“Jesus is at your desk.  Call him for help.”

No, wasn’t being evangelical, just trying to find someone IT help.   I’d just forgotten that when I saw the message as I looked back through my sent file later in the day.

Me: You did? How did that happen, again?

Mom:  I was trying to move it with the lid open, and well, I kind of fell in.

Me:  Are you ok? What did you feel?

Mom:  After I figured out I was still alive, I thought it was dark in there.

First, information on the fight over  a likeness of the Yes on 8 logo as used by plaintiffs’ supporters who are blogging the trial at Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

Second, a link to trial transcripts.  Not the same as watching the trial, but will give you the exact words used (with one day’s delay).

You may think, “San Francisco liberals at it again! Hijacking the courts, inventing new constitutional rights!”  Stop there.  The lead counsel in the case is George W. Bush’s Solicitor General, who successfully argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court in one of his fifty-five performances before the nation’s highest judicial body.  He is Theodore “Ted” Olson, a founder of the Federalist Society, constitutional law expert, and one of the most respected conservatives in America.

Mr. Olson thinks constitutionally guaranteed rights ought to transcend left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican divides (he even recruited legal opponent David Boies as co-counsel).  I agree with him.  And as a proud Republican representing a younger generation of conservatives that cherish individual freedom, I am honored to join the American Equal Right’s Foundation’s Advisory Board. . . .

Some Republicans support gay rights, but prefer progress through legislative action or majority rule at the ballot box, rather than judicial action.  But what if a democratic election imposes mandates that violate a citizen’s constitutional freedom?  In the event that majority rule insufficiently protects individual liberty, our system of checks and balances puts forth that it is the role of the courts, to guarantee and protect the rights to individual Americans.

There are no political points to be gained by opposing marriage equality.  You can find the full piece here.

We are asked to stay the broadcast of a federal trial. We resolve that question without expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast. We instead determine that the broadcast in this case should be stayed because it appears the courts below did not follow the appropriate procedures set forth in federal law before changing their rules to allow such broadcasting. Courts enforce the requirement of procedural regularity on others, and must follow those requirements themselves.

I’d like to think that this isn’t an indicator of how the Supreme Court will come out when the trial’s outcome eventually gets to it and more an indicator that the Court that has never liked the idea of being watched by cameras simply is out of step with technology.  But,  that’s probably my optimism speaking. 

Fortunately, the laptops are out and people are liveblogging the trial.  I’m following the trial and analysis here, here, and here.   This piece is an overview of today’s events, including the questioning of a Proposition 8 supporter and named defendant Hak-Shing William Tam and examination of the role of procreation in determining the meaning of marriage.

OPENING STATEMENT
(as prepared)

This case is about marriage and equality. Plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry, and the right to equality under the law.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly described the right to marriage as “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men;” a “basic civil right;” a component of the constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, association, and intimate choice; an expression of emotional support and public commitment; the exercise of spiritual unity; and a fulfillment of one’s self.

In short, in the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is “the most important relation in life,” and “of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

As the witnesses in this case will elaborate, marriage is central to life in America. It promotes mental, physical and emotional health and the economic strength and stability of those who enter into a marital union. It is the building block of family, neighborhood and community. The California Supreme Court has declared that the right to marry is of “central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society.”

Proposition 8 ended the dream of marriage, the most important relation in life, for the plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of Californians.

___________________________________

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court concluded that under this State’s Constitution, the right to marry a person of one’s choice extended to all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, and was available equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

In November of 2008, the voters of California responded to that decision with Proposition 8, amending the State’s Constitution and, on the basis of sexual orientation and sex, slammed the door to marriage to gay and lesbian citizens.

The plaintiffs are two loving couples, American citizens, entitled to equality and due process under our Constitution. They are in deeply committed, intimate, and longstanding relationships. They want to marry the person they love; to enter into that “most important relation in life”; to share their dreams with their partners; and to confer the many benefits of marriage on their families.

But Proposition 8 singled out gay men and lesbians as a class, swept away their right to marry, pronounced them unequal, and declared their relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity.

In the words of the California Supreme Court, eliminating the right of individuals to marry a same-sex partner relegated those individuals to “second class” citizenship, and told them, their families and their neighbors that their love and desire for a sanctioned marital partnership was not worthy of recognition.

During this trial, Plaintiffs and leading experts in the fields of history, psychology, economics and political science will prove three fundamental points:

First – Marriage is vitally important in American society.

Second – By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 works a grievous harm on the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered.

Third – Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable, discriminatory harm for no good reason.

I

MARRIAGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT RELATION IN LIFE

Plaintiffs will present evidence from leading experts, representing some of the finest academic institutions in this country and the world, who will reinforce what the highest courts of California and the United States have already repeatedly said about the importance of marriage in society and the significant benefits that marriage confers on couples, their families, and the community. Proponents cannot dispute these basic facts.

While marriage has been a revered and important institution throughout the history of this country and this State, it has also evolved to shed irrational, unwarranted, and discriminatory restrictions and limitations that reflected the biases, prejudices or stereotypes of the past. Marriage laws that disadvantaged women or people of disfavored race or ethnicity have been eliminated. These changes have come from legislatures and the courts. Far from harming the institution of marriage, the elimination of discriminatory restrictions on marriage has strengthened the institution, its vitality, and its importance in American society today.

II

PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS, THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR COMMUNITIES

Proposition 8 had a simple, straightforward, and devastating purpose: to withdraw from gay and lesbian people like the Plaintiffs their previously recognized constitutional right to marry. The official title of the ballot measure said it all: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.”

Proponents of Proposition 8 have insisted that the persons they would foreclose from the institution of marriage have suffered no harm because they have been given the opportunity to form something called a “domestic partnership.” That is a cruel fiction.

Plaintiffs will describe the harm that they suffer every day because they are prevented from marrying. And they will describe how demeaning and insulting it can be to be told that they remain free to marry—as long, that is, that they marry someone of the opposite sex instead of the person they love, the companion of their choice.

And the evidence will demonstrate that relegating gay men and lesbians to “domestic partnerships” is to inflict upon them badges of inferiority that forever stigmatize their loving relationships as different, separate, unequal, and less worthy—something akin to a commercial venture, not a loving union. Indeed, the proponents of Proposition 8 acknowledge that domestic partnerships are not the same as traditional marriage. Proponents proudly proclaim that, under Proposition 8, the “unique and highly favorable imprimatur” of marriage is reserved to “opposite-sex unions.”

This government-sponsored societal stigmatization causes grave psychological and physical harms to gay men and lesbians and their families. It increases the likelihood that they will experience discrimination and harassment; it causes immeasurable harm.

Sadly, Proposition 8 is only the most recent chapter in our nation’s long and painful history of discrimination and prejudice against gay and lesbian individuals. They have been classified as degenerates, targeted by police, harassed in the workplace, censored, demonized, fired from government jobs, excluded from our armed forces, arrested for their private sexual conduct, and repeatedly stripped of their fundamental rights by popular vote. Although progress has occurred, the roots of discrimination run deep and its impacts spread wide.

III

PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS FOR NO GOOD REASON

Proposition 8 singles out gay and lesbian individuals alone for exclusion from the institution of marriage. In California, even convicted murderers and child abusers enjoy the freedom to marry. As the evidence clearly establishes, this discrimination has been placed in California’s Constitution even though its victims are, and always have been, fully contributing members of our society. And it excludes gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage even though the characteristic for which they are targeted—their sexual orientation—like race, sex, and ethnicity, is a fundamental aspect of their identity that they did not choose for themselves and, as the California Supreme Court has found, is highly resistant to change.

The State of California has offered no justification for its decision to eliminate the fundamental right to marry for a segment of its citizens. And its chief legal officer, the Attorney General, admits that none exists. And the evidence will show that each of the rationalizations for Proposition 8 invented by its Proponents is wholly without merit.

“Procreation” cannot be a justification inasmuch as Proposition 8 permits marriage by persons who are unable or have no intention of producing children. Indeed, the institution of civil marriage in this country has never been tied to the procreative capacity of those seeking to marry.

Proposition 8 has no rational relation to the parenting of children because same-sex couples and opposite sex couples are equally permitted to have and raise children in California. The evidence in this case will demonstrate that gay and lesbian individuals are every bit as capable of being loving, caring and effective parents as heterosexuals. The quality of a parent is not measured by gender but the content of the heart.

And, as for protecting “traditional marriage,” our opponents “don’t know” how permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry would harm the marriages of opposite-sex couples. Needless to say, guesswork and speculation is not an adequate justification for discrimination. In fact, the evidence will demonstrate affirmatively that permitting loving, deeply committed, couples like the plaintiffs to marry has no impact whatsoever upon the marital relationships of others.

When voters in California were urged to enact Proposition 8, they were encouraged to believe that unless Proposition 8 were enacted, anti-gay religious institutions would be closed, gay activists would overwhelm the will of the heterosexual majority, and that children would be taught that it was “acceptable” for gay men and lesbians to marry. Parents were urged to “protect our children” from that presumably pernicious viewpoint.

At the end of the day, whatever the motives of its Proponents, Proposition 8 enacted an utterly irrational regime to govern entitlement to the fundamental right to marry, consisting now of at least four separate and distinct classes of citizens: (1) heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers and sex offenders, who are permitted to marry; (2) 18,000 same-sex couples married between June and November of 2008, who are allowed to remain married but may not remarry if they divorce or are widowed; (3) thousands of same-sex couples who were married in certain other states prior to November of 2008, whose marriages are now valid and recognized in California; and, finally (4) all other same-sex couples in California who, like the Plaintiffs, are prohibited from marrying by Proposition 8.

There is no rational justification for this unique pattern of discrimination. Proposition 8, and the irrational pattern of California’s regulation of marriage which it promulgates, advances no legitimate state interest. All it does is label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal, and disfavored. And it brands their relationships as not the same, and less-approved than those enjoyed by opposite sex couples. It stigmatizes gays and lesbians, classifies them as outcasts, and causes needless pain, isolation and humiliation.

It is unconstitutional.

In anticipation of the trial, a number of articles have addressed the case for marriage equality this weekend.  Here are links to “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage,” in Newsweek and “A Risky Proposal,” in The New Yorker.

I’ve got a personal stake in this one, so will be watching attentively, and posting as resources become available.  Cross your fingers, say a prayer, and read up on the issues so you can intelligently defend marriage equality.

Maybe an old school ad campaign I missed? Maybe she’s supposed to be hanging laundry on the clothes line that’s not exactly behind her.  I don’t know.  Like I said, it defies explanation.

For example, my mother gets really chatty when traveling. While she is a healthy talker in every day life, when she gets on a plane she goes into hyperchat, and it’s not necessarily linear thought or storytelling. It’s more like she finds pleasure in the sound of speech. She will read aloud each and every sign within eyesight, want to describe everyone she can see sitting near her, and repeatedly discuss and change her mind about which drink she’ll have when the drink cart comes by. I try not to get annoyed (or embarrassed) by this, and have tried to give her the hint that I don’t care by bringing really long books on our five-hour plane rides, but she doesn’t get the hint. Instead, she notes, “Que buena eres para leer.” Yes mom, I’m a really good reader, that’s the only reason why I focused on “War and Peace” during the flight.

The trips also remind me that my mom’s whole physical being is stubborn to a fault. Even after 40 years of knowing one another, my mother cannot understand the idea of being on vacation. To her, these days are like all others—she is in bed by 8 p.m. and up by 6 a.m., and when she wakes around 2 a.m., it’s only to yell at me to turn the tv off because it’s keeping her awake.

I know some will ask why I don’t just get her her own room, and I would—if she let me. Upon even making that suggestion, she notes “si estamos aqui para celebrar juntas, para que me quieres mandar a otro cuarto.” Ok mom, guilt me into having to spend every single waking moment with you. I’m sure that will be healthy for both of us.

Perhaps because I know I’m not changing my mom’s personality, I just stand back and watch her do things I’d never expect from her. On this trip, I realized that she will walk toward any random to do and watch it for hours in search of an explanation. In Puerto Vallarta, she saw an iguana roaming around in the trees by a river and she was fascinated. Once she saw it, and the guy trying to photograph it, she became a spotter for him. “Alli esta,” “alla esta,” “no, vente por aca,” she yelled from a bridge for two hours while the hunt for the perfect iguana photograph was on. If she didn’t have a bad knee, I’m sure she would have been (and would have had me) in the river pointing out the giant iguana. In a million years I wouldn’t have chosen to spending our limited beach hours watching iguanas from a bridge.

As I stand there taking video of iguanas instead of having drinks on the beach, I always feel guilty that my mom and I don’t enjoy the same idea of a vacation. It reminds me that if we weren’t related, we probably wouldn’t have anything in common, and that makes me feel bad. I ponder this every year as I settle in for our long flight home and then my mom turns and asks, “If we go down, I don’t ask questions, and I just follow you if I want to live, right?” I smile, amused that she remembered and believes the annoyed admonition I gave her when she asked too many safety questions during a trip years ago.

Yes mom, when it really matters, let’s put aside all of the little stuff and we’ll both get out alive.