LGBT POV

As the first week of Perry v. Schwarzenegger came to a close yesterday evening, counsel from both sides spoke at a press conference at the federal courthouse.

Plaintiff’s attorney Ted Boutrous said that he was confident that expert witness Professor Lamb had successfully proven that children raised by same-sex couples experience no difference in outcomes compared to those raised by different-sex couples. “This canard keeps coming up,” he said.

Boutrous noted that will the plaintiff’s side covered over 100 reports supporting their claims, the defense presented only one (Mike Hatfield’s “21 Reasons Why Gender Matters”). Boutrous reminded us that Yes on 8 Chairman Ron Prentice cited Hatfield’s document in his messaging for the campaign, including the much-disputed claim that kids raised by lesbians are at risk of sexual abuse.

Boutrous estimated that the plaintiffs side may be finished with their case by next Wednesday. Their remaining witnesses include Lee Badgett, Professor of Economics at University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Research Director at the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy; Ryan Kendall, a gay man who will testify about his experience with “conversion therapy” in his youth; Prop 8 proponent William Tam, whose deposition was discussed on Wednesday; and Jerry Sanders, the Republican Mayor of San Diego and former Police Chief who became an empassioned supporter of marriage equality because of his lesbian daughter.

Attorney for the Defense Andrew Pugno

Prop 8 Defense Attorney Andrew Pugno characterized this week as providing “very good testimony,” for the defense. He objected to the testimony of individuals who weren’t expert witnesses (such as Helen Zia), reasoning that “we’re not going to put all 36 million Californians to describe their opinions about Prop 8.” Further, he characterized Zia’s comments as matters that wouldn’t cease if Prop 8 was overturned, saying that the harms noted in her testimony were related to the beliefs of “society as a whole.”

This comment struck me as strange, not only because we’ve heard so much testimony showing a causal relationship FROM the marriage ban TO societal oppression of LGBT people. Further, Zia wasn’t simply presenting her “opinion”; she was accounting stories about the how her life was impacted by having access to civil marriage. As NCLR’s Shannon Minter notes on Pam’s House Blend:

“Zia testified that once they married, both of their families finally recognized them as part of the family, rather than, for example, referring to Lia as “Helen’s friend.” She described the moving scene just a few months ago when the couple visited Lia’s father, who has since passed away, in hospice. The hospice staff asked, “Are these your daughters?” and he replied proudly, “No, this is my daughter, and this is my favorite daughter-in-law.”

“Stories like Helen Zia’s make it impossible to ignore the pain that anti-LGBT bigotry, exacerbated by legal inequality, causes every member of our community. It’s difficult to listen to these stories and be reminded of the hurt and shame that we often try to suppress. But Zia’s story also carries in it the seeds of hope – the genuine joy that wells up when LGBT people experience true acceptance. Every person deserves that feeling of acceptance and support. That is what this case is fighting for.”

When asked more broadly about where things stood 5 days into the trial, Pugno first remarked that “[t]hings are going quite well,” yet then described it further as a “tough week,” where his team was “playing defense” and was “outgunned” and “outnumbered.”

Other media asked Pugno about exactly how many witnesses the defense team would call. Pugno demurred. When questioned more about exactly why so many witnesses for the defense were dropping out of the trial, Pugno said that they had a very real concern about being targeted for retaliation, calling it a “very real and substantiated fear.” He said the defense team was compelled to withdraw more witnesses when the plaintiffs insisted on keeping the cameras running (following the SCOTUS decision to bar broadcast of the video).

Pugno’s media handler cut the conference short, just as a reporter from FireDogLake began a question. The reporter persisted, asking Pugno if the remaining witnesses were not concerned about such retaliation. Pugno, packing up, brusquely responded that he hadn’t spoken to his witnesses about that.  Hmmm…

I’m truly lucky to have been able to attend part of the trial and receive the special access afforded to media. I appreciate the many “thank yous” I’ve received for our coverage, (especially the one from the nice silver-haired lesbian in the federal building elevator who subsequently tipped me off to some password-free wifi on the 15th floor).

When the television broadcast was blocked, this job felt far more like a duty to my communit(ies); these proceedings are vital, not just in our efforts to achieve marriage equality, but in the greater movement to reduce and dismiss homophobia and ignorance of LGBT people.  I’ll close with some thoughts to that effect from the New York Times editorial on the SCOTUS camera decision:

“The trial … could have been a moment for the entire nation to witness a calm, deliberative debate on a vitally important issue in the era of instant communications. Instead, the United States Supreme Court made it a sad example of the quashing of public discourse by blocking the televising of the nonjury trial. … The courtroom battle now unfolding bears close watching, and the Supreme Court should not stand in the way of Americans viewing it and reaching educated judgments.”