Archive for category: emptywheel

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!

Helen Zia

Defense: Relevance very unclear, she’s not a plaintiff, she’s not an expert, she’s not a reliable sample, her testimony has no probative value. Use of documents used with Dr. Chauncey. None of that was disclosed. No idea what relevance is.

Danny Chu, SF City Attys: Illustrative of expert testimony. Alleges harm, showing how domestic partnerships are different. WRT description of testimony wrt messaging. Examples of messages she saw during Prop 8. Clearly covered by description of testimony we gave to defendant intervenors.

Defense: Needlessly cumulative. We’ve had four experts testifying. For one person taken, in reality, off the street.

Danny Chu: She has actually gotten marriage. She’s representative of what they want. This bookends testimony of plaintiffs who say they want to get married.

Defense: That kind of testimony should be expert. They should submit study with appropriate sample size. it’s not scientific.

Walker: Admitted.

Danny Chu: If I could add one thing.

Walker: Admitted. One of advantages of bench trial is that evidence can be presented and weight. That is something that can be considered after court has heard and weighed evidence. Witness is going to speak to issues that are important to ultimate resolution of case. I will permit witness to testify and I will make final determination of how much weight to give that testimony.

Chu: How old, how long in CA.

Zia: [Fifty something–didn’t hear it] Five siblings. Four are married. High school at JFK HS in NJ, college at Princeton, BA. Have honorary JD from city U of NY. I’m a writer. Written two books, edite da number. Asian-American dreams, emergence of American people. Contemporary history of Asian Americans over last 40 years. Second was My Country Versus Me, Chinese American scientist, Wen Ho Lee, falsely accused of being spy, co-authored. Last publication Ms. Magazine, Exec editor.I am a lesbian. I thnk I’ve been a lesbian all my life. Coming out is a process. Lot of ways to describe what it is. First became aware when I was in college, when I first learned the word lesbian. There were a lot of experiences when I was younger, starting when I was 6 or 7, I look back now and realize they were clear signs what team I was on. When I was about 6 ot 7 or 8. Just a school kid. Neighbor lady, asked kids, so do you want to get married when you grow up? In the expectation, that I would say yes. I immediately said no. She was really surprised I was so emphatic. It was very clear to me even at that time, that I could not imagine getting married to a man.

Chu: You were first aware you might be lesbian in college. When did you come out.

Zia: I had my first relationship with a woman in mid 1980s, in my 30s.

Chu: How much after college.

Zia: 12 years after college.

Chu: Why did it take so long?

Zia: Many social pressures to steer me away from person I really was.

Chu: Give me an example.

Zia; Lesbian trial. AFter I left college I for a time attended medical school, realized I wanted to spend more time community organizing, like our President. was involved in neighborhood in Boston. Work around ending discrimination in construction trades, didn’t hire people of color or women at  all, very restrictive very high paying jobs. Involved in Asian Community org and African American community org. Called me to a meeting. They were sitting in semi-circle. Told me to sit here. “We’ve noticed you seem to be working with a lot of women, and a lot of lesbians, in our communities of color, we don’t have homosexuals in our community. It would be really terrible to have lesbian working with us, bc homosexuality is symptom of white petty bourgeois decadance. We wouldn’t want to hav eyou with us, working with us on these causes.”  Leader of African American group said much the same. Then said, “So Helen, are you a lesbian?” I had friends who were lesbians. What would make me a lesbian. I knew I had had lesbian thoughts. Attractions. I didn’t have a girl friend, Didn’t have a membership card, a toaster overn that said welcome to lesbian-hood. They stared at me and said, Helen are you a lesbian. I had stepped into closet and slammed the door shut.

Chu: Anything you did in response?

Zia: Got message very clearly that having friends that were lesbians was not acceptable. I stopped seeing my friends, cut off my ties with my dear friends in woman’s movement in Boston. I had been involved in leadership capacity.

Chu: Diaries. Anything to those diaries?

Zia: Avid journal keeper from time I was quite young. After lesbian trial, I had written down thoughts that were lesbian. So shortly after this trial I was going to move to Detroit, what do I do with these diaries. Became so concerned with these diaries. There are my diaries that say I might be a lesbian. I took my diaries and I went out to a field and I lit them up and I burned my diaries.

Chu: Discrimination related to work?

Zia: On a few occasions. Invited to give speech to Notre Dame U, early 1990s. Lot of anti-gay campaigns going on. Person who had invite dme aware that I was a lesbian. Asked me, btw, are you going to say anything about being a lesbian. I said, not sure, I might. In that case, I don’t think you should come, rescinded the invitation.

Chu: Any discrimination from family members?

Zia: When I came out to, when I was delivering lecture in NY area, very interested in books I had written, came to my lecture, talked about being lesbian, people of color, that I was a lesbian. Very small part of lecture. He cut off all ties. Made attempts to contact him. Has never returned single call since then.

Chu: Physically threatened.

Zia: Constantly aware that my sexual orientation could provoke violence. As I walk though life, especially when I am with my wife, I feel very aware of whether we express affection publicly. Whether we hold hands in public. My spouse is very affectionate. Many times, like any other committed couple, might be time. Leah is very inclined to do that. I do, I push her away. I say we have to be careful. I feel bad about that. I feel very conscious that there are people who hate us just for who we are.

Chu: Do you remember Prop 8? Did you encounter any discrimination?

Zia; Campaign that would degrade and devalue marriage I have. Most important person in my life. See the ads that said things about that. To experience people coming up to me, and making slurs, calling me names, telling me I’m an abomination, that my marriage to Leah and other people like us, people have said when we were working on campaign. When we would be out on streets, handing out fliers. People would come up and say, “you fucking dyke, you’re goin gto die and burn in hell. You’re an abomination, to see the kinds of things put out there about us.” My marriage is going to cause people to have sex with animals. That my marraige is going to cause them to marry other people so there will be more polygamy is going to cause great harm to their children, cause molestation of children. That my marriage to Leah cause end of human race. Dozens of people would laugh or say soemthing with the most derisive. They’d say “no more people, no more human race.” To me these were all highly discriminator. They were saying we were so offensive, saying we were not worthy of being human beings. TO just be married to each other that we would cause the end of the human race. If we were to cause the end of the human race, you’re going to want to stamp them out. It was a highly painful and discriminatory and hurtful message.

Chu directs her to enter binder.

[Objection]

Chu: disclosed on Wednesday.

Walker: Okay.

Chu: Recognize page?

Zia: I saw this page during the yes on 8 campaign.

[Objection: I thinkabout whether it was part of campaign]

Chu: Can you read it.

Zia; Studies show that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia.

Chu: You described messages that you found hurtful.

Zia: This is an example.

[Objection]

Defense: There’s no foundation. It’s not an official campaign. It’s highly prejudicial.

Walker: You made a 403 objection. I’ll reserve until you cross.

Chu: What’s your wife’s name?

Zia: Leah.

Chu: had you been married before? How you feel?

Zia: Soul mate in life, I love her, She’s the person I want to spend rest of life with. Most important person.

Chu: When did you first meet Leah.

Zia: 1993 [wrong date]. Both involved in civil rights campaign revolved around hate crime against Chinese American. Leah on organizing campaign here in SF. Didn’t start dating until 1992. I was in NY. I moved out here. I had been born and raised in NJ. I was well entrenched in journalism career, I was at Ms. I was Exec, I was in succession to be editor in chief. Job I had was the job I always wanted. When I met Leah, I knew person I wanted to be with, so no real decision to make, left NY, East Coast, the job I had always wanted.

Chu: Ever registered as domestic partners?

Zia: First in SF, 1993. Shortly after I moved here to be with Leah.

Chu: Process?

Zia: Anti-climatic, went to window, all purpose postal window. I think they issue dog licenses, as well as domestic partner licenses. I left leaving a little like, so this was domestic partnerships. Kind of certificate, the kind a kid gets for perfect attendance. It didn’t feel like much of all. We didn’t send out notices or invitations.

Chu: Did you ever register with CA.

Zia: When state partnerships became available, 2003, we filed for domestic partnership. There was no dog license window, downloaded form, got it notarized, mailed it in. Got another form. Back in mail. It said you’re now domestic partners. Not an occasion to write home about.

Chu: When did you first get married. 2004, President’s Valentine’s Day weekend. When marriages becme available. At first we weren’t sure what we were reading was real. We talked about it. You would want family around. Your dad is in Honolulu. Pretty elderly. All those people have to stand for 8 hours. My mother said, you and Leah can get married. Why don’t you and she get married. THen there was just the logistical question. Everything was happening so quickly, how would we manage this. We had friends, who were in assessors office, who were in charge of getting process done. They were looking for volunteers. Asked us if we coul dvolunteers. Leah and I both know how to type and file. So we said sure, we’ll come in and help. President’s day. Office was kept open through volunteers. Typed and filed for about 8 hours. Line all the way around the block. I was typing people’s applications as they were coming in. They had closed the line. I looked at Leah and said, should I type out an application for us, would you marry me. Lead said I can’t talk now I’m busy.

Walker: Very responsible of her.

Zia; While she was still processing forms for others. I filled out form. I took it to her and said here’s the marriage licence, would you marry me? We were probably one of hte last couples of the day after the others were done. We had justice of peace ceremony.

Chu: Did you celebrate?

Zia: Then we started to talk about how to celebrate. A big wedding banquet. Wedding invitations. All the envelopes. discussions, what music, picked date, august 20, sent out invitations. Did all the kinds of things to prepare.

Chu: How many people attended.

Zia: 150 attended. Our families came from all over the US. Leah came Hawaii, I grew up on East Coast. Had people coming from East Coast to HI. Our wedding celebration. Planned also to have affirmation ceremony. Leah’s dad was 86 years old, was retired judge. Brought his judge’s robes, was going to officiate.

Chu: Do you recongnize picture?

Zia: Picture of one of our family groupings.

Walker: Admitted.

Chu: Did you marriage get invalidated.

Zia: About a week before our wedding reception. Leah and I were devastated. We grieved. Our marriage that brought us so much job was suddenly rendered invalid. Felt that it wasn’t just marriage invalidated, felt we were invalidated.

Chu: Did you get married again?

Zia: June 2008, as soon as that became available.

Chu: How does getting married change things.

Zia: In most immediate sense, it was in how our families related to us. When we first got married. We have a niece, 2 years old, only known us Auntie Helen and Auntie Leah. WHen she saw Leah and me, she gave us a big hug, said, Auntie Leah, now you’re really my auntie. I thought, well, you’ve always known her as your auntie. Somehow it made a difference. It made a difference to our parents. When you say you’re a domestic partner. When people say “who’s this person?” I can’t count the number of times who said “Partner in what business.” We’d say “partners in life.” Often it was bewilderment. What business is life, od yo umean life insurance. It’s a matter of how our families relate to people. For me to show up at every event. People ask who’s she. For her 90-something auntie to say, here’s Leah’s friend. She must be a really good friend, suddently there were able to say, Helen is my daughter in law. My mother is an immigrant from China. She dosent’ get waht partner is. I would be around her, I could hear them say, sometimes in Chinese, sometimes in English, that’s Helen’s friend. Then it changed, she would say, this is my daughter-in-law. Whether they got it or not, you don’t insult someone’s wife, you don’t insult someone’s mother. We’re not partners in life or in some business. It changed things on a huge level. Marriage in how it affected our families. Our families related to each other differently. Marraige is joining of two families. My family and Leah’s family now relate to each otheer differently. My brother lived about 5 minutes away from Leah’s father when he was still alive, in those 15 years, they didn’t make an effort. After we were married, Leah’s father would stop by, drop things off. My brother is quite active in HI, Leah’s brother’s wife, my sister in law. Has a sister who runs in same circles. He will now say she’s my in-law.

[This post is rescued liveblogging materials that the Toobz Godz would not let me include in the last post. It picks up midway through the Defendants’ questioning of Letitiia Peplau, a Social Psychologist and an expert witness on the benefits of marriage. Nicole Moss is doing the questioning for the defendants. This overlaps slightly with the last thread to give some context. Moss is trying to introduce data from Belgium and the Netherlands to suggest that not really that many gays and lesbians want to get married. She then tries to attack the MA survey which showed a lot of people did get want to get married.]

[Objection: Ms. Peplau not a demographer]

Walker: Ask the bottom line question?

Moss; Assuming my math is correct. If numbers showed that 5% of gay and lesbian indivs and 43% had taken advantage of marriage, significant difference?

Peplau: Absolutely.

Moss: Data for Netherlands.

Peplau: Can I just make sue I’m with you on these data. You’re not saying that only 5% of homosexuals got married. What you’re saying is that all married indivs in Belgium, only 5% of them are homosexual.

Moss: No, I’m saying 5% of homosexuals are married. I asked you to assume that 2% are homosexuals.

Peplau: You’re saying 5% are married, compared to 43% of homosexuals.

Moss: You would agree that significant difference in percentage of population that is choosing to take advantage.

Peplau: I’d be struck by difference with analyses about MA that have chosen to get marriage. Americans are one of the most pro-family people around. Americans are enthusiasts of marriage.

Moss shows Netherlands data (after saying that govt “very nicely gave data in English”) 5% versus 40-someting.

Moss: Would you agree that purpose of marriage to make sure that children not born outside of marrirage? So that children born from sexual relations of men and women not born outside of marriage.

[Object, beyond scope]

Moss: Well, she’s testified that gay and lesbians are similarly situated, are they similarly situated to accidentally having children out of wedlock.

Moss: Would you agree that gays and lesbians do not accidentally have children?

Peplau: Except in MA, all children born to same sex couples are born out of lesbians. Are you asking whether two lesbians can accidentally impregnate each other? Not to my knowledge.

[hilarity all around]

Peplau: I would agree that same sex couples do not have accidental pregnancies.

Peplau: A book review.

Moss: On romantic marriages. A growing body of research shows asexual lesbian relationships not uncommon.

Peplau: We have documented examples of lesbian relationships not characterized by genital sexual activities. A lot is based on male ideas of sexuality, as if there isn’t a penis involved there’s not a sexual activity. Many lesbians repport that other things that might be considered sexual, such as cuddling or kissing, but that does not have a genital component.

[I wonder if Moss has a study of how much sexual activity goes down after they get married.]

Moss: You’re not an expert in social meaning of marriage?

Peplau: I have cited data from Gallup showing that a large number of Americans say they will get married. I have not conducted studies in which I have tried to assess attitudes of Americans about basis of marriage. It really depends. I have done studies about attitudes of division of labor. By social meaning, if you mean the kind of things sociologists do, I’m not by training a sociologist. I’ve relied on other sources of empirical data.

Moss: You have not done any research into relative benefits of DPs and same sex or hetero marriage. The only empirical research that you’ve pointed to on same sex couples is MA survey.

Peplau: I have drawn conclusions on much broader lit. I’m drawing on a great knowledge base. But in terms of studies specifically of effects of same sex civil marriage.

Moss: MA study. It’s not a representative sample.What do you mean?

Peplau: A rep sample would mean reflective of entire pop. There may be different or similar opinions among the people who did not get informed about survey or chose not to answer.

Moss: This particular survey recruited by gay rights advocacy group.

Peplau: This was done online. They went to group that had large email list. Assumed that among that list there would be some indivs who had gotten married. The way Department of Health chose to collect info.

Moss; Indivs from gay rights advocacy group, who responded. Top 10 reasons why they go married was have society know about legal relationships.

Peplau: I’m not sure that’s the wording.

Moss: If you turn to tab 12. 4 in 10 reported wanted to have society know about gay and lesbian marriages. That was one of top 3 reasons why got married.

Peplau: They were asked multiple reasons, 93% said love and commitment, Second was legal recognition of their relationship. 40% of unrepresentative sample said social visibility was one of the reasons for them.

Moss; it was 90% white.

Peplau: I don’t know what demos of lesbian and gay men in MA.

Moss; Average age was 48 years old.

Peplau: Again, I don’t know what to make out of that. THat was what they found.

Moss; Significantly higher than most same sex couples in US.

Peplau: I’m trying, there may be data from census about average age of same sex couples is in US, I don’t know what those data are. I don’t know how to make comparisons that you’re driving at. I don’t know the answer to that.

Moss; 85% had at least a college, 55% had grad education.

Peplau: lesbians and gay men on average have higher level of education but these are higher.

Moss: 32% earned more than 110,000.

Peplau: when we say not representative. Part of what we mean may differ from state.

Moss; In terms of how the survey was conducted. It was based on self-reporting by these individuals.

Peplau: Survey studies are self-report studies. You ask people a question and they answer.

Moss: And like all surveys, open to self-reporting bias.

[Like the 75% of married men who say they care about monogomy? Do we know whether they practice it?]

Moss: We don’t know about self-reporting bias?

Peplau: We don’t know about that with this report. In general, researchers have worried about being more likely to get happy couples who want to brag about relationship, or miserable couples who want to complain about partners.

Moss; We do know that recruitment came through gay advocacy. Top 3 reasons was having relationships more visible.

Peplau: Debate about same sex marriage, widely talked about. Wouldn’t surprise me that in state that is one of the first states to permit same sex marriage. Part of what they were doing was participating in private activity that would be known to other people.

Moss: Those facts tell us something about those who chose to respond to this survey.

Peplau: They told us about those who responded.

Moss; You said wouldn’t harm same sex. You focused on increased divorce rates. You have not offered opinions or undertaken extensive analysis about whether or not it might harm institution of marriage apart from individual marrirages.

Peplau: Entry into marriage and existing through divorce or dissolution. Those speak to very important measures of health of marriage. There are certainly others.

Moss: Your statement: Public acceptance of divorce is growing, growing emphasis on personal fulfillment has eroded commitment to marriage. Another thing is that state no fault divorce laws make it easier to end relationships.

Peplau: Try to understand factors that led to enormous divorce rate, peaked in 80s and has leveled off. Factors during reasonably long period that contributed to fairly high divorce rate.

Moss: those include growing emphasis on individualism and personal fulfillment.

Peplau: Part of what they have suggested is that in earlier time when more important part of marriage is economic unit, to meet basic needs for survival, over time we have come to expect personal fulfillment. Marriage is not only where laundry is done and someone pays the bills. It is a place where we develop personal potential. Increase in emphasis has set very high expectations for marriage. Shifting values may have been one of many factors. None of these factors is due to gay civil rights movement. Increase in divorce rate indepdent of push for marriage equality.

Moss; Turning to page 13. 4 years of data.

Peplau: 4 years before and 4 years after same sex marraige in MA.

Moss; Not a lot of data.

Peplau: 8 years of data, only 4 years since marriage has begun, only bc those are the most recent govt stats available.

Moss: In 2004, highest divorce rate.

Peplau: What I would say about these data is that there is almost no change.

[Moss looks back at her co-counsel, who is rocking back and forth in his chair]

Peplau: I think this is haphazard variation in the data. I don’t take those as serious indicators. Aside from what looks like impact of gay people getting married in first year, numbers look the same to me.

Moss: Comprehensive marriage and divorce rates in neighboring states.

Peplau: Only point I was trying to make was that it would be informative to look at that state. I don’t make any claims beyond that.

Moss; Last two years of data, divorce goes up.

Peplau: And still winding up lower than in years leading up to gay marriage. We could try to make something of difference between 2.2 and 2.3. If we want to look at minor changes in divorce, my interpretation is it’s the same.

Moss: it would be helpful to have several more years of data.

Peplau: I’m sure we will have that data soon.

Moss; As to whether gay marraige will affect marriage over time?

Peplau Could you repeat the question?

Moss; Whether same sex marriage would have any effect on individualism over time is something you could only speculate about.

Peplau: The question is whether I think same sex marriage.

Moss [VERY SNOTTY]: Well, really, have you studied that question so you could offer an expert opinion on it? [leaning back on her elbow again]

Peplau: My opinion is based on a lot of evidence. All of the evidence are on the side of no harm. And then on the side of what theory that might do harm, there’s nothing. I have no confidence in that conclusion. But it is the case that that is not based on empirical study on how same sex marriage will affect attitudes toward individualism over time.

Dusseault; Enforceable trust. Greater degree of enforceable trust in marriage or DP?

Peplau: Marriage.

Dusseault: Greater barriers to exit in marriage or DP.

Peplau: Marriage.

Dussealt: Ms. Moss, exclusivity. That was done 25 years ago. There was no marraige available for same sex couples.

Peplau: Nor were there domestic partnerships.

Dusseault: Any effect had nothing to do with behavior

Dusseault: In state of CA, any restriction to couples who don’t want exclusive relationship to marry.

Peplau: There is none.

Dusseault: Why focus on US?

Peplau: We’re focusing on changes to law in CA and US. It seems to me most directly relevant data was from another state.

Dusseault: Any idea whether the 43% of those in Moss’ Belgium data included all that were married?

Peplau: Percent of indivs that were married.

Dusseault; How long opposite sex marriage legal in Blegium.

Peplau: I assume for a long time.

Dusseault: Same sex couples have great emphasis on indivs than opposite sex.

It’s BEER THIRTY!!!

Walker: SCOTUS has given us guidance, we may have issues beyond remote access. To these proceedings that we’ll have to take up. My inclination without hearing from counsel, that we put that aside from time being. We seem to be moving along well. Don’t want to do anything to alter how we’re proceeding. We will not have remote access. We’ll have to deal with other issues in due time.

Walker: Cooper, Understand you asked about the responses to proposed change in local rule. And responses wrt broadcasting or webcasting these proceedings.

Cooper: I believe my colleagues have taken advantage of that.

Walker: there were quite a number. My understanding from clerk, your team had requested to copy some of them.Maybe you should chat with your colleague. I’ll be guided by whatever you advise, you should either copy all or none or make them all part of the record. In view of the volume I wonder what value they may have.

Cooper: Court has selection of comments.

Walker I put all the lawyer comments on. But none from indivs.

Cooper: If we do conclude that someting we’d like to ask clerk to make part of public record.

Walker: Stewart.

Stewart: Wanted to make sure that Tam did get into record. I’m told that they weren’t transcribed. I’d like to make sure deposition excerpts are part of the record.

Walker: helpful if you give line items. Whose our first witness tomorrow. Eagen. First witness. Suppose we can get through three of these tomorrow.

Boies: We hope those three will not take whole day.

Walker: that would be good progress. We are moving along, which is what we all want to do.

I often joke with Californians that even as their environmental regulations make MI’s main industry defunct (admittedly, largely because of the short sightedness of Michiganders), MI will take over CA’s role as the lead Ag state. CA, after all, is fighting water problems because of its own short-sightedness. We, on the other hand, have got water–lots of it. And MI is already the country’s second most diverse agricultural state. Add a few degrees of temperature due to climate change (ignoring the signs that global warming seems to be making a cold sink stretching from MI to MN), and MI could be downright bountiful.

But there’s a more serious side to it–the post-industrial side. Specifically, the increasingly urgent efforts to turn Detroit back into an agricultural bread basket.

“There’s so much land available and it’s begging to be used,” said Michael Score, president of the Hantz Farms, which is buying up abandoned sections of the city’s 139-square-mile landscape and plans to transform them into a large-scale commercial farm enterprise.

“Farming is how Detroit started,” Score said, “and farming is how Detroit can be saved.”

[snip]

In Detroit, hundreds of backyard gardens and scores of community gardens have blossomed and helped feed students in at least 40 schools and hundreds of families.

It is the size and scope of Hantz Farms that makes the project unique. Although company officials declined to pinpoint how many acres they might use, they have been quoted as saying that they plan to farm up to 5,000 acres within the Motor City’s limits in the coming years, raising organic lettuces, trees for biofuel and a variety of other things.

Detroit has long been a symbol of America’s industrial might. And yet, quickly, it has become a symbol not only of decay, but of the earth reclaiming the land. Frankly, I’m in favor of using Detroit’s vacant space for farming (though I prefer it to be organic, small scale farming). But if Detroit is the canary in the coal mine of industrial society, we need to start preparing to return to an agricultural way of life.

Photo credit:http://www.flickr.com/photos/jessicareeder/ / CC BY-SA 2.0