna be doing a lot of cut and paste...)
1· Prop 8 inflicts substantial economic harm on same-sex couples residing in CA and their children.
2· Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not adversely affect different-sex couples, children, or the institution of marriage.
3· Same-sex couples are similar to different-sex couples in most economic and demographic respects
4· Prop 8 imposes substantial economic losses on California and its counties and municipalities.
So, basically, she (the witness) is giving a big slide show. Let me summarize the above points very briefly:
1: harm on same sex couples: less benefits/higher taxes to same sex couples costs more money that doesn't go to children
2: compares examples from Netherlands (which DI's expert was going to discuss before he got scared and pulled out) with Massachusetts, Mass more applicable b/c less cultural differences, no effect on opp sex marriage
3: both raise children, both seek out partners similar to selves (race, age, socioeconomic status), both seek econ benefits of marriage
4: roughly $40 million for the state
Cross examination: LET'S TALK ABOUT THE NETHERLANDS!
Okay, so this goes on forever, and I'm just going to BRIEFLY summarize so I can get to school. I might come back and summarize in more detail later, but it's unlikely. ;)
Gist is that because more people are choosing domestic partnerships in Netherlands over marriage, then likely to expect the same thing here. But Badgett counters that more likely to see data like in Massachusetts.
DI shows data claiming that AB 205 (which extended rights of domestic partnerships to be similar to marriage) resulted in less registrations and increase in dissolutions, trying to show that G&L don't want "permanent" relationships. (I really don't understand this tactic. I mean, obviously they DO or they wouldn't be fighting so hard for it. And even if only a handful of people wanted to get married, shouldn't that be their CHOICE? And if a bunch of them didn't want to get married, how would that be any different than what we have now, where a BUNCH OF G&L PEOPLE AREN'T MARRIED? HOW WOULD THAT BE DAMAGING, CONSIDERING IT'S HYPOTHETICALLY NO DIFFERENT FROM THE CURRENT LAW, WHICH THEY'RE TOTALLY HAPPY WITH? SO HOW WOULD CHANGING THE LAW AFFECT ANYTHING????)
Lots of back and forth trying to show Badgett's conclusions based on flawed data. Judge Walker gets bored and a bit snippy.
Lots MORE discussion about the Netherlands. The DI is constantly hauling out this giant binders for the plaintiff's expert witnesses to go through with a bunch of trumped up data on the Netherlands, and so far nobody's bought it. I'll direct you to this article, which I think speaks volumes about what the DI is willing to do with the numbers.
Badgett doesn't seem particularly impressed with all this, either:
B: Doesn’t make any sense to me. 5.6% in 1994 and 6.4% in 2008 and call that a 150% increase does not make any sense to me.
Or the judge, for that matter:
Walker: Are we done with the big binder?
Redirect: Boies does a BANG UP JOB of putting up the chart linked above, then EVISCERATING the DI's use of the chart showing only data from 1994 onward. Also shows data of US divorce rates compared to Massachusetts divorce rates, showing overall US rate is declining, but Mass rate is declining even faster since same sex marriage approved in 2004.
In fact, Boies shows that rate of increase in unmarried couples with children was HIGHER in the 4 years before gay marriage legalized in Netherlands than it ever was AFTER gay marriage legalized.
(And the judge had to adjourn early, so that's it for now.)
----
Sorry, no time for looking up articles and commentary today, but I'll see if I can find some after class today. In the meantime, here's an update on the Prop 8 lawyers' lunacy: They are now suing prop8trialtracker.com (where I get most of my info) over the use of their parody logo. Yeah. Clearly, they are trying to shut down the press coverage of this in ANY. WAY. POSSIBLE.
THIS ENTRY IS PUBLIC. FEEL FREE TO SHARE.