Ed Whelan continues his analysis of the Prop 8 trial. Is this about Prop 8 or about Olson’s and Boies’ egos?
the decision by Ted Olson and David Boies and their Hollywood backers to file a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 as a violation of the federal Constitution was highly controversial among many advocates of same-sex marriage. Acceptance of, or at least acquiescence to, that decision appears to have come as a result of deference to the reputed strategic savvy of superlitigators Olson Read more…
I decided to break this very long post up into three parts. this is part 3 analyzing this interview with Lisa Miller, and the significance of the Miller Jenkins case for whether we really ought to go careening over the cliff and redefine marriage. See Part 1 and Part 2.
3. Of all the appalling things in this appalling case, the malpractice of the therapists is probably the worst. Lisa Miller had a couple of therapists suggest to her that she was a lesbian. When she was hospitalized after her suicide attempt:
So, it was when I was in the psych ward – you get put through evaluations, group therapy, individual therapy and it was through this process of them trying to figure out what was wrong with me that they said, “Well, we don’t really know but we really think that you are probably a lesbian and you are having problems with coming out issues.” Read more…
I decided to break this very long post up into three parts. this is part 2 analyzing this interview with Lisa Miller, and the significance of the Miller Jenkins case for whether we really ought to go careening over the cliff and redefine marriage. See Part 1 and Part 3.
2. This case is particularly relevant to the question we considered a couple of days ago on this blog: who counts as a lesbian? In this case, Lisa Miller comes across as a confused person, a deeply unhappy person, but not a lesbian. Read more…
This 2008 interview with Lisa Miller takes on new significance, in the light of the fact that she has gone into hiding to prevent the forced transfer of custody of her daughter to Janet Jenkins. The Miller Jenkins case also has significance for the Prop 8 trial. This case gives a taste of how redefining parenthood can easily come in the wake of redefining marriage. That’s because the VT civil union between Miller and Jenkins is the basis for the judge’s decision to award parental rights to a person who is not related to the child, either by birth or adoption.
Let us call her a non-parent. Translation: the judge is transferring custody of a child from a (perfectly fit) parent to a non-parent.
But I digress. I wanted to call attention to this interview, because it has a number of appalling features, even within an already appalling case. Read more…
George Skelton of the LA Times opines that “the notion that baby-making is the principal purpose of marriage in 21st century America is plain absurd. Let’s just say that upfront.” Well that’s nice. How does he say that with such confidence? Read more…
Frank Schubert, head of the public affairs firm that did yeoman’s work on the Prop 8 campaign, has a sister who is a lesbian. This story from the Fresno Bee, does credit to both Frank, and his sister Anne Marie.
Frank Schubert was the consultant behind recent campaigns to ban gay marriage in California and Maine. Anne Marie Schubert is a respected local prosecutor who neither promotes nor hides that she is gay. Read more…
I just got this from a friend at the Minnesota Family Council. This is one man’s “take” on whether it even matters whether we’re “born that way.” Read more…
Ed Whelan at NRO analyzes the significance of the Supreme Court’s overturn of the decision to televise the Prop 8 trial. First, it is some reflection on how the Supremes will view Judge Walker’s (lack of) impartiality.
the majority’s stinging rebuke of Judge Walker’s procedural irregularities strongly signals that at least five justices have serious questions about his impartiality and judgment in this matter….in addition to the Supreme Court’s order, Walker has already been overruled by a Ninth Circuit panel (of three Clinton appointees, no less) on an important discovery question: Read more…
Ed Whelan over at NRO has posted excerpts from the Supreme Court’s ruling on televising the Prop 8 trial. I’m not a SCOTUS-watcher, but this does seem to me to be a pretty serious rebuke of Judge Walker’s judgement in making 11th hour legal revisions to allow the unprecendented broadcasting of a federal trial.
The need for a meaningful comment period was particularly acute in this case. Both courts and legislatures have proceeded with appropriate caution in addressing this question.… Read more…
One of the commercials from the Prop 8 campaign has been shown to several witnesses. It is instructive to see their responses.
For those of you from outside CA, this was the commercial that showed that parents from MA were upset by what their second grader was being taught about homosexuality without their permission. On the first day, there was this report of the response to this ad from one of the plaintiffs. This report comes from the Oakland Tribune, on-line edition.
Plaintiff Paul Katami ….grew visibly upset when asked about the Proposition 8 campaign and its reliance on the slogan, “Protect our Children.” He called the campaign insulting. “If you put my nieces and nephews on the stand right now, I’d be the cool uncle,” he said, chuckling. Read more…
According to Protect Marriage General Counsel Andy Pugno:
We just got great news from the US Supreme Court: they granted a stay to prevent televising the Prop 8 trial! We have argued from the start that there is no precedent for Judge Walker’s decision to allow the proceedings to be televised and posted on YouTube, that it impedes a fair and impartial trial and that it subjects Prop 8 supporters – by way of having their images streamed worldwide – to harassment for their views. We are gratified by the high court’s decision.
Ron Prentice, the Executive Director of ProtectMarriage.com, issued a report on the Prop 8 trial yesterday. I recieved this report via an e-mail update from Catholics for the Common Good. I have their I have permission to quote Ron’s comments. You can subscribe to their newsletter here. (Don’t forget, you can also subscribe to the Ruth Institute newsletter, too, here.)
Day 2 Update from Ron Prentice:
Our stellar team of defense lawyers had another strong day undercutting the arguments of the plaintiffs’ experts in the federal court challenge to Proposition 8 (Perry v Schwarzenegger). As our General Counsel Andy Pugno reported earlier in the day the cross examination of Harvard Professor Nancy Cott was “a disaster” for the plaintiffs’ case. Read more…
The Quebec Policy Against Homophobia gives itself these missions and permissions:
On Page 20, the State gives itself the power to intervene in all parts of civil society, including the most private and intimate.
“awareness-raising and educational activities must publicize the various forms of homophobia, including the most insidious. It is important to target the various locations in which homophobic attitudes and behavior patterns, as well as heterosexist stereotypes, are found– in the family or workplace, at school, in sports activities, Read more…
The news from Quebec is not encouraging for those who love liberty. In their new Quebec Policy Against Homophobia: Moving Together toward social equality, Provincial government of Quebec just gave itself permission to take all necessary steps to wipe out, not just “homophobia,” but also “heterosexism.” In the opening message from the minister of Justice, and minister responsible for the fight against homophobia, Kathleen Weil states:
“Over the last thirty years, Quebec has introduced a range of legislative measures leading to recognition for the legal equality of the sexual minorities. Despite this fact, full social acceptance for sexual diversity has yet to be achieved…. Read more…
Expanding the reach of the anti-discrimination law, is almost certainly a side effect of redefining marriage. The one and only argument for ssm is the equality argument. it’s crude form, which we saw during the Prop 8 campaign, is “you’re being mean to us. you’re hurting our feelings. it’s not fair.” incredibly enough, that is what we are now hearing in a federal courtroom. The legal argument is equal protection, but that’s just a dressed up version of the same thing. And, the plaintiffs have no shame about bringing sob stories into the courtroom. so, if we accept the equality argument for purposes of marriage, it will be that much easier to accept the equality argument for anti-discrimination purposes. So, contrary to some libertarians who woudl like to think that ssm represents a retreat of the state from civil society, the exact opposite is true. Read more…
According to Andy Pugno, General Counsel for Protect Marriage, the plaintiff’s star witness,Harvard Law Prof Nancy Cott, damaged their case.
1. she admitted that marriage is more than a private arrangement, but has social significance
2. she admitted that “the public interest in promoting the raising of children by both a mother and father is a purpose that is promoted by traditional marriage.” Not the only state interest, but at least, a state interest.
3. ”the presentation of Prof. Cott as a scholarly observer fell apart when she admitted to being an entrenched and committed advocate for changing the law to allow same-sex marriage. Whether filing legal briefs, lobbying to pass legislation or supporting organizations that advocate the deconstruction of marriage, she was solidly revealed as an irretrievably biased witness.”
This last point doesn’t bother me as much as it bothers Andy. I, for instance, would be seen as a biased witness, because I am an advocate as well as a scholar. The real question is whether her position makes sense, is historically accurate, and relevant to the kind of society voters might legitimately want to create for themselves.
From the AP:
In her second day of testimony, Nancy Cott, a U.S. history professor and the author of a book on marriage as a public institution, disputed a statement by a defense lawyer that states have a compelling interest to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples for the sake of procreation. Cott said marriage also serves an economic purpose – one that was especially pronounced when it was assumed that men and women performed different jobs in their partnership. But as traditional gender roles and the purposes of marriage have changed, the reasons to bar same-sex couples from marrying have gone away, she said. “It does seem to me that the direction of change leads consistently toward the appropriateness of allowing same-sex couples to marry,” she said. “There is no longer the expectation that the man-woman differentiated, need-bound household is needed.”
In that case, Dr. Cott, what exactly is the purpose of marriage? Sharing health insurance and making people feel good? If so, why is that a public purpose at all?
After the first day of the trial, Andy Pugno posted these observations:
We’re off. The first day of trial is concluded and we are beginning to see the outlines of the plaintiffs’ case emerge. Emotion was the order of the day as our opponents took the stand to describe examples of “awkward” situations and social discomfort in their everyday life experiences. They also testified about how they experienced “hurt feelings” whenever they saw a Yes on Prop 8 campaign ad, bumper sticker, or sign. Read more…
Just to drive home the point of the previous post, one of the plaintiffs in Perry v Schwarzenegger, Sandra Stier, was married to a man for 12 years. Was she “really” a lesbian all that time, and just didn’t know it?
(The case is named after one of the plaintiffs, that is, one of the people “complaining” against the governor. Her name is Kristen Perry and her partner is Sandra Stier.)
(Note: this link is to an AP story that seems to update itself periodically. I don’t know if the same story will still be at this location. But the story I’m linking to was called “Groundbreaking gay marriage trial starts in California.”)
The quiz in this week’s Ruth Institute newsletter asks “what percentage of the population is gay?” The answer turns out to be a resounding, “It depends.” It depends on whether you’re talking about men or women, whether you’re looking at urban areas or not, and most significantly, what you mean by gay in the first place. Does a person count as gay if they have ever had a sexual fantasy about a person of the same sex? Does a single sexual encounter with a person of the same sex mean that you are “really” gay? Or does self-identification count as the final arbiter of who counts as gay? Read more…
Loading ...
