[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network
Prop 8. marriage equality

The Prop 8 Fight Isn't About YouTube

by: Brian Leubitz

Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 10:51:24 AM PST

Cross posted from the Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

Over the weekend, the Matier and Ross column in the San Francisco Chronicle "outed" Judge Vaughn Walker.  As I pointed out then here at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, Andy Pugno's response was muted. A mere suggestions of bias without a full accusation.

We are not going to say anything about that," Pugno said. ... "In many ways, the sponsors of Prop. 8 have been put at significant disadvantage throughout the case. Regardless of the reason for it."(SF Chronicle)

But, Andy Pugno had no reason to make the full-throated accusation. After all, his audience now is a more subdued one made up of judges. And, he doesn't need to rile up the base, after all, that's what the National Organization for Against Marriage (NOM) is for.  And boy, do they have a doozy on their hands here.  They hit all the points in a letter they sent out to their email list:

The letter, from NOM's Executive Director Brian Brown, reads pretty much the way you'd expect from NOM. There's Pugno's "we don't know if it's true, but he's really mean" line, but they quickly get to the red meat "activist" line:

We have no idea whether the report is true or not. But  we do know one really big important fact about Judge Walker: He's been  an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more  akin to an activist than a neutral referee. That's no secret at all.

I'll forgive Mr. Brown for missing my earlier post on what being a judge really means. While it sounds cute to say "neutral referee" or that they are "calling the balls and strikes," being a judge does require some judgment. It requires analysis that will vary from judge to judge. But don't worry, there's more to be horrified over:

But the most egregious, and damaging, of all of Judge  Walker's rulings was his determination to violate federal rules to  broadcast his show trial worldwide. The US Supreme Court eventually  blocked Walker's efforts (and rapped his biased knuckles sharply!)  finding that he improperly changed the rules "at the eleventh hour" in  violation of federal law. (Unfortunately, however, but by the time the  Supreme Court issued a permanent stay two days into trial, the  supporters of Prop 8 had already lost two-thirds of their expert  witnesses who feared retaliation from the publicity).

This is really the heart of where the pro-Prop 8 people are going with this.  It's all about the YouTube. Their witnesses were so scared of appearing on YouTube that they couldn't possibly testify. Terrified, I tell you! But, when it comes down to it, what they were scared of was cross-examination. After seeing David Boies destroy both witnesses who did agree to hop on the stand, you can't blame them. Take LSU Professor Loren Marks. He doesn't seem so shy to appear on YouTube. Here's one of his appearances on the video sharing site.

You can go through their full original witness list here, and you won't find many wallflowers. You have Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young who together wrote a very public report in Canada about how society is now holding down men. Seriously, they wrote a book called Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men. And they've had no problem in running around to every possible open mic, camera, or group of accumulated sexists waiting to get the good news that they can go back to fighting for the rights of the downtrodden male gender.

And if you'd like, you can see clips from depositions of these folks on YouTube right now.  If you watch those videos, you'll see that the reason that they were pulled from the witness has less to do with YouTube, and more to do with the testimony that they were prepared to give.

But this isn't really about the facts, is it? It's not about Judge Walker, and his sexuality. After all, you certainly didn't hear any complaints from either side about Ron George being straight.  No, this is about NOM, and ProtectMarriage, and their ilk trying to do everything they can to play the public against the courts. They are setting this up for the next round. Oh, and trying to raise a few bucks along the road.

See the flip to read the full letter.

There's More... :: (0 Comments, 621 words in story)

Prop 8 Voting Patterns Analyzed

by: Brian Leubitz

Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 10:22:51 AM PST

And, if you've been paying attention, they'll seem quite familiar.  If you have been sucked in by the media's "pit the blacks against the gays" strategy, well, I guess you're in for a surprise.  In a study by two New York political science professors, race ends up way down the list on correlation with yes votes.  The report is highlighted by equalitygiving.org and the full PDF is here. Here they are in order, according to Profs. Egan and Sherrill, summarized at equalitygiving:

   *  The two most important characteristics determining the vote were party identification and ideology.  Those self describing as Democrats or Liberals, overwhelmingly opposed Prop 8. Those self describing as Republicans or Conservatives, overwhelmingly supported California Proposition 8.

   * The third most important characteristic determining the vote was religiosity. Those attending religious services every week, supported Prop 8 by 70% while those attending once a month opposed it by 52% and those hardly ever attending opposed it by 70%.

   * The fourth most important characteristic determining the vote was age. All the ages groups opposed Prop 8, except for those 65+ who supported it by 67%.      As importantly, when compared to another marriage initiative in California in 2000 (the Knight initiative), all age groups increased their support of same sex marriage equality in 2008---except for those 65 years of age or older.

Race, it turns out, was far from determinative.  The votes of African-Americans and Latinos was described better by using the variable of religiosity.  That is, minorities who attended church regularly were far more likely to vote yes than an unreligious member of the same community.

I think we can definitively put to bed the argument that any one group caused our defeat.  Well, save the group of voters over 65. As those voters get gradually replaced by younger voters, our odds of defeating such an amendment grow. If you are a statistics nerd, I highly recommend the full PDF here.  The analysis is quite, well, mathy.

Discuss :: (13 Comments)
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox