Prop 8

I am so glad Ted Olson is on our side of this case. Also, this hearing is seriously hurting my productivity level today. (I'm currently watching the Prop 8 hearing live-stream through C-Span online).

Absurd is the Word

And then I read another...

Beyond some of his interesting opinions about adjustment of children raised by homosexual couples, it is noteworthy that Dr. Lamb based his expert testimony solely on research documents completed by others, as he has never completed a single study of his own on the subject. Despite being offered as an expert in this case, he is not actually a clinical psychologist. He has never treated children raised by gay couples. In fact he has never treated a patient at all. He’s never interviewed a single child raised by gay men or lesbians, and his last interview of any child was more than 20 years ago.

This time...being an expert does not mean you have to be a clinical psychologist. He was introduced as a developmental psychologist. Developmental psychologists are experts in, surprise surprise, the development of children. His testimony on the development of children in heterosexual and homosexual households is based on that expertise. Treating children (or patients 'at all') is not required in order to have expertise in development. Additionally, perhaps children of gay couples don't need "treatment." :) I can't speak to this witness's level of expertise because I don't have enough information, but saying he's not an expert because he hasn't treated children and isn't a clinical psychologist is again, absurd.

More Prop 8

I've been trying to stay "balanced" in the information that I get about the Prop 8 trial, so I'm reading blogs on a daily basis summarizing the day - from each side. I'm focusing mostly on the Protect Marriage blog and the Trial Tracker created by the Courage Campaign.

A post today on Protect Marriage's blog frustrated me so much, I wanted to respond. But of course, they have closed comments on the blog. So instead I will just comment here. You can read the full post from the link above, but the part that gets me the most is where they mock the idea that homosexuality deserves to be treated by the courts as a suspect class.

Testimony this afternoon from yet another academician and anti-Prop 8 donor stated homosexuals have a higher rate of mental disorders than the general population due to the stress caused by supposed stigmatization of being gay (though he admitted that his studies of social and minority stress is at odds with several other studies on the issue). This stress, presumably, justifies designating gays and lesbians as a suspect class entitled to special legal protections that make it easier for Judge Walker to issue a ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. By that reasoning, I couldn’t help but think of other groups of people who might feel stress over social stigmatization. Are obese people a special legal class? Stutterers? Exceptionally tall people? If an exceptionally tall, stuttering, obese gay couple was really stressed out over the passage of Prop 8, does that increase the chances that the measure is unconstitutional?

No. The answer to the absurd question is no. How pathetic is this guy that he is stooping to these comments that dumb people will just simply believe. Sorry Counselor, I'm not sure what law school you went to, but since Prop 8 has nothing to do with obesity, height, or speech, then those features would not impact the constitutionality of that measure. But let's use your own example. Let's say there were a measure that denied obese people the right to marry. I mean, come on - let's protect our children from learning poor eating and exercise habits that would make them obese as well. We wouldn't want our children to think that marriage between obese individuals was ok or else they might decide it's ok to become obese themselves, and we know all the negative health and emotional consequences of obesity. Doesn't the bible also condemn gluttony? Would you say that measure was constitutional? Because these are the same arguments being made about gay marriage. Take a step back and just see how absurd it is.

Prop 8 Trial

From this article: Tam is executive director of Traditional Family Coalition, a group of Bay Area Asian and Hispanic churches. He says his group is worried that legalizing same-sex marriage would open the door to all kinds of marriages.

"What about three people, why can't that be legalized. What about intergenerational marriages, why that cannot be legalized. Aren't they discriminating those then?" said Tam.

Um, intergenerational marriages? I thought that was legal... Now I'm just confused. But maybe that's the tactic. Confuse me enough that I just agree with him?

Marriage

We never put interracial heterosexual marriage to popular vote. Hell, we never put same race heterosexual marriage to popular vote. We never put civil rights laws to popular vote. Can you imagine what the Mississippi vote on that would have been like?

So why this? Why is gay marriage subject to popular vote? Note: this is semi-rhetorical. Obviously there are legal reasons that it is subject to popular vote, but it just seems...ugh. What ever happened to democracy protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority?

I'm sad for Maine. And for the 30 other states that have already put gay marriage to popular vote and lost... I'm sorry there is so much hate in the world.

Gay Marriage

Anyone who knows me in "real life" knows that I am very passionate about gay rights. This video struck a chord with me. Apparently it's a few years old, but I missed it somehow.