ACT On Principles

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 [...]

Ya know, it can be pretty tough for a non-lawyer to follow a case like the Perry Prop 8 case which just concluded here in San Francisco. First there are thousands of pages of briefs, reply briefs, amicus briefs, filings, transcripts, documents put into evidence, and documents submitted for judicial notice. There is public punditry from so far left and so far right that we could circumnavigate the globe with it. Then there are the standards of review: strict scrutiny, rational basis review, and that lovely level of scrutiny for those who can’t make up their minds: intermediate scrutiny, which I suppose, could be both irrational and at a heightened level all at the same time. There are precedent setting cases cited as easily as men at a gay bar might cite a line from a great movie, and the votes in the courts on those cases are remembered like scores from World Series’ of yesteryear.

All that obscurity can’t hide this unmistakable fact: The side opposed to same sex marriage wants to channel you, and indeed you have almost certainly been the recipient of the “channeling function”. And if you could get married to someone of the same sex, they couldn’t channel you anymore. So what IS the channeling function? If you are LGBT, you recognize the “channeling function” immediately when you see it, even without the help of a brilliant attorney.

The channeling function is the latest reason the Defenders of Prop 8 (the Defendant/Intervenors, also known as the Prop 8 Proponents) put forth to explain why we need to keep same sex marriage from ever happening. It was the “rational basis” for Prop 8, if you will, for those of you keeping score of the legal mumbo jumbo. It seems to be the idea the state has an interest in minimizing “irresponsible procreation”. They believe that the ideal place for child creation and rearing is a marriage between opposite sex partners. Society needs more children or it will perish, or so they reason, so we shove folks into these marriages so they will procreate. Responsibly. Kind of reminds me of the admonishments the alcohol industry uses in the fine print at the bottom of their ads. Drink. Procreate. Responsibly.

You know what channeling is, though you may never have called it that before. You’ve probably been exquisitely attuned to know when you are being channeled, or even when you are about to be channeled. Every time a mother has ever asked her son whether he’s found a “nice girl” she is using the channeling function, or when grandma tells her granddaughter that “every woman needs a man in her life”. Or when a bisexual college student is told by her friends, “Don’t you think it’s time you made up your mind.” Or even when, even as children and beyond, we are encouraged to use gender “appropriate” colors and clothing. Because, you know, it’s difficult to channel a guy wearing pink.

The defenders of prop 8 don’t seem to mind the fact that LGBT people who are “successfully” channeled into opposite sex marriages contribute to broken families that increase the possibility of one-parent families. Never mind the fact that each of those God-awkward channeling conversations distances LGBT people from their parents and friends. Never mind the fact that marriage might help same sex couples who raise children provide a better life for their kids. The Proponents of Prop 8 believe that if LGBT people had the option of choosing anything other than an opposite sex marriage, then straight people might not be amenable to the “channeling function”, and might be more likely to engage in “irresponsible procreation”. Never mind the fact that we live on a planet being overrun and destroyed by the human species, as a result of people who, by and large, procreate “responsibly”.

Unfortunately, despite some brilliant lawyering by Ted Olson and his sidekick David Boies – supported by equally brilliant Therese Stewart and others on the Plaintiff’s team – Olson didn’t recognize what the channeling function was, and as a result we missed a crucial opportunity to drive home how insidious this whole channeling function is. To the best of my recollection, the Defenders of Prop 8 only invented the term as an after-the-fact rational basis for voting for Prop 8, in response to the questions that Judge Walker put forth for both sides to answer in preparation for the Closing Arguments. While it does rely upon ideas put forth at trial, the term seems to come out of nowhere., though as I’ve demonstrated it is very much at work in society. Maybe Olson was caught off guard by the terminology, but Instead of dealing with the stigmatizing nature of the channeling function, he poked fun at the notion of channeling by alluding to the psychic version of “channeling”, in which a living person talks to a dead person on behalf of another living person. Unfortunately, Ted Olson, brilliant as he is, seemed to miss the real purpose of the channel function: to reinforce the notion in society that being gay is not an an acceptable path for one’s life.

I believe that in his blistering questioning of Proponent’s chief attorney Charles Cooper, Judge Walker clearly showed his disdain for much of their case. He openly mocked their claim that they didn’t need to show any evidence. He wagged his head at the notion that infertile opposite sex couples who use medical interventions to bear children ought to be treated differently than same sex couples who do exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason. He seemed incredulous at the Proponent’s arguments that adopted kids are better off if their parents are prevented from marrying. He seemed to adopt Olson’s contention that opposition to same sex marriage is really sex discrimination as he peppered Cooper with questions. So then, the question is not so much whether the bulk of the ruling will go in our favor, the question is how far will he go, and to what extent the trial itself exposes the nature of our opposition. But regardless of how we fair in the Judge’s ruling, the closing arguments were a crucial teachable moment in the trial, and are among the elements most likely to be remembered in the future.

I am truly elated by how thoroughly the Proponents case crumbled in the course of this trial and during the closing arguments, and can’t help but be impressed that these straight (and in Olson’s case, quite conservative) attorneys stood up for our equality, our dignity, and our right to be live a life free from stigma. Sadly, though, they missed a prime opportunity to straightforwardly attack the lead contention of Cooper’s closing argument, namely to shed light on those awkward channeling moments which divide LGBT people from their families, can result in broken marriages and single parent households, and stigmatize us by a creating a nagging internal sense that we aren’t living up to the expectations of others around us. We don’t need to be able to see through the stacks of legal briefs to recognize the channeling function when we see it.

Tomorrow, Wednesday June 16, Closing Arguments will be heard in the Federal District Court bench trial Perry v Schwarzenegger, also known as the Prop 8 trial. Act On Principles will be live tweeting from the San Francisco courthouse beginning about 10 AM Pacific Time. The feed will be available on the Act On Principles home page (www.ActOnPrinciples.org), or by following @Actonprinciples on Twitter.

Evidence in the trial, which is also known as the Olson Boies trial after the famous attorneys attempting to overturn the California Constitutional amendment that prohibited same sex marriage, was heard by Judge Vernon Walker in January. At that time, Walker decided to postpone the closing arguments until attorneys on both sides could collate the evidence for him, and to give himself time to prepare questions for both sides to answer during their summations. That final stage in the trial was delayed due to an evidentiary argument in which the side defending Prop 8 wanted internal campaign documents from third parties. After Equality California and the American Civil Liberties Union relented and gave up the documents, the Judge scheduled closing arguments for tomorrow, and submitted dozens of questions which seem designed to test certain legal arguments, and to elicit any evidence supporting a rational basis for passage of Prop 8. The closing arguments begin at 10 AM and continue until complete. Judge Walker, who initially fast tracked the trial, is expected to rule on the case sometime this summer.

In a related matter, the new LGBT podcast, Same Sex Sunday included Act on Principles’ Prop 8 trial tweeter John Bare for its initial round of interviews to discuss his impressions of the trial. The podcast is available on iTunes and at their website, http://samesexsunday.podbean.com/mf/play/3ye543/SameSexSundayEpisode2.mp3 .

ENDA ACTION ON TUESDAY in San Francisco!

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act will ban employment discrimination against LGBT people across the United States – BUT ONLY IF IT PASSES CONGRESS!

Why won’t Congress vote on this fundamental civil rights bill for LGBT people?

ENDA is stuck – and ONLY YOU can help get it moving again. We need as many people as possible to show up in front of Speaker Pelosi’s office – will you come? Will you bring friends?

Tuesday, May 18
4:30 – 6:30 pm
7th & Mission Streets

We know that Speaker Pelosi supports ENDA. We want her to know that this legislation is a community priority – and we support her efforts to move this bill through Congress. She needs to hear from her constituents. She needs our support and we need her leadership.

We need to send a LOUD MESSAGE to Congress: PASS ENDA NOW!

We have been waiting for decades to pass a simple law that would ban discrimination against LGBT people at work. We were asked to be patient for more than a year while Congress focused on the financial crisis and health care. We were patient. We were told to lobby our representatives in Congress to get the votes necessary to pass the bill. We did the work.

Now we need to tell Congress: STOP STALLING!

We are ready. We have the support. We want a vote on ENDA now.

If we don’t get a vote in the House very soon, we will have no time at all to get ENDA passed in the Senate. The President will sign ENDA into law – but only if it passes Congress. It could be years before we have another chance to enact this most basic civil rights law.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION! JOIN US ON TUESDAY!

Equality Federation
Equality California
Transgender Law Center
San Francisco LGBT Community Center
San Francisco Pride at Work
Get Equal
National Center for Lesbian Rights
Out & Equal

My friends at the Transgender Law Center in San Francisco are moving on up…

5th Annual California Transgender Leadership Summit and 1st California Transgender Advocacy Day

Friday, May 14th-Sunday, May 16th, 2010
University of California – Davis, CA

Monday, May 17th, 2010
State Capitol Building, Sacramento, CA

Interested in sponsoring the summit? Contact Paige at [email protected] or (415) 865-0176.

The 30 latest tweets from our folks in the Prop 8 Trial Courtroom can now be viewed here. Just keep this post open and watch the latest trial coverage roll right in. You can also follow us @ActOnPrinciples to get all of our trial and non-trial tweets delivered right to your favoirte twitter client.

You can also comment on trial coverage in the comments section. We love hearing from you!

A number of Act On Principles Champions will attempt to snag very limited seating to live microblog the Federal District bench trial Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The trial, started yesterday in San Francisco, has become known as the Boies/Olson Case, after the famous  attorneys who are attempting to prove that California Proposition 8 and all state marriage bans, violate the United States Constitution.  The attorneys will claim that marriage bans violate both the first and second clauses of the fourteenth amendment by denying LGBT citizens liberty and due process.

Although U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker had ordered that the trial would be streamed live to courthouses throughout the region and uploaded periodically for delayed viewing on YouTube, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling temporarily banning such videography until it can take up the issue in a fuller hearing. Therefore, only individuals able to enter the San Francisco Federal Building can see the trial live, until at least Wednesday afternoon. Local Act On Principles Champions will attempt to gain seats in the courthouse in order to provide regular tweets.  You can follow those tweets, and all Act On Principles tweets at http://twitter.com/actonprinciples/