Not Broadcasting Proposition 8 Trial is Equality

An update on the trial itself and the Los Angeles Times coverage thereof is below, but first here's the paper's latest report on the controversy over whether or not it would be broadcast. Since federal trials generally aren't broadcast, shouldn’t those who claim to be equality advocates appreciate the equality of not broadcasting this trial? David G. Savage reports.

The majority [of SCOTUS, in preventing a broadcast] cited newspaper accounts from the last year to bolster its contention that opponents of same-sex marriage have been "subject to harassment," including "confrontational phone calls and e-mail messages" and even "death threats." Under the court's rules, the justices do not intervene in pending cases unless they are convinced that the appealing side has a strong legal claim as well as evidence of "an irreparable harm" if the court fails to act.

Are the sore losers now seeing one way being belligerent did not serve their cause? Probably not. They'll just chalk this up to "extremism" on the part to the SCOTUS majority Justices. Has Judge Walker ever handled organized crime trials? Video broadcasts might make the job of the Witness Protection Program a little more difficult.

Advocates for equal marriage rights lambasted the decision.

Now there's some unbiased phraseology.

There are lots of comments on the story on the paper's website. I didn’t feel like poring through all of them – at least not for this update.

Here is today's article on the trial itself by Maura Dolan.

A federal trial on same-sex marriage focused Wednesday on the similarities and differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples, with a psychology professor citing "remarkable similarities."

Of course there are similarities – both are made up of two people.

[Much more after the jump.]

Letitia Peplau, an expert on couple relationships, testified that studies have found that the quality of heterosexual and homosexual relationships was on average "the same" as measured by closeness, love and stability.

And how are they measuring these things – especially the first two?

"On average, same-sex couples and heterosexual couples are indistinguishable," said Peplau, a UCLA professor of social psychology called by attorneys for two same-sex couples who are trying to overturn [the California Marriage Amendment].

Unless Peplau is a completely neutral bisexual, her actions prove she doesn't really believe this.

Under cross-examination, Peplau acknowledged that gay men value monogamy less than lesbians and heterosexuals of both genders.

Bigot?

She said several studies have found that married people tend to have better health than non-married people. She cited a government report that said married individuals are less likely to smoke or drink in excess and report fewer health problems than singles, and attributed the disparity in part to the support spouses share.

How does that compare against heterosexual people who 1) live alone, and 2) are shacking up? What's the data comparing same-sex couples with marriage licenses to those without them? After five years in one state, there should be some data, right? Some of it could be merely from living together with someone else. Other positive aspects of marriage are there specifically because men and women are different and bring different strengths and ways of thinking and communicating to the relationship.

As a married man, I'd like to believe that marriage does make someone healthier, as many studies report. But I do have to wonder if the correlation is entirely one-directional, or if healthier people or people with healthier lifestyles are more likely to get married in the first place? I mean, all other things being equal, who is attracted to and wants to marry someone who is unhealthy? While we can get averages, we can't compare me, a married father at my age, to me at the same age having never been married or a father. We can't compare John Doe #1, unmarried and childless at his age, to John Doe #1, same age, married and with children. Is there something I'm missing? Sorry for going off on a tangent.

She also told of a recent Kaiser Family Foundation report in which 74% of homosexuals said they would like to marry some day.

I want to own my own cruise ship. So what?

During cross-examination, Nicole J. Moss, an attorney for the Proposition 8 campaign, put into evidence government statistics from Belgium and the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage is legal and, Moss said, a substantially smaller percentage of gays and lesbians chose to marry than heterosexuals.

Sure, but those are wacky Europeans (I kid).

There are some comments by readers.

"AnUnidentifiedMale" (01/14/2010, 3:30 AM ):

In a free society, we should be able to do whatever we want unless it can be proven that the activity causes harm.

I agree, and in California, people are free to share their lives and live as they want, at least when it comes to most relationships, including same-sex ones. And we are free to vote on things like the conditions of a marriage license. We should not be forced, against our will, to neuter those marriage licenses.

Most people (whatever their sexual orientation) get married for love and companionship; having children may be on the list, but it's not the top priority for most people in the year 2010.

Wrong. Most people getting married want children. Many already have at least one child. Perhaps this person is talking about a narrow group of personal friends?

"Athenaeus" (01/14/2010, 7:12 AM ):

The fact that 52% of California and Maine and of the rest of the country seem to feel that it's OK to use the legal system to OPENLY OPPRESS A MINORITY GROUP in broad daylight and still have the audacity to call themselves Americans or Human Beings (and to continue to partake of GLBT cultural contributions) is what we really need to be examining.

I'm not clear on what oppression this person can cite, especially in a state where domestic partners are treated like married spouses. As for the cultural contributions - yes, in our society, everyone enjoys contributions from a wide spectrum of people. This commenter probably enjoys many things provided by people who are marriage defenders.

Those opposed to equal rights for gays are either self-hating closet cases too afraid to face the fact that their life is based on lies or small-minded miserable people who deserve to die early for being such nasty "human" beings.

Wow, such tolerance and love! Is it too late to enter that comment into the trial as proof that the lawsuit is motivated by animus? I also love the implied exchange that goes kind of like this:

Person A: "So, Person B, do you agree with me?"

Person B: "No, I don’t."

Person A: "Why not? Are you in the closet?"

Person B: "No, I'm not gay."

Person A: "A-ha! A denial! A sign that you ARE in the closet!"

Person B: "Look, I'm not gay. I'm grossed out by the thought of messing around with another guy."

Person A: "BIGOT!!!"

It's "heads I win, tails you lose." - no pun intended.

We're on this planet and in this life for such short time can't we focus on the real problems?

Great idea! Get your buddies to drop the lawsuit!

"lamoderate" (01/14/2010, 7:32 AM ), responding to someone else who brought up NAMBLA:

You do know that the vast majority of sexual abuse against children (per capita) is committed by heterosexual males, right?

Wow, you mean that, 97% of the male population tends to commit a greater percentage of any given crime than 3%? Next thing you'll tell me is that people over 18 tend to have more children out of wedlock than people under the age of 18.