Okay, this is ridiculous.

[rymenhild]

I was just spamming Twitter with enormous quantities of chat about the Prop. 8 closing arguments liveblog. Short form: Cooper, lawyer for the anti-gay-marriage side, just accused gay people of causing ... single parenthood and adultery. But Judge Walker's calling Cooper on his nonsense.

Anyway, I obviously can't continue to clog everyone's Twitter feed without being obnoxious. Therefore, I declare an open post for Prop. 8 closing arguments discussion. Talk to me, folks!

Here is the liveblog, at Pam's House Blend. There are other liveblogs and transcripts elsewhere.

Edit:
Firedoglake liveblog, part 1: Olson and Boies' closing arguments
Firedoglake liveblog, part 2: City of SF
Firedoglake liveblog, part 3: Cooper's closing arguments.

Boies' rebuttal hasn't happened yet.

Comments

[wakeupnew]

COOPER: Excuse me. I am starting to lose my voice.
JUDGE WALKER: Not a good idea.

hahahahahahaha

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

COOPER: So, Your Honor, the central thrust of the private was put forth in the ballot information itself.

I hope that's a transcription error, because if it's not it's ... really kind of dirty.

[wakeupnew]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

OMG HE DID THE "DAWN OF TIME" THING

COOPER: The marriage of a man and a woman
has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time.

COOPER IS SECRETLY WRITING A BAD UNDERGRADUATE ESSAY

Edit: Dear Mr. Cooper, Professor Lyon has something to say.

[gramarye1971]

*might be over here giggling hysterically right now*

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

*beams at you*

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

In related news, I bring you this comment from the Chronicle of Higher Education fora:

tenured_feminist: I wish I could be shocked at the thought of a faculty member taking six months to read 100 pages.

amnirov: It's also routine if the paper is an utter unsalvageable train wreck and you'd rather not deal with telling the student what should be obvious. Have you ever been in a discussion where the committee was concerned that the student was absolutely unpassable? That a thesis could not be even remotely considered for a degree? I remember once encountering a thesis where a student was basically arguing for the absolute eventuality of King Arthur returning to rule the UK. What the heck are you supposed to do with that other than keep taking 6 months to read 20 pages in the hopes that the student gives up?

dellaroux: Man up, tell the student you're Merlin, and that you eat Excaliburs for breakfast.

[wakeupnew]

Also: have Boies and Olson given their arguments yet, or are they yet to come?

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure. I'm trying to find an earlier blog report but haven't found one yet.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

They gave their first set of arguments and will rebut later. See newly added links to Firedoglake's liveblog transcripts above.

[mercuriazs.livejournal.com]

All I know about these proceedings is that David Blankenhorn was a witness and made an ass of himself.

It was like CHRISTMAS. *_____*

(I not only despise him, but wrote an anti-his-POV paper about the "real" purpose of marriage.)

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

I bet it is a fabulous paper, Merc.

[mercuriazs.livejournal.com]

I HATE THAT MAN SO MUCH.

If I want to educate myself, is PHB a good place to start? I realize I'm volunteering for EQCA at Pride this weekend and MAYBE I SHOULD KNOW SOMETHING.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

PHB is an excellent place to start, yes. EQCA also has many resources, although I have to tell you it utterly mishandled the Prop 8 campaign in the first place.

... wait, Pride isn't this weekend, it's next weekend, isn't it?

[mercuriazs.livejournal.com]

hahaha yes I meant next weekend.

I am genius!

ruh-roh mishandling. What happened?? is that a story for another time when I'm not demi-crashing your post?

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

There isn't that much of a story that I know personally, although there may be more I haven't heard. I think they just weren't scared enough of losing, and they didn't fight hard enough or strategize well enough. Prop 8 should never have passed, and it's EQCA's fault that things went wrong.

(There is no crashing! This post exists because it is a better place to chat than Twitter! Chat away!)

[mercuriazs.livejournal.com]

ewwww.

that makes me so sad.

I hope they learned their lesson, man.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Whoa, Merc, I have a present for you:

JUDGE WALKER (to Cooper): Mr. Blankenhorn, why does Mr. Blankenhorn's testimony be admitted? Does he meet the [transcript error] standards?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I submit to you that he does. I am -- by the way, I didn't understand your earlier ruling to be your ruling accepting him as an
expert to have been provisional. But the court has I think in his questions clarified that. But I really don't have anything to add to the submission we made when the motion in limine was before
you, or the voir dire took place, and the motion in limine. I would say, Your Honor, that under the Ninth Circuit standard for the qualification of an expert that Mr. Blankenhorn is amply qualified, I believe, amply qualified, I submit to you. His professional life for
20 years has been devoted to the standard of one subject, the subject of marriage, the subject of the potential -- and parenting structures, and the potential
for harm to marriage from a variety of social phenomena, including now same-sex marriage. He has written two books on this subject matter which have been the product of deep study and wide study. Those books have been received with respect by recognized experts, including doctor Lamb.

JUDGE WALKER: Were they peer reviewed?
MR. COOPER: The book?
JUDGE WALKER: Yes.
MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor.
JUDGE WALKER: Am I correct that the only peer review writing of Mr. Blankenhorn was not on the subject of this litigation?
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, as I say --
JUDGE WALKER: Okay. Fair enough.
MR. COOPER: I can't. But, Your Honor, I think the Ninth Circuit's standards for qualifying an expert are particularly
liberal, and I don't think they require -- they certainly don't insist upon that an expert's publications have been peer reviewed. That's an element, but it's not a mandatory one. So, Your Honor, I -- again, I didn't really come here prepared to particularly reargue that. But I do believe that the transcript provides all -- all that I have to say with respect to that issue.
JUDGE WALKER: All right. Well, if in the
cool light of the morning you want to submit anything further on that I will be happy to --
MR. COOPER: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate that.

[mercuriazs.livejournal.com]

*GLEE*

THAT'S RIGHT.

"GEE, DAVE, I'D LOVE TO PEER REVIEW YOUR ... BOOK. BUT I HAVE TO WALK MY DOG."
"YOU DON'T HAVE A DOG."
"YOU DON'T CITE ANY SOURCES."

[svalar-unnir.livejournal.com]

hahahahaha

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

JUDGE WALKER: And in this case marriage is a deeply rooted fundamental right. No doubt about that. Okay.
MR. COOPER: Your Honor.
JUDGE WALKER: And that, as Mr. Olson described this morning, is a right which extends essentially to all persons, whether they are capable of producing children, whether they are incarcerated, whether they are behind in their child support payments,
there really is no limitation except, as Mr. Olson pointed out, a gender limitation.
MR. COOPER: Well, Your Honor, and that gender limitation is -- is a definitional feature of the right to marry. That is clear from the court's repeated statement that the reason marriage is fundamental is
that it is fundamental to the existence and survival of the human race.
JUDGE WALKER: That it is -- because it is a gender-specific right.
MR. COOPER: That.
JUDGE WALKER: That's what you are saying.
MR. COOPER: Yes, I am. The right is --
JUDGE WALKER: Gender specific.
MR. COOPER: The right itself, the right to
marry is bound up with and proceeds from the fundamental nature and its fundamental purpose relating to procreation and the existence and survival of the human
race. So it is itself by definition the right of a plan to marry a woman and vice versa. That is the right.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

That must be a transcription error, it must be the "right of a man to marry a woman". But... wow. Wow. Wow. That whole set of claims FAILS.

[svalar-unnir.livejournal.com]

And people wonder why we need to keep teaching history. Gah. Modern marriage arose out of a particular set of social/historical/economic/religious circumstances (which I know you know, I am just ranting because this is one of those issues that drives me up a wall). MR. COOPER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY HE IS REFERENCING.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Not in the slightest. Cooper represents a strand of twenty-first century American Protestant thought that assumes that cultural values have been static since the day Jesus first went to his local white clapboard church somewhere in the Midwest, and people are only now beginning to tamper with universal values.

I stand by my claim that Cooper's just like a poor undergraduate writer. I am intensely reminded of the student who wrote, "Saint Augustine [of Hippo] took Christ as his personal Lord and Savior."

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

...Did Cooper REALLY just quote Rabbi Michael Lerner on same-sex marriage? Really? Really?

Rabbi Michael Lerner?

Dude, he is not on your side.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Finally, Cooper is out. Maybe I should *shudder* WORK ON MY CONFERENCE PAPER during the break.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Meanwhile, Olson's rebuttal, on the subject of procreation as a part of marriage:

Now, it is important to say another word or two about procreation and whether it's the state's interest. I mentioned this before but I want to emphasize it. If it's the state's interest in procreation that an mates the right to marriage what if the state changes its mind? There have been cultures throughout the world that have decided we have had too much procreation. We have too big a population. What if the State of California decided 10 years from now we don't want so many people in California? Would they be able then -- I don't think anyone would agree that the
state could then cut off the right to marriage because there is an individual right of privacy, liberty, association, and that's what it is.

[rachel2205.livejournal.com]

Hey! Add me on twitter if you like - kindofpalejewel :)

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

I don't use Twitter often, but sure. :)

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

Short form: Cooper, lawyer for the anti-gay-marriage side, just accused gay people of causing ... single parenthood and adultery. But Judge Walker's calling Cooper on his nonsense.

Since adultery is by definition an action taken by someone who is married, how can gay people have anything to do with it if they're not allowed to marry?

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

I can't find an exact transcript, as the stream I was reading this afternoon came down and the other links I can see are less precise. The fact that I can't track down the exact wording I remember means it's possible I was misreading or have misremembered.

However, the general idea I recall, insofar as it made any sense at all, is that gay people want to dilute the institution of marriage. If same-sex marriage is legalized, marriage will no longer be as strong as it was in the past, and therefore more heterosexuals will have illicit sex. That's because they won't respect the bond of marriage as much as they might if marriage is limited to its "traditional" one man-one woman configuration.

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

Eh. If I were of a mind to work within that sort of dream logic, I would answer and that heterosexuals have already ruined heterosexual marriage, and we might as well give homosexuals a shot on the grounds that they can't possibly do a worse job.