Friday, January 22, 2010

Prop8 Trial: the crux

I'll have a proper update done tomorrow over at Gay Married Californian (for all my updates and posts about this trial, click here). But for right now: the final witness for the plaintiffs (our side) is currently being cross examined. The heart of that examination is to argue that being gay is not immutable, because some number of people have sexual partner of either sex. Are they gay, or straight? The defense apparently want to say that it's a problem if sexuality is fluid or changeable in any way. And that anyone who has had partners of different sexes isn't "really" GLBT (but by that logic, how can you say they are really hetero?)

If marriage is simply marriage, regardless of orientation, it makes NO difference what genders are involved. My wife was married to a man before coming out to herself in middle age. (This is not uncommon for many lesbians I know). Now she's married to a woman. Why is that a problem, if divorcing and marrying another man is not? The only problem is if you define marriage between women as something different between marriage between a man and a woman. That's the crux: we say marriage is marriage, and one definition is sufficent for both. They say you have to have a special category for GLBT people.

But (paradoxically) the defense are trying to show that there is no such thing as gay people; that it's not a characteristic that is unchangeable, but it's a choice. And therefore, we aren't a legitimate minority (in legal parlance, a "suspect class") that would deserve the highest degree of protection for civil rights. Of course religion is definitely a choice, and that is protected.

Yesterday we had a hateful, ignorant man state that marriage between gay people would corrupt children, lead to incest and siblings marrying, and prostitution and child sex.

This whole thing is making me physically sick.


Ann said...

Healing prayers IT. Thank you for all you do keeping up with this. I am sorry that we even need it. Hoping for a good outcome -- and if it goes to the SCOTUS - that the face of the court has changed by then.

IT said...

Thanks, Ann.

Göran Koch-Swahne said...

What Ann said!

dr.primrose said...

I've switched over to the blog report at Firedoglake - , as someone recommended, because they're more literal than then ones at the Prop 8 Tracker, though the latter has some good commentary.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights is posting the official transcripts, though they're posted a day later -- .

Yesterday's testimony from Tam was pretty revolting. When questioned about his claim during the Prop. 8 campaign that marriage for same-sex couples would linked to state approval for prostitution, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality, his response was essentially, "Well, it was something I read on the internet."


(word verification - "craze"!

IT said...

He also said NARTH was a credible source.

Ann said...

NARTH?? oh my. that is really reaching -

IT said...

Meanwhile, the defense doing the cross examination right now is saying there is NO SUCH THING AS GAY.

I do not exist.

Paul (A.) said...

I always thought you existed, IT.

I still do.

IT said...

{{{{Paul (A.)}}}}

Even IF being gay were mutable or by choice, wouldn't it still deserve theprotection we give to, say, oh I DON"T KNOW, RELIGION?

dr.primrose said...

If there's no such thing as gay, I wonder why they're fighting gay marriage so hard. If there aren't any gay people, then there are no people to particpate in gay marriage. QED.

IT said...

Well, because as William Tam said yesterday, if gay marriage is legal, then their children will fantasize marrying a same sex partner.

I agree it's painfully circular.

Karen said...


I wish there was another way to get from where we are to where we ought to be.

dr.primrose said...

One of the "best" arguments today is that same-sex partnership for males is a budget issue. Men have an attraction for other men because men have higher incomes.

I've known a lot of gay couples in my life and never heard any of them say that they were sexually aroused by each other's stock portfolios.

Not surprisingly, there doesn't appear to be any controlled study supporting this claim.

The argument also seems to ignore the inconveneint fact that, if it were true, all men would be in same-sex relationships. That doesn't appear the case. Maybe most men have some reason to be in a relationship with a woman even if her stock porfolio isn't as big as the guy next door.

I think this is a classic case of what happens when you talk ABOUT and AROUND people and not talke WITH them.

dr.primrose said...

Another great exchange btween the Pro-Prop. 8 attorney and the expert supporing same-sex marriage:


D: You talked about hate crimes. Are hate crimes illegal in CA?
H: I think crime is illegal in CA!



JCF said...

As someone who formerly (and still technically sort-of) ID's as bi:

HOW DARE they use Bisexual people's existence as an argument against SSM?!

F*CK those f*cking f*ckers!!! >:-O

IT said...

My summary of the end of the week is over at GMC.

NancyP said...

Lee Badgett and Gary Gates (collaborators) are economist and demographer of the Williams Institute (at UCLA Law School), a think-tank generating peer reviewable data on LGBTs in the US. Gay male couples' median income is almost identical to heterosexual couples' median income. Lesbian couples' median income is lower than both MM and MF couples. Disposable income is where the heterosexual and gay male couples differ, since more gay couples are DINKs (double income, no kids) than heterosexual couples.