Fresh off the Prop 8 trial, I was interested in what Markos’ latest poll–of 2003 Republicans–says about equal rights for gay men and women in this country.

First, the poll shows that Republicans think gays should be allowed or not allowed to do the following things:

Serve in military: Yes, 23%; No, 55%

Receive federal benefits for couples: Yes, 11%; No, 68%

Teach in public schools: Yes, 8%; No, 73%

Marry: Yes, 7%; No, 77%

That is, one in six of those polled are perfectly happy to let gay men and women risk sacrificing their lives for our mutual defense. But they don’t think those servicemen and women should be accorded one of the most basic rights in our society.

As the rest of the poll shows, these people are bigots in a bunch of other ways, as well, so the gay rights questions shouldn’t be that surprising.

But what I find particularly interesting is how that compares to the results that get to–at least partly–heterosexual marriage. As you recall, the central argument of the Prop 8 defendant-intervenors is that marriage is primarily about procreation.

[Defendant-Intervenor lawyer Charles Cooper]: And the purpose of the institution of marriage, the central purpose, is to promote procreation and to channel narrowly procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable enduring unions for the purpose —

THE COURT: Is that the only purpose of marriage?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, it is the central and, we would submit, defining purpose of marriage. It is the — it is the basis on which and the reason on which marriage as an institution has been universal across societies and cultures throughout history; two, because it is a pro-child societal institution.

In later questioning, Prop 8 lawyer David Thompson asserted some of the following gender-based reasons that marriage had to be heterosexual:

• “If you look at the Homer Simpsons of the world [with regards to low intelligence], there are a lot more men than women”
• “wives spend money differently — or, I should say, that women spend money differently than men in terms of as it relates to children”
• “Fathers’ biological and socially-reinforced masculine qualities predispose them to treat their children differently than do mothers, correct?”
• “the differences between maternal and paternal behavior are more strongly related to either the parents’ biological gender or sex roles, than to either of their degree of involvement in infant care or their attitudes regarding the desirability of paternal involvement in infant care”
• “fathers are more concerned than mothers about the adoption of cultural values and traditionally-defined sex roles”

The picture of marriage the Prop 8 proponents rely on (which itself comes from long outdated scholarship as a factual matter) to justify their opposition to marriage equality includes not just on procreation as the necessary and primary goal of marriage. But it also depends on a daddy who instills moral conservatism, a mommy who breast feeds and spends frivolously, and a mommy who helps her children’s dumb daddy negotiate life.

Which is interesting because when Research 2000 polled those same bigots about subjects that would suggest an acceptance of this view of marriage, they found pluralities and majorities opposed:

Are marriages equal partnerships, or are men leaders of the household?

Equal: 76%; Men: 13%

Should contraceptives use be outlawed?

Yes: 31%; No: 56%

Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?

Yes: 34%; No: 48%

Even among a group that has pretty frightening views otherwise, this group strongly believes in an equal marriage–precisely the kind long-outdated studies relied on by proponents advocated–and the availability of contraception.

If a majority of these people support keeping sex without procreation legal, then why won’t they support the right to marry for those men and women fighting to serve in the military?

I actually don’t know whether I am officially (that is, physically) “barren” or not.

I know, though, that not long after I got married, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. My doctors told me right away I’d go through six months of intensive treatment, followed by five years of hormonal treatment. The hormonal treatment, Tamoxifen, was originally developed as a fertility treatment until they discovered it caused birth defects. So between the six months of acute toxins and the five years of birth defect inducing hormonal treatments, my doctors simply assumed that that would take me to the age of 40 at which point I would be too old to have kids. And while mr. emptywheel and I considered, for maybe a second, going through the very dangerous (because it involved high levels of hormones) process of saving eggs, and while we could have insisted I stop the hormonal treatment after two years, we ultimately decided that we could be perfectly happy being an aunt and uncle.

And, having made the decision to remain childless, my husband and I promptly plunged deep into discovering what “in sickness and in health” really meant.

Going through that kind of challenge taught me a lot about marriage. There was the adjustment, for both of us, of me losing all my hair (except, unfairly, that on my calves, though mr. emptywheel removed that for me with duct tape). There was the quiet companionship, the two of us together at home–with me usually asleep by 8–a big break from the athletic team-focused social life we had shared since we met. There was the legal nightmare when mr. emptywheel almost lost his visa and work privileges, and with them the health benefits paying for my care. And there was the quiet relief at the end of treatment, the two of us staring up at the southern sky together from a hut in a fishing village in Brazil.

I may be barren, but I think any couple that makes it through such life-changing events together gets full claim to the title of marriage.

But, as Audrey Bilger points out, the Prop 8 proponents envision not just denying that title–marriage–to same sex couples. They would deny that title to a lot of straight couples, too, couples just like mr. emptywheel and me, who remain childless. And they would go further in imposing their gender roles on all of us, with stupid husbands (really, they did make a point of saying men were less intelligent than women!) whose job it is to keep their daughters chaste and women defined primarily by their breast feeding and–later–cooking.

Defenders of the ban on same-sex marriage believe that husbands and wives have specific roles, determined by their sex, and that without role models of two opposite-sex parents, children will grow up to think they can do whatever they want. As they see it, same-sex marriage is the outcome of individual liberty and the right to pursue happiness — gone too far. They target all who resist the idea that biology is destiny. No matter that the bulk of academic research shows that gays and lesbians make good parents. To the so-called marriage defenders, science is no match for sacred texts and the way things once were and are supposed to be.

There’s a reason the pro-Prop. 8 defense team fought to keep this trial from being broadcast on the internet. They prefer the ballot box to the witness stand because their message is far more persuasive and well cloaked when it’s delivered in carefully crafted sound bytes about defining marriage and protecting the family. In a trial, however, the reasoning behind their pitch must stand up to legal scrutiny. If one man and one woman are necessary because procreation is the “central or defining purpose” of marriage, as the lawyers defending the constitutional ban have argued, then what do they really think about straight couples who choose not to have children? Should unwed mothers be forced into wedlock? This is where it gets scary — for everyone!

Such questions didn’t come up much during the 2008 campaign because the anti-gay marriage forces largely succeeded in controlling the terms of the debate. Frank Schubert, head of the PR firm that ran the Yes on 8 campaign, in a recap panel presentation to the 2009 American Association of Political Consultants Pollie Award Conference last year, explained how they crafted the message. Schubert noted that since most voters are moved primarily by self-interest, and since, in preliminary focus groups, most heterosexual subjects indicated that this issue had nothing to do with them and that they didn’t see how same-sex marriage affected their own lives (sound familiar?), the best approach to move such voters was to appeal to unknown scary consequences, fabricated or not. As his associate Jeff Flint put it, “Something could happen that you may not like so you need to vote yes [on Prop. 8] to stop that from happening.”

[snip]

It’s time for straight voters to see that they’re being had. The enforcement of “traditional” marriage — one primary goal of the anti-gay marriage movement — would affect the entire population, not just because marriage is a basic civil right, which of course it is, but because Americans should be free decide how to build their own family life. While many thrive in conventional roles as fathers out in the workplace and mothers in the home, not everyone wants — or is even financially able — to live that way, and no one should force them to do so.

Go read all of Bilger’s piece. It’s the best explanation I’ve seen for why–aside from the really obvious point about defending equal rights for all–everyone should be watching the Prop 8 trial closely.

Adam Bonin notes this curious, short opinion in the larger Citizens United decision endorsing the idea that ballot supports should not have to reveal their identities.

I dissent from Part IV of the Court’s opinion, however, because the Court’s constitutional analysis does not go far enough. The disclosure, disclaimer, and reporting requirements in BCRA §§201 and 311 are also unconstitutional….

Amici’s examples relate principally to Proposition 8, a state ballot proposition that California voters narrowly passed in the 2008 general election. … Any donor who gave more than $100 to any committee supporting or opposing Proposition 8 was required to disclose his full name, street address, occupation, employer’s name (or business name, if self-employed), and the total amount of his contributions. 1 See Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §84211(f) (West 2005). The California Secretary of State was then required to post this information on the Internet.

Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result. …

Now more than ever, §§201 and 311 will chill protected speech because—as California voters can attest—”the advent of the Internet” enables “prompt disclosure of expenditures,” which “provide[s]” political opponents “with the information needed” to intimidate and retaliate against their foes.  Thus, “disclosure permits citizens … to react to the speech of [their political opponents] in a proper”—or undeniably  improper  —”way” long before a plaintiff could prevail on an as-applied challenge.

I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in “core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection.’ “

As it happens, as we speak, the Prop 8 plaintiffs have pretty much debunked the claims that Prop 8 supporters are getting harassed at greater rates than Prop 8 opponents. Here’s expert witness Gary Segura calling into doubt whether a Heritage report making such a claim really constitutes proof of the claim.

S: I’m concerned making that leap. Most recent act took place after the election. Also, we’d want to weigh those incidents against the converse. We have testimony from Mayor Sanders about his house being vandalized. The Heritage Foundation report makes no effort to gauge violence and vandalism in the opposite direction. We know that there were over 100 acts of violence against gays and lesbians in 2007. We know that gays and lesbians are more likely to be targeted for violence than any other group. We’d want to consider all of that.

[snip]

B: Heritage foundation backgrounder. Describe the Heritage Foundation.

S: An extremely conservative think tank.

B: Do you know the author of that backgrounder?

S: I Googled him.

B: Is he an expert in political science.

S: I was not familiar with his name. Didn’t know him.

B: You sit on a lot of editorial boards for political science journals. Does that backgrounder meet the standards to qualify for a peer-reviewed journal?

S: No. It wouldn’t even be submitted for review.

B: Why?

S: We’d want to look for evidence-gathering techniques. Accuracy of the sample of the acts that took place. Selecting on the dependent variable – only studying instances where the case occurred. You only have the presence of the phenomena, not the absence. Can’t study war and only look at war and not peace, and describe what leads to war.

B: Do you think those news reports reached enough viewers to swing the Prop 8 election?

S: It’s implausible.

B: The Heritage Foundation document did not have any information about violence or vandalism against Prop 8 opponents.

S: No.

Perhaps that’s why Clarence Thomas wrote such a lonely opinion, not shared by any of his conservative colleagues. Because the claims that anti-gay haters are being disproportionately harassed just don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Two updates on the Prop 8 fight happening outside the courtroom. First, Protect Marriage has just sued the Courage Campaign for what it says is trademark infringement. At issue is the logo (on the left) Courage Campaign is using for its trial tracker–depicting two women and their children–which is a clear parody of the logo ProtectMarriage uses (to the right), depicting a mommy and daddy and two kids.

As Courage Campaign points out, to argue that the logo is indistinguishable (and therefore a trademark violation) ProtectMarriage has resorted to saying their hetero family logo is itself indistinguishable from the logo featuring a family parented by two lesbians.

We continue to be entertained by the Prop 8 attorneys simultaneously admitting that the two images of gay parents and straight parents are “substantially indistinguishable,” and yet failing to grasp that that the difference between the logos illuminates the core difference between their views and ours.

Well, I guess if ProtectMarriage is willing to concede that point…

In other news, Cindy McCain has signed up for the No H8 campaign, adding yet another prominent Republican voice to the growing list that opposes the discrimination of Prop 8 (this picture is from advocate.com via HuffPo).

Finally, go watch the depositions of two Defendant-Intervenors’ witnesses, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young (here’s DDay liveblogging the introduction of these depositions this morning). Not only will you get to see David Boies at work, but you’ll see the Defendants-Intervenors’ own expert witnesses (though these are two of the witnesses who have backed out of testifying) making a great case for marriage equality.

As I’ve been processing the three days I spent at the Prop 8 Trial last week, there’s been a lot to think about: how much I learned about gay experience, both historically and psychologically; how odd a role I had as an observer (the journalists present appeared to be largely split between “objective” journalists and gays and lesbians; but as a “barren” straight married woman, the Prop 8 proponents were effectively making an attack on my non-procreative marriage along with their attack on the humanity of the gay men and lesbians around me); and the dynamics of the court room.

But the most salient observation on the trial, for me, is a reflection on two of the lawyers arguing the case: for the Defendant-Intervenors, David Thompson, and for the Plaintiffs, Matthew McGill. Both appear to be highly accomplished lawyers and their schooling (Harvard; Harvard in Thompson’s case, Dartmouth; Stanford in McGill’s case) suggests both are highly intelligent. Which is why the difference in their questioning (one, two, three) of Professor Michael Lamb was so striking to me.

Matthew McGill

After establishing Lamb’s credentials in childhood development and, through Lamb, establishing the many different kinds of studies that support the consensus that lesbians and gay men make as good parents as straight women and men, McGill organized his questioning around the pamphlet 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters, basically having Lamb pick apart the attacks that pamphlet makes on gay and lesbians–particularly its treatment of the bogus “gender disorientation pathology”–calling them things like “very old canards.”

McGill also had Lamb carefully explain how his own thoughts evolved from when–early in his career–he believed fathers as such were important to healthy child adaptation, only to discover with more research that it is not so much the father, but a lot of the factors (like adequate material resources) that father absence might entail.

Through this all, McGill wasted neither time (something sure to ingratiate him to Vaughn Walker, who clearly likes to keep a timely court room) nor any emotions and/or body motions on his delivery. He was the most in-control lawyer of any I saw last week (acknowledging that I missed Ted Olson, Boies did nothing yet, and Theodore Boutrous’ role was limited to housekeeping).

David Thompson

For those who followed along the Libby trial, Thompson’s manner reminded me of Bill Jeffress’–his bullying manner, his use of mock indignation, alternating with calm politeness. However, as you’ll see, Thompson had none of the incisive exposure of detail that Jeffress had, and as a result the bullying comes off as farce, not believable outrage.

Thompson started his cross-examination of Lamb in the same way the D-I’s started with most plaintiff witnesses, by trying to pin him as an advocate. Though it got rather ridiculous when Thompson painted Lamb’s donations to the ACLU, NOW, NAACP, Amnesty International, the Nature Conservancy, and–shockers!–PBS as proof that Lamb was a “committed liberal.”

And over the course of hours of questioning, Thompson invoked several other tired assaults on science: the suggestion that all university research was ideological, the accusation that “science was wrong” because it challenged and revised earlier hypotheses. A favorite, among all the D-I lawyers, was to insist that all the studies on gay or lesbian married couples did not use a large enough sample size–which of course, is artificially limited because people like the D-Is themselves insist that no more people should have the right to join that sample.

What truly disturbed me, however, were two tactics Thompson used just before lunch on Friday.

The first was, twice, having Lamb read from a passage in one of his papers in which he reviewed the earlier stance arguing that fathers, as fathers, were important to child adjustment.

Thompson: [Directs Lamb to one of his articles] “Father’s predispose them”

Lamb: This is referring to David Popineau. It was trying to describe his position. We were supposed to be reviewing contributions to the field.

Thompson: You thought his contribution was significant enough to be named in review.

Lamb: Scholers like to be sure they don’t leave out things.

Both times, Thompson seemed unable to distinguish between Lamb reviewing the views of another and Lamb espousing such views. That is, Thompson at least pretended to be unaware of the difference between Lamb reporting his own conclusions and Lamb reporting the views of others (he later confused a literature review with other kinds of studies, which would be consistent with this problem).

And then Thompson directed Lamb to the hard copy of a chapter of one of his books and pointed out Lamb’s own argument that fathers were important. In response to which, Lamb pointed out that the hard copy in the witness binder was a very early edition of his book, it had gone to a number of later editions, and in those editions, he had specifically updated those references to reflect the new understanding of why fathers were important.

Thompson: Nurturing fathers may contribute to wellbeing of daughters. Disturbed father child relationships and failure to achieve same sex identification may be pathogenic.

Thompson: 1976, role of father in childhood development.

Lamb: Citations are to 1961, two from 1950s, one from 1965. We’ve had a lot of research since that was written. As you’ve pointed out, there have been subsequent editions of this book, that have updated these citatoins.

Now, those of us watching in the Ceremonial Courthouse complained loudly about such tactics (which Thompson used just before lunch), and Thompson didn’t resort to such fraud and/or logical gimmicks after lunch. So perhaps the ProtectMarriage people alerted him to how badly this was playing with rational beings (a group I’d include Vaughn Walker in, of course) in the ceremonial courthouse.

But it was striking the degree to which Thompson–in a bench trial, the functional audience of which is really limited to a very rational Vaughn Walker and a fairly rational Anthony Kennedy–adopted argumentative tactics that violated the very premise of logic. It’s one thing to–as Thompson did–attack science itself. But to attack the very logic that lawyers (including, presumably, the Harvard educated Thompson) rely on really seemed either an act of desperation or an admission of how devoid of any logic there is in his argument.

Matthew McGill

On redirect. McGill did two things. First, he rehearsed with Lamb the use of the term “biological” when used in psychology. Lamb explained that is often used to describe intact families–that is, to include families with adopted children. McGill then showed the deposition of Loren Marks, one of the D-I’s expert witnesses who had withdrawn earlier in the week. McGill showed Marks insisting that “biological” should be restricted to genetic families (seemingly supporting the argument the Prop 8 families like to make to exclude gay and lesbian parents). Then, in the deposition, McGill used the same documents that Thompson had asked Lamb to review to show that McGill Marks had specifically misinterpreted how underlying studies he was using used the term.

In other words, McGill used Lamb’s presence on the stand to not only review the deposition of one of the withdrawn experts (though the deposition will probably not be entered as evidence), but also to show that the witness in question had made–and then withdrawn–a specious claim based on fraudulent scholarship. McGill went on to have Lamb discredit the work of two other proposed D-I witnesses (who Thompson had perhaps foolishly introduced in his Cross), to call out the problems in their scholarship.

Finally, thankfully (given how long Thompson had taken in his Cross), McGill ended with the following:

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

Lamb: No, it did not.

Now, I raise all this not just because of the striking contrast between science and logic and lack thereof. As I said, these guys are both undoubtedly intelligent (much more intelligent than Thompson came off). In addition, I was struck by two details in McGill’s resume (McGill got his JD from Stanford in 2000):

Prior to joining Gibson Dunn, Mr. McGill served as a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice and clerked for the Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

That is, early in his career and during the years Monica Goodling was politicizing DOJ, McGill served in the Solicitor General’s office (possibly while Ted Olson was still there) and clerked for John Roberts (while he was still an Appeals Court judge). This guy is, almost certainly, a Republican. One who has worked with the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He has also spent a lot of time (not surprisingly, given this experience) worked on appellate cases.

So go back.

You’ve got two real audiences in this trial. Vaughn Walker. And, ultimately, Anthony Kennedy (and people like McGill’s old boss, John Roberts). One side–Thompson’s side–is using the kind of theater that might make sense in a jury trial, but is unlikely to appeal to the two main members of his audience. And the other is showing how even when the Prop 8 defenders try to use science, they break the rules of both science and logic.

Ultimately, as a number of people pointed out after watching this testimony, this may end up being another Scopes Trial. It may be that the forces of prejudice will, once again, win out over science. But in a head to head confrontation of two lawyers, it sure looks like science is winning the debate this time.

Update: Shoot. I forgot two points. First, both sides have been going back and forth to spin the withdrawal of the D-I expert witnesses. The D-I argue the cameras scared them off, and perhaps let slip a truth when they add “professional fears” into their claim of other fears. The Plaintiffs argue that the experts have withdrawn because they got beat up so badly in their depositions. In a presser on Friday (in which McGill was at the podium along with Boutrous) Boutrous gave McGill credit for–at least–persuading Loren Marks (the guy who backed off his “biological” claim) not to testify. So McGill may be the guy who is ripping apart the science of the so-called scientists the D-Is wanted to call.

Also, McGill specifically said they had gotten more evidence in than they had deemed the minimum necessary. It sounds like they’re quite happy at their success getting both anti-gay propaganda (like the 21 Reasons claims) and details about the withdrawn expert depositions before the Court.

Update: McGill/Marks error fixed.

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.

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!

I think they’re going to argue about some sealed documents this morning, then have testimony from Michael Lamb on gay and lesbian parenting.

Walker had a closed session of about 25 minutes to begin the morning. Perhaps they discussed the sealed documents there.

Matthew McGill for the plaintiffs.

Michael Lamb: Head of social psychology at Cambridge. Head of social development at NIH in DC.

Lamb: Investigation of sex crimes involving children. Factors that affect children’s development adjustment. Those aspects that allow them to function well in their environment. One sign of maladjustment is involvement in delinquent behavior. Later, perform effectively as member of socity, forming intimate relationsihp.

McGill: Body of scholarship on children parented by gay men and lesbians.

Lamb: Has been researched since late 70s and 80s. Over a hundred peer reviewed articles. Many other reports in other fora. Very good understanding of factors affecting adjustment of children raised by gay men and lesbians.

McGill: Have you provided peer review for some of those articles?

Lamb: Yes I have.

McGill: Other writings on child development.

Lamb: In total about 500 articles, not all of them on development, some on interviewing. Published in peer reviewed journals or chapters. Serve on editorial boards .

McGill: how often provide peer review.

Lamb: Approx two a week.

McGill: Over course of career, how many?

Lamb: 2500-3000.

McGill: Any honors recently. Award for lifetime contributions for assc psych science.

McGill: Expert in field of developmental psych of children, developmental psych of children raised by gay and lesbian parents.

Lamb: Two broad opinions. Children raised by G&L parents, just as likely to be well-adjusted. For a significant number adjustment promoted were their parents able to get married.

McGill: Consensus of factors that most affect child development.

[witness has black hair, a beard, expressive eyebrows. He has cufflinks]

[These three items put up as display]

Lamb: Three things that affect adjustment. Quality of child’s relationship with parents. Relationships between indivs raising child. Availability of adequate economic and social resources.

McGill: What makes a good parent.

Lamb: Focuses attention on child. Effective at reading signals of child, understanding what child needs, providing appropriate guidance and stimulation, setting appropriate limits.

McGill: Same criteria that apply to mothers and fathers.

Lamb: Substantial body of evidence that what makes effective parent is the same for mother and father.

McGill: Quote from Cooper’s opening statement.

We know statistics children who grow up without a father 5X more likely to grow u p in poverty, 9X more likely to drop out of schools, and 20X more likely to end up in prison.

Lamb: While it talks about people being 5, 9, 20 times more likely to have outcome. Doesn’t say in comparison to what. Presumably comparison between children being raised by 2 hetero parents, and those growing up with single hetero mother. Stats probably not drawn from studies focused on children raised by same sex couples. Citation of statistics, doesn’t address distinction between correlation and causality. Implies absence of father that causes adverse outcomes. Actually research, quite voluminous, shows absence of fathre not crucial factor. Factors are the ones you showed, separation deprived of that person’s involvement in their lives, significant degrees of conflict, significant degrees of economic deprivate. Those are the factors that explain why you might have some of these differences. Important for a researcher to ask why, rather than to note the numbers. Final thing missing is that it doesn’t acknowledge fact that notwithstanding these differences, majority of children growing up w/o father are perfectly well-adjusted.

McGill: Did you ever believe needed father?

Lamb: When I began career, assumption was needed father. Explored differences between mothers and fathers behave, whether those differences were important. Whether people did need masculine and feminine parent. Results of both my research and larger body made clear that that initial prediction is incorrect. As a field, come to conclusion, what makes effective parent. Do not need masculine figure, a father, in order to be well-adjusted.

McGill: Female parent?

Lamb: No, same is true with respect to that.

McGill: How long consensus, that those three factors are more important?

Lamb: Early to mid 1980s, by beginning of 1990s, overwhelming consensus.

McGill: If I could get into Cambridge, this is what I’d learn in course on child development?

Lamb: It is.

[Walker chuckles]

McGill: [Introduces two books]

McGill: Researcher any studies on children raised by G&L parents. 100 studies?

Lamb: At least 100 peer reviewed reports.

McGill: Leading researchers.

Lamb: Patterson, Wainwright, Golomback, [names scholars working in this field]

McGill: Methodologies?

Lamb: A variety of methodologies. Broader methodologies, greater confidence in results. More confident one can be results painting consistent body of literature.

McGill: What is representative sample?

Lamb: Is employed by sociologists and demographers. Trying to find a sample of indivs w/in target pop and drawing smaller number of people to study more intensively that represent characteristics as a whole.

McGill: [Introduces 3 studies] Representative sample?

Lamb: Yes.

McGill: What is convenient sample?

Lamb: A group who can conveniently be obtained for study. Let’s say children being raised by lesbian parents raised in Bay Area. Try to recruit children raised by lesbian mothers who lived w/in easy access to locale of study.

McGill: Convenient sample used frequently?

Lamb: Yes.

McGill: [Introduces 3 studies] Each convenient sample.What makes study longitudinal?

Lamb: Indivs studied at several points of development, contrasted with cross-sectional study.

McGill: When appropriate to use cross-sectional.

Lamb: Design you choose depends on research question. If question was events right after children begin school, might compare 5 year olds and 10 year olds to see if higher rates of maladjustment in 10 year olds.

McGill: Any studies of adjustment of study used longitudinal design?

Lamb: Yes.

McGill: [Introduces 1 study] Longitudinal?

Lamb: Yes.

McGill: Refer back. Tasker and Golomback, did both of those studies use longitudinal.

Lamb: Yes.

McGill: [Introduces study] Cross-sectional study.

McGill: Golomback. Children with lesbian parents, Did these studies also use cross-sectional?

Lamb: Yes

McGill: Literature review?

Lamb: Attempting to synthesize research wrt research on topic.

McGill: [three exhibits] Literature reviews?

McGill: What conclusions have you drawn, wrt G&L parenting.

Lamb: Representative of much larger sample, children raised by G&L parents just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by hetero parents. Conclusiveness of that evidence is further supported by fact that results obtained in studies on G&L parents, completely consistent with broader understanding of factors that affect adjustment.

McGill: Conclusions reflect consensus in field?

Lamb: Yes they are.

Lamb: Policy statement APA, sexual orientation of parents and children.

There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation. On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents as as likely as hetero parents ot provide supportinve and healthy environments for their children.

Development, adjustment, do not differ markedly from that of children with hetero parents.

McGill: Any other professional orgs issued policy statements on G&L parenting.

[List of otherss w/policy statements, American Acad of Child& Adolescent, Academy of Pediatrics, Psychoanalytic, Social Workers, Child Welfare Leage, Council on Adoptable Children.]

Lamb: All of them have issued policy statements.

McGill: Seven exhibits.

McGill: Have you ever heard that children of G&L parents greater risk of gender disorder?

Lamb: Yes. A child feeling uncomfortable with his or her gender.

McGill: Have researchers studied whether more comment.

Lamb: Gender identity disorder extremely rare. No evidence that they are more common in children of G&L parents.

McGill: Article: 21 reasons why gender matters.

One of the main examples of gender confusion is what are some are calling gender disorientation pathology. Term used to describe H, L, B, T relationships. In these and other cases there is a major distortion or disordering o fhte male or female gender, and a c confusiong of both gender ans sexuality.

McGill: Are you familiar with “gender disorientation pathology”?

Lamb: Not used. Pathology would signify treatment needed.

McGill: Does psychology characterize G&L pathologies?

Lamb: No. Those are considered examples of well-adjusted behavior.

McGill: Children of G&L parents more likley to develop G&L orientation themselves?

Lamb: No significant increase in proportion of children G&L themselves, when raised by G&L parents.

McGill: Why Gender matters

Study in developmental psych found 12% of lesbians became active lesbians themselves.

McGill: Does that not call into conclusion your statement.

Lamb: No. That study found no significant difference between children raised by G&L and hetero parents. Study by Golombak and colleagues. Golombak now colleague.

McGill: Studies of how children might be different?

Lamb: Less sex-stereotyped attitudes.

McGill: Example of sex-stereotyped attitude?

Lamb: Girls should aspire to be nurses while boys aspire to be doctors. Certain behaviors

McGill: Child’s failure to adopt sex-stereotype maladjustment?

Lamb: No it’s not. Normal.

McGill: Why gender matters

Sad truth is homosexual is proportionately higher than hetero abuse.

Right of child to be protected from sexual exploitation. It is our duty to protect them.

McGill: Do you agree that homosexual orientations “greatly increases risk that children will suffer sexual exploitation”?

Lamb: Absolutely not, clearly established that no greater risk.

McGill: Has that hypothesis disproven? When?

Lamb: Very old canards, late 70s, papers published in 70s, 80s, 90s, that this is simply not true.

McGill: Carol Jenny, Are children at risk of abuse by homosexuals?

McGill: Any social science in your field that children need to be protected by G&L?

McGill: Kids sometimes teased or bullied by peers??

Lamb: Yes.

McGill: Studies on forming relationships than children raised by hetero parents

Lamb: No differences in ability to establish appropriate social relationships as peers.

McGill: Inference that children bullied by peers?

Lamb: Studies explored in more detail showed that while children more likely to be teased about family. Children teased for a variety of reasons. Family, ethnic, fat, curly hair. Children can be very cruel. When possible to tease on parent, they may be teased.

McGill: Why Gender matters.

Also question of how children fare when raised in same sex families. Kids raised by homosexuals traumatized emotionally and socially.

McGill: Any research to support?

Lamb: No.

McGill: Who is Joe Nicolosi?

Lamb: Didn’t know, searched for him, conversion therapy for homosexual indivs.

McGill: Familiar with notion of necessity for gender differentiated parenting? Describe?

Lamb: Concept that in order to be well adjusted need male parent, in addition to female. Now significant body of evidence documenting that that’s not true. What’s important is quality of parenting. Gender is not one of the important dimensions.

McGill: Why Gender MAtters.

We should disavow the notion that ‘mummies can make good daddies’ just as we should disavow the notion of radical feminists that ‘dadies can make good mummies’ The two sexes are different ot the core and each is necessary–culturally.

Lamb: Attributed to Poponeau.

McGill: Leading proponent? Anyone else?

Lamb: I believe not supported by social science research.

McGill: Any research that parents’ failure to observe different gender roles?

McGill: requires child to be raised by mother and father who are genetic parents?

Lamb: No.

McGill: Any evidence for conclusin that absence of genetic relationship increase likelihood of poor outcomes?

Lamb: No support for that.

McGill: Any science that attempts to contradict that?

Lamb: Many studies that focus on children who’ve been adopted. Also on children conceived through variety of reproductive technologies. Those children just as likely to be well-adjusted.

McGill: 3 exhibits. Children w/o genetic relationship just as likely to adjust well as those w/genetic relationship?

McGill: Any way that prohibiting same sex couples form marrying expected to improve adjustment outcomes? Any way that prohibiting same sex couples expected improve adjustment of any child?

Lamb: No.

McGill: Advantage of marriage?

Lamb: being able to consider themselves part of well-recognized institution can be beneficial.

McGill: Supported by science? Any reason that would not hold true if unmarried cohabiting couple were gay or lesbian. Have you ever encountered sound rationale for depriving children of better outcomes?

Lamb: No.

McGill: No further questions.

David Thompson for defense.

Thompson: You’ve been member of ACLU. And NOW? And NAACP? Amnesty Intl? Nature Conservancy? PBS? You’re a committed liberal.

Lamb: I would say I’m a committed liberal.

Thompson: You believe gays and lesbians should have right to marry. Not clinical psych. Last time you interviewed child over 20 years ago. You can’t remember last time you interviewed child?

Lamb: Can’t remember date.

Thompson: never interviewed child of gay male couple in professional capacity. Never interviewed child lesbian couple. never completed study of children raised by gay and lesbian parents. You doubt that APA would unanimously endorse your views. Percentage would agree with you?

Thompson: Politics in modern day science. Not hermetically sealed from political influence?

Thompson Govts not immune from politics and ideology?

Lamb laughs.

Thompson: Universities politics.

Lamb: Politics small p.

Thompson: Ideologies.

Lamb: Some people who have variety of ideologies.

Thompson: Think tanks ideological view. Some charitable organizations ideological view. Funding for sophisticated research funded by govts, think tanks, charitable organizations.

[Objection]

Thompson: Usually provided by govt research agencies. Dictates the type of studies conducted.

Lamb: Can I suggest that your question presumes made by govts. Agencies like NSF and NIH pride themselves on having peer reviewers review integrity of research. Would vociferously object that it’s govt ideological identification of problem.

Thompson: have you read about East Anglia climate gate? Politics in peer review process?

Lamb: In my experience doing it that hasn’t been a factor.

Thompson: Consensus, importance of consensus that matters, History littered with theories proven to be wrong. Let’s take phrenology.

[Walker trying not to chuckle]

Lamb: I think it’s more accurate to say some people believe strongly in it.

Thompson: All the scientists who believed it were wrong.

Lamb: Let me poitn out some were not scientists.

Thompson: Some of them were. There was a time when Freud’s theory of psychologists accepted. Today, little more than passing reference to Freud, correct?

Objection.

Lamb: Probably true if you’re referring to body of scientific psych and research, wouldn’t be as true if you were talking about clinical. It’s my view that beyond rather broad contributions to the field, not major intellectual player in the field.

Thompson: You gave testimony “Most contemporary pscyh makes little more than passing reference to psychoanalysis,” correct? Widespread consensus that homosexuality was pathology. And the psychological community was entirely wrong.

[Thompson makes a crazy face and big hand gestures on the last statement]

Lamb: That portion that believed that was wrong, yes.

Documents in the latest binder are upside down, both Walker and Lamb are wrestling with their binders.

Lamb: We have the same problem.

Walker and Lamb smile at each other.

Thompson: Child Psych. Lesbian gay bisexual or transgender, faced more scrutiny regarding rights to be parents. American Child PSych opposes any discrimination. There is not a rich empirical lit of Transgender, or bisexuals. This statement is not based on empirics, but politics. As for APA, you don’t know whether any non-scientific considerations played a role.

Lamb: Not member of APA, wasn’t involved in discussions, so I have no idea.

Thompson: Terms we’re using. Is accepted conclusion that around 2% of adult pop that are gay or lesbian.

Lamb: Most people express it as a range.

Thompson: Your view is that around 2%

Lamb: Not a demographer.

Thompson: Some might consider same sex, but do not have an erotic component.

Lamb: Outside my area of expertise, but probably true.

Thompson: You’re talking about self-identify. You used term gender orientation and sex orientation interchangeably.

Lamb: I confess, I do, but I’m trying to be better behaved.

Thompson: Sexual object focus.

Lamb: Doesn’t sound like something I would say, but I could forget.

Thompson: Deposition in Howard case.

Thompson: You say, “sexual romantic interest.” Did you give that testimony?

[Objection]

Thompson: I wanted to refresh recollection?

Lamb: I suspect that object is in this is a mistranscription of something I said. I suspect the word object wasn’t used.

Thompson: You also referred to the word well-being and adjustment, synonyms, correct? Not trying to exclude any index of mental well-being. Still many differences between men and women. Men more likely to be incarcerated. Men more likely to be involved in violent altercations. Men more likely to be alcoholics. Women live longer than men. Death of parent traumatic event for child. Men and women get different types of diseases. Health of parent. Intelligence of parents can have affect on well-being.

Lamb: That’s a trickier one.

Thompson: it’s certainly possible that if some were able to get into Cambridge, they’d be in better position to be a good parent, then if they were illiterate.

Lamb: Not sure if better educated people necessarily better parents. I assume if people had extremely low intelligence, might make it difficult to perform parents.

Thompson: Differences in bell curve between men and women. Disproportionately more men at lower level of cognitive abilities. Low end of verbal abilities. If you look at Homer Simpsons of the world, more men than women.

Lamb: I suspect she’s referring to people performing must less well than Homer Simpson.

[Walker laughs loud]

Thompson: Men graduate at lower rates. Education attainment of parents predictor of psychological. Men can’t breast feed. Breast feeding clearly has benefits for children. Economic resources predictably adjustment. Women earn less than men. Lesbians higher or lower income than hetero couples. There are earning differences between hetero and gay men. Lee Badget, she says contrary to popular sterotype, same sex couples comparable. Males household income 4% higher than married, while female 7% lower. It’d be important to hold constant for levels of resources.

Lamb: I do want to draw your attention to the fact that this is talking about same sex couples in general, not necessarily those parenting children.

Thompson: Women spend money differently than men, as it relates to children.

Lamb: Not familiar with that.

Thompson: Gender also related to certain occupations.

Lamb: Yes, it has changed pretty dramatically over time.

Thompson: Associated with education opportunities correct?

Lamb: May be associated with whether or not they take advantage.

Thompson: Men more likely sexual assualt. Stepfathers more likely than biological fathers to molest children. Stepfathers more likely to molest than stepmothers. Evidence that men who are married to women less likely to drink and gamble. When it comes to parenting skills, you’re not saying that men and women are completely interchangable.

Lamb: when it comes to outcomes, it’s the same features.

Thompson: “Is it your opinion that men and women completely interchangeable.” You gave that testimony.

Lamb: I continued for several paragraphs explaining what I meant.

Thompson: Gender is complicated variable. Ramifications for indiv’s experiences from beginning of life. Gender would be related to processes raising child, but not in straightforward way. Can have ripple effects, can affect the way they behave with their children. Has a wide range of effects on our behavior. Fathers biological and social reinforced masculine qualities predispose them to treat their children differently, correct?

Lamb: Not sure about that.

Thompson: [Directs Lamb to one of his articles] “Father’s predispose them”

Lamb: This is referring to David Popineau. It was trying to describe his position. We were supposed to be reviewing contributions to the field.

Thompson: You thought his contribution was significant enough to be named in review.

Lamb: Scholers like to be sure they don’t leave out things.

Thompson: There is evidence that father absence has most predictable effects when father leaves early in child’s life.

Lamb: With provisos around term of effect. You have different series of processes, longer periods of time.

Thompson: There are studies that show taht attachment between babies and fathers are strong, might serve needs not by mother.

Lamb: If you’re talking about babies being raised in families with two parents, significance.

Thompson: Studies more closely related to gender than involvement.

Lamb: I think that’s generally not the case.

Thompson: Attachment and affiliative system. Do you recall writing Chapter 10.

Lamb: Believe it or not I do, even though it was published in late 70s and published in 1982.

Thompson: reads about involvement of fathers.

Lamb: Wrote this, summary of a study conducted in late 1970s. As I testified earlier, believed at that point that those positions might be important. As I also testified earlier, that is a finding that has not held up.

Thompson: Science was wrong.

Lamb: Science is cumulative. In that vast volume of literature, you will find cases where not replicated by researchers, conclusion distorted by particular measure they used, that’s why it’s important to view as cumulative process, where you look at big picture, multiple studies. It’s absolutely not the case that any particular study in and of itself is going to establish an important association.

Thompson: Both mothers and fathers play crucial and different roles.

Lamb: Both can by hetero parents.

Thompson: There are qualitative between mother-infant and father-infant relationships.

Lamb: Often. Those differences don’t always exist, many studies don’t show them. Those differences in and of itself, don’t have an effect.

Thompson: Effective paternal deprivation.

Lamb: Many situations w/children who do have father don’t benefit from committed relationship.

Thompson: Article you wrote, fathers, forgotten contributors. You wrote “disturbing that devaluation of father’s role.” What was the context in which you believed that to be true.

Lamb: Wrote when I was grad student. In that context, in the context of field where tremendous focus on relationship between mothers and children, and inattention to fathers, drawing attention to those, many children who grew up with 2 hetero parents, important to study effects of other person. I wrote another You’ve doene a great job at bringing back these memories.

Thompson: There’ll be more.

Lamb: I did a paper showing we need to look more broadly.

Thompson: Increase in father absence, diminished involvement, early child bearing. Correct?

Lamb: This is someting we talked about earlier. Interesting question is why those associations come about.

Thompson: Boys, gender school performance.

Lamb: Some of those findings have held up. Some have not been substantiated by recent research.

Thompson: Article from 2000. Entitled fatherhood 21st century.

Lamb: Most of research on effects of father-absence, doesn’t share those differences in sex role and gender development.

Thompson: How about poor school performance. Psycho-social adjustment.

Lamb: Yeah, we talked about that. There are those correlations.

Thompson: Is there a causal connection between father absence and these problems?

Lamb: Literature suggests that qualities I talked about association between parents, and social and economic resources available to family, most important in explaining these differences.

Thompson: Nurturing fathers may contribute to wellbeing of daughters. Disturbed father child relationships and failure to achieve same sex identification may be pathogenic.

Thompson: 1976, role of father in childhood development.

Lamb: Citations are to 1961, two from 1950s, one from 1965. We’ve had a lot of research since that was written. As you’ve pointed out, there have been subsequent editions of this book, that have updated these citatoins.

[WOW. Intellectual fraud to win an argument?]

Thompson: Fathers more interested in retaining cultural. Moral development, also affected by father absence.

Lamb: Talk in earlier literature, not something exlored much more recently. Shifted from moral development to someting more narrow like encounters with police.

Thompson: Studies about father absence influence sex roles, psychological adjustment.

Lamb: That sounds like older conclusion.

Walker: When would a convenient time to take a break?

Thompson: This would be a lovely time.

(Till 5 of the hour)

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!

Dr. Ilan Meyer sworn in.

Dusseault asking about educational background.

Meyer: BA Columbia U, Psych, MA, New School, Columbia U, psychiatric epidemiology. Study of mental disorders, causes of mental disorders. Risks for mental disorders. Very much like infectious disorders. PhD, Columbia U. 1993. Department Sociomedical Sciences, department brings together people from various social sciences to study public health problems. Doctoral dissertation, prejudice and pride, minority stress and health in gay men. Associate Prof at Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia. Co-Chair steering committee for school of public health. Chair, MPH, curriculum committee. I probably have some other committees that I am on. First appointment in 1994, full time in 1996.

Dusseault: Work you’ve done over 20 years.

Meyer: Social epidemiology. Relationship between social factors and health patterns. Mental health outcomes.

Walker: Area of study is area of social factors and mental health outcomes.

Meyer: Most directly lesbian, gay, bisexual populations, african-americans, asthma, HIV, homosexuals and mental health. Many presentations, most in CV. Over 40 listed there. Funding, currently Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Investigator, NIH, NLM, NYS Department of Health. Awards, most recently for distinguished scientific contribution APA. Reviewed manuscripts and guest editor. American Journal of Public Health on lesbian and gay and transgender public health. Successful issue, first issue to sell out. Edited, or co-edited another journal. Special issue Social Science and Medicine, with two colleagues, prejudice and stigma and their impact on public health. Edit book on LGBT public health issues. Both peer reviewed and editorial articles. 44 peer reviewed articles on CV, maybe 12 other types, commentaries and so forth. 3 courses, research methodology, how to conduct surveys. Two seminars, one is called prejudice, stigma, and discrimination as social stressors, gay and lesbian issues in public health.

[Dusseault and Cooper put together list of all exhibits, Walker says, “thank you for facilitating that.”]

Dusseault: Is it true that each document document you’ve relied on to formulate opinion in this case. Deposition testimony. Do you intend to offer any opinions in this litigation.

Meyer: Work I’ve been doing. 3 elements. 1) Nature of stigma on G&L populations wr to Prop 8 as example of stigma. 2) Describe model of minority stress. Model I am accredited with offering. Will describe social stressors affect G&L pops. 3) Effects of those stressors on mental health.

Dusseault: On what do you base.

Meyer: Study of last 20 years. Opinion is based on many research articles. Some I’ve conducted, many more conducted in field over many years.

Dusseault: Define stigma.

Meyer: Have to be brief. Group in society has some kind of attribute seen as negative, this attribute is attached to persons believed to have it, because of having this attribute, devalued. In example of sexual orientation, identified as negative attribute, G&L people as a whole, identified by that identity, whole person is devalued. Stigma has been applied to many other pops.

Dusseault: What is structural stigma?

Meyer: Origins of stigma. Mechanisms that enact stigma. More solid structures in society. Institutions. The law, and any other institution central in our society.

Dusseault: Explain more the way that laws can be structural stigma.

Meyer: Laws may foster or block access to particular institutions. Of course here we’re talking about marriage. Of course the law has a role in who can access this institution.

Dusseault: Once structural stigma in place, how does it affect people.

Meyer: Determines access people have to those institutions. People internalize certain goals. Career, marriage, two important examples. Stigma would determine the access people have to those desired goals.

Dusseault: Has research found stigma attached to G&Ls?

Meyer: Intimate relationships and the way they’ve been portrayed. Stereotypes that gay people incapable of intimate relationships, undesiring of intimate relationships. The way it has been portrayed as well as in a more organized way in social institutions. Intimate relationships marriage, husband and wife, other intimate relationships, one’s children and one’s community. In all of them, described as social isolate, not as good citizens, participating in society in the same way. That’s what stigma does. In particular for G&L example, nature of being gay about who you choose to be with.

Dusseault: One of docs you’ve relied on in your opinoins.

Meyer: Chapter from book published in 60s and was very popular book. Everything you’ve always wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask. Different chapters to educate public about sexuality, this chapter about male homosexuality.

Dusseault: Read text into record.

Meyer: May I explain something about this. Q&A format. Author goes through explaining issues as if someone asking him.

Dusseault [reads from book]

What about all the homosexuals who lived together happily for many years.

“Happy” remains to be seen. Bitterest argument between husband and wife is passionate love sonney by comparison with a dialogue between a butch and his queen. Live together? Yes. Happily Hardly. [Teddy has full quote in comments]

Meyer discussing when stigma is formulated: What they’ve learned in childhood. Affects everybody, but affects in very strong way someone who is coming out and is gay.

Dusseault: Are you familiar with Prop 8. Basic understanding.

Meyer: Voted by voters in CA< restricted marriage to man and woman. Excluded gay men and lesbians from marriage.

Dusseault: Is Prop 8 form of structural stigma.

Meyer: Law and constitutional part of law, very strong part of stigma.

Dusseault: In what way is Prop 8 structural stigma.

Meyer: Denies them access to marriage. We’re raised to think certain things we want to achieve in life. this Prop 8 says you cannot achieve this particular goal.

Dusseault: Does DP eliminate structural stigma of Prop 8.

Meyer; I’m talking about institution that has social meaning. I don’t refer to any tangible benefits. Not any tangible benes that accompany marriage. Symbolic meaning, social meaning of marriage. Young children do not aspire to be domestic partners. Marriage is a very common socially approved goal. This is a desirable and respected type of goal.

Dusseault: Do you have opinion where DP has similar social meaning?

Meyer; I don’t think it has the same social meaning. I don’t think it has any social meaning. It has values in terms of benes that people receive. Those benes not really relevant to my discussion of stigma.

Dusseault: Minority stress. I’ve written a lot of arguments about it. The types of stressors. Everyone knows what stress means. Types of events that happen to a person. Requires a person to adjust. Different types of stress, chronic stressors or employment stress.

[Meyer is a dark skinned person, tidy hair cut. Grey suit. Dusseault is tall, glasses. He has a habit of looking a way, or trying to look empathetic, but without maintaining eye contact, and sometimes looking up in the air.]

Dusseault: Acute stress. What does that mean?

Meyer: Beginning and end. Chronic, prolonged. Losing job acute, unemployment chronic. Other types of stressors. Daily hassles. Minor stressors. Daily kinds of hassles. Another type of stress, a little different, non-events. Nothing happens. If I had been working in my job for many years, but didn’t receive expected promotion, it was expected, but others expected. It’s something that is normative to happen at particular time. Marriage would be one of those expected events. If you ask little children, it’s the kind of thing they might tell you that would happen.

Dusseault: Are the stressors you’re talking about inputs?

Meyer: Outcome. Feeling distress because of something that happen. Try to assess the input, the stressor part, and the outcome, in this case, we studied health outcomes.

Dusseault: let’s go back to minority outcomes.

Meyer: Social arrangements, prejudice and discrimination. In my model any stress that is related to discrimination, minority stress. Losing job due to discrimination is a minority stressor. Different impact for those type of events. Allows us to assess and measure them in way that is more precise.

Meyer: Prejudice social stress and mental health in lesbian and gay populations. 2003. Psychological bulletin. Quite difficult to get published there.

[I get the sense that Meyer has no tdone a lot of expert testimony.]

Meyer: Has been referred to by many other researchers. several hundred have used this as a resource for their own research.

Dusseault: Minority stress, other than G&L?

Meyer: Idea are not all brand new ideas. Rely on many years of research. I did not invent research on life events as a source of stress. Term used in article I read about. By minority, I mean sexual minority. This refers to gay, lesbian, and bisexual. Quite specific to gays and lesbians. General theories apply in more general ways.

Dusseault: Particular processes in which minority stress manifest itself.

Meyer: What do we mean by prejudice have an impact on people. Processes that describe why that’s a stressor. 4 types of minority stress processes.

• Prejudice events
• Expectations of rejection and discrimination
• Concealing–not being out
• Internalized homophobia

Dusseault: How did you identify these processes?

Meyer: There has been work on each of those topics, I relied on them to bring together a model that is more concise. Work on internalized homophobia, put it together in this particular form to explain experiences of gay men and lesbians.

Dusseault: What do you mean by prejudice events.

Meyer: Types of stressors that are related to prejudice. Being fired due to discrimination. Prejudice events echo those 4 types of stressors, major acute, chronic stress, minor events (daily hassles), non-events. This is taking the same framework and using it in this context. It’s not that I just took this and copied this–I used a lot of research.

Dusseault: Prejudice events, different from stress events of rest of pop? More examples?

Meyer: Other types of events people experience: anti-gay violence. Hate crimes. These are the major events. Chronic stressors. Resulting from prejudice. I’ve collected data from 400 gay men and lesbians. Asked them about life events that happened over their life. There will be chronic things like harrassment. Harrassed at schools. That’s not an event unless it was an event. If somebody says somebody called me a name over an entire year. If someone jumped and attacked me, it’d be an event, in this case a hate crime probably. Those are the life events.

Dusseault: Do those differ in magnitude?

Meyer: How big the event was. How much adaptation does such an event require. Losing a job is a very big event. Waiting on line is a very tiny magnitude. Hate crimes, they have a greater impact psychologically on victim, greater impact has to do not so much with characteristics, but social meaning of event.

Dusseault:What has research shown about who commonly perpetrates these events.

Meyer: Perpetrates, I talk about different levels, different causes of those events. Structural stigma. Context for events. An event is written in larger context. So those are the structural. And then are interpersonal events. Perpetrators might be state, but of course, it is also individuals who do something, in example of hate crime or sexual minorities. Quite distinct from other groups, when you think about groups, could be family members, siblings. We collected short narratives, quite dramatic in terms of what respondents reported had happened to them in the past. What was, I don’t want to say surprising, but distinctive, was how many families had perpetrated things like rape or homelessness. A whole range of perpetrators.

Dusseault: Every day hassles?

Meyer: We call those daily hassles, every day discrimination events. In same way that hate crime has social meaning attached to it. A minor event might have greater impact than another event that has no such meaning. The other one is representing social disapproval.

Dusseault: give us examples that research has called hasles.

[Walker looks bored.]

Meyer: I read plaintiff’s testimony given on Monday, I read it Tuesday, One of the things we hear over and over is filling out forms. You migut say, what’s the big deal of filling out form. The only way I can explain is it’s not about the form, it evokes a social disapproval, a rejection. it evokes memories of such events, including large events. So it is a minor hassle for most people. But for gay people I’ve seen this brought up many times. Other types of things. Being treated in unfriendly way by one’s parents. Would not be a nice thing for anybody. But for a gay person, social meaning of rejection. Relationship between social meaning.

Walker: You mentioned forms. What kind of forms.

Meyer: the testimony given here. What I meant was any kind of administrative forms, particularly where you have to fill in marital status. Gay person, there’s no place for me to put anything there. Either they would say “single” even though I’ve been in relationship for the past four years, I don’t want to get tinto this whol einformation. Crossing out things and writing in things. Obviously this is not very demanding, to cross out something and fill in something else. That would not be memorable event. Only reason bc of what it means. Social rejection.

Dusseault: You may have applications at a bank, or job application. Where there are boxes to describe status?

Meyer: Absolutely.

Dusseault: Hassles when traveling.

Meyer: very similar, not so much why it happened, but what it means. A clerk asking about king sized bed, area of great sensitivity, really talks to their rejection, to rejection of their family members.

Dusseault: does the fact you might ultimately get right sized bed, make it go away?

Meyer: There’s nothing really horrible about filling in form or explaining to clerk about mistake. It’s about “I’m gay and not accepted here.”

Dusseault: Non-events treated as prejudice events.

Meyer: when things like having childen don’t happen. Actual event, or non-event, but for G&L, not getting married would also have that social meaning. Stigma.

Dusseault: What, if anything, rel between Prop 8 and prejudice events as you describe.

Meyer: Quite obvious that Prop 8 blocks marriage event. It would be responsible for G&Ls not getting married. Explain why–I’m really not seen as being equal. My status is not respected by my state or my country. A block on the way to achieve desirable goal.

Dusseault: Katami describes rocks and eggs being thrown fence of patio at gay establishment, We couldn’t see who people were but we were definitely hit. I just accepted that as “well, that’s part of what we have to deal with.” Reaction to this?

Meyer: Very familiar event a gay person might report. Don’t mean to tell plaintiff that they are not unique, but they really are not unique. What struck me was not what you might notice. But that point about the very sobering moment. It’s the moment of registration. This is something I have to get used to ,who I am. He tries recognizing something about who he is as a gay person. This was related to hate. When we collect those narratives inmy resarch.

[Walker is looking at the screen with the testimony closesly, seems to be copying somethingdown from it. Dusseault is doing that staring away thing he does again.]

Meyer: What i don’t know is whether someone was hurt, would go to magnitude. Meaning was because of that sobering moment. “I am not the same as other people in society, someone can come and throw eggs at me, because I am gay.”

Dusseault: Often relayed by gay men or lesbians?

Meyer: Exactly.

Dusseault: Stier testimony. Doctor’s offices. I have to put a line through it and saying domestic partner and explaining what that is so our transaction can go smoothly.

Meyer: You have to ask why would a person remember that type of event. More than what has actually happened. IF there were some error, and she would have had to fix that, I don’t think she woudl have had to report that. It is the message that the forms echo about rejection. I’m not equal to most people who fill this form.

Dusseault: Expectations of rejection and discrimination.

Meyer: means exactly what it says. Interesting process that occurs in populations. THey know about prejudice that exists in society. Needs to maintain vigilence that would guarantee their safety. A gay couple walking down the street. In my experience regardless of how firnedly, have to monitor kind of affection they show each other. It’s not something them about indivs but bc they are presenting as gay. One type of vigilence. You have to watch, third eye monitoring environment. Many people don’t have to think about that.

Dusseault: Does the expectation go away if the rejection doesn’t happen?

Meyer: Another interesting thing. Nothing really has to happen. Not only that the persons involved in environment, may not hold any negative attitudes. What I represent may trigger in somebody. It doesn’t have to be anything specific. Being in job interview and having to monitor what you say. You’re expecting that. In addition to issues of safety. Issues around social intercourse. It could be embarrassing or awkward. Swallow minor incidences of prejudice. Move on bc they don’t want to get into it. anticipation. When someting happens, anticipation.

Dusseault: What if someone concerned about this just stays inside, doesn’t go out.

Meyer: Quite a punishment.

Dusseault: Relationship bet Prop 8 and this expectation.

Meyer: Prop 8 sends message not to be respected. Not equal. That’s in addition to achieving literal aims, sends message about values, constitution itself. Would encourage or is consistent with holding prejudicial environment.

Dusseault: Concealing.

Meyer: One more concept. Coping. Part of the stress process. How does stress affect outcome. Concealing means not revealing I’m gay or lesbian. Relationship with coping. People conceal usually as coping mechanism. So they’re not fired from their job. If you’re in USM, you have to conceal by law. Many ways that this kind of concealment are stressful. All of this comes from lit not specific to this topic.

Dusseault: Briefing identify what those ways are.

Meyer: Concealment requires strong cognitive effort. Stress involved with concealing. You have to really work hard on this. It’s not that easy.

[Dusseault now nodding enthusastically]

Meyer: a very difficult type of thing. If you’re in military, you live your life there. People talk about girlfriend. Gay people have been known to change pronoun, say “yeah, my girlfriend,” when they really mean boyfriend. It’s a lot of work keeping track of that. Responses, they say this is private hell. The cognitive work.

Dusseault: Does the person who conceals lose benes he or she might receive if express true self.

Meyer another way concealment stressful. Concealing prevents you from expressed emotion. Use of this with cancer patients, expressing something intimate helpful psychologically, hiding something. Also authneticity, living authentic life. People feel better presenting themself as who they are.

Dusseault: Does concelment interfere with ability to get support.

Meyer: Beneficial ways, through social support. Affiliation with gay community. If you go to community center. You get certain benefits from being thatin that environment. If you’re concealing, you’re not going to walk into gay community center. May be health services that targeted to G&L pops. That too may be something that person who conceals would be able to benefit from.

Dusseault: One point I want to clarify. Can concealment be absolute in nature.

Meyer: It could be. It doesn’t have to be that. If they conceal at work, they may have some friends they confide with. Reason you conceal is significance of derision. No tjust a simple issue.

Dusseault: Believe testimony from one plaintiffs on Monday, knowing he was gay, but didn’t come out.

Meyer: Sounds like he recognized or feared that if he were to express this about himself, would lead to discrimination. To losing relationships. I presume this is what the person expected.

Dusseault: Connection between concealment and Prop 8.

Meyer: Prop 8 part of stigma. When I talked about effects of Prop 8, not only affect gay people, not just damaging about gay people sends message that it’s valued by constitution to designate them different class of people.

Dusseault: [more testimony] Chris Perry. “I have to decide if I want to come out everywhere I go.”

Meyer; Demonstrates several of the things I already mentioned. need to decide whether it’s worth it to get into whole thing. Repetition of it. In so many contexts. Word that most jumped at me in this is “exhausting” because it has a special meaning in stress research. One of earliest examples of stress research. Seyle. General adaptation syndrome. Echos what I was describing. In his words the end of hta twas exhaustion. Result of stress process was exhaustion. He studied animals and in many cases resulted in death.

Dusseault: Internalized homophobia.

Meyer: A word discussed in different forms. Used existing lit. Internalized homophobia discussed a lot. Learned in socialization process. Not only gay men and lesbians. Natural thing is to reflect that everything I’ve learned abou being gay, it’d be quite devastating, to young or not young person. If they believed that was what was in their future.When I use homophobia, I use it as akin to racism. It’s a word that is recognizable, in dictionary. Found it just as good a word as some other words that had been proposed.

Dusseault: Possible self.

Meyer: Not exactly within context. Another theory I have used. Related to what people feel right now. Having more optimistic notion of future. Opposite, feeling that you will be blocked from achieving goals, lower self of well-being.

Dusseault; Does internalized homophobia lead to lowered concept of possible self.

Meyer: Certain attitudes, stereotypes. If you internalize that, you think, this is who I’m going to be. Part of that is about how do I see my future. Who will I become? Some gay youth have a harder time thinking of possible self.

[Meyer is increasingly gesticulating with his hands.]

Meyer: They might think [referring back to book earlier] that it’s not possible for gay couples to have good relationships.

Dusseault: Another example of testimony, from Chris Perry.

I never really let myself want [marriage] until now, never let myself want it, everyone tells you you’re never going to have it.

Meyer: Person recognizing within herself, as lesbian, some of the things relevant to other people, such as marriage, do not apply to me. Can’t hope for that. Presumably, her being plaintiff, she began to believe she might get access.

Dusseault: Third and final opinion. Health. Sitigma, minority stress gay or lesbian, stigma have on health outcomes.

Meyer: As I mentioned earlier, entire stress process to study health, determinants of health and disease. Literally hundreds of studies that study different aspects of this. There has been shown experience of this kindn of outcomes. Mental disorders. Anxiety disorders. Mood disorders. Substance disorders. General distress or feeling, blue. There are a variety of outcomes. Health behaviors associated with stress. Excess smoking, eating behavior, drinking. True for general stress literature. As well fo rgay and lesbian populations. Point being that G&L pops exposed to more of this stress, which is unique and additive, and therefore that excess risk as we call it epidemiological research, associated with excess disease. We’ve studied well-being. Also been studies that show excess in suicide attempts, particularly in youth.

Dussseault: Does the research show that stigma contributes to higher incidence to these adverse consequences in G&L than pop at large.

Meyer: Look at excess risk. There’s been pretty consistent findings that show excess disorder in G&L pops as compared to hetero.

Dusseault; Want to be sure we’re being clear on a couple of points. Are you saying being GorL associated with mental–

Meyer: No not at all. Excess risk is associated with excess disorder. Because it is excess, leads to more exposed to the risk. Never expected that everyone exposed to risk is diseased. Even people exposed to extreme stressors (like war) doesn’t mean all of them are going to be affected. Excess relationship, patterns of disease, more of this risk and more of this disease.

Dusseault: Are you saying that all or even most G&L people suffer from soem kind of disease?

Meyer: Analogy would be when we look at smoking and lung cancer. Do people that smoke have more lung cancer, it does not a fact that everybody that smokes gets lung cancer. Most G&L not disorder. Excess in pop as compared to hetero.

Dusseault: Would inceidences be less if we could find a wya to reduce sitgma?

Meyer; When people have more they have more of the disorder.

[Walker now making notes on something]

Meyer: we see that some people have more of those life events, more of the outcome, maybe depression. Other people didn’t have that exposure. Indicates more of those stressors, more disease.

Dusseault: Healthy people two thousand ten?

Meyer; We call that Healthy people Twenty ten.

[A much needed chuckle all around, particularly between Teddy and me, since he wrote a post on calling it 20-10]

Meyer: working now on healthy people 20-20.

[Excerpt up: The issues surrounding personal, family, and social acceptance of sexual orientation can place a significant burden on mental health and personal safety.]

Meyer: Section from Healthy People 20-10, one of our nation’s goals to reduce disparities in G&L pop as compared to hetero.

Dusseault: Chart: Coping resources, social structure, stress, health outcomes.

Meyer: very schematic way of showing causal chain. Stress and coping resources not randomly assigned to people in society. Social structures. If you’re employed, you can get fired from your job, if you’re not employed, you cannot get fired. When we show social studies, stigma leads to exposure to specific stressors, I dsecribe here, both general and prejudice related. Everyone experiences general stressors. There’s added prejudice related stress. Coping resources, protective role of coping. There’s a lot more behind each of those boxes. A lot more can be said about coping. What it shows is how this process affects outcomes.

Dusseault: How mental health outcomes owuld improve if Prop 8 were not law.

Meyer: I do [almost apologetic] Consistent with everything I’ve said, relevance of social structures, and findings that show when people exposed to more stress they fare worse than when exposed to less stress. If CA, and it also has to do with proscriptive elements, that the opposite of that clearly would send positive message. You are welcome, your relationships are valued. We don’t approve of rejection of you as a gay person. That has a very significant power. We all know law in state is important part to creating social environment. Clearly not only thing that determines. Certainly a major player, major factor.

Dusseault: Nothing further.

10 minutes

Walker: we seem to be following a little behind our schedule so we can get everything in we anticipated getting in.

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!

Continuing the cross-examination of Edwin Egan, Chief Economist for SF, who is testifying on the revenues associated with same sex marriage for the city.

Patterson: Revenues for out of state same sex couples.

Egan: 2008 report, there was no data for how long people stayed in SF. For this report, it’s not legal, so I had to make an assumption.

Patterson: SF gained $2.7M of annual revenue increases. You have no considered any costs SF would incur.

Egan: Costs are reimbursed by license fees, so that is not a net cost.

Patterson: Additional staffing.

Egan: Fees pay for the staff.

Patterson: you have determined that fees would pay for any additional staff.

Egan: I haven’t done any additional study, but that’s the point of those fees.

Patterson: You said report was to determine costs.

Egan: No, that’s not correct, it was to determine whether any additional staffing, not to adjust size of fe.

Patterson: so if it did not cover costs, you would raise the fee.

Egan: The city sets the fees to assume cost recovery. The way this is accounted for is each clerk can handle so many during the day. It’s not at all clear that the fees would need to change.

Patterson: Costs of printing additional marriage licenses.

Egan: that’s also covered by fees.

Patterson: Alter forms.

Egan: Fees designed to pay for.

Egan: Internet thread that I had with Margaret Sen who works in customer service center.

Patterson: Impact of Prop 8 on SF. You said $450,000 in lost revenue [not sure the number is right].

Patterson: Quite a bit lower than you provided to the court in your opinion today.

Egan: that’s correct.

Patterson: Lost revenue in forgone federal benefits. Federal law would have to change before have effect.

Egan: that’s my understanding.

Patterson: Some same sex couples would pay more in taxes.

Egan: that’s my understanding.

Patterson: How many pay less, and how many pay more.

Egan: as well as the magnitude.

Patterson: You haven’t done any independent verification of this analysis.

Egan: Correct.

Patterson: One thing you have done is estimate how many same sex couples would marry if they were permitted. Assume same percentage as opposite sex couples. Do you attach time frame for how long.

Egan: Not necessary for conclusion that I reached.

Patterson: When city obtained benefit, only when they were married. You base assumption that these percentages would be equal, on assumption that only difference is that same sex couples currently face legal benefits to marriage. Have you studied other jurisdictions to determine if your prediction has been borne out. You don’t know if assumption is consistent with that experience. Not an expert on same sex relationship.

Egan: When you do economic analysis you try to make them that are as informed as possible.

Patterson; You haven’t studied whether gay relationships different than opposite sex relationships.

Patterson: Base you assumption on number of hetero couples. Will represent to you that American community survey data did not have this number on it. Had number of unmarried hetero couples. American community survey data for same years that you relied on.

Egan: I’ve not seen this before but it looks familiar.

Patterson points to estimate.

Patterson: You spoke earlier about coupling rates. That could change among same sex community.

Egan: Spoke of importance of understanding couple formation if you’re attempting to estimate number of weddings in given year. Can’t look at number of same sex couples and expect that the number will come from that.

Patterson: Number of gay and lesbian indivs in SF?

Egan: I don’t have that.

Patterson: Another Williams Institute report. You’re familiar?

Egan: I’ve referred to another Williams Institute report.

Patterson: Among SF counties, SF has highest proportion at 14%.

Egan: that’s what that says.

Patterson: Do you have any reason to question that?

Egan: I don’t, no.

Patterson: Sales tax revenues if gay couples could get married. If same sex couples have net savings on federal income taxes.

Egan: Assumes that same sex couples would pay lower amount on average if they were married.

Patterson: You assume that same sex couples spend all that they receive.

Egan: That’s an upper end estimate.

Patterson: Have you studied behavior of people when they gain tax savings.

Egan: I felt it was sufficient to provide upper end estimate.

Patterson: You also understand certain other federal programs. Federal programs that take spousal incomes into account. People could lose benefits that took spousal income into account.

Egan: Can’t think of clear example, not sure if I can give you an example of that.

Patterson: Assume there are programs that take spousal income into effect. You’d have to consider people who could lose eligibility.

Egan: To fully discuss and prepare estimate of same sex marriage on income and spending, you’d have to do a full accounting in which eligibility may be less, and those in which you’re only eligible.

Patterson: You’ve not attempted to do that.

Egan: I’ve not attempted to do that beyond taxes which was readily quantifiable.

Patterson: Equal Benefits Ordinance. Would not repeal EBO?

Egan: No it would not.

Patterson: Would not cause SF to stop defending it in court. You’ve said spent certain amount of money defending in court. When legal expenditures took place?

Egan: Since 1997, when EBO was enacted. In principle ongoing, potential risk of expenditures.

Patterson: Costs of EBO.

Egan: I don’t specifically remember this doc.

Patterson: Would represent to you it was given to us with your report.

Egan: Source for $1.6 million to defend EBO.

Patterson: Are either of these cases ongoing?

Egan: I don’t have any knowledge of that.

Patterson: Equal Rights Commission administers EBO.

Patterson: Successful closure on most EBO challenges since enactment.

[I’ve decided that Egan looks a little like a skinnier Peyton Manning, btw. Also, Patterson is a fairlyskinny guy, dark hair with lots of product in it, dark suit and tie.]

Patterson: Will domestic partners become marriages. Same sex marriage will not prevent others from going into DPs. SF’s contractors have employees to whom they provide benefits under EBO.

Patterson: Does Human Rights Commission respond to other discrimination related complaints.

Egan: Yes.

Patterson: Do you know how common it is for companies to offer DP benefits?

Egan: Don’t have numbers on that.

Patterson: [Reading from report] DP benefits moved from far range, to become commonplace.

Egan: Don’t have any independent basis to comment on that.

Walker: Are you moving to put this in?

Patterson: I thought we already had.

Patterson: Any laws on providing equal benefits to DPs? Provision of CA law, covering group health insurance policies.

[Patterson is trying to introduce this. Plaintiffs object, bc witness not aware of it]

Walker: You can refer to this, but I’m not sure this is proper setting for examination of witness.

Patterson: He had opined, I’m just testing that assumption.

Walker: I think I understand the point you’re making, and I think you’ve done a good job making it.

Patterson: Thank you your honor. Are you aware of other jurisdictions that have enacted EBO laws similar to SF?

Egan: Not aware of that.

Patterson: 7-year update on EBO. Refers to EBOs in other jurisdictions. I fEBOs were detrimental do you think all these other ordinances would enact them?

Egan: That would depend on whether they think enacting such leg was worth more than cost of discrimination.

Patterson: So you think they would do so?

Egan: I wouldn’t want to put myself in place of them.

Patterson: You’ve suggested contractors might not bid. Any estimate of that?

Egan: It’s hard to observe companies when they do not do something.

Patterson: Some save on health insurance. Some section of same sex couples that would get insurance. You have not considered part of CA code that mandates

[Objection]

Walker: [Thinking] Maybe if you move to the point you’re trying to make. This is an adverse witness. You can cross-examine him the old-fashioned way, rather than just taking his deposition.

Patterson: Have you considered this law?

Egan: It only requires that DP benefits not be less, it doesn’t require people to provide DP benefits.

Patterson: You don’t know how many G&L couples would get insurance. And cost of insurance would be shifted to private sector.

Egan: True, but better to think if shifting from uninsured to insured sector. Benefit for society as a whole.

Patterson: But would be shifting to private sector.

Egan: Correct.

Patterson: Health benes to G&L? You believe extending marriage would diminish discrimination. Not expert opinion that that would occur?

Egan: Correct.

Patterson: SF out of state tourism destination. Particular destination for G&L tourists.

Egan: Couldn’t compare with other locations. But I would think so yes.

Patterson: Gay-friendly city. You still think discrimination.

Egan: That’s what I’ve been told by DPH, not an expert on that.

Patterson: Bullying. Based on report, economic cost of bullying. Report did not address experience in SF.

Egan: It was CA.

Walker instructs Patterson to use “it’s true, is it not.”

Patterson: Press release, Agency health care research and quality. Married men more likely to engage in healthy behaviors than single men.

Patterson: Studies did not consider same sex marriage. CA health interview survey, unmarried men more mental health probs than married men. Does not break down same sex and opposite sex marriage. Don’t have any research to support view that benefits would extend to same sex marriage.

Egan: most of my research preceded date when same sex legal.

Patterson: You have not studied decline of opposite sex marriage have on revenues. Marriage license appointment data. [Compares 2008 and 2007 marriages for roughly same period] More than 700 fewer marriage license appointments, actual marriage licenses issued. Less opposite sex couples married during months it was legal than comparable time.

Egan: Some months more, some months less. Your general statement for year. Fair.

Patterson: For five months period.

Egan: I see, but [names two week period] for that two week period there was an increase.

Patterson: Yes, but for the five month period, fewer opposite sex marriages.

Patterson: [talks about his teaching] Economic strategy document you helped SF put together. You were project manager, right? Does it mention same sex marriage?

Egan: Study of macroeconomic infrastructure that drives SF’s economy. Doesn’t account for potential state impacts.

Patterson: Same sex marriage not part of strategy.

Egan: True that by 2003 same sex marriage not a policy option available in SF.

Patterson: National elevator industry bene plan.

Egan; My understanding it’s a union.

Patterson: Do you know if it has members in CA.

Egan: I don’t believe that I know that.

Patterson: Union could construe DP?

Egan: No, spouse should only refer to husband or wife. No reference to DP.

Patterson: I believe that’s provision that’s going to change.

Egan: Provision changes to legally recognize. Seems to be exclusively excluding DP benefits.

Patterson: no more questions.

Counsel: Before I began, did court take judicial notice of 5 hate crimes reports?

Walker: I do not believe I was asked to take judicial notice.

Counsel: I would ask.

Walker: Very well.

Counsel: Egan, whether domestic partners celebrations expended money. Aware of any such report? Uptake in wedding related activities? People having $$ spend money on wedding.

Egan: A lot of evidence that there is a wedding industry.

Counsel: 2008 report. You talked about differences and analyses you did today. Any anlaysis between per wedding cost?

Egan: Same assumption. Same source to how much wedding expenses are.

Counsel: That assumption was consistent. Differences in methodology. Why did you change your methodology to determine same sex weddings?

Egan: 2008 looking for similar research. I found Williams Institute report, Thought it would be good to rely on third party source. What I did to project for 2008 report, using census data. Following as closely as I could Williams Institute methodology. Led me to my estimate of three year number of weddings for residents. Main issue however is that that methodology significantly underestimated what we actually saw in 2008. I realized it would not make sense to reapply methodology that had undercounted our actual experience. I thought it would be more straightforward. I don’t see any reason that would change.

Counsel: In essence, you changed methodology to reflect your experience. You also fielded a number of questions about other states. If I asked you to assume that CT had legalized marriage, would that change your assumptions?

Egan: Not really–I don’t think a lot came form CT.

Counsel: Compare census data with your projections. DO you know whether everyone who gets married lives together before marriage?

Egan: I don’t know that.

Counsel; Assume that your short term conclusion is very short. Does that change positive impact?

Egan: No there is a positive impact in any case.

Counsel: Pent up demand. Same sex couples who had appointments. Anything that happened on November 4?

Egan: I don’t think anyone signed up after November 4. I don’t know what number looked like as of NOvember 3. I can’t imagine any reason other than Prop 8 that would make people not want to get married after November 4.

Counsel: Insurance. Are you an expert on CA insurance law. ERISA? Any preemptive effects of benefit plans? Applicability to CA law on out of states companies. Research that indicates that companies offer DP benes less than same sex married couples?

Egan: not aware.

Counsel If we assume that DPs are not insured at rate that married are insured, does your conclusion hold true, that SF incurs greater expense?

Egan: Yes, more partners who are domestic partners with one partner who is uninsured.

Counsel: EBO. Discrimination exists. SF’s costs would be higher?

Counsel: If you were going to undertake a study on rates of opposite sex marriage, do you think it would be prudent to investigate more than 4 months of data?

Egan: it would be prudent.

Counsel: is it generally the case that increased L&G health increases SF revenues?

Egan: Yes they do.

Walker: Resume at 1 PT.

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!

Edwin Egan first witness. Chief Economist of SF.

Egan: Economic development strategy for Toronto, SF. Adjunct Prof at Berkeley, city and regional planning. Regional economic development. Three peer reviewed articles.

Egan: Board of Supervisors, my office reviews that legislation to determine if material economic impact. What is intent of those reports on economic impact of legislation. To make sure Board understands economic impact. Look for a real regulatory power, that it affects behavior of indivs and businesses in the city. How the legislation would constrain their behavior and try to quantify that. If we believe legislation would have more than $10 M impact we report on that.

Counsel: What kinds of sources?

Egan: Economic impact reports.

Egan: Reliant on govt’s statistical data, data generated by city departments to make quantitative estimates. Information provided by people who work in city. We rely on other people’s data particularly when it deals with similar impacts.

Counsel: Expert in urban and regional economic policy.

Counsel: Have you undertaken economic analysis on prohibition of gay marriage on SF. Is that anlaysis you undertook similar or different from kind of work you do as Chief Economist?

Egan: We don’t normally review state legislation, we normally deal with local reg.

Counsel: Did you look at positive and negative impacts. Did you reach conclusions.

Egan: Identified several ways in which prohibition of same sex marriage would have negative impact and affect budgeted revenues.

Counsel: Could it be generalized to other jurisdictions?

Egan: I believe they could, but I haven’t done that.

Counsel: Prohibition on same sex marriage, wealth generation, and budget of SF.

Egan: If same sex marriage legal, increase in sales tax and property tax revenue.

Counsel: Legalizing same sex couples and revenues.

Egan: Increase in number of married couples in SF. Impact of marital status on wealth over life of indiv. Married indivs accumulate more wealth. To extent more married people, greater wealth accumulation. Two main impacts, higher wealth, higher incomes, higher consumer goods spending. Would tend to increase value of real estate in SF, as you’d have more people bidding on land. Higher consumer spending would lead to higher consumer spending. Greater real estate values would lead to higher taxes.

Counsel: Magnitude?

Egan: We would have to project the increase in married couples, but we’d also have to assess increase in wealth generation.

Counsel: Would you expect other jurisdictions to have effect?

Egan: Other jurisdictions could benefit from SF effect, IE state would have more taxes as well.

Counsel: Health behaviors and impact on city revenue. Marriage, healthy behavior and SF revenue.

Egan: Legalizing same sex marriage would lead to higher behavior, reduction in public health costs. Connection between marital status and healthier behavior. Behave themselves in healthier ways. Two consequences. Also well known connection between health of workforce and higher productivity. Lower rates of absenteeism. More wages earned in SF, more payroll tax earned by city.

Counsel: General relationship between increase in productivity and higher payroll tax?

Egan: Higher productivity, higher wages, higher payroll taxes.

Egan: Less reliance on health care system, including public health care system. City’s public health care costs would decline.

Counsel: Magnitude of city’s spending on public health.

Egan: $364 M a year.

Counsel: Rate of savings we would see?

Egan: Not attempting to quantify this here, challenging to quantify, I think they could be, I have not attempted to do so.

Counsel: Producitivity and health care costs–other jurisdictions?

Egan: Relatively few jurisdictions have payroll tax, many have business tax, that would lead to higher business tax revenue.

Counsel: Impact of marriage as compared to domestic partnership?

Egan: More than domestic partners, More people would elect to be married than would elect to DP. So you’d have more people benefitting from those healthy behaviors.

Counsel: Health insurance?

Egan: Increase number of people who have health insurance, fewer uninsured.

Counsel: Basis?

Egan: If same sex marriage were legalized, more companies would extend benefits as married couples, would reduce number of unisured, number of people in same sex partnerships, they are not covered. If that number of people was reducted, less uninsured people in SF. Reduce burden on covering uninsured.

[Had a tech issue: Defendants are objecting to introduction of document. Said it wasn’t part of Egan’s expert testimony. They got a copy of the document Sunday evening. It did not exist when Egan did his earlier expert testimony statement.]

Counsel: Effect of letter that purports to be sent by national elevator industry [?? Not sure that’s right]. Greg Sass. Any information when he provided doc to you?

Egan: Nothing beyond the doc, said it might be important to consider in my testimony.

Counsel Had he previously given you information in course of helping prepare for testimony.

Walker: Admit for what value it has. National elevator industry benefit plan description. Connection to these proceedings a little uncertain but we’ll see.

Counsel: What is the import of this letter?

Egan: It’s my understanding that this doc details a change in policy by national elevator industry in how it treats same sex spouses. Used to be same sex spouses were not covered, bc spouse referred to person of opposite sex. Now offers benefits to any spouse.

Counsel: Domestic partners?

Egan: Nothing in this letter in response to domestic partnerships.

Counsel: Does this illustrate how companies will offer benes to same sex married couples but not to DPs.

Egan: If more individuals are covered by spouse’s employer bene plan. Reduce burden of SF to provide health care to uninsured. Difficult to quantify how many now in same sex relationship, unmarried, one partner is covered and one is not. Don’t know how many in that category.

Counsel: Potential pool of dollars affected?

Egan: $177M/year providing health care for uninsured.

Counsel: That would be reduced if more people had health insurance.

Egan: Correct.

Counsel: Other local govts?

Egan: This principle would work more broadly than for SF. Just noticed that National Elevator Industry is based in PA. Not just SF-centric thing, companies would provide benes across the country.

Counsel: Other health spending impacts. Relationship between spending on behavioral health services.

Egan: If marriage among same sex couples were legalized, city would see reduction in costs for behavioral and physical health services.

Counsel: Reduced discrimination against LGBT.

Egan: Prohibition against same sex couples form of discrimination, if that were removed, there would be over time lessening of discrimination that those individuals would experience in daily lives.

Counsel: Relationship between discrimination and health services?

Egan: Public health told me LGBT was disproportionately high. If their discrimination was lessened, that demand would be reduced. Hard to quantify. Don’t know amount that G&L indivs require of city’s behavior health services. Spend $2.5/year on specialized services for G&L indivs, but that does not include generalized services. $365M/ year on public health.

Counsel: other jurisdictions?

Egan: In proportion to their G&L population and the degree to which they dispropotionately use those services?

Counsel: Local school districts.

Egan; If marriage were legalized, increase in school district revenue and other jurisdictions in CA.

Egan: Discrimination against LGBT, reduced violence and intimidation of children based on sexual orientation.

Counsel: Number of students in CA schools bullied based on sexual orientation.

Egan: Nearly 109,000 school absences due to harassment due to actual or perceived sexual orientation. Attendance less than it would be, school district funding is less than it would be. Report states that it costs CA school districts $39.9M/year. Some of that would be felt in SF. Ultimate economic value of education is process of education. To extent that excessive absences reduce quality that children receive, economic consequences.

Counsel: To extent that school districts respond to bullying, school resources?

Egan: To extent they respond.

Counsel: other responses to discrimination as well.

[Plaintiffs try to introduce docs on hate crimes]

[Objection: Introduction of documents not relied on in his expert testimony.]

Walker: if topic was introduced in his report, appropriate to cover in testimony. But not to introduce these documents.

Counsel: Authenticated by state. 2008 hate crimes report released after Egan’s deposition had occurred.

[Egan is about 40-45. Short, conservative hair cut. Dark suit and tie. Fairly undemonstrative face.]

Defendant Counsel: Term hate crimes did not appear in his expert report. We have not had opportunity to prepare to discuss that with him.

Walker: did I misunderstand you?

Counsel: Responding to discrimination. We did not discuss hate crimes. May I discuss hate crimes report?

Walker: You didn’t cover subject in report or deposition, I think appropriate to move on.

Counsel: Impacts of wedding activity on SF budget.

Egan: If same sex marriage legalized, more same sex weddings, more sales tax revenues and hotel tax revenues.

Counsel: How many marriage licenses issued in 2008?

Egan: For same sex, 5100.

Counsel: Some issued to couples from out of state, other countries? Were weddings taking place? Effect on revenues.

Egan: Source of expenditure. Two effects. Spending on event, and associated consumer spending. Weddings can also draw in guests from out of town, Stay in hotels, generate business for hotel industry.

Counsel: has been lost since same sex marriages prohibited?

Egan: Yes it has. If prohibition raised, $21M/year on resident weddings. Non-residents who come, they will have event related spending, greatly reduced compared to residents, they will generate hotel business. Third set of new economic activity, out-of-town guests, that would come for resident weddings. Combo of event spending and the per diem spending of  visitors on sales tax spending.

Counsel: Magnitude.

Egan: Spending $35M. Hotel $2.5M. Tax, $1.7, $.9M hotel tax. Based on experience we saw in 2008 with same sex weddings. A short term projection. It’s reasonable to think that we will see similar level of activity, I wouldn’t expect that rate to continue forever. Even if every same sex couple who resides in SF were able to get married, still more couples forming, people moving to SF. There will always be marriages going on, some economic benefit.

Egan: Income tax benefit. If DOMA were ended.

Egan: $440 saved in income taxes a year. $74,000 in revenue for SF. Higher rate for state, bc they get more sales tax. If same sex couples got social security benefits, more to spend.

Counsel: Equal benefits ordinance. Human rights commission, wrt contracting.

Egan: In general, city’s policy is to regulate contracting in ways that do not promote discrimination.

Counsel: Goal of equal benefits ordinance.

Egan: Requiring contractors to city to provide benefits to same sex partner. $1 million investigation of discrimination.

Counsel: Did city incur costs defending equal benefits ordinance from legal challenges.

Counsel: Issue of contracting cost. Other than equal benefits ordinance, combatting discrimination and SF’s contracting costs.

Egan: If same sex marriage, reduced contracting costs. More companies would extend benes to same sex couples who were married. Lead companies to perceive lower compliance cost to EBO. Since already providing benes to married couples. If that were the case, some companies not eligible deterred from bidding would no longer experience taht deterrant. Expanded competition.

Counsel: Reduced pool of people competing for city’s business.

Egan: some contractors not eligible or deterred may be lower bidder. Difficult to know what bids of those deterred from bidding would be. More competitors, more price pressure.

Counsel: potential savings.

Egan: Contracting costs, over $2B/year. Even small reduction in cost  could result in significant savings. 1% reduction in costs would be$ 21M annual figure.

Counsel: Assume no further discrimination, Board repeals EBO, what would contracting cost be from EBO.

Egan: None.

[Walker’s got a cheesy grin for some reason.]

Counsel: [Shows summary of costs] Quantifiable and non-quantifiable.

Egan: Importance of quantifiable. By usual methods we would do in office of economic analysis. Prop 8 had negative impact. Losing more than $10M/year. $2.8 in hotel revenues, not getting from same sex marriage.

Counsel: Total level that must occur to be material. Not revenue effect. $35M for weddings, is that material?

Egan: Yes, that exceeds $10M. Most impacts are not quantifiable. But wouldn’t want to minimize impact in long term. Long term advantages of marriage as institution. Long term costs of behaviors that weaken productivity in labor force. Excessive reliance on health services. These are impacts that are hard to quantify, but can be extremely powerful.

Defense Counsel for Cross

Peter Patterson (DC): Testified that SF incurs costs in forms of forgone revenues. Same sex couples not getting married. New consumer spending. You have not attempted to quantify long term. Not attempted to quantify DPs on SF.

Egan: Correct.

Patterson: Aware if G&L may have religious or other wedding celebrations.

Egan: Not aware of, I don’t know.

Patterson: Reasonable to assume? Permitted to have religious wedding ceremonies.

Egan: that’s reasonable.

Patterson: You have not accounted for any economic impact generated by those.

Egan: I don’t have a count of them, whereas I have a count of legal marriages.

Patterson: If they’ve had such a religious ceremony, would they have another.

Patterson: Your report assumes that every couple couple that gets married would have celebration. Assumes each has celebration.

Egan: No, it’s based on average, it doesn’t assume everyone has one.

Patterson: You’ve based on 2008 period with marriage. Assumed same number of same sex couples would get married, similar rate. You recognize rate was partially due to pent up demand for same sex marriage.

Egan: A number of couples that wanted to be married quickly.

Patterson: Rate that occurred during that time frame. Inflated.

Egan: yes, that’s right.

Patterson: You believe that pent up demand not satisfied.

Egan: I’m simply assuming that there would be the same rate of marriage. To extent that that includes pent up demand, that is correct.

Patterson: based on your opinion living in city, observing pent up demand among same sex couples.

Egan: Assumed reasonable to assume you’d see same level of activity.

Patterson: I believe you testified a little differently at deposition. [Reads line with pent up demand]

Egan: Trying to reconstruct the context.

Patterson: Your basis for assuming that pent up demand not satisfied, there were pending appointments scheduled after November 2008. [Exhibit summary of marriage license appointments, and those issued]

Patterson: from June 2008 to June 30 2008. How many marriage license appointments.

Egan; 1080. 897, 836.

Walker: I think we can read these numbers, let’s go to the question.

Patterson: November 36.

Walker: Are you asking the witness whether he sees the print?

Egan: This is as of Nov 24. I don’t know how many people canceled appointment between November 5 and November 24.

Patterson: Doesn’t show pent up demand.

Egan: if you’re asking me to believe that there was pent up demand from June but not after November. I would say that this was not an indicator of pent up demand. The fact that anyone had appointment after November 5. That’s not exhaustive.

Patterson: You distinguished pent up and regular demand.

Egan: Pent up demand is not a term I used in my analysis. I simply said we should expect a similar level.

Patterson: as evidence that rate would continue you gave pending appointments. This does not support that this shows pent up demand.

Egan: it does not if you believed that this represents 100% of pent up demand. If you wanted to get married after November 4, it’s not clear you would make an appointment. You wouldn’t think that every couple would make an appointment that wouldn’t happen.

[This is completely disingenuous. Patterson is saying, “well, since there were no people asking to get married when they knew they couldn’t, that is proof that no one wants to get married.”]

Egan: Marriage licenses when it’s legal is a fairly good judge of demand. Licenses when it’s not legal is not a fair judgment of demand.

Egan: I don’t have basis for pent up demand, or steady state.

Patterson: you can’t say that it’d be less than 10 or 20 years.

Egan: that’s correct.

Egan: Report prepared in 2008, estimate 3-year impact of legalizing same sex marriage.

Patterson: Your office typically does not do state wide. You believe that Board of Supervisors member wanted to know if revenues would offset costs.

Egan: Believe request was whether add additional resources to county clerk.

Patterson: they thought there might be additional staffing requirements.

Egan: Correct.

Patterson: resident weddings.

Egan: Based on experience of MA, 28% of SF’s same sex couples, and 9% in 2009-10, a 67% drop.

Patterson: I’m interesting 67% drop. In your opinion you have not factored in any drop. You’ve said that rate obtained in 2008, would last for several years.

Egan: I have not attempted to quantify that drop.

Patterson: for this report, you did project a drop.

Walker: Perhaps you can have the witness explain how to read this.

Patterson: an entry for each marriage that took place. 2 documents, one is confidential weddings, one is weddings on public record. Information in each, weddings broken down between SF resident, SF resident same sex, non SF same sex, opposite sex couples.

Egan: Have to refresh about ordering.

Egan: Summary of reports on numbers of weddings, opposite and same sex marriage, residency of partner.

Patterson: SF residents, same sex marriages. June to November 2331 SF resident marriages. In your calculations based on dividing the activity that took place by .38 to arrive at annualized figures.

Egan: Period during which it was legal represents 38% of 2008.

Patterson: 6134 marriages annualized. You’ve said marriages would continue at this rate.

Egan: I can’t attach a number to it. More than one.

Patterson: After two years, using your methodology, in addition to the 2331, there would be 6134 times two.

Egan: After two years of same sex marriage, 14,599 SF resident same sex marriages.

Egan: table from US census bureau’s community survey.

Moved into evidence.

Patterson: How many male couple households estimates there are in SF. Unmarried partnered households.

Egan: 7033, 25XX

Patterson: 9624 same sex couples living in SF. You think it’s reasonable to assume there would be 14,599.

Egan: rate of migration, don’t have necessary information to make long term calculation.

Patterson: compare with population in SF.

[This is totally bogus. Patterson is using census data about same sex couple households to argue about how many marriages to expect. But the census data shows only the same sex couple households. That is, he’s assuming that only people who already live together would get married.]

Patterson: Your project that over 100% as counted by American community survey.

Egan: Census bureau doesn’t count over two year period.

Patteson: Williams uses census bureau, what percentage got married during first three years. Same methodology you used.

Egan: Which methodology are you referring to?

Patterson: How many marriages. Using US community estimates. Figure out percentage of same sex couples. Is that what Williams Institute did, and what you did.

Egan: Williams, same sex, estimate total number. You have extrapolated to produce a two year.

Patterson: 44% got married. Your projection assume over 100% of SF’s same sex couples.

Egan: I don’t believe that is a correct measure of potential weddings.

Patterson: not asking if correct anlaysis, I’m asking if it is as a result of that analysis. You’ve claimed that revenue will be generated from marriages in form of hotel tax revenues, sales tax revenues. Hotel tax revenues, non-resident guests travel to SF to attend weddings.

Egan: As well as when non-resident travel to SF to get married.

Patterson: Sales tax generated by per diem spending. Sales tax also by retail expenditures.

Patterson: You assume out of town guests will attend. You haven’t attempted to calculate how many did in 2008. You just picked a number.

Egan: We assumed only 10% of wedding guests would come from out of town.

Patterson: WRT wedding expenditures. You have not studied spending of same sex couples on their weddings.

Egan: Relied on Williams Institute report for that assumption.

Egan: 25% of what opposite sex spending couples spend on weddings.

Patterson: you haven’t made similar assumption, you have said 100% of expenditures.

Egan: technically I’m saying that 25% is the real revenue. Reflective of the fact that same sex weddings spend less.

[Egan at this point has raised his eyebrowns]

Egan: I believe I misunderstood how Williams Institute made that calculation.

Patterson: Out of state. 2821, non-resident same sex weddings. Some from out of SF, some out of state, different countries. You know that since November 4, 2008, any additional jurisdictions.

Egan: Don’t recall details on that now.

Walker; Date?

Patterson: November 4, 2008. I’ll represent to you there are a number of other jurisdictions. MA had allowed out of state to get married. Now four other jurisdictions permit same sex couples to be married. Could those have an impact on out of state couples that come to CA to get married.

Egan; Among locations from which people travel to SF to get married. In some cases from jurisdictions from which they could get married. SF is tourism destination. That would probably continue.

Patterson: Your report assumes that such changes would have no effect.

Egan; There are many other potential changes I don’t consider. THere may be more couples wanting to get married. It’s a fairly simple methodology.

Patterson: If same sex marriage legal in 50 states. Would people coming to SF decrease?

Egan: I’m not sure that would necessarily reduce number. it depends on number wanting to get married across US. I don’t know that that’s a fixed number.

Patterson: You have not taken that into account.

Patterson: You have not assumed year to year decrease in rate of same sex couples getting married.

Egan: I was following methodology of Williams Institute as closely as I could. Reason I didn’t follow it for this report was that that substantially undercounted what we actually had. I thought it more useful to extrapolate out SF.

Patterson: Same sex marriage not legal for multi-year period of time. Not reason to deviate from year to year.

Egan: Williams Institute report.

15 minute break. Will start a new thread afterwards.

Cooper: Clarification. Court was asking for withdrawal of this case from recording program.

Walker: no, that’s not been altered.

Cooper: We have put in a request to court, asking that recording be halted. We believe this would require reporting to be halted.

Walker: I don’t believe so. Local rule permits the recording for purposes of taking the recording for use in chambers. That is customarily done when we have these overflow courtrooms. I think it would be quite helpful for me to have that recording. That’s the purpose for which recording to be made going forward. Not for purposes of public broadcasting or televising. Taking of photographs or recording for those purposes. Recording is not being made for those purposes.