Gay Marriage ban backer to be hostile witness (Read the comments about our 'defender')

[WillParkinson]

Attorney David Thompson spent hours trying to neutralize Segura’s statements. He said that multiple legislative victories in California, the steady increase in states legalizing same-sex marriage listed and to show that gays enjoy substantial political support at the highest levels of .

(Steady increase of states legalizing same-sex marriage? Wow. How about the steady increase of states banning it or putting our lives to a vote?)

Thompson listed the gay rights movement’s progress in getting same-sex marriage legalized in a handful of states and its multiple legislative victories in California, including the recent selection of John Perez, a gay man, as speaker of the California Assembly, shows that gays have substantial political support.

Segura replied that Perez’ ascension to the speakership was based on factors other than his sexual orientation.

Thompson also played a recording of President Barack Obama telling a national gay rights group in October, “I’m here with ya” in fighting “for progress in our capital and across America.

“Does President Obama count as an ally to the gay and lesbian community?” he asked.

“I think President Obama is perhaps the best illustration of an ally who cannot be counted upon, an ally whose rhetoric far exceeds his actions,” Segura said.

http://www.365gay.com/news/gay-marriage-ban-backer-to-be-hostile-witness/

[HillWilliam]

1. I've been following

NCLRights and Chris Stoll's tweets from the courtroom. Interesting stuff. The proponents have been attempting to fling all kinds of pasta to the wall to see if anything will stick. The funny thing about truth and proven facts: they have a liberal bias. When the proponents played the recording, the response came back (on the order of) yeah, he said a lot of pretty words, but really hasn't done anything. The proponents also brought up Feinstein and Pelosi. It was noted and recorded that they also have at best been fairweather friends.

In short, we've been given the appearance of political power with none of positive result.

[TheWraith]

2. "fling all kinds of pasta to the wall to see if anything will stick"

Reading the coverage, it struck me that the anti-P8 side seemed to be doing that too, which surprised me. If I were them I'd be making a simple two-pronged argument and sticking to it: One, discrimination against gays is religiously based, and thus should not affect the government based on first amendment separation of church and state. Second, Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause saying that no state can deny equal protection of the law, or abridge someone's rights. I suppose the lawyers know what they're doing, but it seems strange to me.

[Smashcut]

3. The definition of chutzpa

How can they use other victories for gay rights, which were won after years of opposition to bigots just like them, to show that their own discriminatory measure is not based on bigotry? It's disgusting.

[HillWilliam]

4. That was another wearing day of testimony

It seems that Defense's only defense at this point (especially after yesterday's five-hour marathon repetition of the same line of questioning of Dr Herek) is to attempt to wear down witnesses for the plaintiffs. I must say, council for the plaintiffs have picked witnesses who aren't intimidated by bullshit artists.

From what I've seen, at NO point have defense presented the least shred of evidence to counter the plaintiff's claim that prop H8 was conceived, campaigned for, and succeeded on FUD and bigotry alone. In short, they're doing a really good job of proving the plaintiff's case for them

Will the judge opine that way? If he opines on the evidence thus far there couldn't be any question. But there's no telling until the rest of the case proceeds and he writes his opinion. Even if we win, there's still no way of guessing how much or how far the decision will reach.

Hope for the best, expect the worst, take what comes, and always work for better.