Ok so Day 2 & 3 dealt with the history of Marriage as defined by society and religion as well as the up to date current perception and sociological meanings of marriage. The Plaintiffs' (Who want defeat prop 8) Atty attempted to define gay & lesbian as a "suspect class" to show that the discrimination is systemic and institutionalized. Dr. George Chauncey’s, a "Historian's historian", talked about the history of prejudice and religious intolerance and historical impact of discrimination against gay and lesbian people.
They also discussed how the ads promoting prop 8 were almost entirely fueled by skewed stereotypes and hate speech from various religious communities. Especially the The pro-Prop 8 letter deployed, see more about it here.
And a social psychologist from UCLA — Dr. Letishia Peplak, serverd as an expert on relationship research. prop8 trial tracker's summaries: BEST QUOTE FROM PEPLAU: “I have a hard time believing that a straight couple is going to say, “Gertrude we’ve been together for 30 years. But now we have to throw in the towel because Adam and Stewart down the street are getting married.”
Today the plaintiffs are demonstrating what the economic benefits are to legalizing same sex marriage. The economist only has a brief period from which to work from (When it was legal in CA) and offers data based upon that. The Defense Attorney, of course, needs to skew the math by adding a lot of extraneous information, for instance about periods of time that people weren't allowed to marry- and illogical information about people who live together... even though not all people who get married necessarily live together before marriage and not all people who live together would like to get married.
But then there's this...
[UPDATE] 10:33 [It’s 1030. We’re taking a break. Judge had announced that the court had withdrawn from the pilot program of videoing. Cooper now says that he has submitted a letter asking that the tape recording of the trial cease. He says it is not within the local rule. ]The fuckers who support Prop 8 are trying to keep ANYONE FROM HEARING ALL OF THIS... Which tells me we should all be posting links to these transcripts FAR AND WIDE.
Cooper: Clarification. Court was asking for withdrawal of this case from recording program.
Walker: no, that’s not been altered.
Cooper: We have put in a request to court, asking that recording be halted. We believe this would require reporting to be halted.
Walker: I don’t believe so. Local rule permits the recording for purposes of taking the recording for use in chambers. That is customarily done when we have these overflow courtrooms. I think it would be quite helpful for me to have that recording. That’s the purpose for which recording to be made going forward. Not for purposes of public broadcasting or televising. Taking of photographs or recording for those purposes. Recording is not being made for those purposes.
Cooper: I appreciate that clarification.
[They will do ANYTHING to keep this trial secret. I truly believe they’d rather have this trial in a star chamber (Ken or otherwise) than in public. They are afraid of the truth.]
Lot of numbers today so instead of the wall-0-text I am just posting some highlights so far: See the full Source @ emptywheel.firedoglake.com
Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day Four, Thursday AM One (Fourteen)
By: emptywheel Thursday January 14, 2010 8:48 am
Edwin Egan first witness. Chief Economist of SF.
Edwin Egan: Legalizing same sex marriage would lead to higher behavior, reduction in public health costs. Connection between marital status and healthier behavior. Behave themselves in healthier ways. Two consequences. Also well known connection between health of workforce and higher productivity. Lower rates of absenteeism. More wages earned in SF, more payroll tax earned by city.
...Less reliance on health care system, including public health care system. City’s public health care costs would decline.
Counsel: Impact of marriage as compared to domestic partnership?
Egan:More than domestic partners, More people would elect to be married than would elect to DP. So you’d have more people benefitting from those healthy behaviors.
Counsel: Health insurance?
Egan:Increase number of people who have health insurance, fewer uninsured.
Egan:If same sex marriage were legalized, more companies would extend benefits as married couples, would reduce number of unisured, number of people in same sex partnerships, they are not covered. If that number of people was reducted, less uninsured people in SF. Reduce burden on covering uninsured.
Counsel: Other health spending impacts. Relationship between spending on behavioral health services.
Egan:If marriage among same sex couples were legalized, city would see reduction in costs for behavioral and physical health services.
Counsel: Reduced discrimination against LGBT.
Egan:Prohibition against same sex couples form of discrimination, if that were removed, there would be over time lessening of discrimination that those individuals would experience in daily lives.
Counsel: Relationship between discrimination and health services?
Egan:Public health told me LGBT was disproportionately high. If their discrimination was lessened, that demand would be reduced. Hard to quantify. Don’t know amount that G&L indivs require of city’s behavior health services. Spend $2.5/year on specialized services for G&L indivs, but that does not include generalized services. $365M/ year on public health.
Counsel: Local school districts.
Egan; If marriage were legalized, increase in school district revenue and other jurisdictions in CA.
Egan:Discrimination against LGBT, reduced violence and intimidation of children based on sexual orientation.
Counsel: Number of students in CA schools bullied based on sexual orientation.
Egan:Nearly 109,000 school absences due to harassment due to actual or perceived sexual orientation. Attendance less than it would be, school district funding is less than it would be. Report states that it costs CA school districts $39.9M/year. Some of that would be felt in SF. Ultimate economic value of education is process of education. To extent that excessive absences reduce quality that children receive, economic consequences.
Counsel: To extent that school districts respond to bullying, school resources?
Egan:To extent they respond.
[Plaintiffs try to introduce docs on hate crimes]
[Objection: Introduction of documents not relied on in his expert testimony.]
Egan:If same sex marriage legalized, more same sex weddings, more sales tax revenues and hotel tax revenues.
Counsel: How many marriage licenses issued in 2008?
Egan:For same sex, 5100.
Counsel: Some issued to couples from out of state, other countries? Were weddings taking place? Effect on revenues.
Egan:Source of expenditure. Two effects. Spending on event, and associated consumer spending. Weddings can also draw in guests from out of town, Stay in hotels, generate business for hotel industry.
Counsel: has been lost since same sex marriages prohibited?
Egan:Yes it has. If prohibition raised, $21M/year on resident weddings. Non-residents who come, they will have event related spending, greatly reduced compared to residents, they will generate hotel business. Third set of new economic activity, out-of-town guests, that would come for resident weddings. Combo of event spending and the per diem spending of visitors on sales tax spending.
Egan:Spending $35M. Hotel $2.5M. Tax, $1.7, $.9M hotel tax. Based on experience we saw in 2008 with same sex weddings. A short term projection. It’s reasonable to think that we will see similar level of activity, I wouldn’t expect that rate to continue forever. Even if every same sex couple who resides in SF were able to get married, still more couples forming, people moving to SF. There will always be marriages going on, some economic benefit.
Egan:Income tax benefit. If DOMA were ended.
Egan:$440 saved in income taxes a year. $74,000 in revenue for SF. Higher rate for state, bc they get more sales tax. If same sex couples got social security benefits, more to spend.
Defense Counsel for Cross
Patterson: You’ve based on 2008 period with marriage. Assumed same number of same sex couples would get married, similar rate. You recognize rate was partially due to pent up demand for same sex marriage.
Egan:A number of couples that wanted to be married quickly.
Patterson: Rate that occurred during that time frame. Inflated.
Egan:yes, that’s right.
Patterson: You believe that pent up demand not satisfied.
Egan:I’m simply assuming that there would be the same rate of marriage. To extent that that includes pent up demand, that is correct.
Patterson: based on your opinion living in city, observing pent up demand among same sex couples.
Egan:Assumed reasonable to assume you’d see same level of activity.
Patterson: I believe you testified a little differently at deposition. [Reads line with pent up demand]
Egan:Trying to reconstruct the context.
Patterson: Your basis for assuming that pent up demand not satisfied, there were pending appointments scheduled after November 2008. [Exhibit summary of marriage license appointments, and those issued]
Patterson: from June 2008 to June 30 2008. How many marriage license appointments.
Egan; 1080. 897, 836.
Walker: I think we can read these numbers, let’s go to the question.
Patterson: November 36.
Walker: Are you asking the witness whether he sees the print?
Egan:This is as of Nov 24. I don’t know how many people canceled appointment between November 5 and November 24.
Patterson: Doesn’t show pent up demand.
Egan:if you’re asking me to believe that there was pent up demand from June but not after November. I would say that this was not an indicator of pent up demand. The fact that anyone had appointment after November 5. That’s not exhaustive.
Patterson: You distinguished pent up and regular demand.
Egan:Pent up demand is not a term I used in my analysis. I simply said we should expect a similar level.
Patterson: as evidence that rate would continue you gave pending appointments. This does not support that this shows pent up demand.
Egan:it does not if you believed that this represents 100% of pent up demand. If you wanted to get married after November 4, it’s not clear you would make an appointment. You wouldn’t think that every couple would make an appointment that wouldn’t happen.
[This is completely disingenuous. Patterson is saying, "well, since there were no people asking to get married when they knew they couldn't, that is proof that no one wants to get married."]
Egan:Marriage licenses when it’s legal is a fairly good judge of demand. Licenses when it’s not legal is not a fair judgment of demand.
Patterson: How many male couple households estimates there are in SF. Unmarried partnered households.
Patterson: 9624 same sex couples living in SF. You think it’s reasonable to assume there would be 14,599.
Egan:rate of migration, don’t have necessary information to make long term calculation.
Patterson: compare with population in SF.
[This is totally bogus. Patterson is using census data about same sex couple households to argue about how many marriages to expect. But the census data shows only the same sex couple households. That is, he's assuming that only people who already live together would get married.]
Patterson: Your project that over 100% as counted by American community survey.
Egan:Census bureau doesn’t count over two year period.
Patteson: Williams uses census bureau, what percentage got married during first three years. Same methodology you used.
Egan:Which methodology are you referring to?
Patterson: How many marriages. Using US community estimates. Figure out percentage of same sex couples. Is that what Williams Institute did, and what you did.
Egan:Williams, same sex, estimate total number. You have extrapolated to produce a two year.
Patterson: 44% got married. Your projection assume over 100% of SF’s same sex couples.
Egan:I don’t believe that is a correct measure of potential weddings.
[ETA- reminder you read the transcriptions for yourself at http://prop8trialtracker.com/ and/ or http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/ Get the word out, let this trial be read and seen .... ]