Equally, you’ve seen the defense attorneys completely unable to impeach either the credibility of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses or their factual testimony.  What’s more, the defense so-called expert witnesses were so utterly unprepared and lacking in expertise that when David Boies cross-examined them, I almost felt sorry for them.  He truly humiliated Professor Kenneth Miller, who’s supposed expertise in the ballot initiative process (and especially as it related to gay and lesbian people) was exposed for the completely empty and shallow body that it is.  Miller must have felt about three inches tall when Boies was finished crushing him like an aluminum can.

But it was the sparring with David Blankenhorn that really nailed the defense’s coffin shut.  Challenged on every facet of his expertise, Blankenhorn not only agreed with the plaintiffs that same-sex marriage would benefit not just the people who want to marry, the children of such couplings, and society’s furtherance of tolerance and equality, he also denied that he was even an expert, but was merely “repeating things that they say,” that “these are not my own conclusions,” and “I’m a transmitter here of findings of these eminent scholars.”  His cartoonish puffery and sanctimonious buffoonery on the witness stand shredded all possible credibility with the judge.

So for now, the trial is over.  February 26th is the deadline for the submission of more documents to the judge, as well as the date which we hope the judge will set the date for closing arguments.

Rights, Responsibilities and Love
June 21, 2009

Public officials aren’t supposed to change their minds. But I firmly believe that it’s important to keep learning. Last week, while I was in Connecticut meeting with members of the gay and lesbian community from across the state, I had the opportunity to tell them what I’ve learned about marriage, and about equality.

While I’ve long been for extending every benefit of marriage to same-sex couples, I have in the past drawn a distinction between a marriage-like status (“civil unions”) and full marriage rights.

The reason was simple: I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And as many other Americans have realized as they’ve struggled to reconcile the principle of fairness with the lessons they learned early in life, that’s not an easy thing to overcome.

But the fact that I was raised a certain way just isn’t a good enough reason to stand in the way of fairness anymore.

The Connecticut Supreme Court, of course, has ruled that such a distinction holds no merit under the law. And the Court is right.

I believe that effective leaders must be able and willing to grow and change over their service. I certainly have during mine – and so has the world. Thirty-five years ago, who could have imagined that we’d have an African-American President of the United States?

My young daughters are growing up in a different reality than I did. Our family knows many same-sex couples – our neighbors in Connecticut, members of my staff, parents of their schoolmates. Some are now married because the Connecticut Supreme Court and our state legislature have made same-sex marriage legal in our state.

But to my daughters, these couples are married simply because they love each other and want to build a life together. That’s what we’ve taught them. The things that make those families different from their own pale in comparison to the commitments that bind those couples together.

And, really, that’s what marriage should be. It’s about rights and responsibilities and, most of all, love.

I believe that, when my daughters grow up, barriers to marriage equality for same-sex couples will seem as archaic, and as unfair, as the laws we once had against inter-racial marriage.

And I want them to know that, even if he was a little late, their dad came down on the right side of history.

I have always been proud of my long record fighting for the civil rights of the LGBT community. I’ve co-sponsored legislation to strengthen hate crime laws and end discrimination in the workplace. I’ve spoken out against “don’t ask, don’t tell” and always supported equal rights for domestic partnerships.

But I am also proud to now count myself among the many elected officials, advocates, and ordinary citizens who support full marriage equality for same-sex couples.

I understand that even those who oppose discrimination might continue to find it hard to re-think the definition of marriage they grew up with. I know it was for me.

But many of the things we must do to make our union more perfect – whether it’s fighting for decades to reform our health care system or struggling with a difficult moral question – are hard. They take time. And they require that, when you come to realize that something is right, you be unafraid to stand up and say it.

That’s the only way our history will progress along that long arc towards justice.

Senator Christopher Dodd from Connecticut.  Thank you for your changing position – we need just a few other leaders like you to help pave the way.  Like our fierceless leader.

In a statement Monday, Gibbons said Senate Bill 283 conflicts with a constitutional amendment approved by Nevada voters in 2002 supporting marriage between a man and a woman.

He says only the voters should be able to amend or undo provisions of the constitution.

Gibbons says domestic partners can also sign private contracts to accomplish many of the goals of the law.

Join the Facebook Group and learn more about how you can help.

The GOP seems to think that including moderates in their party means that they have to STFU. Take Michael “Shemp” Steele, for instance:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele appealed to the political middle Friday to join his party but added that the party itself wouldn’t moderate.

“All you moderates out there, y’all come. I mean, that’s the message,” Steele said at a news conference. “The message of this party is this is a big table for everyone to have a seat. I have a place setting with your name on the front.

“Understand that when you come into someone’s house, you’re not looking to change it. You come in because that’s the place you want to be.”

In other words, get on the back of the bus, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins – you’re kind aint welcome here.

The Media Research Center detailed the teabagging references in an informative press release. The Huffington Post noted the references as well as more “jokes” in the same vein (including a video of Cooper’s jape, over which David Gergen cluelessly chortles).

While sitting in for Keith Olbermann on April 15, MSNBC’s David Shuster packed the teabagging puns into his report on the protests. Shuster is like a juvenile student who has commandeered the loudspeaker system at his high school to commit the prank of a lifetime. Maybe it was just a case of Olbermann’s writers feeding Shuster the same good stuff they usually give to Olbermann.

Andrew Sullivan is giddy; he seems to think the phenomenon is a big ball of fun.

There is something funny going on here, if not exactly where Cooper, Maddow and Sullivan find it. Cooper is widely reputed to be homosexual. Maddow and Sullivan are of course public homosexuals. It is funny in an ironic sort of way that these folks choose to disparage the tea party protestors from somewhere inside the homosexual subculture. Why not just call the protestors girly boys and let everyone in on the joke? Or would that spoil the fun?

via Power Line – An obscene insult.

Or Rachel Maddow pointing out the fact that the right-wing over on Fox News actually called their astroturf protest action “teabag the White House” – and that the commentators were only responding to the stupidity.

So, Scott Johnson, just because you didn’t bother to realize that your side actually started this by calling themselves teabaggers, doesn’t make this fault of Maddow, et al. Sometimes when you do something stupid, you laugh at yourself and move on, hopefully learning something in the process.

And finally, Ben Sargent’s take on the Texas Legislature:

“I think he is too controversial for the state of Alaska. We’ve got in some people’s mind a controversial governor and I think that he just has too many controversies out there,” said House Speaker Mike Chenault, a Nikiski Republican.

Even Ross’ opponents in the Legislature had said just a few days ago that he had enough support to be confirmed despite widespread opposition from Alaska Native groups, his calling gays “degenerates” in the 1990s, and allegations that he made offensive comments about women. But a tipping point appeared to come this week when Ross gave what lawmakers called bad and politicized legal advice to Palin about a fight she’s having with lawmakers over a state Senate appointment.

Palin suggested lawmakers who voted no were turning their backs on voters. They rejected an attorney general, she said, who strongly supports the issues important to Alaskans — gun rights, constitutional rights and developing resources to the maximum benefit of residents.

via Lawmakers reject Ross as AG in historic vote: Politics | adn.com.

Said Ross of his service as the appointed attorney general:

“I had a neat office for two and a half weeks and I was attorney general under the law for two and a half weeks for the state of Alaska. And the big question I have now is whether they will put my picture up with the other (former attorneys general) for only two and a half weeks’ service,” Ross said.

Palin was once the most popular governor in the country, but now she is just a laughingstock.  The more she opens her mouth, the more mockery she inspires.  Decisions like this appointment and subsequent rejection by the legislature only further nail her political coffin shut.  And that is all to the good for the United States.