Multiple technical issues hampered Act On Principles ability to deliver live tweeting of the Closing Arguments yesterday in the Perry Prop 8 Trial. Below is a compendium of all AOP tweets attempted, regardless of whether they made it to the feed or not. They appear here in chronological order:

http://twitpic.com/1xarnj #prop8 #trial reenactment taking place now outside San Francisco Federal Courthouse

#prop8 #trial 1 hour before closing arguments, even the overflow courtroom has overflowed. 30 of us are waiting for empty seats

#prop8 #trial there is rumor and speculation that they will open a second overflow courtroom. Staff just counted observers waiting 2 get in

#prop8 #trial movement! It appears they found a second overflow and your truly is “juror” number 43

#prop8 #trial front row seat !

#prop8 #trial In front row of 2nd overflow courtroom. Bailiff uncertain if electronic devices are allowed

#prop8 #trial ALL RISE!

#prop8 Olson. The right to marry has been taken away

#prop8 #olson. Presents 4 perspectives

#prop8 #olson proponents believe marriage is to channel into procreative relationships

#prop8 #olson proponents say that the harm is that the institution of marriage will change

#prop8 #olson yet their campaign emphasized that gays are not ok. That children need to be protected from knowledge of gays

#prop8 #olson judge asks that burden is on plaintiffs, right? Yes. What scrutiny applies? Strict scrutiny

#prop8 #olson does shift in reason have relevance? Yes. No basis for denying marriage

#prop8 #olson Mere negative attitudes aren’t enough to pass rational basis test, per precedent

#prop8 #olson proponents say we don’t know result of ssm. Buy we do…it strengthens the institution.

#prop8 #olson Judge: Doesnt CA accommodate G/L cpls by providing domestic partnerships? Evidence – DPs mean something completely different

#prop8 #olson 14 cases going back to 1800s, Supreme court says marriage is the most important relationship, foundation of society

#prop8 #olson supreme court. Says marriage is a right belonging to persons not to the state

#prop8 #olson It is a right of liberty, privacy, and association, according to the Supreme Court

#prop8 #olson murderers, wife beaters can get married if heterosexual, yet plaintiffs cannot

#prop8 #olson Judge: wouldnt it have been more rational if CA Supreme COurt had invalidated the 18,000 Olson: It would be less irrational

#prop8 #olson laughter about “less irrational” answer

#prop8 #olson post hoc rationalization: the deinstitutionalization of marriage, whatever that is!

#prop8 #olson the rationalization serves to hiide their animus against LGBT people

#prop8 #olson playing video of plaintiff … we have no video feed of this in overflow… being asked why he wanted to get married

#prop8 #olson “He is the love of my life; I would do anything for him”

#prop8 #olson Video of plaintiff Perry: “I have to take every bit of discriminatory behavior towards me too personally.”

#prop8 #olson Plaintiff Steer: “It would change my life dramatically. It feels true. I would feel more secure, more accepted. ”

#prop8 #olson Steer: My kids would know that “Whoever you fall in love with it’s OK!”

#prop8 #olson Olson describes Zia testimony as most compelling closing argument

#prop8 #olson expert in marriage that purpose of marriage is not primarily for procreation but a relationship between individuals

#prop8 #olson marriage expert said it is an expression of liberty…and that is what the Supreme Court said as well

#prop8 #olson Plays video of marriage expert saying that when slaves were emancipated they got married as an expression of newfound liberty

#prop8 #olson our video feed has frozen in 2nd overflow, but can still here audio.

#prop8 #olson Cott: marriage as foundation for mutual support and support of dependents. SSM would be consistent with that definition.

#prop8 #olson SSM fulfills the aims of the state. And it is up to the couple to decide whether they want to be married

#prop8 #olson Olson now drawing comparison of Prop 8 to racial restrictions on marriage.

#prop8 #olson Cott testified that therei s nothing that is like marriage, except marriage.

#prop8 #olson Dr. Meir, expert on stigma and descrimination: SSM would remove stigma

#prop8 #olson Mier Prop 8 sends message that it is ok to reject gay people, to consider them a different class

#prop8 #olson Olson now waxing poetic that it is OK to be gay, that Proponents of 8 wanted it to be known that it is NOT OK to be gay

#prop8 #olson 37,000 CA children beeing raised by SS couples, even Proponent’s principle witness AGREED that they would improve well being

#prop8 #olson talking about Proponent witness Blankenhorn: SSM would result in multiple societal benefits

#prop8 #olson Blankenhorn, SSM would be an expansion of the American idea

#prop8 #trial funny that @ADFmedia and @yeson8 tweets have fallen silent during replay of their witness’ implosion on the stand

#prop8 #olson Prop 8 proponent witness testified that on the day we allow SSM, we will be MORE American

#prop8 #olson MInority rights are particularly vulnerable

#prop8 #olson Judge: What kind of system is this? That a right has a shelf life of 6 months?

#prop8 #trial having trouble with signal in second overflow courtroom

#prop8 #trial enjoying the irony that I’m in Courtroom 8 for the prop 8 trial

#prop8 #olson Funny how teeters @ADFmedia and @yeson8 fell silent during recounting of their witness’ implosion on the stand

#prop8 #olson Prop 8 proponent’s witness declares that on the day SSM is allowed, we will be more American

#prop8 #olson Funny how teeters @ADFmedia and @yeson8 fell silent during recounting of their witness’ implosion on the stand

#prop8 #olson MInority rights are particularly vulnerable

#prop8 #olson Judge: What kind of system is this? That a right has a shelf life of 6 months?

#prop8 #olson The issues would be same in a state with a clean slate.

#prop8 #olson Judge: Should scrutiny be different for your two claims? Olson: No strict scrutiny for both

#prop8 #olson Evidence is overwhelming that this is state sponsored stigma

#prop8 #olson Judge, if Prop 8 is unconstitutional, where does that leave DP? Some may still wish to enter into that relationship.

#prop8 #olson Whatever level of scrutiny you decide, whatever objectives proponents wanted to be accomplished, isn’t being accomplished

#prop8 #olson Proponents don’t know, and keep changing what it is they hoped to accomplish with Prop 8

#prop8 #olson The right to marry is a fundamental right. State of CA is burdening both in a sever way that does no good.

#prop8 #olson Heterosexual ppl aren’t going to stop getting married, abandon their marriages, or stop raising children because their gay neighbors got married!

#prop8 #olson The “desinstitutionalization” of marriage has been happenning for reasons that have nothing to do with SSM.

#prop8 #olson The “harms” of SSM dissolve before our eyes when data was presented from MA.

#prop8 #olson In the Chinese Laundry case, taking away the right to earn a living is tantamount to slavery

#prop8 #olson Plaintiffs were descriminated against on basis of sex and sexual orientation same way Lovings were descriminated agianst on basis of race.

#prop8 #olson There is no evidence that one pair of individuals will decide, “I’m not getting married because THOSE people can get married”

#prop8 #olson No evidence that the procreational urge will be diminished, Thank God! (laughter, including from Judge)

#prop8 #olson Whatever reason for promoting Prop 8, it can’t be a post hoc motive.

#prop8 #olson Judge: Does it have to be discriminatory? Yes

#prop8 #olson Too bad those who voted for Prop 8 couldn’t have heard the evidence in this trial

#prop8 #olson 8 imposes great social harm on individuals who are our equals. They are members of society, they pay their taxes, they want to raise their children in happiness the same way their neighbors do.

#prop8 #olson They cannot have the happiness, privacy, liberty, intimacy in context of marriage that their neighbors can

#prop8 #olson imposes an unncecessary harm. the Supreme Court said it is intimacy to the point of being sacred.

#prop8 #olson If we HAD a reason, it might be ok

#prop8 #olson But we’ve IMPROVED the institution of marriage by making changes over time

#prop8 #olson has completed his summation

#prop8 #stewart Focus on 2 questions: Deprives government of revenue

#prop8 #stewart Costs to government are systematic of the harms that preventing SSM bring to society

#prop8 #stewart Society as a whole pays for that discrimination

#prop8 #stewart Texas statute preventing undocumented children from attending schools, was struck down, in part based on cost to nation and to innocent children

#prop8 #stewart it considered cost of stigma to children, the tole it would take on their inclusion in the class

#prop8 #stewart education provides tools that provides tools to enhance their own economics and society at large

#prop8 #stewart Undercuts that Prop 8 was rational

#prop8 #stewart Permanent vs transitory economic harms of Prop 8? Both. Particular to SF? Yes

#prop8 #stewart SF is a city of love, where people leave their hearts

#prop8 #stewart Reviewing costs to health care system due to results of stigma…anxiety and depression, esp.

#prop8 #stewart Judge asking whether cities have standing for appeal.

#prop8 #stewart increased costs investigating hate crimes and bullying

#prop8 #stewart local school disctricts lose attendance based funding, when absenses are caused to avoid bullying

#prop8 #Governor’s counsel Waives closing arguments

#prop8 Judge: Well I have questions!! (laughter)

#prop8 #stewart asks about situation when couple applies for DP and marriage licenses: asked about sex?

#prop8 #stewart Judge did some research…appears some forms do not require a sex determination

#prop8 #countyclerk Well, just because they can fill them out doesn’t mean they’ll be recognized

#prop8 Judge: How was determination made that these individuals were not eligible?

#prop8 #countyclerk it was clear they were of the same sex and they said they were of the same sex

#prop8 #countyclerk we will uphold rulings of courts, and laws of US and CA

#prop8 #Cooper courts have referred to the survival of the race as a purpose of marriage

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: Do people get married to benefit the community? Oh boy! I’m gonna benefit the community!

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: I’m going to have a life partner, maybe have kids, right?

#prop8 #Cooper Cooper says states interest is that it is embued with social meaning

#prop8 #Cooper Without the marital union, the race would come to an end (HUGE laughter in overflow courtroom)

#prop8 #Cooper states regulate marriage because it is crucial to the society

#prop8 #Cooper raising children outside a marriage is a threat to society

#prop8 #Cooper marriage is a license to cohabit and to produce children

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: but that license is not required right? No Should it? Well, no

#prop8 #Cooper It rationally relates to a states’ interests to regulate marriage

#prop8 #Cooper all societies and all states have not required married couples to procreate, but in no way denies that the purpose is related to procreation

#prop8 #Cooper Society could have an intrusive process to determine fertility, and could require some type of pledge to have children

#prop8 #Cooper But this would be Orwellian. Judge: It WOULD be Orwellian. But it would be rational for the state to take that step, would it not? It is not required to take that step.

#prop8 #Cooper Limiting marriage to heterozexuals increases the likelihood that children will be born to parents

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: regulation of sexual conduct of the parties is not the only obligation that flows from marriage, financial for example

#prop8 #Cooper Parental rights extend to grandparents and inlaws and grandparents, who are not involved in creation of child as human being

#prop8 #Cooper Adoptive children, state makes arrangements and legal relationships nearly identical to biological parents for the sake of the children

#prop8 #Cooper Creates benefits and obligations to mirror biological parenthood

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: State has an interest in child, regardless of whether it is born into a marrital family

#prop8 #Cooper State has interest in steering into marrital relationships

#prop8 #Cooper Evidence shows that “responsible procreation” is at heart of states’ interests in regulating marriage

#prop8 #Cooper Judge, what was witness what was testimony

(Objection: Attorney is testifying!!)

#prop8 #Cooper Blackstone says 2 great relations in life, husband and wife, natural impulse confined and regulated

#prop8 #Cooper Blackstone, that of parent and child

#prop8 #Cooper Judge isn’t buying it, says “I don’t mean to be flip, but Blackstone didn’t testify in this case!”

#prop8 #Cooper Cooper claims this evidence is before him.

#prop8 #Cooper Your honor, you dont have to have evidence for this! (Overflow Courtroom screams!)

#prop8 #Cooper Channels biological drives that otherwise might be socially destructive, via CA Supreme Court

#prop8 #Cooper Congress in Passing DOMA: society has interest in heterosexual marriage because of responsible parenthood

#prop8 #Cooper At least 2/3 of all judges who have looked at this issue, have upheld the traditional definition of marriage based on this rationale

#prop8 #Cooper the notion that the only those Irrational or dark motivation, some animus, would support prop 8, it is a slur on millions of Californians and many judges

#prop8 #Cooper Denies the goodfaith of Congress and State Legislatures, and many state electorates

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: You had a lot to choose from, why did you choose only one witness, and he was equivocal in some repects.

#prop8 #Cooper His testimony was unnecessary. Judge: This goes back to your not needing evidence!

#prop8 #Cooper Go back to your chambers and you will find this procreative purpose…

#prop8 #Cooper Traditional marriage across time and culture has nothing to do with homosexuality, was never a part of the conversation until recently

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: What should I conclude from that? At least an important purpose of marriage always has been to channel naturally procreative conduct of man and woman into enduring stable family units so that the children of that union will be raised by the people who created it.

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: Whay has the landscape changed so dramatically in the last 30 years? Haven’t changed that important purpose of marriage

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: Body of opinion that now views marriage as an option for homoxuals, developed in last 30 years, what does evidence shows prompted that change? Why? If it has never been debatable before, why is it now debatable?

#prop8 #Cooper Has become a claim, an understandable claim which we respect and credit, and the passion behind the desire of SSC to get married. That movement has developed and has made this issue a very improtant, controversial issue of public policy

#prop8 #Cooper It is one that is not taking place just in CA but elsewhere in country. Legislatures are taking different views.

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: DOesnt that mean that the definitiono f marriage is changing int he eyes of some? Yes

#prop8 #Cooper States are examining their responsibilities for a number of years

#prop8 #Cooper Judge on interracial marriage, waasn’t there a tradition that didn’t recognize the constitutional right until it was poured into a Constitutional question in 1967. Why aren’t we at that tipping point here?

#prop8 #Cooper The procreative purpose of marriage was at war with the ban against interracial marriage

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: recall that the ratioale that the mixing of races would be desctuctive, would be corrosive on society?

#prop8 #Cooper Those racist sentiments and policies had no foundation in the historical purpose of marriage, in fact were at war with it.

#prop8 #Cooper Racial restrictions of marriage were not part of common law. But opposite sex relations is definitional because the survival of the race is at stake

#prop8 #Cooper Came out of racist white supremecist theory

#prop8 #Cooper Actually made people have illegitimate children

#prop8 #Cooper Judge why isnt limitation to marriage for gay L couples at war with their desire to raise their children in the context of a marriage partnership?

#prop8 #Cooper This is the decision that 8th circuit recognized, and case after case have recognized.

#prop8 #Cooper Judge is shaking his head at notion that only hetersexual couples can have responsible childrearing

#prop8 #Cooper Society has to cope with irresponsible procreation.

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: medical intervention is somethims part even for heterosezxual couples. States interest is exactly the same, right? No. What is the difference?

#prop8 #Cooper tries to weasel out of a response: changes question to why allow all heterosexual couples to marry, even infertile ones

#prop8 #Cooper states interest in all opp sex couples being married for social structural purposes

#prop8 #Cooper by definition opposite sex couples have responsible procreation (laughter)

#prop8 #Cooper Irresponsible procreation that comes about casually, often by accident, often unintentionally. SSC can’t unintentionally procreate.

#prop8 #Cooper Opp sex marriage in infertile isnt opposed to procreational purpose of marriage, in fact it furthers it

#prop8 #Cooper Because then all of the social norms help keep fertile partner from having unintentional procreation with others

#prop8 #Cooper Neither partner in SSC, assuming homosexual orientation, represents a concern of irresponsible procreation with a third party

#prop8 #Cooper (ME: So should we allow SSM for bisexuals??)

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: What is evidence in record to show a procreational purpose was the rational by voters

#prop8 #Cooper The Yes on 8 position specifically said, protects marriage as essential institution of marriage, best for children to be raised by a mother and a father

#prop8 #Cooper Advocacy pieces, video ads speaking to the childrearing purpose of marriage

#prop8 #Cooper Standard of review – all but 4 cases use rational review including post-Lawrence

#prop8 #Cooper Out of 40+ District cases, only 4 had heightened scrutiny and all 4 were reversed

#prop8 #Cooper Plaintiffs are asking you (judge) to sail into a tsunami on the issue of the standard of review

#prop8 #Cooper Plaintiffs have to reject every possible rational basis for prop 8, and set of facts

#prop8 #Cooper Even if you judge concludes on the preponderance of evidence, must find for the state unless it could not reasonably be conveived to be true

#prop8 #Cooper Judge asked about standard of review in Rohmer (rational basis?) Cooper: found no rational basis

#prop8 #Cooper Judge, refers to Cloverleaf case, trying to determine what the rational basis that voters used to support Prop 8

#prop8 #Cooper In Cloverleaf, rational was identified, to warrant classification that was made, between types of milk cartons

#prop8 #Cooper Is the difference here the natural procreative capacity of opp sex couples as opposed to SSM?

#prop8 #Cooper Referring to Defendant invtervenors answer to last written question. Are you saying that if we find against plaintiffs, we also have to invalidate the 18,000 SSM in CA?

#prop8 #Cooper No that is not our position at all.

#prop8 #Cooper Don’t invalidate prop 8 because there are 18K marriages (? might not be understanding this)

#prop8 #Cooper Lofton 11th circuit case, evidence by DR Lamb was not adequate to render irrational the belief that children do best when raised by their own mother and father.

#prop8 #Cooper Religious beliefs of Prop 8 supporters: Hardly remarkable that religious people are part of political process, its part of the history and the constitution

#prop8 #Cooper Judiciary should not intervene in will of voters

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: well you agree that courts should do just that, in Loving, Brown, etc right? RIght

#prop8 #Cooper What is the criteria?

#prop8 #Cooper Gender is a definitional to marriage

#prop8 #Cooper Homosezuality is socially constructed, and social constructionists deny a biological origin to homoxuality

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: aren’t sex and orientation and all these socially construction, from the POV of the law

#prop8 #Cooper homosexuality is not immutable

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: religion is not immutable, but qualifies for heightened scrutiny

#prop8 #Cooper Springs not from equal protection but from first amendment

#prop8 #Cooper Homosexuality is not immutable: Difficult to define, sexual orientation does change especially in women

#prop8 #Cooper cites ridiculous study showing over 10 years 2/3 of women experience a change in sexual orientation (lots of head wagging in the overflow courtroom)

#prop8 #Cooper Judge, what about ethnicity?

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: But on St Patrick’s day, everyone is Irish. Sometimes one may look to one or another ancestor for ethnic identity

#prop8 #Cooper In High Tech Gays case, 20 years ago, ruled that Gays could get the notice of legislators and therefore not politically powerless

#prop8 #Cooper Judge exploring the ongoing strict scrutiny of certain classes even though they may have gained some political power.

#prop8 #Cooper Judge aren’t all the statues against G/L not a long history of discrimination?

#prop8 #Cooper We stipulate that, there has been a long and horrible history of discrimination against G/L

#prop8 #Cooper But history of discrimination is not enough to make strict scrutiny the standard

#prop8 #Cooper Mentally disabled not entitled strict scrutiny because they could attract attention of lawmakers and hence not politically powerless

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: Does Blankenhorn meet criteria for being declared an expert witness?

#prop8 #Cooper He does. But Cooper has nothing to add to their prior submission on the matter. But then Cooper blabs on about it anyway

#prop8 #Cooper Agrees with Olson that the analysis of the case does not change in light of CA Supreme’s decision in the in re Marriage Cases

#prop8 #Cooper Crawford v Board of Education upheld a CA Constitutional amendment which cut back on remedial tools back to where the 14th amendment required, unheld will of voters

#prop8 #Cooper Citing Blankenhorn, changing the definition of a “thing” would change the “thing”. DUH

#prop8 #Cooper We respect Plaintiff’s point of view that SSM might represent a positive change in the definition of marriage, but they cannot know whether it is

#prop8 #Cooper Claims that social scientists who have attempted to predict the future of marriage have a poor record

#prop8 #Cooper Judge asking Cooper about Blankenhorn’s statement that when we have SSM, we will be closer to American idea

#prop8 #Cooper Shares that sentiment with “many of my fellow Americans”. But he shares the notion that the threat is too daunting, too great a risk to run.

#prop8 #Cooper There are many who are against discrimination against LGBT, but who still support Prop 8

#prop8 #Cooper Judge: A disability has been put upon those who wish to marry of the same sex, don’t you have to show the benefit to the rest of society? It is, if there is a rational basis for the distinction

#prop8 #Cooper If there is no rational basis for distinguishing between 2 groups, then the distinction cannot stand. But if there is, then it stands.

#prop8 #Cooper This is not our burden, we only have to prove that including SSC would not serve those interests at all or not to the same extent

#prop8 #Cooper Finally finished

#prop8 #Olson Rebuttal

#prop8 #Olson Judge: Isnt the danger to your clients that you might actually WIN this case? That it removes it from the political realm and societal discussion to the courts

#prop8 #Olson We are at the same place as Loving. Now we say, how could that have been, that other courts had let stand other anti-micegination cases.

#prop8 #Olson Cooper wants to take back his words “We don’t know, we dont have to prove anything, we don’t need evidence”. Some of their witnesses didn’t come into this court because they had been cross examined by colleague Boies (in deposition).

#prop8 #Olson New term, that CA has interest in a new term introduced today, the Channelling Function (judge now giggling along with rest in overflow courtroom)

#prop8 #Olson the state of CA doesnt have a right to channel us a certain way, or into a certain relationship

#prop8 #Olson Expert witnesses that testified about marriage and none talked about marriage this way

#prop8 #Olson How does it help the rest of CA by keeping SSC out of the “club”? It doesn’t

#prop8 #Olson showing Blankenhorn video about deinstitutionalizing marriage…it predates discussion of SSM. Others talked about changes to marriage including no-fault divorce. NY about to become 50th state to adopt no fault divorce. So much for the channelling function.

#prop8 #Olson more Blankenhorn…about Adoptive parents no better than biological parents – because they are rigorously screened, the children turn out better.

#prop8 #Olson Children to SSC are often better off, and will be better off still if their parents can marriage

#prop8 #Olson Some societies have decided there is already too MUCH procreation. Could a state cut off the right to marry in that case?

#prop8 #Olson Olson doing a much better in his rebuttal than he did in his initial go

#prop8 #Olson Intimate choices enjoy a liberty interest even when procreation is not at stake – quoting the Supreme Court

#prop8 #Olson SSM is now talked about because of the breakdown of some of the anti-gay discrimination.

#prop8 #Olson We’ve learned that the horrible taboos are not justified in fact. Society realizes we aren’t a threat, so why not entertain the idea of SSM

#prop8 #Olson Back to interracial marriage, Judge suggests there had already been a 20 year political tide that would carry the supreme court forward.

#prop8 #Olson There IS a tide moving. Polls tell us that, and a judge is not justified in requiring a few more poll points to overturn an unconstitutional statute

#prop8 #Olson There will never be a case more like Romer, or with such a crazy set of circumstances, or a case with better presentation of the evidence as this one.

#prop8 #Olson Quoting King’s letter from Birminham jail as to why he should not fear a backlash

#prop8 #Olson on to “threat of irresponsible procreation”. My clients don’t represent a threat of irresponsible procreation, they want to get married. On the other hand, heterosexuals who have sex outside of their marriage are a threat.

#prop8 #Olson Implication is that if we have SSM, then heterosexuals are going to go out and start having irresponsible procreation, well a lawyer may say it here but…

#prop8 #Olson Quoting ballot pamphlet, couldn’t find any word “procreation”, could find “activist judges”, (Judge and courtroom laugh), several mention of “Protect children”.

#prop8 #Olson this is projection of animus onto SSC

#prop8 #Olson Reviewing plaintiff testimony and the expert witnesses on SSM side. No evidence on other side.

#prop8 #Olson Experts testified to immutability. It may change, but a person doesn’t have a choice typically.

#prop8 #Olson High Tech Gays Case relied upon the Hardwark case, which itself was overturned by Bowers

#prop8 #Olson skipping over standard of review in favor of what has happenned here

#prop8 #Olson Cooper acknowledged that it is a gender distinction

#prop8 #Olson fundamental right to marry requires strict scrutiny

#prop8 #Olson however, requires at least rational basis, and post hoc reasons are not sufficient

#prop8 #Olson It doesnt cut it when you take away fundamental rights of people and you don’t know why

#prop8 #Olson Mr Blankenhorn is right, the day we end that, the day we will be more American

#prop8 #Olson Ends

#prop8 #Olson judge congratulates attorneys