C Street to Jenny Sanford: Keep Fucking Mark, Even While He's Cheating on You

/in /by

I really had no interest in reading Jenny Sanford’s book. But I might have to read it only to get clarity on this tidbit that Ruth Marcus writes about. (h/t Rayne)

After one of the all-too-rare pre-affair moments in which Jenny gets angry, Mark enlists leaders of a congressional Christian fellowship to talk her down. They told her she was right to be angry, Jenny recounts, but that “staying angry with Mark was not an option. If I wanted to heal the relationship, I had to open my heart and be kind, even if Mark was in the wrong. They would work on Mark. We even went so far as to talk about sex and [one of the leaders] told me not to withhold it as punishment as that would make everything worse.” [my emphasis]

So those beacons of Christianity told this woman that she should keep having sex with her husband even though he was cheating on her. It was awfully nice of them, wasn’t it, to eliminate one source of pressure Jenny Sanford had over her husband. Because we can’t have women have any source of power in a traditional Christian family, don’t you know? [ed.–see Frank Probst’s comment; on re-reading I agree the implication is this advice came pre-affair.]

The clarification I want, though, is whether OB/GYN Tom Coburn–who we know was actively counseling Mark Sanford on this affair–was involved in the advice to Jenny Sanford that she should just keep having sex with her husband, even as he was fucking another woman. I’d really like to know what the fine doctor would say in such a situation.

Share this entry

BAE Settles US and British Anti-Fraud Investigations

/in /by

Speaking of improper influence in defense contracting, BAE just settled the British and American fraud investigations against it.

BAE Systems will admit two criminal charges and pay fines of £286m to settle US and UK probes into the firm.

It will hand over more than £250m to the US, which accused BAE of “wilfully misleading” it over payments made as the firm tried to win contracts.

Perhaps not surprisingly, we don’t get the details about what role particular individuals–like Bandar bin Sultan–played in the influence peddlings.

In a deal with the US Department of Justice (DoJ), BAE admitted a charge of conspiring to make false statements to the US government.

A charge filed in a District of Columbia court contains details of substantial secret payments by BAE to an unnamed person who helped the UK firm sell plane leases to the Hungarian and Czech governments.

The DoJ also details services such as holidays provided to an unnamed Saudi public official and cash transfers to a Swiss bank account that it says were linked to the £40bn Al-Yamamah contract to supply military equipment to Saudi Arabia.

The DoJ gave a damning condemnation of BAE which it said had accepted “intentionally failing to put appropriate, anti-bribery preventative measures in place”, despite telling the US government that these steps had been taken.

It then “made hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to third parties, while knowing of a high probability that money would be passed on to foreign government decision-makers to favour BAE in the award of defence contracts”, the DoJ said.

But at least they’re going to have to pay far more than Scooter Libby paid for his false statements.

Share this entry

Shelby Tries to Shut Down US Senate to Benefit Foreign Company

/in /by

There has been a lot of discussion of how foreign companies will be able to influence elections and politics given the Citizens United deal. But foreign companies are already dominating our politics.

Consider Richard Shelby’s decision to place holds on all of Obama’s nominees unless some federal money that may benefit Alabama gets released.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary “blanket hold” on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.

The key issue is that Shelby wants the Air Force to tweak an RFP for refueling tankers so that Airbus (partnered with Northrup Grumman) would win the bid again over Boeing. The contract had been awarded in 2008, but the GAO found that the Air Force had erred in calculating the award. After the Air Force wrote a new RFP in preparation to rebid the contract, Airbus calculated that it would not win the new bid, and started complaining. Now, Airbus is threatening to withdraw from the competition unless the specs in the RFP are revised.

Essentially, then, Shelby’s threat is primarily about gaming this bidding process to make sure Airbus–and not Boeing–wins the contract (there’s a smaller program he’s complaining about, too, but this is the truly huge potential bounty for his state).

I understand why any Senator would fight for jobs in his or her state. And I understand that there was dirty corruption in this original contracting process.

But underlying the refueling contract is the question of whether the US military ought to spend what may amount to $100 billion over the life of the contract with a foreign company, Airbus. Particularly a company that the WTO found preliminarily to be illegally benefiting from subsidies from European governments.

Richard Shelby is preparing to shut down the Senate to try to force the government to award a key military function to a foreign company.

Share this entry

TeaBugger Victimology

/in /by

Oh, this is rich. Chief TeaBugger, James O’Keefe is preparing to argue that, the whole time he was sitting in jail with the son of the acting US Attorney for Shreveport, the US Attorney for New Orleans was abusing his rights.

Interviewed on Fox just moments ago, Andrew Breitbart claimed that alleged Landrieu phone tamperer James O’Keefe “sat in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney.”

Breitbart, who has been on a public campaign defending O’Keefe, a paid contributor to Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com, also charged that the U.S. Attorney’s office in Louisiana leaked information to the press “helping” them to frame the episode as “Watergate Junior.”

It’s all retaliation, you see, because TeaBugger O’Keefe has pressured Eric Holder to investigate ACORN based on TeaBugger O’Keefe’s own attempts to frame the organization.

Asked by Fox’s Megyn Kelly what motivation the U.S. Attorney would have to make such an effort, Breitbart responded: “Well, it’s tied to the Justice Department. And we’ve been very aggressive in asking Eric Holder to investigate what’s seen on the ACORN tapes, and he’s ignored it.”

I guess Breitbart and his little TeaBugger honestly believe that the press, faced with news of inept Republicans entering Democratic offices in disguise with the intent of “interfering” with that office’s phones, would need a cheat sheet to make the connection with Watergate?

You know, several days ago I was willing to dismiss this as a stupid juvenile prank. But given the increasing concern that the perpetrators are showing–and their increasingly dubious stories–I’m convinced it merits a closer look.

In any case, I bet that O’Keefe is going to hang this complaint on being stuck with the representation of J. Garrison Jordan for 24 hours, rather than the big name Watergate lawyer who is now representing him, Michael Madigan. Because somewhere in the Constitution, I’m certain, it says citizens are entitled to a lawyer with Watergate experience, and may not be required to make do with the representation of local lawyers.

Share this entry

TeaBugger O'Keefe: Liberate the Tapes!! (No, Not THOSE Tapes!)

/in /by

There’s a real irony in James O’Keefe’s latest explanation for why he committed an alleged felony in an attempt to embarrass Mary Landrieu. He is now calling for the FBI to release the tapes that he and his accomplices made while in Landrieu’s office.

We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

As you recall, one of the reasons why O’Keefe managed to impugn ACORN even though they had not engaged in any illegal activity is because he edited his videos significantly. He has refused, repeatedly, to release that raw video.

The unedited videos have never been made public. The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O’Keefe’s and Ms.Giles’s comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions.

[snip]

Experienced forensic investigators would be able to determine the extent to which the released videos have been manipulated to distort, rather than merely shape, the facts and the conversations, as ACORN alleges.

So when O’Keefe wants to rebut the FBI’s affidavit alleging that he “by false and fraudulent pretense … did in fact enter [] real property belonging to the United States for the purpose of willfully and maliciously interfering with a telephone system operated and controlled by the United States,” he’s in favor of releasing his video tapes. But when O’Keefe seeks to sustain an inaccurate narrative about ACORN’s alleged corruption, he refuses to release his tapes.

Read more →

Share this entry

Shuster v. Breitbart: The TeaBuggers' Latest Story

/in /by

Everybody’s talking about this slapdown David Shuster had with Andrew Breitbart, the guy who employs chief TeaBugger James O’Keefe.

Aside from all the yelling, what I find notable about this is the way Breitbart succeeds in preventing Shuster from explaining what O’Keefe has been charged with: entering US property “for the purpose of willfully and maliciously interfering with a telephone system operated by the United States of America.”

And the TeaBuggers don’t deny that claim–they now say they wanted to cut off Landrieu’s phone system to see how she’d react.

I’ll have more to say about this going forward. But even accepting the TeaBuggers at their word, that makes several things very clear.

  1. They had the intent of illegally shutting down tampering with the phone systems of a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security
  2. They planned to do so to get a reaction out of Landrieu (and, apparently, to film that reaction)

Now, given that O’Keefe’s prior film on ACORN was about framing people and editing video of that frame for political maliciousness, it’s probably safe to assume that if O’Keefe’s current story is true, he had the same intent to falsely frame Landrieu and then edit his film to exacerbate her reaction.

Maybe that’s why Breitbart is so desperate to prevent Shuster from explaining that to his viewers.

Update: TPM got a response from Landrieu to the TeaBuggers’ latest excuses.

“Senator Landrieu believes this feeble explanation is a clear and calculated effort to divert attention away from the fact that his client stands accused of a federal crime that could land him in prison for up to 10 years,” said Landrieu Press Secretary Rob Sawicki, in a statement to TPMmuckraker.

Share this entry

TeaBuggerGate, Two: Some Questions and the Simple (But Inadequate) Explanation

/in /by

Some Questions

One way I’m trying to make sense of TeaBuggerGate is to isolate the details that don’t make any sense. Such as:

Why was O’Keefe filming the apparent bugging?

I raised this question in my first post on this. One of Landrieu’s staffers reported–and O’Keefe admitted–that filmed the interaction between the Landrieu staffer and Flanagan and Basel.

WITNESS 1 further stated that when FLANAGAN and BASEL entered the office, O’KEEFE positioned his cellular phone in his hand so as to record FLANAGAN and BASEL.

[snip]

O’KEEFE further admitted to recording FLANAGAN and BASEL inside of Senator Landrieu’s office.

Now, if the plumbers were actually bugging these phones, why would O’Keefe film them? Why would they let O’Keefe film them? From the sounds of things, O’Keefe did not video the interaction with the GSA employee (he presumably did not follow them out to the telephone closet). So why did O’Keefe film what he filmed, and only what he filmed? [See update below.]

Why wasn’t Dai’s possession of a listening device noted in the affidavit?

NOLA reports “an official close to the investigation” saying that one of the four–who must be Dai–was a few blocks away with a listening device.

An official close to the investigation said one of the four was arrested with a listening device in a car blocks from the senator’s offices. He spoke on condition of anonymity because that information was not included in official arresting documents.

A description of Dai’s role is limited to this in the affidavit.

Subsequent investigation determined that JAMES O’KEEFE and STAN DAI aided and abetted FLANAGAN and BASEL in the execution of the plan.

[snip]

O’KEEFE and DAI have also admitted to federal agents that [sic] worked with FLANAGAN and BASEL in the planning, coordination, and preparation of the operation.

That’s it–no mention of the listening device, no description of where Dai was when everyone else was in Landrieu’s office. Nothing.

Of course, the FBI may have not described the listening device because they have not yet proven the connection between Dai’s listening device and whatever the plumbers were doing in Landrieu’s office. Or maybe because they wanted to do further investigation about potential further accomplices without revealing how much they had discovered from the plumbers.

Which all raises the question of why this “official close to the investigation” leaked this to NOLA’s local press (and not to many others). Was the official just providing a tip to a reporter with whom he had an existing relationship? Was he trying to make sure the plumbers didn’t get to tell the least damning story? Was the official trying to signal to other potential accomplices the extent of the investigation?

I’d suggest the motives of the “official close to the investigation” (which, after all, could include personnel in one of LA’s US Attorney offices) given the fact that Flanagan’s dad is acting US Attorney in W LA, and surely has close relationships with the local FBI, might be significant.

Why was Stan Dai in a car with a listening device, rather than at Pelican, which is just down Poydras Street from Landrieu’s office?

In addition to being the son of an Acting US Attorney and a former Congressional intern. Flanagan is also employed by the Pelican Institute, a LA-based wingnut welfare institution. In addition, O’Keefe was in town to give a talk for the Pelican Institute. So presumably, Pelican is at least in the background of this scheme.

But, as Justin Elliot notes, the Pelican Institue is just half a block from Landrieu’s office. So why did Dai go “blocks away” to a car rather than to Flanagan’s cubicle at the Pelican Institute?

Read more →

Share this entry

TeaBuggerGate, Part One

/in /by

You’ve no doubt heard that James O’Keefe, the guy who broke some laws secretly filming ACORN employees, got busted yesterday trying to film some buddies bugging Mary Landrieu’s office.

But I’m not as interested, for the moment, in O’Keefe as I am in his alleged accomplice, Robert Flanagan.

You see, Flanagan is the son of the acting US Attorney for Western LA, William Flanagan. Flanagan, Sr., had only been in charge for a week–since January 18, when Bush’s US Attorney for the district, Donald Washington, stepped down–when his son got busted on federal property elsewhere in the state.

But that’s not the only neat connection that Robert Flanagan has. Last year–from January to April–Flanagan, Jr., interned for Congresswoman Mary Fallin (R-OK). And Fallin is one of just 31 Representatives who co-sponsored a resolution honoring James O’Keefe and his ACORN-filming accomplice, Hannah Giles. (Fallin was joined on the resolution by such notables as Joe Barton, Louis Gohmert, Steve King, and Jean Schmidt.)

It’s all very cozy, apparently, in Republican corruption circles.

Oh, and speaking of corrupt Republicans, you might be interested in knowing that Obama’s nominee to be US Attorney for LA’s Western District, Stephanie Finley, the woman who will replace Flanagan, Sr., is being blocked by LA’s other Senator, David “Diapers” Vitter.  Why? Because he wants to make sure LA’s US Attorney for the Eastern District–the one who will be prosecuting Messrs. O’Keefe and Flanagan, now–stays in office for a while longer.

Share this entry

Liveblogging the Prop 8 Trial, Friday PM addendum

/in /by

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. My father-in-law had terminal illness. He was in hospice care, just two months ago. He would say, this is my daughter and this is my favorite daughter-in-law. Leah said, “he said daughter in law,” I said, “he said favorite.” When his funeral, you put out obituary. You say who is in the family, members of immediate family in closest circle. There was no ambiguity about it. Not some partner in business or partner in life. I was there wtih the first row in the family, I had my responsibilities as well. In those most important moments in our lives.

Chu: Nothing further.

Walker: You may cross examine.

Raum (Defense): I’d like to draw your attention back to binder. Do you remember first time you saw that?

Zia: It would have been some time in 2008.

Raum: Before the election. Recall where you were?

Zia: I was at home.

Raum: I’d like to draw your attention to document. Californians have said twice to keep one man and one woman. How did yo usee it before the election?

Zia: Don’t understand.

Raum: One time in connection with Prop 22. Do you recall being involved in case challenging marriage laws in CA. I’ll represent to you in 22. Second time was in connection with Prop 8. Would you agree that people of CA voted to define one man one woman, when they passed prop 8. I would say people voted for Prop 8. And this document indicates that people said twice to keep. You’re testifying that you saw this document prior to people voting twice.

Walker: Counsel asked about 2199.

Zia: I realize I saw website before. It may have changed.

Raum: Move on to.Do you recall when you first saw that document.

Zia: Same time I saw the other one.

Raum: when’s the first time you saw this document.

Zia; When you say document, what do you mean. I have seen this website, before, I have seen this document printed out on a piece of paper, this week.

Raum: There’s nothing in the document that refers to Prop 8. There’s nothing that says Prop 8. Nothing that says Portect Marriage. Nothing that indicates how widely it was distributed.

Zia; This was a copy of someting that was on internet, available in cyberspace.

Raum: Nothing reflects how many people read it.

Zia: Not on this piece of paper, but if you went to the website.

Walker: Very well it will be admitted.

Raum: You’ve written materials focused on issues addressing matters important to homosexual community.

Zia: Matters relating to gay and lesbian community.

Raum: Harsher penalties for crimes motivated by sexual orientation.

Zia: Harsher penalties for crimes motivated by hatred of gays and lesbians.

Raum: Organization to promote  Asian GLBT. Held a press conference opposing prop 8. Attended rallies opposing prop 8. Also advisor for Horizon’s foundation. Grants money to gay lesbian bi transgender non profit organizations. Events put on by Lambda. Donated money. Attended events by National Cetner for Lesbian Rights. Events put on by Human Rights Campaign. Featured HRC, dont know if put on. ACLU. Donated money. Makes you a member.

Zia:Membership lapsed.

Raum: Courage Campaign.

Zia: No, I dont believe so.

Raum: You and your mother submitted declaration 2002. SF challenge to CA marriage laws.

Raum: Did you write that Asian American political activists don’t all agree on what political stance to take toward marriage. For some gay activists, too petty bourgeois, all the bad patriarchal things that marriage stands for.

Zia: I believe so.

Raum: Benefits you’ve experienced. You’ve also written that your civil marriage did not affect you critical view of patriarchal institution of marriage.You’ve also written one reason you married Ms. Shigimora [sp], in defiance of war-mongering in Washington.

Zia: That sounds like something I wrote.

Raum: You testified first received marriage license in 2004, you began to prepare for marriage celebration and reception after that. You indicated that reception took place on August 20. Earlier in August that marriage licence invalidated, went forward with celebration nonetheless. Officiated by Ms. Shigimora’s father. Attended by nephew. Your brother mother. And five of your siblings gave a toast welcoming you into family. Had a traditional Japanese banquet toast, and traditional chinese foods. This brought about melding of your and Ms. Shigimura’s extended family and friends. You said “far exceeded our expectations.” To reflect a more intimate relative status. Even though mariage certificate received from Mayor Newsom,

Zia: Our families saw us as married. One week earlier, we learned that marriage no longer really a marriage. Everybody knew it had been invalidated. Her father said Courts sometimes make mistakes.

Chu: Just two questions. When Raum interrupted. Do you want to finish.

Zia: In talking about families came together, even though marriage had been invalidated. Difference between domestic partners and married. Even though it had been overturned. We had been prisoners in closet. We had been told to sit in back of bus. Suddenly, w/in four months, February to time it was invalidated, during that six months, our families had transformational moment that transformed it. It was quite a different way. The idea that we would be families. We experienced a feeling of what equality is. Instead of having to go to fountain just for gay and lesbian families. We went to fountain that said heterosexuals only. We said, yes, at time of celebration, our families coming together, did not happen in 11 years that we had been domestic partners.

Walker: Eve of three day weekend.

Thompson: ECF system may be going down for the weekend. Don’t know if the court would like to send to plaintiffs, is there an email address for the court, can you hand-deliver. Email will also be down. Well, I would suggest you spend a restful weekend. 8:30 AM on Tuesday morning.

Big Beer Thirty!! (I’m headed home to Detroit–David Dayen will be joining Teddy on Tuesday. Have  a good weekend!)

Share this entry

Liveblogging the Prop 8 Trial: Day Five Friday PM Two (21)

/in /by

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.

Share this entry