Hi there, Nicholas Hatten here. Ye of McNerney ’06 and ’08 campaigns and Stockton’s Drinking Liberally. First time poster but long time lurker. What’s got me so excited that I’ve decided to break my lurking streak? Well, the awesomeness that is San Joaquin County’s LGBT community.

A year ago this month I moved back to the lovely city of Stockton after a decade long love affair with the Bay Area and re-discovering the Central Valley during my time with Team McNerney. Now I was already aware of how progressive leaders like Councilmember Susan Eggman (LGBT icon), Jerry & Carol Bailey (single payer icons), Martha Gamez (uber-grassroots icon) and others had helped change the landscape of politics in the Central Valley. What I wasn’t aware of was how much the LGBT had matured and evolved into a political force during my time away.

More following the flip…

A refresher course might be in order for some. A few years back Progressive Punch’s Joshua Grossman did an excellent job explaining the potential for the progressive movement within San Joaquin County. Since that post, San Joaquin County has seen all of its federal and state elected officials carry over to the blue category with the exception of one. In 2008, Asm. Huber & Asm. Buchanan won previously Republican seats, joining Asm. Galgiani in Sacramento and leaving Asm. Bill Berryhill as the sole Republican voice. Additionally, the city of Stockton successfully swore in progressive Ann Johnston as its mayor. During this time, the Central Valley Stonewall Democratic Club joined the more established Truman Club as a top fundraising machine and helped  not only Mayor Johnston get elected but also Stonewall members and now Stockton Unified School District trustee Colleen Boardman and Lincoln Unified School District trustee Van Ha To-Cowell.  Not bad for a club only in its third year of existence.

Sadly, the 2008 election wasn’t a complete success for the progressive community in San Joaquin County. Despite the before mentioned inroads, an overwhelming victory for President Obama, the re-election of Rep. Jerry McNerney and a democratic voter registration advantage; Proposition 8 easily won in San Joaquin County with a solid 65 percent majority.

So what have teh [Central Valley] gays been up to since then? Well, in 2009 the University of Pacific formed an annual Northern California LGBT conference that invites students and the general public to discuss issues that affect the LGBT community. Elena Kelly, transgender activist organized San Joaquin’s first ever Transgender Day of Remembrance! service, a powerful and emotional evening memorializing the victims of transgender violence.   Recently, a group of energetic youths have launched the Courage Campaign San Joaquin Equality Team and are hosting a fun Mardi Gras meet and greet on April 30th.

And what about the Central Valley Stonewall Democratic Club? Some of you might remember them holding Republican and congressional candidate Mike Berryhill accountable for his homophobic comments last month. They recently  hosted their most successful fundraiser with  LGBT activist and former congressional candidate Anthony Woods as a keynote speaker, endorsed a new round of candidates and are currently hosting a successful series of community forums, like January’s LGBT youth forum, and this weekend’s Toward Harmony: A Discussion of Race, Religion and Sexuality.

After initially being mentored by the Sacramento Stonewall Club, the Stockton based CV Stonewall Club is now paying it forward and is now helping the Stanislaus LGBT community, one of the largest gay communities per capita in the nation (and a county that voted 68 percent in favor of Prop. 8) politically organize by hosting Stanislaus Stonewall Chapter planning meetings . The Central Valley Stonewall Democratic Club members are doing the hard work that Joshua Grossman suggested in his 2007 blog.

So that’s what’s got me so excited this early morning. The vibe out here reminds me of 2005 when progressives all over California joined forces with the  environmental community and sent Richard Pombo packing. With two assembly seats (Buchanan, Huber) being defended and a possible blue pick up (Berryhill), a hot state senate race in Stanislaus County and all the LGBT community outreach, it is an exciting time to be a progressive in San Joaquin County and the Central Valley.

Full disclosure, since returning to Stockton last year, despite their better judgement, I was appointed the Vice-President of the CV Stonewall Club. Please don’t hold that against them. 😀

Equality California and ACLU, as I discussed yesterday, were appealing Judge Walker’s order to turn over a slew of documents.  Well, they lost.  Sort of.

The 9th Circuit said it lacks jurisdiction to overturn a federal judge’s order forcing gay marriage advocacy groups to turn over their Proposition 8 campaign materials. … The organizations argued that their materials are protected by a First Amendment privilege shielding internal campaign communications.

But the three-judge panel said the organizations can’t appeal Walker’s order until they have been held in contempt for failing to comply with it. (Courthouse News Service)

I’ve noticed a couple other blogs discussing today’s decision, some even suggesting that this would speed up the process. That is a possible outcome, if the groups choose to turn over the documents. However, they can also wait to be held in contempt and then go back to the real meat of the question as I outlined yesterday.

Jurisdiction, which basically answers the question of whether the court has authority over the case, is a threshold question. That is, if there is no jurisdiction, then your substantive arguments are simply not heard. That’s what happened in this case, the 9th Circuit basically said you’ll have to wait on this.  The next move is up to EQCA and ACLU.

Before I delve into this, I’d like to say that while I’m an attorney, I am by no means an expert in discovery. However, I’ll try to explain it as best I can.

To start, discovery runs on good faith backed by a big old stick. The normal process is for each side to ask questions (“interrogatories”) and respond to the opposing counsel’s questions with responses, and eventually documents.  Document review is typically the domain of first year lawyers, who get to spend hours upon hours hunting for the smoking gun amidst heaps and heaps of meaningless paper.  In fact, one discovery strategy is to bury the opposing counsel in so much paper that the good stuff remains hidden.  A judge can control this sort of gamesmanship if it gets out of hand.

Now, in this particular case, the defendant-intervenors asked for a bunch of documents from the No on 8 Coalition.  It was a similar request as the Yes on 8, protectmarriage.com, organization had received.  Eventually, Judge Walker’s order was slightly limited to exclude completely internal documents within a “core group” of campaign insiders. But, they ended up turning over a bunch of useful documents, which I won’t go through now. But, go back over the old posts from the trial, and you’ll stumble across them.

In return, the Yes on 8 asked for similar documents.  Now, at first blush, you’d think, well, fair’s fair. But, not really though.  The only actions in question here are the actions of the Yes on 8 team and whether the campaign was seeking to deny equal protection of the law.  On the flip side, the No on 8 coalition clearly had no such motives, and the constitutionality was never in question.

The relevant rules here are the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 26, which states, in part:

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense – including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The key part of this is relevancy. There are a number of different standards for relevancy, but they are all generally lenient, or at least far more lenient that standards for evidence at trial. That being said, even by these more lenient standards, this is a big reach.  And frankly, all of the parties know that, but the Yes on 8 team is trying its best to get as much information as possible for future campaigns.  Sure, they won’t say that, but that’s what is going on here.  But, to the issue at trial, I’ll let Judge Walker sum it up:

This objection has three parts: first, that the magistrate applied the FRCP 26 relevance standard when a more searching standard was appropriate; second, that the subpoenas do not seek relevant documents under any standard of relevance; and third, that the magistrate failed to weigh the marginal relevance of the documents against the heavy burden production of the documents would impose.

Under the FRCP 26, the court, in this case Magistrate Spero, is to weigh the burden of disclosing the documents against the relevancy of the documents to the case at hand. After all, we don’t want our courts to just be a big fishing pond, be it for corporations, individual litigants, or for campaigns, as we have in this case.  These issues are all somewhat subjective, that is the judge has to look at evidence and weigh relative merits.  Unlike what Justice Roberts would have you believe, this isn’t about balls and strikes, it’s more like judging a boxing match.  Each side has relative merits, and the judge has to use his legal training and experience to end up with the best result.  

Now, on the Yes on 8 side, the 9th Circuit ruled that Judge Walker allowed too broad of discovery, a loss for our side.  However, the ACLU and EQCA argue that Judge Walker once again allowed for too broad of discovery. This time focusing on relevancy rather than any notion of privilege of free communication within a campaign.  The importance of this distinction is critical.  There is a bright line for why the Yes on 8 materials were discoverable. However, if the ACLU and EQCA documents are discoverable, any body associated with a campaign that is involved in litigation is discoverable.  As Geoff Kors of EQCA points out, that is simply not something that we can allow to go unchallenged:

“Protect Marriage has not subpoenaed Equality for All, the organization that led the No on 8 campaign. Instead, it singled out two allied civil rights organizations that are not parties to the case to intimidate and dissuade all LGBT organizations and our allies from participating in future campaigns to defeat anti-LGBT measures. We want nothing more than for this case to proceed as quickly as possible. But if this ruling is allowed to stand it will set a harmful precedent that will have a chilling effect on all non-profits working in coalitions on social justice issues. They will fear harassment and the threat of being forced to spend precious, limited resources on responding to costly litigation and subpoenas rather than to do the critical work at hand.”

I know people are anxious for some resolution on this case, but folks, it’s going to be a while.  There are still a lot of appeals to go; it’s likely to be years before we see a resolution.  Even if Judge Walker overturns Prop 8, he’s likely to put a stay pending appeal.  That’s why it is critical that we not take our eyes off the ball, which is the ballot box. In my mind, Prop 8 is clearly unconstitutional for several reasons. That being said, sometimes you have to fight when you shouldn’t have to. It’s not right, but it’s the way it is.  We’ll win both in the legal arena and the ballot box.

Cross-posted from Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

Today, Love Honor Cherish, the leader of the Repeal Prop 8 2010 organization sent out a press release announcing that they had failed to get enough signatures on the ballot. (The full release is available in the full post.)

Love Honor Cherish, which spearheaded an effort to place an initiative on the November 2010 ballot to repeal Proposition 8 and restore equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, announced today that the proponents did not gather the 694,354 signatures necessary to place the proposed initiative on the ballot.  The group vowed to work toward the repeal of Prop 8 at the next general election in November 2012.

“This is a heartbreaking moment,” said John Henning, Executive Director of Love Honor Cherish.  “Despite the dogged efforts of  hundreds of volunteers across California, we did not get the signatures we needed within the 150-day window set by the state.”

Under California law, it is too late to mount a new effort to repeal Prop 8 in 2010.  “Regrettably, Prop 8 will remain as a stain on our constitution until at least 2012, and perhaps later,” said Henning.  He challenged activists statewide to rededicate themselves and unify behind a 2012 repeal effort.

While this isn’t a surprise, it does end a trying divide within the LGBT community.  I do not speak for the courage campaign or anybody other than myself here, but generally, I’m inclined to believe gubernatorial elections have a better electorate for our side. That is 2010 would have been better than 2008, and 2014 will be better than 2012.   During off year elections, you get better educated electorates, and that correlates fairly well with those who aren’t really bothered by marriage equality.  I have done some analysis looking at that, but also have spoken to a few huge voter number nerds who agree with that hypothesis.  It’s still an open question, however.

That being said, time matters as well, probably even more than presidential or gubernatorial year. As more millenials spill into the voting ranks, more pro-equality votes are stacking up on our side.  While 2 years won’t make a huge difference, many number nerds think it is just under 2 percent per year that the electorate moves toward equality. Obviously, that’s far from a precise number, but 4 percent would be enough to flip the Prop 8 vote around.

That being said, this time we would be running a Yes campaign, which is always more challenging.  Given this news and the rumblings coming out of major LGBT organizations, it looks we are headed like a laser beam towards a 2012 confrontation for our marriage rights.

It’s a shame that Prop 8 still stands, and it is my sincere hope that Judge Walker and the federal courts strike it down.  However, I am very cognizant of the fact that we are likely headed to the ballot.  Get your door-knocking shoes all polished up, we have work to do.

INITIATIVE TO REPEAL PROP 8 WILL NOT BE ON THE BALLOT IN 2010

All-Volunteer Petition Drive Triggered Conversations Across California

(LOS ANGELES – April 12, 2010)

Love Honor Cherish, which spearheaded an effort to place an initiative on the November 2010 ballot to repeal Proposition 8 and restore equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, announced today that the proponents did not gather the 694,354 signatures necessary to place the proposed initiative on the ballot.  The group vowed to work toward the repeal of Prop 8 at the next general election in November 2012.

“This is a heartbreaking moment,” said John Henning, Executive Director of Love Honor Cherish.  “Despite the dogged efforts of  hundreds of volunteers across California, we did not get the signatures we needed within the 150-day window set by the state.”

Under California law, it is too late to mount a new effort to repeal Prop 8 in 2010.  “Regrettably, Prop 8 will remain as a stain on our constitution until at least 2012, and perhaps later,” said Henning.  He challenged activists statewide to rededicate themselves and unify behind a 2012 repeal effort.

Prop 8 passed by a margin of 52 to 48 percent.  However, polls taken since the vote have shown that a majority of Californians now support the right of same-sex couples to marry, indicating that a new ballot proposition to repeal Prop 8 would be likely to pass in November 2010.  In March, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed a 6 percent increase in support for equal marriage rights in just the last year.

The proponents of the repeal initiative sought to seize the momentum unleashed by the passage of Prop 8 and parlay it into a victory at the polls.  “This signature campaign was the right thing to do in the wake of Prop 8,” said Love Honor Cherish board member Lester Aponte.  “We were determined to act affirmatively to achieve equality and we will continue to do that until Prop 8 has been finally repealed.  We had hundreds of thousands of conversations with California voters about the right to marry and we know that we have moved hearts and minds.  In the process, we have set the foundation  for a future repeal effort and brought hope to thousands whose hearts were broken by the passage of Prop 8.”

Love Honor Cherish was one of more than 40 groups supporting the repeal of Prop 8 in November 2010, and was part of the Restore Equality 2010 coalition.  The campaign utilized a unique web-based social networking tool, located at www.SignForEquality.com, which enabled volunteers to download the petition form, watch training videos and join teams.

Cross-posted from the Prop8TrialTracker.

In yet another poll on marriage equality, an LA Times poll released yesterday showed that a majority of registered voters support marriage equality:

Registered voters surveyed in the latest poll  said 52% to 40% that “same-sex couples should be allowed to become  legally married in the state of California.”

That’s the latest in a string of surveys that have found similar  results. A PPIC poll released March 25 found respondents  backing gay marriage 50% to 45%.  And a Times/USC poll last November found a 51% to 43%  split on the issue.  As with the previous surveys, the latest Times/USC poll showed a sharp  polarization by political party and ideology, with Democrats and  liberals supporting same-sex marriage by large margins and Republicans  and conservatives opposing it by equally lopsided margins. (LA Times)

Of course, this poll doesn’t mean that we could win a ballot fight. As we learned in 2008, these polls have a bias of about 3-5 points in favor of marriage equality. It seems many people don’t want to admit to a questioner that they are bigoted, but are cool with doing so once they step in to a voting booth.  Before I would feel comfortable, I’d like to see that number at closer to 58 or 59 percent for an extended period of time.  I think that would allow us a comfortable victory.

But that being said, things worth having are rarely won with comfortable victories. When we go back to the ballot in 2012, we will have to work our butts off. The Prop 8 trial very well may not be concluded by November 2012. And frankly, at some point we are going to have to win at the ballot box to show that America is well and truly changing. Until then, all we have is the general notion of change.

I was going to write something about all the change that will be, but a commenter, Nancy, did so at the LA Times quite well. Rather than making the point myself, I thought I would reproduce the comment here.  Most of the comments at these newspaper sites tend to be viscous personal attacks, homophobic slurs, and all sorts of smears. Yet, that’s not always the case. Without further introduction, Check out Nancy over the flip.

I guess I just don’t get it. I am in a happy, heterosexual relationship  that is leading to marriage. I am religious – Babtist in my upbringing,  in fact. Yet I simply cannot figure out how and why the marriage of a  gay couple would threaten my partner and me in any way. I know of no  divorces that were caused by some gay couple somewhere.

The  arguments against gay marriage are arbitrary and completely irrational.  It’s time to get on to far more important issues, like education, the  economy and the environment. I believe the polls and seriously doubt  that it’s some sort of liberal plot to convert everyone to gayness. Come  on, folks, get a grip.

An ironic story – someone very close to  me who is against gay marriage is in a mixed-race relationship. It  wasn’t that long ago that her partner, a black man, would have been  lynched for being with a white woman. The message: we who believe in  equal rights shall overcome. And there’s a lot of hypocrisy in this  whole issue.

Hang in there, my gay friends. We shall indeed  overcome.

[crossposted from dailykos]

They said it couldn’t be done.  They said we were nuts.  They said the time wasn’t right.  But it can be done – we’re doing it; we’re not nuts; and the time is now.  The perfect storm, the trifecta of technology, politics, and demographics is upon us here in California, and we’re seizing the day.

In this diary I’ll explain this magic moment and how the Restore Equality 2010 campaign is taking advantage of it – and how you can help.  It starts with cannabis (no, not the way you’re thinking!), beneath the fold.

How do cannabis and gay marriage come together?  Only in California.  You see, at the same time we’ve been working to put gay marriage back on the ballot, another group has been working – successfully – to put cannabis legalization and taxation onto the same ballot.  And one signature that they gathered took a novel form – it was an electronic signature.  Michael Ni, founder of Verafirma, used his company’s software from an iPhone to submit his signature in support of the measure.

The Chief Elections Officer, Warren Slocum, rejected Ni’s signature, and Ni has filed a lawsuit (PDF) to have the signature accepted.  That lawsuit will be heard on March 18th, a little over two weeks before the April 5th deadline for signature collection.

And that brings us to marriage equality.  We’re trying to collect 1.2 million signatures to put marriage equality back on the ballot; thus far we’ve done it with only volunteers – and only pen & paper.  And we’re falling short.  But there are 18 million iPhones in use in California.  A lot of them in the hands of young people – and of course you know that young people support gay marriage in much higher numbers than do their elders.

The cannabis initiative used only one electronic signature – for them, it’s just a test and a path to legitimize electronic signatures.  For Restore Equality 2010, however, electronic signatures are going to represent the bulk of our signatures and the technology will be essential in putting marriage equality back on the ballot.  The numbers are there – we can do it, and what we need to do to make it happen is to get the word out.

This is our trifecta, our magic moment; this is when we win back marriage equality for all Californians.  The technology is here; the legal ruling is just around the corner, and the youth are right out there, ready to try something new.  We need to bring these elements together, let every iPhone user know, spread the word: here is how we put gay marriage back on the ballot; here is how we repeal Prop 8; here is how we undo the damage done by the haters.  Click the link; spread the word.  Sign the petition and get everyone you know to sign it.

Here is the link: Restore Equality 2010

And then the hard work begins.  We don’t stop when marriage equality is back on the ballot; we step up the pace.  Because persuading supporters to vote in the off-year election, persuading the undecided to become supporters, is work that can’t be done with just an iPhone; it’s got to be personal, patient, and persistent.  Civil rights never come easy.

Cross-posted from the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Remember all those experts who were scared of appearing on YouTube? Well, I don’t know if they knew this when they were lining up to be deposed, but depositions become part of the public record, and fortunately for us, we have said depositions. And even more helpfully, we have clips on YouTube of Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, you know the people who believe that men are constantly and subtly being discriminated against.

Anyway, these folks go around doing expert testimony for social conservative causes. Apparently hiding their faces while doing so.  Perhaps Paul Nathanson should have hidden more than his face during the Iowa same-sex marriage, Varnum V. Brien, and just gone mute. It would have done more benefit for the opponents of marriage equality.   Nathanson’s testimony Varnum was so ridiculous that the court struck it from the record stating that his testimony was “not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or . . . on empirical research in any sense.”

Forgetting my legal training, and just looking at a quick behavioral and textual reading of this testimony, it is clear that neither of these two witnesses would have done a lick of good for the Prop 8 defense. As we go through these clips, you’ll know exactly what I mean. Let’s start with Paul Nathanson (transcript here):

Q – Let’s try to break that down into two parts.  First, you recognize that gay couples are today raising children, correct?

A – Yes.

Q – And you believe that enabling those gay couples to marry would enhance their ability to be good parents to the chi-

A – Yes.

Basically, this guy admits something that David Blankenhorn ended up admitting on the stand: lack of marriage equality harms children being raised by LGBT parents. While the defense completely failed to prove that there was any damage whatsoever from marriage equality on the children of straight parents, over and over again, event the defense’s own witnesses acknowledged that there was real and serious harm done to not only LGBT couples, but their families. Meanwhile, Nathanson is looking unhappy and snippy. All in all, he was just another Blankenhorn debacle waiting to happen. And, I think even the defense would privately admit that could have gone better.

And Katherine Young would not have been much better.  See the thing is that with these scientists, they’ve actually read these studies, and understand the background. This is where Boies picked apart Prof. Miller. Miller had to eventually admit that his position was contrary to the great bulk of research in the field. And Miller’s testimony, at its best, could only go to a small portion of what they were trying to show.  Young wound up admitting a gold mine’s worth in her deposition. It’s almost hard to pick out selections from the transcript of Young’s deposition.

Q – My question is, is it your view that because something was the norm in the past, it should be continued in the future? …

A – Just because something is a norm, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is an appropriate norm, and it has to then be reassessed in the contemporary context to see if t norm should remain.

***

Q – And you believe that allowing gay couples to marry will increase the durability of those gay couples relationships, correct?

A – Okay.  I’ll say yes.

***

Q – Okay.  And increasing the durability of those relationships is beneficial to the children that they’re raising, correct?

A – On that one factor, yes.

While Young does come across looking annoyed, she doesn’t seem quite so smug as Blankenhorn and Nathanson, so point for her on that. However, the factual admissions she makes were just too much for the Prop 8 defense to consider putting her on the stand.

At any rate, both Nathanson and Young hardly look fearful of appearing either on YouTube or on the witness stand. This was a purely tactical decision masquerading as something else.  After all, they have written several books together about how men are an oppressed minority, they are hardly afraid of spouting controversial opinions in public.  The reason these two didn’t testify has nothing to do with being scared, and everything to do with the fact that they were simply bad witnesses.

This is crossposted from the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Today should be the last day of testimony, with the closing arguments coming in a couple of weeks as to let Judge Walker digest the evidence a bit. You can get a whole slew of information about the trial at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

Well, this should be the last day of testimony, and the defense’s case is looking pretty shabby so far. Unless Blankenhorn’s redirect is simply amazing, he’s also going to be a net loss for their side. But don’t worry, Pugno can tell you how it really is:

The afternoon brought the testimony of our second witness, David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, who provided his expertise on the institution of marriage, fatherhood and the family structure. He rejected the suggestion by plaintiffs that marriage is purely a private construct between two adults.  Rather, he explained, marriage between a man and woman is a globally recognized and historically public institution.  In fact, it is the only  social relationship with a “biological foundation” found in the complementary nature of man and woman and their ability to procreate.  Across all cultures and times, no other human relationship has been more closely connected to the ultimate goal of uniting the biological, social and legal dimensions of parenthood for the raising of children.

You’ll be shocked (shocked!) to know that Pugno doesn’t mention Blankenhorn’s cross examination where he goes on to say that “We would be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than the day before.”  Pugno argues that their definition is the correct definition, the only definition. But Ted Olson puts the lie to that:

This is the game that they’re playing. They define marriage as a man and a woman. They call that the institution of marriage. So if you let a man marry a man and a woman marry a woman, it would de-institutionalize marriage. That is the same as saying you are deinstitutionalizing the right to vote when you let women have it. It’s a game. It’s a tautology. They’re saying, ‘this is the definition. You’re going to change the definition by allowing people access that don’t have it now, and that would change it so that people who currently have access won’t want it any more because it’s changed.’ This is all nonsense. They are not proving that. This is a syllogism that falls apart. The major premise, minor premise and conclusion are empty.

Pugno responds that voting didn’t really change when women were allowed to vote. History might disagree. The effects of women voting were pronounced and dramatic. The world, and this country specifically, would be a very different place without universal suffrage. But even if we take Pugno’s point on its surface, that the definition of marriage would be changed, it doesn’t take much more than a few google searches or a little time with a history book or two to realize that the concept of marriage is and has been a hodgepodge across the nations. Pugno’s definition, while perhaps true for him, needn’t be given more weight than the definition which excluded miscegenation or the definition of marriage that viewed women as property.

Marriage itself began as a way for human, who were living in caves at the time, to be sure of paternity. In some societies, it became a virtual indentured servitude to the husband. For example, a simple Wikipedia search for marriage will net you several different definitions. The Comanches and Ancient Greeks used marriage to subjugate, the medieval Europeans saw love as antithetical to marriage, and used it as a means of sealing political bonds. In fact, early Christian rulers almost always forced their daughters and siblings into marriages for their games of political chess. The fact behind all this ranting is that you can only use tautology for so long. Eventually, you need some real facts. And throughout this entire case, all we’ve seen is more empty vessels. Even NPR remarked today that Blankenhorn was the fifth defense expert who ended up giving testimony that favored the plaintiffs.

Today, the dust should settle on the testimony, and the judge will move on to consider the evidence before him. We should get a date for closing arguments soon, but we will definitely keep you posted.