Liveblogging the Prop 8 Trial: Day Five Friday AM (19)

For those joining FDL for our Prop 8 coverage, please help us defray the costs of covering the trial with a donation. And if you’re a law firm or (especially) a traditional media outlet that has previously claimed bloggers do no real coverage and instead steal others’ work, please make a very generous contribution!

Thompson: There is evidence showing that boys growing up w/o fathers have probs with sexual and gender identities. Evidence that comes from 1990s.

Lamb: Not familiar with research on gender identity in 1990s.

Thompson: your Role of father, 1997 edition. Describing Chapter 11 of volume. Seem to have problems with school performance, and social aggression. You were describing state of art lit.

Lamb: If you look at paragraph in context it cites earlier lit, it’s a reference to earlier studies. Absolutely these are discussed.

Thompson: You intended your book to be up to date and current.

Lamb: I intended to put results in context. To quote from previous sentence.

Thompson: There is increasing evidence that relationship w/father long term impact of adjustment.

Lamb: It is correct that children who grow up in hetero families do benefit when they have good relationship with father, contrarily may be probs if they don’t have good rel.

Thompson: Relationship with father, and way they interact with peers.

Lamb: Quality of rels that children have with parents, have short and long term effects.

Thompson: David Blankenhorn. You said easily most provocative commentary published in 1995.

Lamb: I’m glad. He found it a rather negative review. I’m glad I couched my criticism so carefully.

Thompson: Parents may be different, and some may be related to gender. You think probably beneficial from having relationships with different people.

Lamb: The more different people you have deep relationship wiht the better.

Thompson: You would concede that it’s relevant to have male role model.

Lamb: Both boys and girls do copy people in a variety of way. It’s a way children learn about different ways of behaving.

Thompson: It’s not irrelevant.

Lamb: Children do benefit from role models, and society is replete with role models.

Thompson: Influence on children’s gender roles.

Lamb: Evidence on extent to which children make a great deal of use of role models inside and outside the home.

Thompson: There isn’t any evidence for children to see traditional role model.

Lamb: Whenever I hear the word “any” my attenae start to wiggle.

Thompson: Turn to Howard deposition.

Lamb: There isn’t any evidence to see that in a home. In part because children see so many role models outside the home.

Thompson: You would include someone on TV.

Lamb: Most real world, it’s someone child comes in contact with: teachers, relatives, friends.

Thompson: Having committed father good.

Lamb: When children do have father having him involved in life is important.

Thompson: Having a mother is really important too. Do you think having a mother is important to a child’s development?

Lamb: It depends. There are certainly circumstances when children do perfectly well when raised by someone other than mother.

Thompson: Is there a rich empirical literature in your field showing that mothers are irrelevant.

Lamb: One would have to ask what use of word mother used in that phrase. If you mean mother biologically conceived and bore the child.I testify ni everything I have written about importance of relationships of people taking care of them. When that person is a woman, and identified as mother, supremely important. But gender is not the important part.

Thompson: You used phrase traditional family. Married biological mother and father.

Lamb: Usually broader than that. Cases where not only married biological mother and family. Stay at home mother, early child care provided in home. Anything deviating from those non-traditional family.

Thompson: Some elements that still assume traditional family best for children. Even among social scientists, diverse range of opinion.

Lamb: Consensus is structure is not as important.

Thompson: Personality under genetic influence. Similarities between genetic parents and offspring.

Lamb: There can be similarities, because two different parents, it may be a blend, also quite common that child like one parent and not like other. Genetics is one factor that influences those things.

Thompson: Those similarities would influence adjustment.

Lamb: If there were similarities it would be one factor. You could conceive of those situations where someone’s temperament is irritable, that might affect parenting.

Thompson: Your deposition. Certainly we know personality influenced by genetic influence. Genetic factors significant influences. You gave that testimony.

Lamb: Yeah.

Thompson: Importance of family structure. Marriage is correlated with outcomes. Ways in which marriage correlated, varied in both direct and indirect pathways of influence. Let’s look at reconstituted family. Fairly substantial body of evidence, addition of stepfather often not posiive event.

Lamb: Certainly true.

Thompson: But you don’t think family structure affects processes.

Lamb: Entry of stepfather in trying to establish relationships would. Clearly correlation in structures.

Thompson: Family structures matter married biological family and cohabiting family.

Lamb: You’d have to look at those processes. Evidence shows that its the within the family processes.

Thompson: As between married biological family and cohabiting you don’t think affects structure. Turn to deposition in Cole case. Five weeks ago?

Lamb: Or four weeks ago? Recent.

Thompson: How does married biological family structure in a way different from cohabiting couple where only one person related. “I don’t think family structure affects family processes.” You gave that testimony, correct?

Thompson: If we did not control for other factors.

Thompson: Child trends research group.

[Objection–sounds like this is one of the ]

Thompson: Withdrew Dr. Marks and other experts bc of concern of video recorded. They were extremely concerned about personal safety. Did not want to appear with any recording whatsoever. No limitation on court’s ability on taking judicial notice, same thing SCOTUS in Brown and Roe and others has looked at.

Thompson: It is not simply the presence of two parents, but presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development. You didn’t even consider this document when you put together your report.

Lamb: Research review, put together by very well respected people. Not a scholarly document. Primarily designed to contribute to popular understanding of these issues. It’s not something I would want to distance myself from. Review of research on children born to hetero parents, grow up with them or in families with only one of them. Believe it probably also talks abotu effects of step parenthood. In that context, that particularly summary statement seems to be reasonable summary of it. Uses causal language more often than is warranted, I suspect bc written not for academic audience but as public education document.

Thompson: Impact of family formation change. Paul Amato. Well-respect?

Lamb: Yes.

Thompson: Research clearly demonstrates that children growing up with two continually married parents less likely than other children to have problems.

Lamb: Large scale studies of children being raised by hetero parents.

Thompson: Even stronger if two happily married parents.

Lamb: Entirely consistent with what I testified the importance of relationships between indivs.

Thompson: Consequences of marriage for African Americans. Marriage itself appears to contribute to better outcomes.

Lamb: I wouldn’t want to say I’m familiar with all the research on African American families. I would suggest it’s on shaky grounds when it suggests more than correlation.

Thompson: William Doherty and others, Responsible fathering. Doherty well-respected, is he not? “We conclude that in pracice the kind of mother-father relationship, is a caring, committed collaborative marriage. Outside of this, stand in way of active, involved fathering.”

Lamb: It accurately reflects studies they’re talking about: hetero parents and children.

[What Thompson appears not to realize, is that some of this actually REFUTES the traditional father idea, bc “collaboative relationships” aren’t necessarily traditional. In any case, he seems to be making a great case for marriage.]

Thompson: Marriage matters, better than single parents.

Lamb: That’s true, on average, as I testified earlier.

Walker: With reference to statement.  Is that drawn on opposite sex couples.

Lamb: Not to my knowledge.

Walker: Not same sex?

Lamb: I believe that’s true. Institute for American Values promotes a particular view of marriage, mostly focused on promoting marriage among hetero couples. I believe that their research seems to involve studies of such families.

Thompson: You say lobbying group. Comes from scholars. UVA, Doherty, Norville Glen, highly regarded.

Lamb: He’s quite ideologically committed. I’m not a sociologist.

Thompson: Are you familiar with sociological lit.

Lamb: I’ve tried to cover sociological and demographic lit as you know from our previous discussions.

Thompson: Putting Families first.

Lamb: On average, children being raised by two married hetero parents do better than those growing up with a single or divorced parent.

Thompson: [sorry didn’t get name of scholar] Are you familiar with this study. Very large set of data. Children who grow up in household with only one biological parent worse off then children growing up with two biological parents.

Lamb: Accurate of what the study says.

Thompson: Adolescents in married two-biological family, cohabiting step father, advantage of marriage better when biological child.

Lamb: All of the research that involves hetero families in different configurations.

Thompson: Father absence in youth incarceration. Sarah McLanahan. Results from longitudinal event history analysis, sizeable portion of risk could be attribtued to other fators. Worst is stepfather.

Thompson: Another study, large sample size.

Lamb: The actual study focuses on small number of individuals.

Thompson: Is that a problem?

Lamb: No, just clarifying.

Thompson: Adolscents in cohabiting families, significant more problems.

Thompson: Paul Amato. Whites and African Americans separated from parent, worse than those raised in continually intact families.

[Again, doesn’t this make a great case for same sex marriage?]

Thompson: Does father absence place daughters at special risk? Father absence overwhelming factor for early sexual activity.

Lamb: it’s interesting that you would raise this. In most recent edition of childhood education, study that addresses one weakness that these researchers discuss. Possibility that genetic difference. That analysis makes clear that this had to do not with father absence but inherited dispositions of indivs in study.

Thompson: Comparable size?

Lamb: Don’t remember same size.

Thompson: Analysis of interviews obtained, 17% who had step-father was abused, comparable for biological father was 2%.

Lamb: Much more work on incidents of sexual abuse. None contradicts the conclusion that girls are at greater risk, but specific figures.

Thompson: Volume three! We’re halfway home, your honor.

Thompson: Change topics from biological parenting. Divorce has painful adverse effects?

Lamb: That’s correct, as a summary.

Thompson: Children with divorced parents, do more poorly than married parents.

Lamb: On average, yes, that’s what I testified earlier.

Thompson: Stepfathers do not develop authoritative relationships with chidren. Children whose parents are divorced. Many gay fathers have children in hetero relationships before coming out. Difficulties involve coming to terms with sexual orientation. Lesbian couples have them in hetero relationships, true?

Lamb: That used to be true, I don’t have data.

Thompson: For those whom it is true, children would have suffered from trauma of divorce or death of parent. Look closely at study. None of the studies on gay parenting draws on all gay and lesbians in US.

Lamb: I’m interested in those raising children.

Thompson: there’s no study that can address parenting ability of those who don’t have children. WRT same sex couples who do have children, any study that purports to be random study?

Lamb: Closes that would come would not be random sample, anlysis of US census data. There are now data drawn from US census.

Thompson: They don’t purport to be random sample.

Lamb: You don’t have a random sample when you sample the entire population. Most of us would consider this to be better.

Thompson: Which study purports to be random sample. Do you know of any study that purports to reflect a study of all gay and lesbian couples in US.

Lamb; We have one study looking at all G&L raising children. Another conducted by Waingright and Patterson focusing on children drawn from national representative. REpresentative of population with children in that age range.

Thompson: Which is study drawn from Census.

Lamb: Rosenfeld which is to appear i nDemography.

Thompson: Which IS to appear? That’s not something you cite?

Lamb: No.

Thompson: Proportion of male couples who have children.

Lamb: 20%?

Thompson: cites from study 33% lesbian, 22% gay men. Most studies study lesbian mothers. Issue is that fewer gay fathers.

Lamb: And also gay fathers also more difficult to locate.

Thompson: Lesbians tend to be better than average?

Walker: You’re talking about financially?

Thompson: yes

Lamb: I don’t know about that.

Thompson: Would you admit that one obvious concern brought up by trying to research gays and lesbians is that you’re confined by those who identify themselves as gay and lesbian. Some suggestion that samples drawn tend to be form middle class, don’t reflect full totality of G&L community.

Lamb: No, that wouldn’t be true.

Thompson: Appearances can be deceptive. Self-selection and political mobilization. Seguera (sp), will be testifying on behalf of plaintiffs next week. “If ability to mobilize is one incentives for identification, then indivs from invisible groups likely to be more politically active than visible groups.” Isn’t professor Seguera right about this point, sorts of indivs who are willing to be in these studies not representative of overall community.

Lamb: As far as I can tell this has nothing to do with parents. G&L raising children area already visible.

Thompson: Logical breaking point.

Walker: Logical breaking point is as good as any.

Lunch time. Reconvene at 1PM.

image_print
  1. AZ Matt says:

    Marcy! Doing Good!!

    Thompson is getting paid a lot of money for his work here I would guess. I am not sure if the Defendants are getting much value for their dollar.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      The pro-8 folks aim is to get this in front of the Supremes with SOMETHING, ANYTHING that the conservative majority can hide behind and rule that gay marriage is uprotected. I think if allowed to vote their conscience (Yeah, I know: OBJECTION! Assumes material not in evidence), the supremes would go 5-4 or 6-3 that Prop 8 is just fine.

      IMO, the law and constitution conflict with prop 8. Which means the Constitution SHOULD win.

      I’m kinda confused by the direction the trial is taking. It seems to me the proper tack for the Anti-8 forces is to simply quote the constitution and the case law supporting it. 1st amendment says the government has no business in religion at all, especially telling churchs who they may or may not marry. 14th amendment says you can’t screw over any group without a compelling governemnt reason.

      Quite frankly, I find the talk of economic benefits disgusting. Civil rights do NOT depend how much cash flow they generate.

      Boxturtle (I think the pro-8 lawyers are just going through the motions. They knew they’d lost before this even started)

      • jenn976 says:

        “Quite frankly, I find the talk of economic benefits disgusting. Civil rights do NOT depend how much cash flow they generate.”

        Same here.

        “Boxturtle (I think the pro-8 lawyers are just going through the motions. They knew they’d lost before this even started)”

        I wondered the same – glad to hear it from you.

      • eCAHNomics says:

        The scope of the testimony is relevant to whether there should be judicial review. bmaz explained it to me yesterday. I’ll get the quote.

      • eCAHNomics says:

        I complained about the economic stuff too, yesterday. bmaz said I was wrong and here’s why

        The nature of the “state interest” in the legislation affecting the “fundamental right” at issue is a factor, more properly a necessary element I suppose, in determining the appropriate legal standard of review to be applied; i.e whether it is rational basis, moderate/intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny. So, yes, this is very germane and appropriate testimony

        • BoxTurtle says:

          Ah, so. I was under the impression that strict scrutiny was almost a given.

          Boxturtle (Taking away the constitutional rights of any group always has been, except in wartime)

        • BoxTurtle says:

          Yeah. I’m expecting bmaz to enlighten me as to the errors of my thought process shortly.

          Boxturtle (Be gentle. I’ve had a rough week. Fscking fuel pump)

          Addendum: he beat me to it. See above. I understand now

        • bmaz says:

          It may well be, but you still want to lay the foundation for it. Also, for what it is worth, you can make out a case for no more than intermediate scrutiny; I do not agree with that case, but it can be argued.

      • rednecklawyer9 says:

        The economic argument is a stretch. The only thing I can think of is that’s what gets SF onto the playing field. Why does the City care about Prop 8? Marriages = tax revenue. Bingo!

        Boies, Olson & Co. are going a great job of laying the foundation for Walker to make factual findings that Prop 8 is discriminatory and unconstitutional. It’s not just legal argument — there have to be findings of fact. That’s why we’re having a TRIAL.

        My prediction is that Walker is going to write an AWESOME opinion declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional and if he does as I expect, it will be fully backed up by references to the testimony of the plaintiffs’ witnesses. We’ll be thrilled! The 9th Circuit will affirm and then it will head up to SCOTUS which will vote along ideological lines and will overturn Walker 5-4. It will be WRONG, it will be HORRIBLE, it will be a TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE, but that’s what’s going to happen because those five are ideologues who will vote their conservative consciences without regard for civil rights. (Just look at Gore v Bush.) There will be a brilliant, heartfelt, emotional dissenting opinion by one or more of the four liberal justices that we will all cling to and quote from, but it will not change the result. Carrying my prediction even further, someday, in 10 or 20 years (sooner, I hope, but alas..), the tide will change, today’s 0-18 year olds will replace today’s 70-88 year olds in the voting booth and marriage equality will be won at the polls. Everyone will point to the old SCOTUS opinion and ridicule the majority of five who will go down in history as some of the worst Supreme Court justices ever.

        Anyway, that’s my prediction….

        • BoxTurtle says:

          Here’s my thought process on the supremes.

          There are 4 votes solid for overturning: Sotomeyer, Breyer, Steves and Ginsberg.

          There are 2 votes solidly for sustaining: Thomas, Roberts.

          There are 2 votes that will vote to sustain if they can find the slightest reason to do so: Scalia, Alito.

          The decision will hinge on Kennedy. And he’ll need to be shown much more than has beeen shown thus far.

          Boxturtle (GOOOOO Browns!)

        • eCAHNomics says:

          A friend told me today that Kennedy changed his opinion on sodomy because after the lower court ruling, a bunch of people who had clerked for him (or other supremes too?), but had previously been closeted, came out to him. According to my friend, changed his mind lickety split. Don’t know whether any of those are now married or would like to get married, though.

        • BoxTurtle says:

          I hadn’t heard that story, but I like it. But keep in mind that Kennedy has great respect for the part about powers not given to the federal government remain with the states. And that the federal government is explicitly out of the marriage business per the 1st amendment.

          Nothing I’ve seen so far would convince Kennedy IMO. But there’s more to come.

          Boxturtle (We might get Scalia’s vote on a pure consitiutional argement as well)

        • eCAHNomics says:

          I thought this trial was about civil rights, and that marriage is just the particular manifestation. Are states allowed to restict civil rights in other areas that cannot be reviewed by SCOTUS, or is marriage the only one?

        • BoxTurtle says:

          Some states deny felons who have completed their sentences and are off parole/probation the right to vote.

          That’s the only example I can think of off the top of my head, but it only takes one. Some states effectively deny some rights, like Calif reducing inmate health care or a gay teacher trying to get work in Georgia. I’m not counting those.

          Boxturtle (It’s fun to deny rights to felons and ex-felons! Great vote getter!)

        • killjoy says:

          That relies on one of the two great wrongfully decided Rehnquist verdicts that have not yet been overturned, Richardson v Ramirez (1974). (The other is the 1977 reinstatement of capital punishment.)

        • aconite says:

          Part of what this trial is attempting to settle is whether same-sex marriage IS a civil right. The opposition is arguing that it’s not.

          See, SCOTUS has ruled that incarcerated serial killers can marry their penpals, because straight marriage is such a great thing that it’s a fundamental right. But gays who’ve been together for 40 years can’t get married because THINK OF THE CHILDRENZ!!!!!!!!!! Also, EWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Therefore, not a civil right. QED.

        • eCAHNomics says:

          Thanks. I know that, which is why I’m wondering why BT sez Kennedy won’t rule on it because it’s about marriage, when it is really about civil rights. See his A to me in 49.

        • aconite says:

          Yeah, you and I believe it’s about civil rights. I thought BT was wondering if Kennedy would see it that way.

        • BoxTurtle says:

          I said he MIGHT. The plantiffs will have to make a heck of a case, but IF he could be convinced that it’s none of the Federal Courts business he’d vote to sustain.

          Boxturtle (Handicapping the supremes is always an educated guess at best)

        • rednecklawyer9 says:

          Sounds like the betting line for the over/under is 5-4 for upholding Prop 8. I think I’ll keep my money in my wallet.

        • gyrlcop says:

          Won’t Scalia have a hard time dancing out of what he wrote in the dissent in Lawrence? That if homosexual acts between two consenting adults cannot be made illegal, states cannot pass laws against same-sex marriage.

        • BoxTurtle says:

          NEVER underestimate Scalia’s ability to disregard precident, even his own.

          Boxturtle (I’m betting he’ll rationalize a way to vote to sustain)

        • dong says:

          I don’t agree with your assessment of the Supremes. I think it all depends on Kennedy who wrote the Romer decision. If Judge Walker overturns Prop 8 and uses Romer for the basis, then Kennedy will have to go along or otherwise find some way to distinguish Prop 8 from Romer which I don’t think he can do.

        • donintexas says:

          One hopes your prediction is slightly off the mark. Recall the vote in Lawrence v. Texas and the fact that the opinion was written by Kennedy. He is the target of all of this. If he joins Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, the Constitution will be affirmed and the American people will win.

  2. PJEvans says:

    It looks like the defense is trying to get one or more of the experts to say that biological parenting is critical, adn that children need both biological parents.

    Which is crap, as adopted/foster children can tell them – it used to be common that when one parent (or both) died, the children would be raised by grandparents or other family members, without severe problems resulting (or at least, not the ones these people are fishing for).

    Parents who are engaged with each other and their children are critical.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      If that position holds, we need to ban adoption and fostering RIGHT NOW!

      Boxturtle (Do I need to add the /s? Thought not)

  3. Teddy Partridge says:

    Lamb is a wonderful expert witness. He derails Thompson with fact everytime, demolishes him on temporality, and corrects his mischaracterizations ruthlessly but very politely.

  4. Teddy Partridge says:

    Lamb has one of those British accents that impresses Americans unfamiliar with the wide range of classes in Brit-speak. But his accent is not at all of the upper or middle classes of Britain, imho.

  5. Stevious says:

    If the court decides that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, would the State of California appeal? Seems like the Governor and Attorney General are already not fighting this legally, so would the Prop 8 supporters have standing to appeal the decision?

    • Teddy Partridge says:

      The state has already stood down from defending the law, which is why the freight of the defense is being paid by ProtectMarriage.com, who are here called the Defendant-Intervenors. There are actual defendants as well: the court clerks and registrars who denied the named plaintiffs marriage licenses after Prop 8 went into effect.

      I don’t believe Defendant-Intervenors need abandon their advocacy on behalf of the Proposition (now law) in higher federal courts.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      Calif government is of the opinion that this is unconstitutional and doesn’t intend to spend even a dollar defending it. And they don’t have the dollar to spend, anyway. And there would be great political risk to any elected offical who had to face a statewide election in advocating such.

      Boxturtle (But Calif isn’t filing a brief for the anti-8 folks, either)

  6. Teddy Partridge says:

    Thompson has lost his audience utterly, btw. You can bet that if we can see the intellectual bankruptcy on display as he dances through decades and mischaracterizes the basic tenets of science, Judge Vaughn Walker can too — and he appears very unhappy to see this kind of lawyering in his courtroom.

    Thompson is diminishing the American legal process as well as the Enlightenment with his every word.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      Tell Judge Walker not to worry, nobody remembers the name of the judge from the Scopes monkey trial.

      Boxturtle (It was John T. Raulston, but I had to look it up)

  7. Teddy Partridge says:

    Marcy is an AMAZING MACHINE.

    You should probably think about supporting this effort financially, if you’re reading her work, and ESPECIALLY if you are relying on her work to generate your own work product for revenue or research.

    Please give serious thought to how ELSE you might be able to do your own work, relying (if you are) upon Marcy’s extraordinary effort this week.

    And donate accordingly. You know who you are.

    Thank you. Commercial appeal concluded now.

    • bmaz says:

      Sure it will; it is simply a question of when. There has never been such a complete and broad evidentiary record, such as is being created here, laid down in a constitutional right case. I do not think many people understand just how groundbreaking and transformational what is underway in Judge Walker’s courtroom really is. Irrespective of what the final decision out of the Supreme Court on appeal is, this is a worthy effort and a marker for the ages.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      I’d love to know your basis for that. I think Walker will overturn it with a VERY solid opinion, the 9th will uphold it by a decent majority and unless the pro-8 folks have more than what they’ve shown so far it’ll win in the supremes 6-3.

      Boxturtle (Disclaimer: I am also a Browns fan and I believe we’ll have a winning record next season)

  8. timncguy says:

    I’ve never really understood the relevance of all of this “child rearing” data as to marriage.

    To my knowledge CA (nor any other state) has a requirement that a couple commit to rearing children in order to obtain a civil marriage license.

    Additionally, since lesbians can and do have biological children and adoption is legal for single parents and same-sex couples all this talk about where the outcomes might be best for the biological children of hetero couples ignores the reality of who is actually parenting children in CA NOW.

    Which do you suppose the defense is going to suggest, that lesbians all have their tubes tied or that they be forced to marry the biolgical fathers of their children? That adoption be made illegal or that children without two biological hetero parents be put to death?

    And, finally, how does any of this relate to same-sex couples who want to marry and have no intention of having any children at all?

  9. Jay Dwyer says:

    So, I get that Thompson is desperately trying to paint Lamb into a non-existent corner in order to get him to say something pro-biologic parent.

    But am I understanding this correctly? He’s trying to imply children from homes with a step-parent (hetero, of course) fair worse than those where both biological parents (again, hetero) are present. So, in trying to make his argument, he is saying that step-parenting is a bad idea? And in doing so, saying that “by definition” children born to same sex couples invariably have a “step-parent” situation?

    Although I certainly know many individuals who have had prior hetero relationships, are now out, and have entered into a homo relationship…thus creating a “step-parent” situation. HOWEVER, every SS couple I know that has a child either through adoption/fostering, in vitro, or surrogacy – there is not a “step-parent” – both parents share equally in responsibilities and obligations of child rearing…and there isn’t a power differential to be noticed as the child has always known both parents to be parents, first and foremost.

    Does anybody know if there is any research on that?

    • rednecklawyer9 says:

      Thompson and his crew are just a bunch of neanderthals who want all of America to look like a sitcom from the 50’s, i.e., macho male father who is the sole breadwinner, female stay-at-home mom in an apron who sews and bakes cookies, and two perfect, well-adjusted kids who speak only when spoken to, and who all go to church on Sunday. If you don’t fit that mold, you are a deviant, perverted, un-American, godless commie with no right to live in THEIR America.

      • Jay Dwyer says:

        Yeah – that much a figured! Odd…my mom never wore pearls…so deviance must be a hereditary thing. Oh, wait…that would preclude their argument FOR biological parents, wouldn’t it? ;-)

      • eCAHNomics says:

        You forgot the hats and the gloves. The women & girls must wear hats & gloves when they go to church on Sundays.

        That was my family alright. And I have pics to show me in hats and gloves. Those white summer gloves were a bitch for a tomboy to keep clean. It wasn’t half bad for then, but I sure didn’t raise my son that way.

  10. aconite says:

    BoxTurtle, the (very simplified) non-lawyerly explanation for why the financial aspect has been brought in is that the City of San Francisco asked to be one of the plaintiffs in this case on the grounds that Prop 8 harms the city. The plaintiffs used data to show that one of the ways it harms the city is financial.

    It was important to do this for several reasons, one of which is that Prop 8 defenders (and other opponants of marriage equality–remember the DOMA defense?) often claim equality costs too much, which lets them make the argument that the cost/benefit ratio is crappy and therefore the state has a legitimate interest in refusing equality. This pulls that argument right out from under them.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      Ah, so. Yes, that makes perfect sense. I hadn’t picked up that the city of San Fran was actually a plantiff.

      Boxturtle (which makes the absence of the state of Calif all the more obvious)

      • bmaz says:

        As AG, Brown really could not come in and argue against the will of the voters; that he refused to support Prop 8 speaks volumes though and was a righteous thing for him to do.

        • BoxTurtle says:

          Unh, agree to disagree? I think Brown should have filed a amicus brief saying basically “This conflicts with the rest of the Ca constitution, with key parts of the Federal constitution, and is only in front of you because Ca voters understand neither the law, the constitution, the concept of equality or basic human rights”.

          Boxturtle (He should then stick out his tongue and blow a raspberry at defendants lawyers)

        • aconite says:

          bmaz, I thought the situation was somewhat different than what you present. Your understanding of law is probably much better than mine, so perhaps you can point out where I’m wrong.

          My understanding of the situation is that this case is being brought against the state of California. In that context, the state AG cannot join the plaintiffs, because the state would then be participating in a lawsuit against itself and you can’t be both defender and plaintiff in the same case. But the state can decline to defend itself in court, which means that either some other organization has to prove a compelling interest in why they should be able to defend in trial or else the plaintiffs win because no one’s opposing them.

        • bmaz says:

          No, that is exactly what I am saying. Brown could not join the plaintiffs and sue the state and argue against the lawful initiative process; if anything, he probably had an obligation to support the measure. That he did not speaks volumes.

        • aconite says:

          Okay, thanks. Somehow I thought I was missing something.

          I am not a legal expert, but I don’t think the AG has to defend measures that are, in his expert opinion, unconstitutional or indefensible. Part of what he’s being paid to do is give expert legal advice to the state, and I’d think if your expert knows a measure can’t stand, it would be irresponsible to spend resources going through the show of defending it. But God knows logic doesn’t always determine job obligations.

        • bmaz says:

          Right, and he did so; but it would have a whole different thing if he had openly attacked it – that he really could not, and did not, do.

  11. dexter says:

    Just FYI, Kennedy and Olson are friends. Kennedy went to Olson’s second wedding which was small and intimate. Though their friendship wouldn’t sway Kennedy’s vote, I can’t help but think that Olson has a pretty good idea of what it would be.

  12. jenn976 says:

    I just read this from some Twitterer

    “witnesses wrnt withdrawn b/c of cameras, but b/c they didn’t want to be cross examined by David Boies”

    Wow

  13. timncguy says:

    Was there a peculiarity in CA’s legal 18,000 same-sex marriages last year? Did each of the same-sex couples receive a gift certificate with the marriage license allowing them to select a biological child from a married hetero couple to raise as their own? Because if that’s not the case. I can’t see any reason why any of this testimony is relevant.

    When prop 8 was approved, did the children of same-sex couples have to return to their two-parent biological hetero families?

    For heaven’s sake, the children of same-sex couples do not have the option of being raised by their married hetero biological parents or that’s where they would be.

    The only relevant question here is whether the children of same-sex couples would benefit if their same-sex parents were married. The question isn’t whether they would be better off in some “mythincal” hetero biologocal family unit that doesn’t exist. They don’t have that option. Well, unless the answer to my first question was yes, that each same-sex couple upon marriage is allowed to choose one child to take away from the biological hetero couple…

  14. killjoy says:

    Thompson’s is remarkably selfdefeating- every attempted attack of his is enabling Lamb to wreck the emotional reasons that the Religious Right idiots oppose gay marriage.

    RR parents live in fear that their indoctrination and methods and the untruth they teach leads their children to hate and contempt of them. To get around that, in their highly egotistical thinking the biological bond- and therefore procreative gender- and fact of procreation has to be assigned a significance that overrides all else in the minds of their children and themselves.

  15. beth meacham says:

    The reason, as I see it, for the testimony about the benefits of having married parents is to provide a platform for a claim that allowing SS couples to marry, as opposed to registering a DP, will be beneficial to the children.

    We also have unrefuted testimony (so far) that the sex of the married couple is irrelevant. It’s the fact of marriage that make the family more stable.

    I think that the D-I’s hammering on biological vs. step-father is haring off in the wrong direction, because it’s providing evidence that the mere fact of being the opposite sex doesn’t make the marriage better for kids.

  16. eCAHNomics says:

    My head hurts from all this new knowledge about the law I’m acquiring. Thanks to everyone for contributing.