Trial on Unconstitutionality of Prop. 8 Begins Day Eight in U.S. District Court
Trial on Unconstitutionality of Prop. 8 Begins Day Eight in U.S. District Court
Cross of Dr. Gary Segura to Continue, Followed by Plaintiffs Calling William Tam and Dr. Gregory Herek
For latest information, visit www.equalrightsfoundation.org
The federal trial over the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 will continue Thursday, January 21 at 8:30 am with the continuation of the cross examination of plaintiff expert Dr. Gary Segura, followed by the plaintiffs calling Official Prop. 8 Proponent William Tam and psychologist and professor Dr. Gregory Herek (details below). Through their testimony, the plaintiffs legal team led by Theodore Olson and David Boies will continue to illustrate the discrimination and negative impact of Prop. 8.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights launched the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case and brought together Olson and Boies to lead the litigation.
Testifying today was Ryan Kendall, a gay man who was forced into “conversion therapy” as a teenager.
“[Therapy] was a very emotionally abusive environment,” Kendall continued. “I remember my mother saying she hated me, that I was repulsive. She said she wished she’d had an abortion …I was incredibly suicidal and depressed. I hated my entire life.”
After therapy, “I was just as gay as when I started,” he testified. “I knew I was gay, just like I knew I was short and half Hispanic. I never thought those facts would change.”
Taking the stand next was Gary M. Segura, Ph.D, Professor of American Politics in the Department of Political Science at Stanford University. Dr. Segura testified about the relative political power of gays and lesbians as a class of citizens, and their level of political vulnerability.
“Initiatives have been used to roll back legislative gains by gays and lesbians over and over,” Segura testified.”There is no group in America….who’ve been targeted by ballot initiatives more than gays and lesbians.”
Segura noted that the gay and lesbian community has lost 33 of the 34 ballot measures across the country dealing with marriage.
“Gays and lesbians do not possess a meaningful degree of political power,” he added.
Taking the stand tomorrow will be:
- William Tam, who as an Official Proponent of Prop. 8 was personally responsible for putting the initiative on the ballot and voluntarily taking over its defense in court by intervening in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Last week, video of Tam’s deposition, which was taken on Dec. 1, 2009, was shown in court to illustrate the discriminatory motivations of Prop. 8.
Excerpts:
Question: “And it is your understanding that part of the gay agenda is legalizing underage sex?”
Answer: “Right.” (Page 43 of deposition)
“They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda — after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children.” (Pro-Prop. 8 email by Tam, page 78 of deposition)
“We hope to convince Asian-Americans that gay marriage will encourage more children to experiment with the gay lifestyle and that the lifestyle comes with all kinds of disease.” (Pro-Prop. 8 media interview by Tam, page 77 of deposition)
- Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. a Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis. He will testify about the nature of sexual orientation, how mainstream mental health professionals and behavioral scientists regard homosexuality, benefits conferred by marriage, stereotypes relating to lesbians and gay men, stigma and prejudice directed at lesbians and gay men, the harm to lesbians and gay men and their families as a consequence of being denied the right to marry, and how the institution of domestic partnerships differs from that of marriage and is linked with antigay stigma.
Notably, the Olson/Boies legal team today introduced to the court the defendants’ own expert witnesses. The court saw today the depositions of Paul Nathanson, Ph.D. and Katherine Young, Ph.D., who are among the experts dropped by the defendants from their witness list.
Under questioning from David Boies, Nathanson and Young make several statements that are harmful to the defendants’ case and that support the plaintiffs’ position. Nathanson and Young both state that equal marriage would increase family stability, improve the lives of children, and that gay men and lesbians have faced a long history of discrimination including violence. They also acknowledge broad scientific and professional consensus in favor of equal marriage.
The backers of Prop. 8 told the court last week that they were dropping four witnesses from their witness list, leaving only two. They claimed this was due to a reluctance to testify because of cameras in the courtroom. The trial, however, is not being broadcast. The court has now seen three depositions of the withdrawn experts (Dr. Loren Marks last week), which would form the basis for their cross-examinations, that resulted in the experts making admissions that disagreed with the backers of Prop. 8′s case, which is what actually led to the last-minute witness list reduction.
###
