Tuesday may not have been the best day for progressive causes, but thankfully, the serpentine slog of health care reform through the Congress isn't the only prominent issue concerning the movement. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal court trial to determine the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, resumed Tuesday after a 3-day weekend. And unlike certain events in Massachusetts over the past week, momentum is on the side of the good guys, as a very strong first week of testimony was followed up by a slough of favorable coverage in the weekend editorial pages and even more incisive testimony on Tuesday--by a conservative politician, no less.
Courtesy of the Equal Rights Foundation, here's what's on tap today:
Taking the stand [today] will be:
- Ryan Kendall, a gay man who will testify about the "conversation therapy" he underwent in his youth and how he has been affected by discrimination
-Gary M. Segura, Ph.D,Professor of American Politics in the Department of Political Science at Stanford University. He will testify about the relative political power of gays and lesbians as a class of citizens, and their level of political vulnerability.
This week's testimony commenced along the lines outlined previously: plaintiffs are seeking to demonstrate that a) substantial harm has been caused by proposition 8, and b) that animus toward the LGBT community is the only reason behind the sponsorship and passage of Proposition 8.
Perhaps the most compelling of Tuesday's examinations was provided by conservative Republican mayor of San Diego Jerry Sanders, who explained his change of heart when he decided not to veto a City Council resolution supporting an amicus brief against Proposition 8. At the time, Mayor Sanders held an emotional press conference to reveal his decision, and explained his feelings under examination from San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera:
Herrera: Did you take a position in your first campaign on marriage equality?
Sanders: I took a position that domestic partnership was a fair alternative. I took the position because San Diego was in a tough spot. I thought civil unions were fair.
H: Did you change your position?
S: I changed my position in September 2007. The city council passed a resolution on behalf of the City of San Diego to file an amicus on behalf of marriage equality in San Francisco’s marriage case.
...
H: What convinced you to sign the resolution?
S: I struggled for a long time since I took the position. But the night before that video, I invited some LGBT friends over to tell them I was going to veto. I was shocked at the hurt that they showed when I told them. One friend said that we interact with you as a family. They felt that their children deserved married parents. I could see the harm that I would do with the veto. This was a night not about politics, but about the depth of their emotions. That created part of the emotion in the video. I realized how much it hurt for them.
I also think it is in the interest of governing. I know how easy it is to discriminate. I felt very strongly that we treat everybody equally. We went to every community and told them we wanted to interact fairly. It is hard for people to talk about marriage that isn’t recognized. If the government tolerates discrimination, then the public becomes more accepting. Discrimination takes the form of violence.
But things got especially interesting upon cross-examination. Keep in mind that the main focus of the defense is on proving that there are compelling reasons to disallow gay marriage outside of prejudice and discrimination. Mayor Sanders handled this brilliantly:
R: You supported civil unions.
S; Yes, I did. I thought it was a reasonable alternative. I didn’t think I felt hatred. In retrospect, it was clouded with prejudice. I thought civil unions were a fair alternative.
R: DO you believe that some people can support civil unions over same-sex marriage without prejudice and animus?
S: Well, I think that people can lack hatred, but it is probably grounded in prejudice. I’m saying that the opinion is probably grounded in prejudice.
R: A big part of your base favored civil unions over same-sex marriage.
S: Yes
R: Sometimes based on religion?
S: Yes, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t based upon prejudice. They don’t mean hatred.
R: Mr Blakenhorn argues in a paper that the purpose of marriage was that children would be raised by those whose sexual union brought them into the world.
S: yes, I saw that. But that still is based upon prejudice. I was a cop for 26 years, and some biological parents aren’t the best situation/
R: Would you believe that some people voted for the reasons of history?
S: Yes, but that would be grounded in prejudice.
R: Some people would vote for Prop 8 because marriage should be tied to procreation?
S: Yes, but that would be grounded in prejudice.
R: Many people voted for or against Prop 8 for many different reasons.
S: Yes. I believe that these were grounded in prejudice.
[h/t to Brian Leubitz of Calitics for the liveblog at the Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker]
This is the plaintiff argument in a nutshell: that Proposition 8 did substantial harm and that the only reasons to support it are prejudicial, even among those who do not have outright hatred for the LGBT community. And nobody has presented it better so far than Mayor Sanders of San Diego.
While it is not easy to predict what the SCOTUS may do once this case is in their hands, there is definite cause for optimism based on the strength of plaintiff testimony and the positive media coverage our side has been receiving. But keep in mind that so far we have only heard witnesses from the plaintiff; things might get more dicey when the defense gets to call the shots.
For the latest updates: