Jan 172010

Curious isn’t it? Wonder why the media coverage of the Proposition 8 trial has been so scarce?

The only coverage was of some “psychologist” talking about how proposition 8 needs to be struck down ‘for the good of the children’. Funny. The Psychologist – while degreed hasn’t treated patients… in fact Dr. Lamb is pretty much an academic. (facts omitted from the AP wire/LA Times)

Funny – Children raised by two same-sex parents seem to perform just as well as parents raised in a heterosexual household.

In fact – two earlier witnesses, also celebrated by the media were exposed for their long histories of activism. This is significant as it would be like asking a pit boss to testify that gambling is not harmful.

The key part of the trial this week – actually the two key parts were:

1. Aside from badgering the Chinese pastor for words written in Chinese 5-10 years ago – an assault on the Church seems to not be forthcoming. It may yet come as their witnesses thus far are being embarrassed.

2. The defense (yes on 8 ) – quoted Obama’s own book where he wrote that it is possible to support traditional marriage without showing moral disapproval of homosexuals. The ‘expert’ witnesses had to concede that point.

In addition the defense has been repeatedly questioning and gaining witness to admissions that society has grown a lot more tolerant of homosexuals.

These are huge blows to the case…

Now of grave concern – Judge Vaughn Walker is showing in my opinion contempt for the 9th Circuit Court and the U.S Supreme Count in two ways:

1. He has figured out how to get around the 9th Circuit Court staying his order to force yes on 8 to turn over all sensitive campaign data about targeting and strategy. Thus far, the Yes on 8 team has responded by asking the same from No on 8. I expect that the judge will rule against Yes on 8 – continuing his pattern of using his bench to help the No side as much as he can.

2. He is still taping the proceedings even though the Supreme Court stayed his order. Even though the Yes on 8 lawyers said he’d be in contempt of the Supreme Court if the tapes got out – it would not surprise me to see them on Gawker or Qweerty some day.

I still can’t believe we are seeing this in America.

  19 Responses to “California Proposition 8 Trial Update – Biased Media Coverage / Witnesses Getting Exposed”

  1. There might have been more media coverage if the pro-Prop 8 side hadn’t argued against having cameras in the courtroom.

    I notice you tag your item “Religious Freedom.” What’s this have to do with religious freedom? This is about civil marriage. Plenty of gay people get religious marriages in denominations that do that.

  2. Even though your article perpetuates the red herrings that the pro-prop 8 side is bandying about, at least you have the courage to open your posts up to public discourse–an American value the defendants seem desperate to dispense of in this case.

  3. @Larry
    Gay Marriage has everything to do with freedom of religion. Some religions embracing it does not mean all do, and those that don’t will face serious consequences if SSM becomes legal. It’s happened already in Canada and other places. A preacher was banned from ever condemning homosexuality as a sin. If that’s not invading freedom of religion, what is?

  4. My religion says that same-sex marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage. I think my religious freedom is being impinged. And allowing same-sex marriage does not preclude people from preaching against homosexuality. That’s ridiculous! You can still preach prejudice against people, it’s not right, but you can do it!

    And thanks for having the guts to allow comments!

  5. I have to admit, I’m somewhat surprised you’re allowing negative comments to be posted here. For that, Bravo!

    It really bothers me that the pro-prop8 side’s web site (http://www.protectmarriage.com/) is only offering their take on the trial while blocking all commentary, while the anti-prop8 side’s web site (http://prop8trialtracker.com/) allows free commentary without deleting negative posts.

    The fact that “society has grown more tolerant of homosexuals” is also a moot point. Growing more tolerant is not equal to “has stopped discriminating against.” Society has also grown “more tolerant” of desegregation and racial equality. We’ve still got the KKK and white supremacists who, given the opportunity to do so, would gladly deport or enslave minorities.

    Thankfully, these bigots are in the MINORITY these days. Here’s the scary part though: people that thought this way were in the MAJORITY when the judiciary overturned laws supporting slavery, banning interracial marriage, and woman’s suffrage. All of those massive improvements in human equality, if/when put to a popular vote at the time, would/did fail.

    There’s a damn good reason we, as a republic, put our courts and Constitution in a position above the legislative branch of government. This is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    I don’t agree with your stance on this topic, but I will give you props for allowing genuine debate to take place.

    I think it’s poor form (on both sides) to engage in ad hominem attacks on witnesses, rather than arguing for/against the items they put into evidence.

    The “Chinese pastor” wasn’t “badgered.” Dr. William Tam was supposed to be one of the defense’s primary witnesses. In support of prop8, he sent out emails conflating gay marriage with pedophilia. If he garnered votes for prop8, genuinely believing this to be true, he should have the guts to stand-up and support his allegations in court. The whole, “I’m afraid of the gays now” argument falls flat on its face. He’s already been identified quite publicly for these statements.

  6. The definition of marriage should be up to the voters of this state to decide for themselves and for the future of our state, NOT be forced on them either by a court or a legislature. THE PEOPLE should make this decision, through the legally defined method of modifying their state constitution.

    This case should NEVER be about gay marriage. It should ALWAYS be about the voters right to amend their state constitution, which the Supreme Court has always upheld. Marriage isn’t definied in the Constitution as one of our fundamental rights, and certainly not gay marriage. Therefore, it is – and appropriately should be – up to each state to decide for itself, and for the voters of each state to NOT have their voices silenced on this issue.

    Nowhere in the constitution does it say that our legislatures and our constitution are subject to the courts. What it does say is that they (legislatures and state constitutions – and even state courts) have to be subject to the US Constitution and cannot violate US laws. In this case, there are no laws being broken by the people of California voting to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and this definition does not violate even the so-called ‘equal protection’ clause, which iswhat the US Supreme Court will say if this case even gets that far.

    My guess is that if these plaintiffs’ attorneys lose here, the case actually won’t go to the Supreme Court. It would be too embarrassing a loss for gay activists to lose there, and they know the SCOTUS will uphold states rights in this instance.

    Besides that, this case isn’t really even about marriage from the plaintiff’s perspective. ITts about trying to force the acceptance of the gay lifestyle on all of us, including kids. And if you think I’m wrong, look at what happened in San Francisco where Mayor Newsome specifically prohibited the cops from arresting gays having sex in public view because to do so would be ‘discriminatory’. Give me a break! That’s what we voted against when we voted for Prop 8, and that’s why every right the state can possibly grant to legally registered domestic partners is already available to them. But we will not legitimize that lifestyle choice or have it forced on us, or have marriage redefined to the point that its significance to children is made meaningless because all unions are laughably called ‘equa’. I’m sorry. NO!

  7. Just a small note. I apologize for the few typographical errors in my earlier post, but I think you get the idea.

  8. Suppose a large group of same-sex-marriage activists came together and made the following confession to a group of same-sex-marriage skeptics:
    “Look, we’re going to level with you in a way that we haven’t up to now. We all support same-sex marriage, but for many — even most — of us, gay marriage isn’t an end in itself. It’s a way-station on the path to a post-marriage society. We want a wide range of diverse families — even ‘polyamorous’ groupings of three or more partners — to have the same recognition, rights, and benefits as heterosexual married couples. In short, your worst fears are justified. The radical redefinition of marriage you’ve been worried about for so long is exactly what we want.

    “Oh sure, some of us are more radical than others. But even the most committed and prominent mainstream advocates of same-sex marriage largely support a radical family agenda. A few advocates who back a ‘conservative’ interpretation of same-sex marriage may regularly engage you in debate, yet their views carry relatively little weight within the gay community. Some of these ‘conservative’ supporters of same-sex marriage have claimed that there is no significant political constituency for polygamy-polyamory, or for a general legal deconstruction of marriage. That’s just wrong. As gay marriage gains acceptance, we’re going to have a polygamy-polyamory debate in this country. And among those sponsoring that debate will be many of the very same people and groups who’ve already pushed for same-sex marriage.

    “So why haven’t we told you all this before? Simple. We’ve been censoring ourselves for fear of scaring away public support for same-sex marriage. You see, it’s all about timing. Our plan is to establish same-sex marriage first, and then, as our next step, to demand that the rights and benefits of marriage be accorded to all types of families. After all, when the call for yet another radical redefinition of marriage comes from married same-sex couples, it’s going to be that much more persuasive. Up to now, truth to tell, if any same-sex marriage backers pushed this radical agenda in public, we pressured them to keep silent. But now we’re telling you the truth.

    “You see, despite what you’ve heard about the ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage, the more radical argument that ‘love makes a family’ has played a huge role in the success of the drive for same-sex marriage. And the ‘love makes a family’ idea requires recognition, not only for gay couples, but also for polygamous and polyamorous families.

    “And consider the complex families created when three or even four gay men and lesbians combine through, say, artificial insemination, to bear and raise children. We want recognition for these sorts of unconventional families too, even — or especially — if such recognition leads to legalized polyamory. Pretending that certain aspects of the gay community don’t exist only weakens our diverse families. The way we live is the way we live. Up to now, we’ve tried to hide it. But at last we’re ready to own up to reality, and to push for legal recognition for all types of families, even if that expands the definition of marriage until the very idea of marriage itself is stripped of meaning.”

    Beyond Same-Sex Marriage
    For all practical purposes, this confession has already been offered. A good part of the substance of the above message was conveyed this past July, when hundreds of self-described lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers released a manifesto entitled, “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage.” Among other things, that statement called for recognition of “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”

    That hundreds of gay-marriage supporters, including big names like Gloria Steinem, Cornel West, Rabbi Michael Lerner (of Tikkun Magazine), and Barbara Ehrenreich have signed onto a statement openly demanding recognition for polyamorous families is important enough. But the really big news is what’s been happening in the months since the release of the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement. The ongoing discussion of that manifesto on popular blogs, and particularly in the gay community’s own press, confirms that even many prominent mainstream advocates of same-sex marriage support a radical family agenda — and plan to push it when the time is right. In other words, a careful look at the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement — and especially at its public reception — indicates that the above “confession” does in fact represent the plans and convictions of the greater part of the movement for same-sex marriage.

    The Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement is nothing if not radical. It calls for extending government recognition beyond traditional married couples to groups of senior citizens living together, extended immigrant households, single parent households, “queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple in two households,” unmarried domestic partners, polygamous/polyamorous households, and many other diverse family forms.

    And although the statement advocates moving “beyond” same-sex marriage, it also clearly endorses gay marriage itself. The argument on offer is that same-sex marriage is, and ought to be, only one part of a larger effort to redefine our idea of the family. So in contrast to the “conservative” argument, which holds that gay marriage will strengthen the unique appeal of marriage itself, the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement claims that gay marriage is a critical step in a larger evolution away from the preference for any specific family form. In other words, the sponsors of Beyond Same-Sex Marriage hope to dissolve marriage, not through formal abolition, but by gradually extending the hitherto unique notion of marriage to every conceivable family type.

    The Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement has attracted hundreds of signatures from a wide array of prominent figures. In addition to national liberals like Steinem, West, Lerner, and Ehrenreich, over 90 professors have signed on, a great many from top schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, the University of Chicago, Columbia, Georgetown, Brown, Cornell, Williams, Smith, Bryn Mawr, Barnard, the University of Pennsylvania, NYU, Dartmouth, and U.C. Berkeley. Quite a few of these schools had more than one faculty member sign on. Popular writers like Terrence McNally, Armistead Maupin, and Susie Bright joined big-name academics like Judith Stacey and Judith Butler on the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage lists. Quite a few professors from top law schools (e.g., Yale, Columbia, Georgetown) also endorsed the statement. So we are not talking about fringe figures here. The Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto was put forward by a large and prestigious slice of activists, artists, and intellectuals on the cultural Left.

    Radical History
    The Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement evoked swift and diametrically opposed responses from opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage. Princeton philosopher and social conservative Robert P. George said the statement had “let the cat out of the bag” by revealing that “what lies ‘beyond gay marriage’ are multiple sex partners.” The same day, Jonathan Rauch, the leading exponent of the “conservative case” for same-sex marriage, answered George: “…there’s nothing new here. Left-wing family radicals have been saying all this stuff for years.” So which is it? Is this public endorsement of multiple-partner marriage by hundreds of prominent same-sex marriage supporters an important new revelation, or just irrelevant old hat?

    It’s true, as Rauch claims, that left-wing family radicals have been calling for both polyamory and a broader deconstruction of marriage for years. Yet Rauch’s dismissal neatly glosses over some key historical shifts. When the same-sex-marriage issue became a topic of public debate, in the first half of the 1990s, the gay community was deeply split. Despite support for same-sex marriage from a few prominent gay conservatives, the gay community’s powerful phalanx of cultural radicals disdained same-sex marriage as a misguided attempt to ape an oppressive and outdated heterosexual institution. By the time the Defense of Marriage Act was debated by Congress in 1996, however, the mood in the gay community had shifted. Although many gays continued to view marriage itself as outmoded and patriarchal, same-sex marriage came to be seen as a pathway to public acceptance, and as the opening item on a much larger and more radical menu of family changes to come.

    So from the mid-Nineties on, the gay community suppressed its divisions and united behind the public battle for same-sex marriage. Radicals in the academy laid their plans for both polyamory and a more general deconstruction of marriage, yet for the most part the radicals avoided floating such controversial proposals before the public. The mainstream media (itself part of the broader movement for same-sex marriage) cooperated by largely ignoring the many legal and academic advocates of polyamory and family radicalism. Instead, the media focused on gay couples who were as close to traditional heterosexual families as possible.

    Having passed through a period of skeptical division on the marriage issue, followed by a period of unity, the gay community may now be moving into a third phase, the groundwork for which was laid by the 2004 election. With President Bush endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment, and with local marriage amendments drawing out voters in battleground states like Ohio, the public handed Republicans a victory in 2004, while dealing the gay marriage movement a significant setback. Liberals who’d once lauded the Massachusetts supreme court for its courage now excoriated it’s justices for handing the election to the Republicans. Over the following two years, judges who had once felt free to impose same-sex marriage on an unwilling public grew hesitant. Surprise decisions against same-sex marriage by liberal state supreme courts in New York and the state of Washington in 2006 seemed to confirm that the movement for gay marriage had been stymied. (For a take on this history by a signer of Beyond Same-Sex Marriage, go here.)

    Frankly Speaking
    In this new atmosphere, the radicals had far less reason to hide their long-term plans behind a facade of unity. Politically, there was little left to lose. A good decade after the beginning of the movement for same-sex marriage, it was increasingly obvious that the fight could continue for yet another ten years. Rebelling against the thought of 20 years of self-censorship, the radicals began to speak up. The March, 2006, debut of HBO’s polygamy television serial, Big Love (created by a two pro-same-sex marriage radicals), was merely a sign of things to come. Meeting in April of 2006 to draw up their manifesto, just as Big Love was sparking a public debate about polygamy, the authors of the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage had reason to believe that their ship had finally come in.

    So then, is the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement, as Rauch would have it, just irrelevant old hat? Not at all. Calls for polyamory and other forms of family radicalism may be nothing new to those already familiar with the history of the gay community’s internal debates, or with the quiet plans of legal academics. Yet a collective and very public declaration of the family-radical platform, endorsed by scores of prominent scholars and other nationally known figures, signals a new phase in the struggle. Once again, as in the early 1990s, the radicals are out in the open, unwilling to silence themselves for the sake of a united front.

    Take Michael Bronski, a radical academic, popular New England columnist, and long-time proponent of same-sex marriage. Bronski favors same-sex marriage for its potential to destabilize the traditional organizing principles of Western culture. In a piece explaining why he’d signed the Beyond Gay Marriage manifesto, Bronski said that he and his fellow family radicals were tired of being treated like “skunks at a garden party” for honestly owning up to their radical reasons for supporting gay marriage. Bronski then told the story of a radio appearance in which his conservative opponent had claimed that gay marriage would “change society as we know it.” Instead of denying it, Bronski agreed with this family traditionalist that gay marriage would indeed provoke a broader cultural transformation, adding that this was a good thing. “That afternoon,” Bronski recalled, “I received a barrage of e-mails from marriage equality supporters complaining that I had committed a major faux pas and should not do media on the issue of marriage again unless I was willing to state the ‘official’ marriage equality line, which is that gay marriage is about nothing more than equal rights for couples who love one another.”

    In the aftermath of the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement, it was easy to see that the “‘official’ marriage equality line” has served to disguise the views of many same-sex marriage supporters. Numerous reports in the mainstream media, and in the gay community’s own press, described the censorship and self-censorship that has kept the reality of marriage radicalism out of the public eye. The New York Times reported that gay family radicals “say they have muffled their own voice by censoring themselves.” Yet now, said the Times, these radicals “increasingly feel that they have nothing to lose [by speaking out] given ‘that there has been defeat after political defeat.’”

    Meanwhile, Geoffrey Kors, a leading California gay-marriage activist, noted that the movement’s silence on polyamory is not necessarily a matter of actual opposition to the practice, but simply about “not allowing the right wing to steer the conversation.” Molly McKay, media director of Marriage Equality USA, spoke of the need to limit some conflicts and conversations to “internal dialogue.” Otherwise, said McKay, it could be “very confusing for non-gay allies” who support gay marriage on the assumption that the gay community wants marriage for its own sake. McKay was concerned that mainstream support for same-sex marriage could suffer if the broader public began to think that “your own community [i.e. the gay community] doesn’t support this issue.”

    Muzzled Again?
    Having broken the taboo against a public avowal of their radical goals, the sponsors of the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement were soundly chastised for their strategic error by Chris Crain, former executive editor of The Washington Blade. Crain blasted the manifesto’s signatories for “diverting attention” from the sort of fairness claims that resonate with the American public: “…[the signatories’] no doubt well-intentioned effort really is the radical redefinition of marriage and family that the conservatives have been braying about for so long. Realizing the Right’s worst fears is the last thing the movement needs to do at this critical juncture.” Then Crain added a twist: “Opening up marriage to gay couples is liberation enough for most of us, at least for now.” “At this critical juncture…At least for now” — we’ll come back to those lines in Part II of this piece. What’s notable now is that Crain’s strictly pragmatic and political objections to the idea of realizing “the Right’s worst fears” amounted to a demand for continued self-censorship on the part of family radicals.

    With Crain and others blasting the radicals’ new-found honesty, Joseph De Filippis, of Queers for Economic Justice, chief spokesman for the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto, tried to put out the fire. De Filippis maintained that the statement had actually been meant to “promote discussion within the LGBT community not mainstream America.” Yet having recruited nationally known allies like Steinem, West, Lerner, and Ehrenreich, that claim was hardly credible. As long-time critic of same-sex marriage Maggie Gallagher remarked, “This is quite new and quite extraordinary….I’ve debated marriage a long time without ever seeing one visible public defender of polygamy. Now we have a major statement, signed by mainstream liberal thinkers, suggesting that this is now the Left’s consolidated position.” The cat was out of the bag, all right, thereby revealing an ongoing pattern of censorship and self-censorship.

    So Robert P. George was right. The Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement means that something important and new is going on. Marriage and family radicals have cast aside years of self-censorship and are broadcasting their agenda to the world (even as an angry, strategically-based response by prominent backers of same-sex marriage has begun to put the muzzle back on).

    Marginal or Mainstream?
    Yet it isn’t just a question of openness versus secrecy. “Conservative” same-sex marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch had a second point to make to Robert George. According to Rauch, the folks who signed on to the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto are a bunch of unrepresentative radicals, few of them actual leaders in the movement for same-sex marriage. The radical signatories of Beyond Same-Sex Marriage “favor marriage, not as an end in itself,” said Rauch, “but as a way-station toward a post-marriage society.” “There’s no denying that they speak for a prominent element of the gay rights movement…,” Rauch admitted, “but I don’t think they’ll prevail even within the gay universe, most of which is neither radical nor ‘queer.’”

    But what if Rauch is wrong? What if the newfound openness and honesty of pro-same-sex marriage radicals is more than the revelation of a prominent faction’s existence? What if a radical view of family issues has already prevailed “within the gay universe”? What if quite a few mainstream leaders of the movement for same-sex marriage, even if they may not have personally signed onto the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto, have already expressed public agreement with all or most of that statement’s radical goals? What if the bulk of the gay community is already on board with the lion’s share of the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage agenda? And what if even Jonathan Rauch himself has come surprising close to acknowledging this?

    — Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

  9. I have to say, as a Southern Californian, I’m pleased and thankful Protect Marriage California has taken the wise move to post daily reports of the trial from a trial lawyers perspective rather than the glut of liberal “reporters” covering this historic event. The online coverage is frightfully Left Coast media dominated. Just Google “Federal Prop 8 Trial” and see the overwhelming liberal tainted coverage that. Most of the sites are Bay Area Newspapers whose reporters can’t resist tweaking the days events in support of the Plaintiff’s case. Going to Protect Marriage allows me to get right to the meat of the day’s events without all the carping about the “defense attorneys lengthy, strident efforts to undermine the witnesses testimony.” With Judge Walker’s one-sided rulings and renegade behavior, Protect Marriage’s coverage is even more compelling and informative. I’m also glad they disable the comment section, because frankly, all I’ve heard elsewhere on the web is every gay militant activist waxing hyperbolic, undermining every civil discussion with bluster, bombast and guile. Lastly, I’m a little underwhelmed by the Plaintiff’s case thus far. Their witnesses thus far have been a roll call of professional zealots whose true expertise ranges from somewhat relevant to the most strained and attenuated. It’s interesting, the worse the Plaintiff’s case is on a given day the skimpier the coverage. I can’t imagine how hysterical the reporting would be if the Plaintiff’s case was actually doing well. Protect Marriage California, ADF – keep up the great reporting. Without you I wouldn’t have an “honest” clue of what’s going on.

  10. Wow, Che, great copy-paste job from one of the more biased sources one can find out there.

    Two quick points:

    1) Trying to uncover some sort of “gay agenda” is a baseless ad hominem against an entire group of people. The debate about gay marriage should focus on the equality and rights at stake, not the boogeymen you see in your closet.

    2) I wasn’t familiar with “Beyond Marriage” until just now, but they seem to advocate many reasonable extensions of current law (e.g. affording better protections and benefits to grandparents who are raising their grandkids because mom and dad have died). At the very least, each of the “alternative forms of household recognition” deserve to be debated on their own merits. Some are obvious losers, some are not. To lump them all in together as evidence that gay marriage will lead to swingers groups getting the same recognition is simply an immature scare tactic.

  11. Scores of data support the fact that since the beginning of time, marriage is a pro-family institution that facilitates the perpetuation of the human species and perpetuates FUTURE families. Same-gender sexual relations are too far outside the natural pattern of pro-creation to teach all of society (including children) that they are, in fact, equal in every conceivable way and are therefore to be labeled “marriages.” Even heterosexual couples who adopt because they cannot have children still follow the natural pattern of providing children with a father and a mother–and all of the gifts that are unique to each gender. Men and women are NOT the same.

    It’s interesting that women have historically been denied certain rights, and much effort (much-needed effort, I might add) has been spent to ensure their equality, but perhaps we have taken it too far. Women ARE different than men in MANY, MANY ways. Perhaps in the effort to make everything equal that is possible to make equal, we have missed the mark to the point where we have blurred the gender line–sending the message that there should be no difference–and even that there IS no difference–between male and female. Men and women ARE different. “Marriage” is the unique union between those genders. We are not in a position to change what “marriage” is and its pro-creative purposes.

  12. Wow, Che.

    Instead of arguing for or against the facts at hand, you construct a straw-man argument and then go to town arguing points that have NO bearing whatsoever on this case that is before the courts.

    @Anthony Germain:

    I find it equally hard to believe that anyone who is interested in the truth would celebrate censorship. Yes, it’s perfectly fine for Protect Marriage California to publish their own views on how the trial is progressing.

    That said, it’s hugely disturbing that they publish their views while simultaneously denying the public any ability to comment or challenge them.

    The anti-prop8 side also publishes “their views” on this trial, but the *huge* difference is that their major blogs like http://prop8trialtracker.com/ allow commentary from *both* sides. I’ve been reading both, and if you’d bother to you’d also see that pro-prop8 comments are allowed and not deleted by the the opposition.

    It strikes me as both cowardly and dishonest to excuse this sort of censorship on the pro-prop8 side as some sort of “balancing” of perceived liberal bias in the media.

    Let’s have a real discussion. Without straw-men. Without censorship. Thus far, this is one of the few pro-prop8 blogs I’ve found that allow everyone to comment.

  13. @Karen

    So… let me get this straight (pardon the pun). If 99.999% of the people in your state decided to reenact slavery or to take the vote away from women, you’d support it?

    Was it “judicial activism” that gave women the right to vote, slaves the right to be free, or mixed-race couples the right to be married?

    Just curious.

  14. Here’s a nice web site that delineates logical fallacies:


    If you’re going to present an argument here, it’s in your best interest to familiarize yourself with these before opening your mouth.

  15. I would say the biggest reason you didn’t see more of the Prop. 8 trial in the media this week was that there was a bigger story in the media. Perhaps you have forgotten the thousands of deaths in Haiti last week? Perhaps if we had marriage equality, we could all focus on caring for those in crisis instead of prejudice and fear of people who are different.

    Also, please note that the term “psychologist” is not held only for “clinical psychologists” who treat patients, but for those who hold a PhD in psychology, including developmental psychology. Those with PhDs in developmental psychology are experts in, get this, the development of children. Therefore, Dr. Lamb is absolutely of the background and training to make statements on how gay marriage could impact child development.

    Also, MORE tolerant does not equal tolerant. That’s like saying segregation based on race is ok cause it’s an improvement from slavery…

  16. You were seeing almost no media coverage before the quake hit Cara.

    Comparing one’s choice of sex act / partner to one’s race is absurd.

    Dr. Lamb was holding himself out as an expert in behavior – implying clinical knowledge… is quite misleading as he is an academic.

  17. @ Richard C. Mongler: Your complaints remind me why I see the gay marriage issues as the wafer thin edge of a thick wedge that is the gay agenda on parade. It’s not enough that 95% of the reporting on this matter is catering to the homosexual community. In order to achieve “equality” in your eyes, every last bastion of rational commentary has to invite, support and nurture the angry gay politico. It won’t be long before some politically, disenfranchised gay web-surfer sues for the right to opine on Protect Marriage’s own website. Like the E-Harmony fiasco, it’s not enough that the entire internet is bloated and bursting at the seams with places to nurture the gay agenda. Apparently, it won’t be enough until the rest of us are legally bludgeoned into universally embracing homosexual behavior as equal to and desirable as heterosexual behavior. Again, I applaud Protect Marriage’s commentary blackout. They understand as do I, the desire, the need to have some place that is free from the promulgation of wholesale, religious intolerance.

  18. Aaron –

    Academics – when they are developmental psychologists ARE experts in behavior and development. Treating patients clinically is not a prerequisite for that expertise. You can study something extensively without conducting clinical intervention. Claiming expertise on behavior does NOT suggest clinical knowledge. If he said he was an expert in psychopathology or abnormal psychology, then I would agree with the criticism, but that’s not the case here. (I say this with “expertise” in the area of what various areas of psychology are trained in, as I hold a PhD in, actually, clinical psychology, but was trained in a department of academics of a variety of areas of psychology).

    Trial started on the 11th. Earthquake struck on the 12th. Not a lot of time for media coverage beforehand. Plus, a lot of the country is viewing this as a California issue. We had a lot of coverage of the trial pre-quake here in LA.

    And finally, I hesitate to even get into the sexual orientation vs. race issue because that is one of those “belief” areas that I just don’t see potential resolution on. I strongly believe that neither is a choice, but something someone is born into. I know enough people who would absolutely choose otherwise if they could, but they can’t. Because it’s not a choice…

  19. @David Mudkips: I have a better idea; why don’t you read up on logical fallacies so you can grade and critique everyone’s comments.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.