Prop 8 Trial Re-enactment, Day 3 Chapter 2

Day 3 Chapter 2 of the Proposition 8 Trial Re-enactment presented by MarriageTrial.com. Produced by John Ainsworth & John Ireland.

Edited by Michael Legge.

THE JUDGE
Vaughn Walker, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court portrayed by Ted Heyck
THE PLAINTIFFS
Paul Katami portrayed by Woody Schultz
Jeffrey Zarrillo portrayed by Bryan Cuprill
Kristin Perry portrayed by Kitty Swink
Sandy Stier portrayed by Tess Harper
THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS
David Boies portrayed by Jack Laufer
Theodore Olson portrayed by Clyde FT Small
Theodore Boutrous portrayed by Peter Cassone
Christopher Dusseault portrayed by Jon Keel
Matthew McGill portrayed by Mark Doerr
Ethan Dettmer portrayed by Shawn Ryan
THE PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR ATTORNEYS
Dennis Herrera, S.F. City Attorney portrayed by Matt Pittenger
Therese Stewart, S.F. Deputy City Attorney portrayed by Sarah Gaboury
Christine Van Aken, S.F. City Attorney Portayed by Kate McNeil
Danny Chou, S.F. City Attorney portrayed by Peter James Smith
S.F. City Attorney Ronald Flynn portrayed by Todd Waring
THE DEFENDANTS
Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Governor Does not appear at trial.
Edmund G. Brown, California Attorney General Does not appear at trial.
Linette Scott, Deputy Director of Health & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health Does not appear at trial.
Patrick OConnell, Clerk-Recorder County of Alameda Does not appear at trial.
Dean Logan, Clerk-Recorder County of Los Angeles Does not appear at trial.
THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY
Tamar Pachter, Deputy Attorney General portrayed by Susyn Duris
THE DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR ATTORNEYS
Charles Cooper portrayed by Julian Simmons
David Thompson portrayed by Scott Kradolfer
Nicole Moss portrayed by Judith Hoag
Howard Nielson portrayed by Jon Acosta
Brian Raum, Alliance Defense Fund portrayed by John Ainsworth
Andrew Pugno, Protect Marriage.com portrayed by Brian Poth
James Campbell, Alliance Defense Fund portrayed by Victor Warren
Terry Thompson, Attorney for William Tam portrayed by Tuc Watkins
Peter Patterson, Alliance Defense Fund portrayed by Len Cordova
Vincent McCarthy, American Center for Law & Justice portrayed by William Charlton
THE WITNESSES
Dr. Nancy Cott, Professor of History, Harvard University portrayed by Nicole Hoelle
Dr. George Chauncey, Professor of History, Yale University portrayed by John Ireland
Dr. Letitia Peplau Professor of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles portrayed by Adrienne Barbeau
Edmund Egan, Chief Economist, City of San Francisco portrayed by Jim Abele
Dr. Ilan Meyer, Professor of Sociomedical Sciences, Columbia University, portrayed by Arye Gross
Helen Zia, Journalist based in San Francisco, portrayed by Sachie Alessio Heath
Dr. Michael Lamb, Professor of Economics, Cambridge University, portrayed by Basil Smith
Jerry Sanders, Mayor, City of San Diego portrayed by Peter Jason
Dr. M.V. Lee Badgett, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, portrayed by Pamela Reed
Ryan Kendall, Conversion Therapy Survivor portrayed by Jarod Einsohn
Dr. Gary Segura, Professor of Political Science, Stanford University, portrayed by Sean Stanek
Hak-Shing William Tam, Businessman based in San Francisco, portrayed by Gedde Watanabe
Dr. Gregory M. Herek, Professor of Psychology, University of California, Davis, portrayed by Scott Lowell
Dr. Kenneth Miller, Assoc. Professor of Government, Claremont McKenna College, portrayed by Kasey Mahaffy
David Blankenhorn, Founder & President, Institute for American Values, portrayed by Gregory Itzin

© 2010 by John Ireland Productions, LLC

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• proposition
• gay
• marriage
• trial
• arnold
• schwarzenegger
• kristin
• perry
• ted
• olson
• david
• boies
• schiller
• and
• flexner
• llp
• sandy
• stier
• katami
• jeffrey
• zarrillo
• jeff
• tamar
• pachter
• charles
• cooper
• thompsom
• kirk
• nicole
• jo
• moss
• attorney
• general
• california
• jerry
• brown
• linette
• scott
• patrick
• o'connell
• dean
• logan
• theodore
• boutrous
• christopher
• dusseault
• matthew
• mcgill
• gibson
• dunn
• crutcher
• dennis
• herrera
• therese
• stewart
• danny
• chu
• amfer

[TBTabby]

But we have proof of concept. If youre c same-sex marriages was always harmful to children was true, the studies would reveal that.

And you never answered my question. Since these studies don't convince you, just what WOULD convince you?

[TBTabby]

And you still haven't answered my question. But the answer is clear anyway: nothing will convince you, and that's because you're biased against it. You don't care if it's true, because you only believe what you want to believe because you want to believe. That means you're done. I'm through trying to convince someone who doesn't care what the facts are when I could better spend my YouTube time watching Black Lagoon. If anyone else wants to try, be my guest. Best of luck to you.

[unclejoeoakland]

@poetaviolinista I wasn't talking about ceremonies or rituals- I was talking about the ways in which the union of a man and a woman is a social unit that is completely distinct from any other. Priests, as such, don't even enter into things. I put it to you, do you feel that the relationship that two men have, or two women, is going to have the same tensions that almost all marriages have? Furthermore, I ask you, when was marriage ever anything BUT a man and woman?

[BAZOOKABELLY]

Who cares?

[poetaviolinista]

I am indeed glad that I have found a noble person with which to discuss these things.

While it may be in the state's interest to have more children being born, it is equally in its best interest to have no orphans being forgotten in some corner. Regardless, it is not a requirement of the institution of marriage anywhere in the USA to bear children.

Two homosexuals marrying harms no one. Barring homosexuals from being able to marry harms society by explicitly outlining discrimination in law.

[poetaviolinista]

@unclejoeoakland The bottom line is that the ceremony is not the important part. There are plenty of marriages that aren't accompanied by a ceremony. It's the legality and accompanying consequences of the marriage that are important, the protections inherent in the covenant made between its participants.

What I was getting at is that just because priests don't live those things doesn't make the situation be in any way wrong, just different. Difference is not a bad thing.

[unclejoeoakland]

And of course priests never have to deal with a spouse's emotional swings or the consequences of making love. Catholic priests do not marry. However, Lutheran or Greek Priests, do in fact worry with their wives about the consequences of making love or experience the other's mood swings. Also, I think that gay couples adopting children displays a common noble human instinct, like any other sincere adoptive couple, but it is in the interest of the state and people for more children to be born.

[unclejoeoakland]

I have not yet heard anyone actually suggest that the law of California provide a civil or criminal penalty for two people of the same sex to receive such a ceremony, even if it contradicts the text of Prop 8- such a law was proposed in Nigeria and I don't know if it was enacted- Rather proposition 8 defines marriage only. It does not create criminal or civil penalties. You may be surprised to read it but I too am glad that homosexuality is no longer considered either a mental disorder or crime.

[unclejoeoakland]

@poetaviolinista Well first off, Catholic Priests do not experience any of those things but they are also forbidden to marry, so that isn't much one way or the other. Second off, I was in fact referring to both male couples and female couples, neither can feel the tensions that arise between the male and the female within the union, by definition. It would certainly be convenient, at times, to forego those tensions and pressures, but without them, the relationship is materially different.

[poetaviolinista]

@unclejoeoakland I knew all of those things. But there's adoption. I believe you mean a male homosexual couple won't experience those things. Why is it bad that we don't, anyway? Priests never get to live any of those things. Is that wrong? Homosexual couples get to love each other and be protected by their governments. How is that bad? Do you want your country to marginalize its people? No.

We need to protect each other, whether we agree with our opinions or lifestyles or not. It's justice.

[unclejoeoakland]

And while social interaction and displaying a dynamic model of society within the household may be unimportant in the western world, as we now view these as the trappings of a paternalistic government, these things are still vitally important in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. I put it to you that there may possibly be at least a modicum of folly in using judicial fiat to radically alter the definition of an important social contract that literally is millenia old.

[unclejoeoakland]

@poetaviolinista I assume that means that you have already decided that nothing will ever shift your opinion. For the record, a homosexual union will never procreate, will never exhibit the social interaction of man and woman to the next generation. It will never experience the social, emotional, or physical tensions of a man and woman. A homosexual couple will never worry about whether making love will cause a pregnancy, nor will either have to be extra 'gentle' because only one has a period.