Liveblogging the Prop 8 Trial: Day Five Friday PM(20)

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!

Walker: You have a scheduling matter that came up.

Boutrous: Withdrawal of expert witness. They withdrew expert witnesses bc of concerns about cameras. Not one time did they suggest that the withdraw of the witnesses bc of cameras. Withdrew after SCOTUS decision, we predicted they would withdraw them bc of cross-examination.

Thompson: Respond for completeness of record. Advise that witnesses had a significant concern about cameras. Plaintiffs exacerbated our concerns when they asked the recording continue.

Walker: Let me ask a couple of questions. Dr. Lamb. You said that there’s not a basis for absence of genetic relationship having a problem. Was that your testimony. Purely layperson’s question. Why is it common that adopted children seek out biological parents.

Lamb: Many know they’re adopted. Something important about origins. Wouldn’t be viewed as maladjustment.

Walker: No relationship to anti-social behavior.

Lamb: That’s what research said.

Walker: No reason to protect children form lesbians and gays. What about priestly abuse. How do you square your statements about that phenomenon.

Lamb: Data about sexual abuse shows that individuals who have same sex orientation are no more likely to abuse children. Doesn’t mean they don’t. Not familiar of all the details of abuses conducted within religious orders. Many cases in Ireland involve heterosexual abuse by religious individuals. Abuse involves both hetero and homosexual abuse. I don’t want to convey fact that homosexual people never abuse children, simply that they’re not any more likely.

Walker: Have you studied that?

Lamb: I know of the studies. I focus on affects on  children.

Walker: Continue Mr. Thompson.

Thompson: Why is it if genetic connection irrelevant couples pay expense to go through in vitro.

Lamb: Would be indication it’s important to them. Adjustment of children, children conceived using IVF just as likely to be conceived through natural conception with egg donation with those conceived through artificial insemination.

Thompson: Gay fatherhood has with some exceptions, relatively homogenous groups.

Lamb: On gay fathers. I think that the research, less extensive than lesbian mothers, does include pop study I mentioned earlier, recent studies of adoption of gays. Not sure term homogenous.

Thompson: 4th edition of role of father. Patterson, despite diversity of gay fathers, research relatively homogeneous. Representativeness.

Lamb: That was true then, yes.

Thompson: Cross-sectional in nature. Caution in interpretation of research in this new area of work.

Lamb: Accurate in 1996.

Thompson: No, 2004.

Lamb: 2002.

Thompson: let us turn to studies. Lit on gay male and parenting skills so sparse that you’re starting a study in UK, correct?

Lamb: I’m starting a study in UK, that much is correct.

Thompson: You’re going to focus on nature of parents’ prior relationships. Many of the studies don’t attempt to match prior relationships. If you had two households one with 1 child, and one with 10 children, different resources available. Studies don’t control for that.

Lamb: I don’t think that’s correct.

Thompson: Some don’t even compare to any group. Studies listed in materials considered, some don’t have control group whatsoever. Taking into account age, proxy index for readiness for parenting.

Lamb: I’m trying to undesrtand your question. It identifies certain groups where age is problematic. What would be important is not to be mixing teen parents with middle age, or older parents. This is not something that is just linearly related.

Thompson: You’re going to be asking if parents are sexually exclusive. That becomes especially important, children’s adjustment.

Lamb: The nature of the relationship between the parents that could be an important issue.

Thompson: That’s why you’re going to try to hold constant.

Lamb: That’s what I said at depo.

Thompson: Many of the studies don’t look at prior relationships.

Lamb: That’s true of studies of hetero and homosexual couples.

Thompson: Educational background, these are important things to consider. Most studies address white middle class lesbians. Several don’t have control group against which to measure.

Lamb: Some don’t, bc for purpose of study, those weren’t necessary.

Thompson: Outcomes better raised by two parents.

Lamb: Many compared them to single mothers, some to two parent families.

Thompson: Many of them showed only doing as well as single mothers.

Lamb: Children being raised by lesbians as well.

Thompson: Stepfathers can lead to worse outcomes. Not a comparison of married biological parents compared to gay and lesbian parents. Educational attainment child well adjustment.

Lamb: Completion of adequate schooling.

Thompson: Many studies on young children so can’t measure. None of the studies try to compare difficult of subject matters at their schools. If you want to measure whether child had reached intellectual potential. Compare that to GPA, correct?

Lamb: That tends not to be true on a lot of studies.

Thompson: There’s not one single one which has tried to measure educational attainment of these children to their potential. [raising voice] There is a fairly reliable correlation between family size and IQ.

Lamb: Relatively small but reliable.

Thompson: Not hold constant for number of siblings. Those that look at educational attainment of children, college matriculation. Those studies don’t try to measure caliber of universities, treat Cambridge same as community. It’s important to be precise as posible when making comparisons. Not one of the studies you’ve looked at considers the resources that grandparents make available.

Lamb: I think that’s not correct.

Thompson: The financial resources.

Lamb: You said resources. There have been studies.

Thompson: None of the studies have examined financial resources grandparents make available. Educational attainment of grandparents.

Lamb: Something would be related.

Thompson: Clearly we know that psychological well-being of parents affects quality of children. Being a depressed parent can affect the child.

Thompson: Professor Knott [may be Knox]. UVA. Well-known family sociologist. Let’s look at what you said in deposition. He’s unfortunately deceased. Is that right?

Lamb: You told me so at deposition.

Thompson: If valid study were to show that no correlation between having gay and lesbian parents and worse outcomes, then most scientists would accept that there is no causal link between the two. Samplings, ability of any social science evidence depends on way sample of cases was obtained.

Lamb: I would agree that it relates to understanding and specifying.

Thompson: Probability study, every member same probability in appearing in study.

Lamb: What I made in said about representative.

Thompson: Would require probability sample.

Lamb: That’s a sociologist. I would expand, sand say we need a variety of studies, and that’s what I testified to this morning.

Thompson: We do not have agreed upon definition of homosexual. Answers to such questions have direct consequences. Would you agree that an agreed upon definition of homosexuality as important.

Lamb: Parenting relies on self-definition.

Thompson: In order to determine that specific characteristics of father-child relationship, necessary to use correlative studies.

Lamb: My statement that you need multiple approaches.

Thompson: [Reading Knott] Must decide how information to be collected. Must first translate concepts of interest into indicators that can be measured. You would need questionnaire.

Lamb: If you were going to do a questionnaire, you’d need to write it.

Thompson: Document–No basis, what the sudies don’t tell us about homosexual parenting. Did you review this in connection with this case?

Lamb: I’ve read it in the past, but not in connection with this case.

Thompson: Conclusion was that studies were not sufficiently reliable to draw conclusions.

Lamb: That was the conclusion he reached about ten years ago.

Thompson: Walter Schoen. Waht was really learned by Tasker and Golobak’s study of lesbian mothers.

Lamb: I’ve seen it before. It was published in a journal where one has to pay to have it published, so it’s not really considered part of the literature. But I have seen it in past cases.

Thompson: Very small subset of any population proceed with caution.

Lamb: I think researchers should always proceed with caution.

Thompson: Families with young children. Review of research in 1990s. Have you reviewed this in connection with case?

Lamb: No I have not.

Thompson: It says “relatively new area of study” Persistent limitation of these studies is that most rely on small samples of middle class previously married lesbians and their children. At time when this was written, it was true.

Lamb: It was true of a majority of the studies at the time.

Thompson: It says cannot be confident about generalizability of the studies.

Lamb: You would have to be careful about that if you were relying on relatively small group of research.

Thompson: Does sexual orientation of parents matter. Judith Stacy. Are you familiar? She’s an advocate for rights of gays and lesbians?

Lamb: I don’t know about that.

Thompson: She talked about studies showing greater gender conformity. However another measure such as occupation goals and sartorial styles, they also exhibit greater gender conformity. If prof Stacy right that if you use miniscule sample that increase likelihood of rejecting null.

Lamb: Yes.

Thompson: Are we justified in lowering our standards. Would you agree that scientific standards have been lowered?

Lamb: I odn’t know anything about medical community, but I don’t think it’s true in area I study.

Thompson: You don’t think there was bias in the past?

Lamb: You were asking me about–perhaps you can repeat the question.

Thompson: We can move on. Study that shows worse outcome.

Lamb: I didn’t list everything I took into account. This study is complete outlier, and by author’s own admission, problems research.

Thompson: it has a larger sample size than any of hte literature you cite to, that compares childhood outcomes to hetero.

Lamb: Largest sample is Rosenfels one, which uses the national sample, I didn’t cite it bc I wasn’t aware of it. This one includes 58 children being raised by lesbians and gay parents.

Thompson: It has a control group.

Lamb: Two, married hetero, and cohabiting hetero.

Thompson: Article

Lamb: This is incomplete, is that intentional?

Thompson: Giving the heft of these binders, we wanted to kill one less tree. Lesbian mothers scored lower on setting limits. You would agree that setting limits important on parenting.

Walker: This is not the only place where setting limits would be helpful.

[Introduces another one]

Lamb: This was reporting back onto other one.

Thompson: Did not compare to biological married parents.

Thompson, trying to introduce another report.

Walker: You’re going to ask a question, right? That’s the precondition under XXX.

Thompson: I’m getting into prove a negative. THe comparison group here is not of married biological parents, right?

Lamb: I’m sure that neither you nor the Judge want me to read through and check.

Walker: Alright. Now move on.

Thompson: Again, this one did not have a control group of married hetero parents.

Lamb: My understanding is that they did not exclude people who were not married.

Thompson: [Another report] Did not have control group of married hetero parents. You don’t know how many of these studies compared married biological parents to same sex.

Lamb: They were comparing hetero couples with lesbian parents.

[Thompson is going on and on with these studies, pointing out that they don’t have control groups that exclude unmarried parents.]

Thompson: 50% difference in psychological problems.

Lamb: It’s not statistically significant.

Thompson: because the sample size is so small?

Lamb: No, because it’s not statistically significant.

Lamb: in all of these cases, majority would have been married, but so far as I recall, non-married were not excluded.

Thompson: Points to chart. Cognitive competence. Worse outcome, right?

Lamb: In this case, it appears to be.

[Thompson goes to another paper that is based on one we already talked about–he’s having a hard time understanding what is a study and what a review of the same study.]

Walker: if that same question applies to all of these maybe you can get to the point.

Thompson: He doesn’t have any studies that compare with married biological couples, which is the point we’re making in this case.

Walker: We’re trying a case. There are ways to make your point in as short of time as possible. Maybe pose one question with respect to the whole one.

Thompson now asking him to generalize.

Lamb: Most of them use married couples but, not having a chance to review them, I don’t recall that they excluded unmarried couples.

Thompson: [Really pissy now] If you don’t exclude them then there might be unarried couples in the control group.

Thompson: So-called meta-analyses.

Lamb: There have been several meta-analyses on adopted children. Procedure to combine results of multiple studies.

[Walker is standing to the side of his chair at the moment–he does this from time to time. Has his arms crossed.]

Thompson: There isn’t a single study in this control group that uses married biological. Bacon and Greyways.

Lamb: This is a literature review.

Thompson: Maybe we’ll just say review rather than meta-analysis.

Lamb: It’s my understanding, probably did not exclude from comparison people who were not married.

Thompson: Another summary.

Lamb: That’s another literature review as it says on the top.

Lamb: This one cited Cordig (sp), who cites married heterosexual couples in his title.

Thompson: But he doesn’t talk about childhood outcomes.

Lamb: This article is on family relationships.

Thompson: Behavior outcomes for DP couples. Or for married. Children being raised by gays and lesbians comparable in outcomes to those raised by hetero. That’s true even though none of those gay and lesbian were married.

Redirect.

McGill: Do you need a break, are you alright?

Lamb: I see the end in sight. I’m looking at that door.

McGill: Let’s warm up our time machine, way back in time to 1975, when you held the view that presence of father itself determinative factor in adjustment outcomes.

Lamb: Issue had to do with maleness of father. I still think fathers are important figures, and when they do have father figures that are important.

McGill: Why is it that your views from before I was born to now, what has changed your views?

Lamb: The body of evidence.

McGill: When lit in your field speaks of father absence, what family structures is lit describing.

Lamb: Hetero families when single women raising children either by choice or result of family dissolution.

McGill: When studies talk about fatherless families, headed by lesbian mothers?

Lamb: Small number. In general, talking about hetero mother.

McGill: What conclusion can be drawn about lesbian families of lit that studies fatherless families.

Lamb: Lit on father figure in home.

McGill: Does the fatherless family lit allow us to draw any conclusion on lesbian parents? On gay parents? How about literature studying divorced families?

Lamb: Not directly. They’re not exploring influence of sexual orientation of parent.

McGill: What about body of research regarding stepfamilies. Can it tell us anything about adjustment of children w/gay or lesbian parents.

Lamb: No.

McGill: Who is Loren Marks?

Lamb: One of the experts that had been identified on the other side.

McGill: Did you review Dr. Marks’ report and deposition I took of him? With honor’s permission, I’d like to play clip of deposition.

Thompson: Object to it being in evidence, not object to being played.

[Deposition]

McGill: How would you characterize married lesbian couple that adopted after child’s birth.

Marks: No biological ties. I believe the heterosexual that adopts they deserve a discrete category.

McGill: Do you agree they deserve their own category.

Lamb: WRT childhood outcomes.

McGill: Study by Rosenfeld. Can you tell us why important.

Lamb: Compares all children. COuple of thousand raised by lesbian and couple of thousand raised by gay, with respect to extent to which children held back at school.

McGill: Is sample based on US Census reliable?

Lamb: [laughs] yes.

McGill: Rosenfeld compares heterosexual couples, unmarried lesbian couples.

Lamb: You’ve got unmarried parents in all of those groups.

McGill: How is “biological” used in literature.

Lamb: To refer to genetic, DNA sharing link. In many studies, the term is used more inclusively to include indivs in intact families, including children who’ve been adopted would often be included with biological family.

McGill: It would include parent that had no genetic relationship to child.

McGill: Robert Johnson’s study on substance abuse. First relation  “mother” might be biological or adoptive mother. Is that consistent with way it’s used in pscyh?

Lamb: Frequently used in literature.

McGill: Read bottom:

Most studies do not distinguish biological families from adoptive parents since the latter is a rarefamily form.

McGill: You were shown a great number of documents by Mr. Thompson. One was a lit review by Brad Wilcox.

McGill: Data on national household survey. Teens living w/both biological parents significantly less likely to use drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. How do you suspect Wilcox using biological?

Lamb: Assume he was using it to include biological parents.

McGill: Second clip on Wilcox and Johnson.

McGill: Moving now to paragraph 15, specifically last sentence of paragraph 15. Marked as exhibit 2. You say, recent interview Wilcox and Roberts. significantly less likely to use illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. You italicize both biologicla parents?

Marks: Was going back to biology is important in connection with marriage.

McGill: Read sentence on 24 and 25. Data from national household survey on drug abuse, after controlling for age, race, etc, teens living w/both biological parents. Wilcox and Collins do not account for biological parents.

Marks: I don’t know if they do or not.

McGill: Just as you said before, you used those in same manner, would you expect Wilcox and Collins to use in same manner in which research cited them.

Marks: Always exceptions.

McGill: If Wilcox and Collins define biological parents differently from authority they cite, wouldn’t that suggest that proposition that Wilcox makes not supported by citation?

Marks: Standard.

McGill [reads where the underlying report details that “biological” includes “adoptive”] Had you read that before you signed your report? [Continues reading] “Most studies consider intact families including adoptive.” Do you believe that’s accurate?

Marks: I would withdraw that.

McGill: Would you withdraw emphasis on biological?

Marks: I would.

McGill: Do you think he was correct to withdraw emphasis on biological.

Thompson: We would object to judicial notice of a snippet of the deposition, Dr. Marks’ report should come in so the record can be seen in totality.

Walker: Let’s sort this out at another time. What I’m interested in rightnow is page and reference number.

McGill: Book. Fatherless America. You mentioned that you wrote a book review concerning Fatherless America. Is that right? Do you recall what you wrote?

Lamb: I was concerned that Blankenhorn had misrepresented much of the research, particularly gender differentiated parenting. There was a second concern which was the fact that Blankenhorn’s book confused the issues of correlation and causality. Misrepresented state of knowledge at that point regarding ways in which children’s experience might be

Blankenhorn’s tendancy to paint alternative visions in absurd or ridiculous terms in order to facilitate his dismisal of them leads him in at least one important case to undermine his own theseis.

McGill: Would you consider that a favorable review?

Lamb: No.

McGill: Do you remember brief review of Seranticos study.Is there anything else you want to say baout the study.

Lamb: Problems that Seranticos acknowledges in this report. 2 hetero parent married, 2 hetero cohabiting, 2 G&L parents, not comparable in important ways. Children in cohabiting and same sex groups had frequently experienced divorce of parents. Substantial body of evidence showing that experience of parents divorce, and fact that many of these children moved home. That would need to be taken into account in trying to interpret the results. More illustrative on effects of divorce than it does on same sex parenting. Second, all of data gathered by interviewing teachers. Recognizes particular problem, many teachers acknowledge having homophobic attitudes. Finally used very different ways of selecting samples for study. While results are out of step with results of research. Understanding particulars makes it clear why it’s so far out of step.

McGill: Have findings ever been replicated by another study?

Lamb: They have not. There’s no other study that finds that in the nature of the report. A couple of studies show difference one way or another. You’d expect to find local variations. No other study that shows in this way major problem on part of children

McGill: Recall where Seranticos study published.

Lamb: Children Australia.

McGill: Peer reviewed? Electronic databases?

Lamb: I don’t think so, not in databases. I think most of the people in field have same concerns about study.

McGill: Why 100s of studies reliable?

Lamb: Consistent. The fact that patterns of results obtained in wider body of research. Children whose lesbian who have conflictual relationship have more probs than children whose lesbian parents have more harmonious. Same factors that predict outcomes as we do when children have hetero parents. Having gay or lesbian parent does not make them more likely to be maladjusted.

McGill; Fewer studies of gay parents than lesbian parents? WHy are you comfortable opining that their chilren no less likely to be well adjusted?

Lamb: Totality of evidence base. We do have a good understanding of what it is that affects adjustment.

McGill: Did the corporation on public broadcasting affect your opinion in this case?

Lamb: No, it did not.

image_print
  1. BoxTurtle says:

    Can anybody name the witness that dropped and what they were supposed to testify about?

    Boxturtle (COWARD!!! This ain’t a mafia trial, stand up for what you believe in!)

  2. BoxTurtle says:

    From KillJoy in prior thread:

    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.)

    We could get a verdict just as wrongfully decided here. I just think the odds are nicely in our favor, based on what I’ve seen so far.

    I also think all the Browns draft picks will start.

    Boxturtle (Well, maybe that’s not so unbelievable, given our current starters)

  3. amyk says:

    I hope the plaintiff’s attorney mentions at some point that heterosexuals who have been CONVICTED of child abuse, neglect, spousal abuse and child molestation are free to marry as many times as they want.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      I seem to remember case law that said states couldn’t restrict the right to marry to felons because it was a civil right and there was no overriding state concern. But I no longer have access to Lexis, so I can’t confirm that memory or pull up a case cite.

      If it exists, I’m sure it’s cited in the anti-8 paperwork.

      Boxturtle (5 evil points to amyk!)

  4. ThadBeier says:

    Is there any way we can find out who that witness was? Is the witness list of the defendant/intervenor’s public? Are we just going to have to wait and see who doesn’t show up?

    In any case, I agree with the people in the previous live-blogs (and Marcy’s asides) that Thompson and Lamb are making the plaintiff’s case very well. Here we had all worried that Olsen was perhaps not sincere about this case — but man, I’d have to think that the Pro-8 folk are wondering why Thompson is making such a strong case for gay marriage.

    • jenn976 says:

      No help with the ID of the witness(es) who won’t testify by me but on Twitter, AmerEqualRights said:

      “Our attorneys note our opponents do not want their witnesses cross-examined in court by the renowned David Boies”

      Another Twitterer said same thing. The only reason given was they didn’t want to go under cross by Boies.

  5. Teddy Partridge says:

    My brain and fingers and lower back are fried.

    Marcy is inhumanly strong and talented. Believe it or not, she is actually HOPING that the Department of Justice OPR report will finally be released tonight, allowing her some light cocktail reading on the redeye home to Michigan….

    Go figure.

    I’m so glad she’s on our team. As a force of nature, she is literally irresistable.

  6. AZ Matt says:

    I am waiting for Thompson to go “Ha-ha! You, Mr. Lamb, murdered Mr. Brown in the bathroom with the toilet brush!”

    • BoxTurtle says:

      I’m waiting for him to curl up in a fetal position, point at Lamb and start moaning something about making the Bad Man stop.

      Boxturtle (Is he even smart enough to realize the witness shreding him?)

  7. alane says:

    Thompson: Clearly we know that psychological well-being of parents affects quality of children. Being a depressed parent can affect the child.

    I hope he doesn’t try to go there, but it looks like he will.

  8. Jay Dwyer says:

    Thompson: Are we justified in lowering our standards. Would you agree that scientific standards have been lowered?

    Lamb: I odn’t know anything about medical community, but I don’t think it’s true in area I study.

    Thompson: You don’t think there was bias in the past?

    Lamb: You were asking me about–perhaps you can repeat the question.

    Thompson: We can move on.

    Jay: is it just me, or has Thompson now just gone from grasping at straws…to just grasping…?

  9. donintexas says:

    Judge Walker: Why is it common that adopted children seek out biological parents.

    Lamb: Many know they’re adopted. Something important about origins. Wouldn’t be viewed as maladjustment.

    Walker: No relationship to anti-social behavior.

    Lamb: That’s what research said.

    Walker: No reason to protect children from lesbians and gays.

    W O W !!

    • BoxTurtle says:

      Walker is building his transcript very nicely, making sure that all the points he will want to make in his ruling are on record. It appears he’ll ask the key questions is the lawyers don’t.

      The pro-8 lawyers need to get Lamb off the stand before he hurts them any worse. Thompson has to be covered with 3d degree burns, deep lacerations, and massive bruises.

      Boxturtle (To say nothing of the gavel marks on his forehead)

  10. beth meacham says:

    OK, now I’m lost. Why is the D-I focusing on the importance of biological parents? Has the lawyer forgotten what case he’s defending?

    • pkiverson says:

      My guess would be they want to prove that a valid state interest in excluding gays and lesbians from marriage is to promote raising of children within a marriage of their biological parents. If they want to do so, I would think they would first have to prove this is actually better for children than other arrangements.

  11. donintexas says:

    The judge said, “No reason to protect children from lesbians and gays.”

    That was the basis underpinning the entire Prop 8 campaign.

  12. timncguy says:

    is defense going to end up having any witnesses? Because I’ve been thinking that the cross of defense witnesses was going to be the best part of this trial….

    • Jay Dwyer says:

      I don’t know…reading this blog and witnessing the defense fail…(like, enough already, give up before the janitors have to mop up your remains)…at their cross seems to be HIGHLY entertaining!

  13. Jay Dwyer says:

    [Thompson is going on and on with these studies, pointing out that they don’t have control groups that exclude unmarried parents.]

    Walker: This is not the only place where setting limits would be helpful.

    Marcy & Teddy – without seeing the above statement in the verbal and non-verbal context, I’m assuming the Judge is now showing blatent contempt for this type of cross?

  14. aconite says:

    Thompson seems to be trying to make the case that:
    1.) Children of gay families are disadvantaged; therefore
    2.) There should not be gay marriage.

    Wouldn’t someone who was actually concerned about children make an argument that goes more like:
    1.) Children of gay families are disadvantaged; therefore
    2.) Their families need all the help they can get, so let the parents marry?

    After all, many of the reasons gay families are disadvantaged with respect to straight ones is they can’t share the same resources.

  15. alane says:

    Lamb: It’s not statistically significant.

    Thompson: because the sample size is so small?

    Lamb: No, because it’s not statistically significant.

    Wow this lawyer doesn’t know statistics.

    • JTMinIA says:

      More likely is that, in the past, the witness has “fallen” for this (because sample size is one the key factors to significance). Too bad, for him, that he’s dealing with someone who is very cool.

  16. timncguy says:

    all well and good if they are trying to show that children of biological married hetero couples fare better (which the studies don’t support). But, the result they are defending in denying same-sex marriage does NOTHING to stop the creation of same-sex families with children or to increase the number of hetero, biological, two-parent familes….

    So, I don’t get the point.

    I could understand if this trial were about LGBT adoption rights, but it isn’t….

    • aconite says:

      Yeah, but they have to make a REALLY BIG DEAL about the one thing same-sex-parented families can’t do that some opposite-sex-parented families can: have children directly biologically related to both parents.

      Whether that actually matters wrt the wellbeing of the family or the child is TOTALLY irrelevant.

      (I think what this really comes down to for them is that if children=/= marriage and marriage =/= children, then when Timmy gets Betty preggers, he don’t have to marry her no more. And maybe then Betty goes off to college instead of getting married at 17, and she comes home with funny ideas about evolution and civil rights and starts asking why all the women wash dishes after Thanksgiving dinner while the guys go watch football. And civilization comes to an end.)

    • rednecklawyer9 says:

      The (extremely dubious) point they are trying to make is that preserving “traditional marriage” is all about procreation and raising children, and that since children of hetero married couples do better than other children (theoretically), then the state has an interest in promoting “traditional marriage” (and rejecting “alternative marriage”) in order to further its interest in promoting the the best interests of children. Ergo, there is nothing unconstitutional about Prop 8.

      Yeah, it’s a bunch of b.s.

  17. beth meacham says:

    They seem to conflate heterosexual couples with biological parents, despite plenty of testimony (not to mention demographic facts) about marriages where only one, or neither, of the members is biologically related to the children.

    • PJEvans says:

      Failure to look at the past, also, when it was not at all unusual to have second (or even third) marriages with children. Sometimes it would be a second marriage for both parents, so there would be three sets of kids.

      (Hell, I have relatives who did that: his, hers, and theirs. Blended fine, AFAIK. And relatives with adopted kids; in one case, the biological father didn’t want to raise the kid, but didn’t want the mother to have the kid either.)

      • jenn976 says:

        Yes, exactly. Every time Defense talks about how great heteros naturally are as parents, I think of the multitudes of abused/neglected kids.

        • dosido says:

          Who shall be our Poster Couple for Straight Marriage and terrific parenting. Jon & Kate? The Heenes (Balloon Boy’s family)?

        • PJEvans says:

          My favorite poster child for het marriage is Britney Spears nad her 48-hour marriage (compared to the long-term same-sex relationships we’ve met in the last few years).

  18. Peterr says:

    Thompson: Giving the heft of these binders, we wanted to kill one less tree. Lesbian mothers scored lower on setting limits. You would agree that setting limits important on parenting.

    Walker: This is not the only place where setting limits would be helpful.

    Hee hee hee [nice bold, Marcy!]

    Sounds like Thompson has certainly made an impression on Walker. Not the one Thompson might like, perhaps, but an impression nonetheless.

  19. dosido says:

    I love all this “concern for the kids” crap out of the defense. As if we straight couples are all ozzie and harriet.

    • eCAHNomics says:

      I’d like to see some testimony on the outcomes of children from RR households. We know that most social indicators do better in blue states than red states. I’d be willing to bet it’s even worse for the red part of the red.

  20. dosido says:

    Yeah, I want to know if Prop 8 folks are for S-chip, breakfast in school programs, access to health care for the straight parents of those children, etc.

  21. jack2 says:

    Is it just my perception, or was Thompson intentionally making a non-scientifically-supported statement and then following that sentence up with a question to the Plantiff’s Witness that had no direct relavance to the first statement? So that the non-supported statement just hung in the air unchallenged? (left this same comment on Teddy’s blog but added here to get feedback to see if anyone else has noticed this.)

    • jenn976 says:

      I noticed the same. It also got me that the lawyer didn’t seem to know basic stats at all (not that I’d expect him to, generally) but if you’re going to cross on someone based a lot on their studies, wouldn’t you bone up on some basic stat methodology? Maybe I’m expecting too much.

      • jack2 says:

        I think the Thompson is making statements to the “faithful” and then asking questions to the Witness. It’s not that the lawyer doesn’t understand logic but that lawyer wants to win with the “faithful”. They probably know they will loose on logic and law.

        • eCAHNomics says:

          Very clear. Thank you from someone who rarely sees it from the other POV until someone points it out to me.

        • jack2 says:

          Glad to have the confirmation that that pattern I’m seeing is seen by others. If you go back over the testamony and look at it for the pattern, you suddenly see the “logic”…i.e. “Faithful statement” then “Question to the witness.” The lawyer is not concerned that the question is illogical or damaging because the “non-scientific-statement” is more important. He’s preparing to win this case on “Faith” not logic at the SCOTUS level.

        • eCAHNomics says:

          Thanks again jack2. Often it is more impt to see it from the other side than living in your own bubble. IANAL, but from what the lawyers have been saying, the defense will not hold up in court (SCOTUS is probably not a court), but keeping the faithful in line is VERY important.

        • jack2 says:

          Good point eCAHNomics. Keeping the faithful happy is probably what will bring them out enmasse…or actively support the media that will give their message lots of play during SCOTUS trial.

      • BoxTurtle says:

        It’s not the boning up on the stats that’s killing him. He broke the first rule: NEVER ask a witness a question on the stand you don’t already know the answer to.

        He should have asked that question in deposition and known not to ask it on the stand.

        Boxturtle (Thompson is getting PAID for this?!?)

  22. hotdiggetydogg says:

    Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

    The liveblog is captivating!

    Have been following all week…all I have to say is that at this stage of the trial, it would appear that Prop 8 is destined for “Unconstitutional” file.

    Thompson is floundering on cross.

    Can not wait for defendants testimony in the coming weeks, and especially them getting shredded on cross.

  23. JTMinIA says:

    Am I missing something? Why are you beating up the Defense for his stats? Yes, he appears overly concerned with sample size, but sample size is – of the four things that determine significance – the *only* factor that is completely under the control of the researcher. It is perfectly reasonable to focus on N when discussing and/or criticizing a particular study.

  24. Peterr says:

    McGill: Let’s warm up our time machine, way back in time to 1975, when you held the view that presence of father itself determinative factor in adjustment outcomes.

    Lamb: Issue had to do with maleness of father. I still think fathers are important figures, and when they do have father figures that are important.

    McGill: Why is it that your views from before I was born to now, what has changed your views?

    Lamb: The body of evidence.

    “. . . from before I was born . . .”

    McGill has a nice way with words.

  25. robertdenver says:

    McGill: Did the corporation on public broadcasting affect your opinion in this case?

    Lamb: No, it did not.

    THAT is hilarious!

    • Peterr says:

      But . . . but . . . What about Mr. Rogers? All that “Won’t you be my neighbor?” stuff sure sounds pretty damn librul. Why, he’d welcome just about anyone who moved in next door with a fresh baked loaf of bread.

      And then there’s Ernie and Bert . . .

  26. row4it says:

    My personal fave (from previous session):

    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.

    The phrase “dripping sarcasm” springs to mind.

    And much thanks to you both and your fingers, backs,…!

    • Peterr says:

      JTMinIA, this is why folks are . . . how to put it? . . . less than impressed with Thompson’s grasp of statistics. This is from day one of Statistics 101, and Thompson appears to have been late to class that day.

  27. Cellar47 says:

    All this BLATHER proceeds from the assumption that the “Traditional Family” is inherently surperior to any other configuration.

    Of course figures on divorce, spousal violence MURDER VERY MUCH INCLUDED tell a different story.

    Breeder marriages are a fucking horrorshow. But they would rather die than admit it.

    The biggest fear about gay marriage is that WE CAN DO IT BETTER

    And we can.

    • aconite says:

      My favorite line from Melange Lavonne’s “I’ve Got You”:
      “I’m not sayin’ I might be a better parent than you– what I’m sayin’ is I AM a better parent than you.”

  28. purza says:

    Dr. Tran FTW.

    I find it interesting that, based on the statements he’s made, the D-I has made a case for:

    1) Testing hetero couples for fertility before allowing them to marry (marriage can’t be about children if it can’t create any children, right?)
    2) Forcing annulments on couples who are unable or unwilling to produce children
    3) Forcing post-menopausal women to divorce (they can’t produce any children, so why are they married?)
    4) Preventing hetero couples from remarrying if either one has children from a previous marriage, and forcing annulments on those who have remarried – can’t have those pesky step-fathers abusing the kids!
    5) Preventing women from accessing contraception and/or abortion – it’s all about the kids, woman, if you didn’t want them you shouldn’t have gotten married (they’d like that, though, and I know it)
    and best of all:
    6) Preventing ANYONE from caring for a child unless s/he is one of the biological parents – so much for adoption, foster homes, orphanages, letting other family members raise kids, etc.

    The stupid…it burnsss, Precioussss!!!

  29. susiegfff says:

    Good story! Any lesbian singles there? It is actually difficult to find a lesbian girl in real life. Why not going to _Lescupids.com__ to have a try? It has many serious members with verified photo. Come and find a special one~~ No, men are not allowed,please!