bscorp (bnmc2005) wrote in ontd_political,

The Chrisitians are oppressed! :Prop 8 trial Day 3.

Fire Dog Lake provides Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day Three, Wednesday Morning (Ten) By: Teddy Partridge Wednesday January 13, 2010 10:00 am. Also some excellent summaries provided at prop8 tracker  such as; "Thompson now wants to show video of people who were beaten up for supporting Prop 8.  [ETA: CARRIE PREJEAN MAKES A CAMEO FFS!!!] SF Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart objects, because it is not relevant.>> Opponents of gay marriage love playing the victim.  The irony of this is that during the Prop 8 campaign, "Yes on 8" folks tried to organize boycotts of businesses that gave money to "No on 8." See: -- Once the Election was over, nobody talks about this anymore.  All we hear about is "Yes on 8" people being boycotted and persecuted for their beliefs, when the EXACT SAME THING happened to our side before the election.  Judge allows Thompson to continue line of questioning on religious groups being “defaced” — but won’t let him show a video (commentary on  .)

Resuming Dedendant-intervenor counsel Thompson’s cross examination of Dr Chauncey.

Exhibit objections from yesterday resolved.

Thompson: We now have a cleaner color copy of the exhibit that was blurry. Shall we mark and substitute in the binders.

Walker: Please file as 1775-A instead of substituting.

Thompson: I wanted the list of exhibits of sources to be entered into the record. D-I has not agreed to the exhibit. PX next in order.

Thompson: Are you struck, Dr Chauncey, by the rapid changes in public opinion about same sex marriage?

Chauncey: Struck by the rapid changes as well as the polarization.

Thompson: Refer to your book Why Not Marriage? Tab 6 Roman XII

Thompson: first full paragraph: I am most struck about how quickly….

Chauncey: Yes…

Thompson: Just yes or no please Did you write that?

Thompson: Yes in 2004.

Chauncey: Gallup did a poll showing 44% said homosexuality was an unacceptable lifestyle 86% in 2002 should have equal rights.

Chauncey: Would have to see source

Thompson: As even more divided, more supportive or rights while less supportive of lifestyle

Chauncey: Yes I recall that trend

Thompson: After Mathew Sheppard’s murder, the sense that people accepted gay people in our own time?

Chauncey: Yes, growing support and growing polarization.

Thompson: Didn’t civil unions seem radical in 2000?
Didn’t all Democratic candidates for Prez in 2004 support civil unions?
Didn’t GWBush even moderate his views?
In a roundabout way yes
Even state legislatures passed recognition and security for gay couples.
Which ones?
CA has passed a sweeping D/P law, right?

Thompson: Are you aware of more recent polling data?

Chauncey: Can’t give you particulars, 1/3 marriage, 1/3 D/P but not marriage.

Thompson: Generational change is even more striking, yes? Aren’t 20s and 30s four to five more times as likely as their grandparents to support gay marriage?

Chauncey: Sounds about right.

Thompson: And wasn’t the first part of this century a decisive turning point?

Chauncey: Speaking broadly, MA, etc, yes.

Thompson: Hard to think of a group whose circumstance have changes so quickly?

Chauncey: Over the past generation, yes

Thompson: Above all a sea change in the young seeing gay people treated with rights and in society?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Article, Dr Herrick, "Beyond Homophobia" DO you know of him?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: (reading) The widespread oppose to Prop8 and that proponents have been so careful not to bash gay people shows a sea change in how gays are treated. Do you agree?

Chauncey: Perhaps, although they did draw on the fears of earlier campaigns

Thompson: IN colonial era, sodomy laws regulated behavior in which anyone could engage, yes?

Chauncey: BY state, couldn’t qualify generally, primarily regulated male sexual behavior.
T Was prohibition on sodomy a prohibition anti-gay behavior?

Chauncey: No
T Isn’t anti-gay prejudices a 20th century behavior?

Chauncey: Didn’t apply just to homos (old laws) but the construction of an edifice of anti-gay legality grew out of our understanding of homosexuality.

Thompson: Isn’t anti-gay a unique and essentially modern construct in America?

(missed some)

Thompson: Can’t G&L go to any bar?

Chauncey: Perhaps

Thompson: Any raids lately in USA?

Chauncey: Yes, Ft Worth just last summer

Thompson: any others last ten years

Chauncey: None I can think of

Thompson: Turning to the medical community, leading researchers claimed homosexual was pathological or a disease, all considered it such, right?
But the medical lit was incorrect, yes
We would say so from our perspective, yes
Such pronouncements were part of G&L discrimination, yes?

Thompson: Institutions that discriminated against G&L no longer form the medical basis for that, right?

Chauncey: Which institutions, please

Thompson: Let’s look at your SCOCA testimony

Thompson: "Major institutions… (just as above)

Chauncey: Yes I wrote that

Thompson: AMA, APA, APhA, etc, right?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: More than 35 years, G&L is not a pathology or disease, yes?

Chauncey: Yes
Now, academia

Thompson: Your training was at Yale all the way to PhD and now you teach there. You are now astonished at how Yale has changed in its acceptance of GLBT students and faculty, yes

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Even when supported by Nancy Cott as a grad student, you found opposition to your thesis at Yale, right?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Dramatic changes everywhere, not just Yale?

Chauncey: But Yale is not representative of the US

Thompson: Thank goodness for that!

Thompson: Were media, all CA media was opposed to Prop 8. Is the news media in CA supportive of gay rights?

Chauncey: Broad categorization

Thompson: Do you read the NYT

Thompson: Is the NYT supportive of gay rights?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Let’s talk about TV! Sitcoms, number of characters on TV melodramas and sitcoms, became a regular part of the TV landscape in the 1990s?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Even Americans with no gay/Lesbian friends were exposed to G&L people, through TV, correct?

Chauncey: Probably, yes. An increased range of images available.

Thompson: Dramatically increased the range of homos seen by Americans.

Chauncey: Yes, a wide range

Thompson: Will & Grace was immensely popular, yes? Was it hostile to gays?

Chauncey: I did not think so, although some thought it played to a comedic role of gays.

Thompson: Now, movies, there is no censorship code, now we have the ratings system. "Philadelphia" was the first studio film to address AIDS?
Yes, in 1993

Thompson: Brokeback Mountain was big success and numerous awards, yes?

Chauncey: Although I struck there are not more such movies, but yes.

Thompson: Now as to government. Many cities and communities, including SLCity now have anti-disc laws, right?

Chauncey: Not aware, but if you say saw, I am sure it’s true.

Thompson: And the CA state leg has passed laws removing disc against G&L.

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Fed govt is prohibited from disc against G&L?

Chauncey: Not in the military! [score!]

Thompson: Setting aside that as a footnote, then.

Thompson: Powerful ally of G&L in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi?

Chauncey: Question how much of an ally given how little has been done at the fed level?

Thompson: House passed ENDA?

Chauncey: Not sure

Thompson: Barney Frank powerful, chairman of House Banking, an ally?

Chauncey: Well, yes

Thompson: Barbara Boxer

Chauncey: I’d have to check, but I think so.

[although boxer does not support full marriage equality]

Thompson: And unions are now a powerful ally of G&L?

Chauncey: That’s kind of broad.

Thompson: Were the feds slow to respond to AIDS crisis?
Because of the stigma of the gays, you think?
But now the funding has increased dramatically?
But any would be dramatic, since none was spent early.

You testified not all states have laws, but haven’t 1000s of private employers adopted non-disc regs?

Chauncey: Not sure about 1000s

Thompson: Well let’s look at your testimony in the SCOCA case: "Thousands of private employers…." IS that not now true>

Chauncey: well I did the work then, and haven’t referred back to it, but I’m sure it was true then and is likely true now.

Thompson: Did efforts of G&L political power constitute a massive grassroots efforts?

Chauncey: Yes, over many years

Thompson: Gay political clout, individually and collectively, gay power has grown in parts of the country, yes?

Chauncey: Parts, yes

Thompson: Heteros have taken up the cause?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Your states indicate 2%-5% of pop is G&L, yes? Based on Lauman?

Chauncey: Yes, Lauman says 2-3%

Move PX 943, Lauman study into evidence

Walker: admitted

Thompson: In 1992, a distinct shift as gay issues moved to the center of the debate for the first time, yes?

Chauncey: Yes, Clinton voiced support for gay rights more forcefully than any other had in the past, along with a more conservative GOP.

Thompson: Clinton appointed lots of gays and implemented lots of EOs, right?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Security clearance removed from the bar on employment of G&L?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: G&Ls were relatively powerless to win rights at the federal level, yes?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: BY which you wrote, they could get their issues CONSIDERED but not necessarily won, yes? (reading)

Chauncey: Yes

OJECTION, Withdrawn

Thompson: No longer the case that employers ferret our and fired from state, local, and federal agencies?

Chauncey: No, I would say not

Thompson: No longer barred from entry into the US?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Now, on to DADT. Military no longer screens at induction?

Chauncey: Not sure how that works.

Thompson: military no longer conducts police raids on bars, right?

Chauncey: I don’t think so.

Thompson has a NEW binder he’d like to pass around about DADT.

Thompson: Tab 9 & 10, from CRS about DADT, we can see that Reagan discharged 2000 persons in 1982. In 1991, 941 were discharged. But in 2008, only 634 were discharged.

Chauncey: Yes that’s correct but the size of the military declined, same percentage declined.

Thompson: Less than half than when Reagan?

Chauncey: Yes, that was the high point.

Thompson: You truncated your analysis in your report at the year 2000, right?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Now as to the medical. Courts used to detain people based on their pathology, yes?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: No longer?

Chauncey: Yes, not any more

T Courts in IA, MA, CA — courts reflect increased public support for marriage by G&L, right?

Chauncey: Those rulings reflect the ruling that G&L were entitled to equal protection. It went against much public opinion.

Thompson: First American laws were rooted in the settlers understanding of the religious and secular bans on homo behavior, right?

Chauncey: Yes, reflected secularization of the law

Thompson: Men lying with men, sodomy, right?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Reading of the scripture, yes?

Chauncey: I believe so

Thompson: Puritans did not see homos as a distinct minority of humankind, right?

Chauncey: There was no concept of homosexual.

Thompson: All men and women were sinners, right?

Chauncey: Yes
T Just as our churches now view all men and women as fallen?

Chauncey: Probably

Thompson: Many churches, though, support the rights of G&Ls, right?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Christian right’s fierce oppose to gay rights is a minority opinion among prot demons?

Chauncey: I wrote that but not sure it’s right

Thompson: but you wrote that?

Chauncey: But sometimes I make mistakes!

Lutheran, Methodists, Church of Christ, Episcopal, Disciplines of Christ, Presbyterian Church, many clergy support gay rights, offer rooms to gays to meet? (asks each)

Chauncey: Yes (to all, individual)

Quaker, Unitarians, Reformed Judaism, MCC, all encourage their clergy to perform legal gay marriages, yes?

Chauncey: Yes, but that’s a small percentage of all denominations

Thompson: Wants to play a video of the signing of (DIX648) DC bill signing of same sex marriage from WaPo website, in A CHURCH

Thompson: Reserves objection until it is seen

Walker, Very well

(Plays news video: people are THRILLED to be a part of this, very PROUD, an amazing day to see my rights affirmed, a very important day, really important to see this signed in a CHURCH, we look forward to seeing G&L weddings in sanctuaries all over the city in churches like this)

Thompson: Does this symbolize the growing support among some denominations for same sex marriage?

Chauncey: Yes, as I said, but it is a small percentage of American churches.

Thompson: OBJECTION as to relevance.

Walker; Admitted for possible value.

Thompson: Less acceptable to demonize homos today?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Rick Warren is a big deal, right, lotsa best sellers, right? (para)

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: want to show a rick warren video, not admitted into evidence, just to get witnesses reaction

VIDEO: Alan Colmes interviews Pastor Rick™ who LOVES everyone and thinks everyone should show respect to everyone regardless of their LIFESTYLE or RELIGIOUS Beliefs, but NO redefinition of marriage….

Thompson: IS this a stark change from Jerry Falwell?

Chauncey: Yes, but he talked about CHOICE and LIFESTYLE, implication that it was. But he thought G&L relationships shouldn’t be treated as others.

Thompson: Bottom line, there’s been a significant shift in acceptance of gay people/

Chauncey: Shift and support as well as tremendous hostility.

Thompson: In CA, (reading) haven’t people migrated here because it’s less hostile?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: more protections than any other state?

Chauncey: Not sure, but there are many in CA

Thompson: How many of the 60 state ballot initiatives were in CA?

Chauncey: Don’t know

Thompson: How many in CA were won by G&L?

Chauncey: Don’t know

Thompson: Briggs in 1970, defeated, right?

Chauncey: Yes, even Reagan thought it was censorship of teachers.

Thompson: Purposes behind Prop 8. I now want to quote from Obama’ Sanctity of Hope, regarding the special validity of marriage one man on woman. Is this moral disapproval of G&L relationships?

Chauncey: It shows he thinks less of them, I am reluctant to plumb the mind of presidential candidates. I don’t know Obama’s motivation.

Thompson: is it possible to have this position without moral disapproval?

Chauncey: Yes, but it would show a view that relationships were less equal

Thompson: Refer to your testimony before SCOCA in the marriage case the validity of Prop 22. SCOCA says Prop 22 was not enacted with "invidious intent or purpose." Do you agree?

Chauncey: Need some time to assess this

Thompson: You were an EXPERT in this case, no?

Chauncey: Yes I was

Thompson: Well let me ask, do you think Prop 22 was passed with invidious or discriminatory intent or purpose?

Chauncey: It reflected a sense of inequality

Thompson: A hatred a gays and lesbians?

Chauncey: Hatred would account for some who supported it, others would not express hatred but would regard G&L as unequal without the same status and rights in their obviously inferior relationships

Thompson: (DIX881): Article by Rausch, Gay Marriage Good for gays, straights, America. Page 7 pleases. 3rd sentence. ‘SOME opponents are bigoted or homophobic, but most are motivated to do the best for their children and their families and their relationships.’

Chauncey: I can’t comment on people’s motivations for voting against gay rights, but I can comment on how people were appealed to for their vote.

Thompson: So you don’t know why people supported prop 8?

Chauncey: There is a range of reasons

Thompson: Some of them would fall in this category, though, right?

Chauncey: You would have to ask why people thought opposing marriage equality was best for their families and their children.

Thompson: (video DIX 2553)
Thompson: What is this?

Thompson: Carrie Prejean, Gavin Newsom, Carrie’s reaction.
Stewart: Not relevant

Thompson: Way more interested in what Newsom has to say
Walker: I’m MOST interested in what the witness has to say

Thompson: Well, the witness testifies there is a RANGE of reasons.
Thompson: This is going WAY beyond the scope of my direct questioning, not relevant

Walker: Pushing out of boundaries, but let’s see how the witness reacts.

(Very odd, just clips of Carrie and Gavin, not even an actual news report)

Stewart objects again, Thompson says "We’ll move on"

Thompson: Is the gay community unanimous in its support of gay marriage? "This isn’t the freedom we want"

Chauncey: Date on that?

Thompson: In your book, perhaps in a footnote. Page 3, newspaper entitled Gay Power

Chauncey: Short-lived publication in the 1960s and 1970s in New York City.

Thompson: But that reflected the dominant sentiment, G&L people were not interested in marriage at that time

Chauncey: At that time yes, 1960s and 1970s.

Thompson: Lesbian feminists even more opposed to proponents, yes?

Chauncey: Yes, then

Thompson: Courts called petitions preposterous, and gay activists agreed then, right?

Chauncey: At that time, yes, the idea of marriage was thought to be impossible

Thompson: Nan Hunter regarded marriage as a more flexible institution, changed since the 1970s and WOULD BE CHANGED AGAIN by including G&Ls, right?

Chauncey: Yes

Thompson: Many gays agree with that, right

Chauncey: What era are we in now, please

Thompson: Well, look in your book, page 121
C; here I describe the evolution of the debate over gay marriage in the movement during the 1980s and 1990s. some gay activists opposed working for marriage equality, while there a was shift in sentiment and it became more widespread

THOMPSON: I’d like to break
Waloker: aren’t you almost done

Thompson: If I break, I can separate wheat from chaff
Walker: Well I can’t resist an offer to separate wheat from chaff, break until fifteen past the hour.

Tags: california, christianity, hate crimes, marriage, marriage equality
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →
← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →