AP writer Lisa Leff reports on Mayor Jerry Sanders’ testimony in the Prop 8 trial in the mayor’s hometown newspaper, The San Diego Union-Tribune:
The mayor of San Diego testified Tuesday that his views on same-sex marriage evolved after he learned one of his daughters was a lesbian.
Mayor Jerry Sanders took the witness stand on behalf of two same-sex couples suing to overturn Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved gay marriage ban.
“I had been prejudiced,” he said. “I was saying one group of people did not deserve the same respect, did not deserve the same symbolism of marriage, and I was saying their marriages were less important than those of heterosexuals.”
During Sanders’ testimony this morning, the video of the Republican mayor’s reversal of his position on marriage equality was played.
During an emotion-laden press conference in 2007, Sanders revealed that several members of his staff and his daughter, Lisa, are gay. Said the Mayor, “In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife, Rana.”
When San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera asked Sanders why he was so emotional in the video, Sanders replied, “I felt I came very close to making a bad decision. I came very close to showing the prejudice I obviously had toward my daughter to my staff and to the people of San Diego.”
“If government tolerates discrimination against anyone it is very easy for citizens to do the same thing,” said Sanders.
Pro-Prop 8 attorney Brian Raum seemed intent on convincing Sanders that his earlier position in support of civil unions was not a hostile one and didn’t communicate hatred toward the LGBT community — the crux of the trial.
Sanders replied, “I feel like my thoughts were grounded in prejudice, but I don’t feel like I communicated hatred.”
In March 2009, during the city’s Eve of Justice rally the night before the California Supreme Court began considering Proposition 8, Mayor Saunders announced the engagement of his daughter, Lisa Sanders, to her partner, Meaghan Yaple. They were married by a justice of the peace in Vermont last December.
In the big Prop 8 trial in California, President Barack Obama’s position against marriage equality is directly harming our community and being thrown in our faces.
Our opponents are saying, “Mr. Obama is not a bigot and he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. So, how can the proponents of Prop 8 be bigots if they share the same views as the President?”
Well, actually he is a politician who believes in getting elected.
During his run for Illinois state Senate in 1996, Barack Obama stated his unequivocal support for marriage equality, according to an exclusive story in the Jan. 14, 2009 Windy City Times newspaper:
President-elect Obama’s answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” There was no use of the phrase “civil unions”.
It seems the Windy City Times showed that Obama is a pol with his finger in the wind on this issue.
LGBT groups, including Truth Wins Out, want Obama to take a stand on the Prop 8 trial. Equality California said Friday that it has collected 91,000 signatures on a petition urging the president to file a brief supporting a challenge to the measure. The White House has not responded. (typical)
Mr. Obama, it is time to get off the sidelines. It is time to stand up and do what it right. We are not holding our breath. But, for once, will you please surprise us? The right wing hates you anyway. They think you are a communist and some even hold the view that you are an illegal alien or the anti-Christ.
You will never win over these crazy, irrational people.Never. Ever.
Please, stop trying to do so. If a person hates LGBT people, they are likely not voting for you anyway. Don’t you get it?
As the Tea Party gains prominence, it almost assures that your 2012 Republican opponent (maybe Sarah Palin or Sen. Jim DeMint) will overwhelmingly win the fringe vote. So, why not do what is moral and just, by rallying the people who actually care about your presidency and support you?
We are waiting, Mr. President, and so far we are pained by your silence. Your words are being used as a justification for our oppression. Only you can change this.
If you’re an anti-gay pastor watcher like me, you’re well aware that San Diego area radical clerics Miles McPherson and Jim Garlow relish both the spotlight and the media attention that comes hand-in-hand with being two of California’s better known anti-LGBT advocates.
When he’s not mentoring young Christians like former beauty queen turned soft-porn celebrity Carrie Prejean, Pastor McPherson of San Diego’s Rock Church is happy to take the stage to preach against LGBT rights, as he did in November 2008 at TheCall — an anti-marriage-equality extravaganza held at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego shortly before the 2008 election. McPherson, according to Jeremy Hooper, writing at the Good As You blog, claimed “he and his followers are not ‘freaks’ who hate gays. They are really exterminators called upon to rid the world of satanic roaches.” (Read More)
Here’s a round-up of reactions to and accounts of the first day of the historic federal trial against Proposition 8:
Karen Ocamb at LGBT POV wrote a great piece on the news that really didn’t get reported, including some of her own observations about the general mood of the proceedings. Her entire blog is actually a great resource.
“Judge Walker: If the President’s parents had been in Virginia when he was born, their marriage would have been unlawful. Doesn’t that show a tremendous change in the institution of marriage?”
“Cooper: Racial restrictions were never a feature of the institution of marriage. [Laughter in our courtroom.]
Wow. Choire goes so far as to say that, based on that exchange alone, Cooper “is going to get his ass handed to him.” We’re crossing our fingers! The actions of the opposition (going insane over the proceedings being recorded, witnesses dropping like flies, losing it over the discovery process, etc.) lead me to believe that we’re about to see just how unprepared our opponents really are, in attempting to defend their indefensible positions in grown-up court. It’s one thing to use lies and insinuations to scare people, but being under oath and being asked to prove your assertions, is a different animal.
Also, from what I can see, the testimonials from the plaintiffs, i.e. the actual couples involved, were quite powerful. It would be amazing to see them on, AHEM!, YouTube.
What makes the suit even more unique is that the state of California is a defendant in name only. California refused to defend Prop8’s validity, and the attorney general filed an amicus brief… for the plaintiffs. The suit’s only real defendants are intervenors, private citizens with a glancing bystander’s interest in the litigation, from an organization calling itself “Protect Marriage.” They’re fighting tooth and nail, to the point of tossing out television cameras forcefully(query why they think that little bit necessary), to preserve their right to be free, apparently, from squeamishness about other peoples’ relationships. The intervenors have no real stake in the outcome of the case. If they win, they get nothing but a sense of satisfaction. If they lose, they may, one day, shiver to see two men, hand-in-hand and wearing wedding bands.
Elsewhere in his piece, we find that he’s a bit queasy about the idea of taking this case all the way to the Supreme Court. I agree and, yet, I disagree. But that’s just me, being of two minds again.
If you’d like to read what the anti-gay “thinkers” have to say to this, Maggie Gallagher is holding court in the bathtub with K-Lo, occasionally spittling out a few words at The Corner at National Review Online.
And that’s all I’ve got for now. If you want to follow today’s proceedings in real time, here are the key people tweeting the trial:
Dan Levine, a reporter for legal news publication The Recorder can be followed @FedcourtJunkie. Also NCLR’s Ilona Turner @ilona, The Advocate @TheAdvocateMag, American Foundation for Equal Rights,@AmerEqualRights , and the ACLU of Northern California@ACLU_NorCal are all live tweeting. The Courage Campaign is also tweeting the trial at @CourageCampaign.
Since the Supreme Court has effectively censored video coverage of the Proposition 8 marriage trial, at least until Wednesday, Truth Wins Out supports the efforts of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Fed Court Junkie, and others to broadcast the trial live via Twitter.
You may visit AFER’s direct feed here. Go here for Fed Court Junkie or read it below. (Read More)
Today, the big federal marriage case in California, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, begins. In a San Francisco courtroom, ideological opposites David Boies (liberal) and Ted Olson (conservative) will team up to overturn the insidious Proposition 8. So far, they have made a persuasive case in the media, pointing out that:
a) Same-sex marriage does not harm heterosexual marriages.
b) The procreation argument does not hold up and allowing people to marry the same sex does not limit population. People marry for a variety of reasons, not necessarily to create an extended family. It is interesting that our opponents never bring into the procreation argument hetero older married couples or younger married couples who are unable to have or choose not to have children. Why do they not have the same problem with those marriages as they do with GLBT marriages.
c) The current prohibition is discriminatory, fueled by animus and exacts harm on LGBT individuals and their families.
d) The only argument that supporters of Proposition really have is that such discrimination is part of our tradition. Boies and Olson have articulated in eloquent fashion that just because a tradition has gone on for a long time does not make it right or just. They point to discrimination against Jews, interracial couples and women – all of which had gone on (and continues to) for centuries. As I have pointed out in the past, there is a difference between “traditional values” and “valueless traditions.”
To win Proposition 8, our opponents resorted to fear tactics and outright lies using despicable, negative attack ads. Without this fear-mongering tool to trick the masses, our foes are realizing they may not do well in court. They understand that they have no rational arguments and that they are intellectually bankrupt.
To make up for this coherency deficit, Proposition 8 supporters are claiming “bias” because the trial is opening in San Francisco. Interestingly, these whiners had no problem claiming home field advantage when the our marriages were put up for a vote in ultra-conservative states. One might call having places like Arkansas, Kentucky and Alabama changing their state constitutions to prohibit gay couples from marrying a gratuitous and cowardly act of bullying by a majority. So, I really don’t want to hear about the trial being held in San Francisco. Wing nuts must realize that they can’t always have all the advantages.
Social conservatives are also regurgitating the lie that because the trial will be filmed and made available on the Internet, it may cause potential harm to witnesses.
“To top it all off, Judge Walker has determined that this case will be the first in the Ninth Circuit to allow cameras in the courtroom, with the proceedings posted on YouTube” writes Edwin Meese III in today’s New York Times. “This will expose supporters of Proposition 8 who appear in the courtroom to the type of vandalism, harassment and bullying attacks already used by some of those who oppose the proposition.”
Of course, this is hogwash. Perhaps, Meese confused the “plight” of these witnesses with another Times story today discussing the opening of Scott Roeder’s trial – the religious zealot who murdered Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in his church. However, opponents of Proposition 8 have never displayed the violence committed by religious extremists, as much as the Prop 8 supporters try to make it appear to be true. (Even today there is a “debate” over whether killing Tiller was morally justified)
In reality, all that was ever hurt were the feelings of Prop 8 supporters who were rightfully confronted by their neighbors who asked: “Why did you vote to take away my rights? Why did you leave our children in limbo without married parents?”
The truth is, Proposition 8 supporters do not want this trial televised because deep down they are ashamed by their own bigotry. They are allergic to the TV lights, because it will expose their inner-darkness. I really don’t blame them for not wanting their views exposed to a national audience. Not only will it look like they formed their discriminatory ideas with their heads in their posterior, but they will look quite awful for posterity. They realize, on some level, that history will not judge them well. Their grandchildren will regard them with great embarrassment and shame.
I wish Boies and Olson much luck and Truth Wins Out thanks them for the strong case they have made so far. They have undeniably shown that LGBT equality is not a liberal or conservative issue – but an American one. This trial is about the values of our nation, who we are and will we live up to our creed of liberty and justice for all people.
I’m no conservative, but Ted Olson, one of the attorneys in the upcoming case against Proposition 8, makes that argument persuasively in a new piece in Newsweek:
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation’s commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Most of our foes who call themselves “conservatives” are anything but. Ever since the early 1970’s they’ve been trying to change the definition of “conservative” to include policies that cram their theocratic beliefs, by government force, into our relationships, into our children’s schools, and into women’s vaginas. They’ve sadly had some success with that,* but Ted Olson’s argument is sound. Unfortunately, we live in a time when the very concept of the intellectual conservative is for the most partdead,** and that’s not a good thing for our democracy.
Fittingly, those who oppose equal marriage rights in California do not want a Jan. 11 federal trial on the issue televised. This is because they are subconsciously ashamed of their backward views and don’t want to be seen publicly as the bigots that they truly are.
In the deep recesses of their hardened hearts, they understand what they are doing is immoral, despicable and discriminatory. Yet, because of misplaced religious beliefs and a compulsive need to impose their worldview on others, these embarrassed souls continue to push prejudice.
The lame excuse given for such moral cowardice is that TV coverage might expose witnesses and other trial participants to harassment and intimidation. According to The San Francisco Chronicle, backers of Proposition 8 said in a court filing Monday that some of their witnesses “have indicated that they would not be willing to testify” if the trial was televised.
This is nonsense. Unlike the assassination of abortion providers, there has been no similar precedent set by LGBT activists. Homophobes have been free to express their vulgar views without fear of reprisals. Furthermore, LGBT people have the strength and fortitude to come out of the closet every day. Proposition 8 supporters should have the same backbone and openly state their beliefs in the light of day.
Of course, once those views are known, people may choose not to associate with such bigots. However, this is really no different than fundamentalists who choose not to frequent shops or restaurants owned and operated by those who openly opposed Proposition 8.
It is time to shine a big, bright spotlight on those who have transformed hatred of their neighbors into a disfigured political philosophy. The reason they oppose sunshine is because their lies and fear-mongering can only succeed in the wicked and seedy back alleys of moral and spiritual darkness.
At 8 a.m. June 26, I showed up at the San Francisco Police Department to answer charges of disturbing the peace and blocking traffic. (My earlier TWO post, Getting Busted For Marriage has details of my arrest at a Prop 8 protest the day the California state Supreme Court issued its unjust ruling.)
Along with nearly 200 other people, my name was posted on list at the courthouse door, with a note that said:
“Please report to room 322. No court for you. Bye Bye!” (Yup! The note actually said Bye Bye!)
In room 322, a clerk signed us in, proving we had shown up. “Charges were dropped,” she told us. “You may go.”
So, my dreams of telling the judge why I felt justified in standing up for marriage equality were dashed. But I’m glad I did this. Footage of our arrests continues to be recycled on local news broadcasts.
We stood up for equality, and will continue to do so until we achieve it.
In the big Prop 8 trial in California, President Barack Obama’s position against marriage equality is directly 
