Argentina Recognizes Marriage Equality

July 15, 2010 at 9:19 am 88 comments

by Robert Cruickshank

Marriage equality marches onward around the globe, with Argentina’s Senate voting last night to approve a bill backed by President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to legalize same-sex marriage:

Argentina legalized same-sex marriage Thursday, becoming the first country in Latin America to declare that gays and lesbians have all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings to heterosexual couples.

After a marathon debate in Argentina’s senate, 33 lawmakers voted in favor, 27 against and 3 abstained in a vote that ended after 4 a.m. Since the lower house already approved it and President Cristina Fernandez is a strong supporter, it becomes law as soon as it is published in the official bulletin, which should happen within days.

The bill’s passage early this morning led to the following scenes of joy in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires:

The Catholic Church fought hard to block this bill, but Argentina joined other Catholic countries such as Spain and Portugal in ending discrimination against same-sex couples. One Catholic priest even vowed to defy the Vatican by supporting the marriage equality bill.

Argentina is reputed to be a socially conservative country. So why did President Fernández and the Senate buck the Church on this?

Glenn Greenwald provides the answer in an excellent post at Salon:

Argentinian politicians acted in the face of “polls showing that nearly 70 percent of Argentines support giving gay people the same marital rights as heterosexuals.” That’s what is most striking here: this is not happening in some small Northern European country renown for its ahead-of-the-curve social progressivism (though gay marriage or civil unions are now the norm in Western Europe). Just as is true for Brazil, which I’ve written about before with regard to my personal situation, Argentina is a country with a fairly recent history of dictatorships, an overwhelmingly Catholic population (at least in name), and pervasive social conservatism, with extreme restrictions on abortion rights similar to those found on much of the continent. The Catholic Church in Argentina vehemently opposed the enactment of this law. But no matter. Ending discrimination against same-sex couples is understood as a matter of basic equality, not social progressivism, and it thus commands widespread support.

Greenwald contrasts this with the United States, where national political leaders are reluctant to support marriage equality and where President Obama’s campaign pledge to overturn DOMA is languishing. Greenwald suggests that one reason Argentina supports marriage equality is that its recent history of dictatorship and pervasive abuse of human rights has sensitized the population to questions of equality. This might help explain marriage equality in Spain and Portugal, which were also ruled by repressive, socially conservative dictatorships until the mid-1970s, and where activism in support of LGBT rights became prominent as soon as Franco’s and Salazar’s regimes fell.

What Argentina shows us is the power of a movement, and the importance of organizing. 70% of Argentinians did not embrace marriage equality overnight. But through diligent organizing, Argentina’s LGBT rights movement refused to take “no” for an answer and showed how marriage equality was a question of basic fairness and equality in a country that well understood those values.

Despite our problems here in the United States, we too have a heritage that values equality and fairness. We also have a heritage of systematically denying those things on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation. But as we have seen in states like Iowa, Massachusetts, and for a brief moment, California, the better half of our angels can be mobilized to bring marriage equality to this country. We are going to win more victories across the country, and eventually a national victory, by persistently building a movement to show enough Americans that it is simply wrong to deny equality to people.

Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

NOM Tour Tracker: Vignettes from the front lines on Day 1 NOM Tour Tracker: Brian Brown’s spin on Tour, DOMA, and Argentina

88 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Chris  |  July 15, 2010 at 9:25 am

    Spain, Portugal, and now Argentina: “…a country with a fairly recent history of dictatorships, an overwhelmingly Catholic population (at least in name), and pervasive social conservatism, with extreme restrictions on abortion rights similar to those found on much of the continent.”

    No wonder NOM is so scared.

    They have every reason to be.

    Reply
  • 2. rick  |  July 15, 2010 at 9:27 am

    LOVE THIS!

    Reply
    • 3. Ronnie  |  July 15, 2010 at 9:28 am

      I concur….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
    • 4. Alan E.  |  July 15, 2010 at 12:57 pm

      Who could NOT love this?! Oh, wait…

      Reply
  • 5. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  July 15, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Now we have 10 countries!

    Reply
  • 6. Cat  |  July 15, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Great stuff. I really believe in the argument that the relatively recent liberation from dictatorship makes people realize the value and importance of equality, and act accordingly even in the face or religious pressure. For example the importance of separation of church and state, incorporated by the Founding Fathers because of the (then) recent history, is now almost forgotten in the US. Prop 8 proponents only feel the (perceived) tarnishing of ‘their’ marriage institute, and have lost all empathy for those who want it but can’t have it. They no longer know what it is like to be denied basic rights.

    Reply
    • 7. Bob  |  July 15, 2010 at 11:32 am

      Present history is living in denial of Theocracy, the dictator in the U.S. is not necessarily one specific Church, but a tangle of them , missusing Freedom of Religion, to develope their power base, which have become so strong politicallly, that the President is afraid to act contrary to their dictates.

      Reply
  • 8. aaron holmberg  |  July 15, 2010 at 9:53 am

    go Argentina, it’s your birthday! Okay, it’s my birthday, but you go Argentina!!!!!

    Reply
    • 9. Straight Grandmother  |  July 15, 2010 at 2:31 pm

      Happy Birthday Aaron. I don’t remember you posting previously, I am pleased to see you participate. Hang around and speak up!!!

      Reply
  • 10. Dpeck  |  July 15, 2010 at 10:11 am

    I could watch that video all day. Wonderful! It reminds me very much of the day here in California when they first announced that SSM was legal and a similar celebration erupted in front of the San Francisco City Hall. And the celebration shortly after that on the first day that the marriages started. I took the day off work to just spend the whole day at City Hall, celebrating with the crowd outside and then going inside the Rotunda to cheer on the couples who were getting married every few minutes. Parents and grandparents cheered for their sons and daughters. Small children laughed and celebrated as their parents were finally able to marry. A string quartet just showed up in the Rotunda and started to play, providing free wedding music for all the couples. What a day that was. A huge crowd filled with absolute joy, from early morning until they finally had to close City Hall late that evening.

    I look forward to the next time we celebrate here, when Prop 8 is finally ended and this shameful chapter in California’s history comes to an end. My hope is renewed again by scenes like this in Argentina. This reminds me what marriage equality felt like and what it will feel like when we have it again.

    Reply
    • 11. nightshayde  |  July 15, 2010 at 10:15 am

      Dpeck — your post just simultaneously put a smile on my face and brought tears to my eyes.

      Reply
      • 12. Lora  |  July 15, 2010 at 10:58 am

        It did the same for me too!

        Reply
      • 13. fiona64  |  July 15, 2010 at 1:13 pm

        Me too.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 14. Kathleen  |  July 15, 2010 at 2:40 pm

        Me too.

        Reply
    • 15. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 15, 2010 at 11:55 am

      So beautifully written Dpeck! Stop making me cry!!
      hehehehehehehehe
      :-)

      Reply
    • 16. JonT  |  July 15, 2010 at 2:20 pm

      Well said. I look forward to the day when we can have a celebration like that in the US, nation-wide.

      I did watch that video several times :)

      Reply
    • 17. PamC  |  July 15, 2010 at 2:21 pm

      Me four! And remember the “flowers from the midwest”?? I choked up just hearing about that. Thanks for the memory, Dpeck!

      Reply
    • 18. Alan E.  |  July 15, 2010 at 2:35 pm

      Dpeck, I was at city hall with my husband that same day, too, but for only half a day. I had to go to work in the afternoon, but it was a solemn afternoon.

      Reply
      • 19. Alan E.  |  July 15, 2010 at 2:36 pm

        woops! wasn’t solemn. I was thinking of another day that was. That was a great day (but had to celebrate in another city).

        Reply
    • 20. Straight Grandmother  |  July 15, 2010 at 2:37 pm

      Dpeck, you wrote the best post of the week, maybe the month. The way you wrote It made me feel like I was there. Do me a favor and save this in a file on your computer exactly how your wrote it, one day we will want to read this again and have you re-post it. I am hoping that it will be at a time when we again have EQUALITY, when people again stand in line to get married. Oh will that be a happy day.

      Reply
      • 21. Dave P.  |  July 15, 2010 at 3:27 pm

        Aw shucks, thanks :) Will do, SGM. I also have lots of photos from that day at City Hall. I haven’t looked at them in a while but I think I’ll spend a few minutes doing that tonight. It could be just what I need to help ‘keep my eye on the prize’.

        Reply
    • 22. SB Mom  |  July 15, 2010 at 3:14 pm

      Add my tears too. What a beautiful day that must have been.

      On a different topic: SB’s weekly newspaper, The Independent, was distributed today. The entire cover is dedicated to DADT with the headlines reading : “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Go To Hell”. Apparently, someone from UCSB has been instrumental in pushing it along, in addition to our wonderfrul Congresswoman Lois Capps.

      Reply
      • 23. Sagesse  |  July 15, 2010 at 3:26 pm

        Is this the article you meant… title doesn’t quite match. I like the picture of the UK servicemen marching in uniform in the Pride parade.

        http://www.independent.com/news/2010/jul/15/doing-away-dont-ask-dont-tell/

        Reply
      • 24. Kathleen  |  July 15, 2010 at 3:33 pm

        That’s the article. You can see the newspaper’s cover graphic on this page:
        http://www.independent.com/news/in-print/

        Reply
      • 25. JonT  |  July 16, 2010 at 12:25 am

        @ Sagesse: Thanks for the link. When they mentioned the felons, I was reminded of the testimony in the DADT trial transcripts (day 1) that LCR posted:

        Q = plaintiff (LCR attorney, Mr. Woods)
        A = Nathanial Frank (plaintiff witness, professor and author of ‘Unfriendly Fire’)

        [cut/paste from transcript]


        Q You also mentioned moral waivers a moment ago, so let me ask you more about that.
        Can you explain to the Court what you’re referring to
        about this Moral Waiver Program.

        A Yes.
        The Moral Waiver Program is a program in the military
        that waives people into the military, hence the name, who have qualification characteristics that would otherwise disqualify them, in some cases based on criminal record, which is what they refer to as moral.

        A Yes.

        Q What did you find?

        A That there were 4,000 convicted criminals that were
        admitted between 2003 and 2006.

        THE COURT: Are those all felonies?

        THE WITNESS: Yes. Those are ex-cons. There were
        also a much larger number of serious misdemeanor cases.

        Moral Waivers. Really? I recommend (if you have a few hours) reading the transcripts. This was from the last segment of day 1 (haven’t gotten to day 2 yet).

        http://online.logcabin.org/071310-day-1.pdf

        Kathleen: Have you completed your analysis yet? :)

        Reply
      • 26. Kathleen  |  July 16, 2010 at 12:40 am

        @JonT, Today has been all about surviving 100+ temps here in the San Gabe Valley w/no AC. And it’s just not cooling down much, either. It’s currently over 81 degs (at 12:40 am).

        Reply
      • 27. JonT  |  July 16, 2010 at 12:57 am

        @Kathleen: Today has been all about surviving 100+ temps here in the San Gabe Valley w/no AC. And it’s just not cooling down much, either. It’s currently over 81 degs (at 12:40 am).

        Ouch – no AC? I remember days like that before they put in AC in these apts – took about 10 showers in cold water a day. Was miserable.

        It’s about 2am here now (Denver) and outside it’;s a nice 72 (80 inside, AC’s off to save money).

        It is a good read when you get the chance. A lot of legal mumbo-jumbo I didn’t understand with phrases/concepts like: elicit motive, voir dire, in limine etc.

        Got real used to the government atty saying ‘Objection. Hearsay.’ :)

        Great fun. Hope you can cool down.

        <3

        Reply
      • 28. JonT  |  July 16, 2010 at 1:00 am

        And forgive me for forgetting yet again to close the ‘b’ tag. :(

        Reply
      • 29. Sagesse  |  July 16, 2010 at 5:24 am

        @JonT

        I’m just about at the section you quoted in the transcripts. An interesting read, for those who are so inclined.

        Reply
      • 30. Alan E.  |  July 16, 2010 at 8:16 am

        @JonT I will try to read through the transcripts when I get a chance, too, but I have a summer class and George Chauncey’s book to get through right now. Any highlights you could post would be great!

        Also, voir dire is the process of questioning an expert witness as soon as s/he is presented to the courtroom to judge if that person is qualified as an expert for the case. Blankenhorn was objected to originally until he provided plenty of good soundbites for our side. The others I’m not sure of. That’s what the internet is for, though!

        Reply
    • 31. Kathleen  |  July 15, 2010 at 3:19 pm

      The Palm Center, which has been very active in its support of repeal, is located at UCSB. (UCSB is my alma mater – got my math degree there, though long before the Palm Center came into existence)

      Reply
      • 32. Santa Barbara Mom  |  July 15, 2010 at 10:20 pm

        Yes, that’s the article. Am running on very little sleep, as one of my sons had emergency surgery yesterday ~ dirt biking accident in the eastern sierras.

        Reply
      • 33. Kathleen  |  July 15, 2010 at 10:27 pm

        Oh, SB Mom, how is your son? I’m so sorry. Hugs, K

        Reply
  • 34. Bolt  |  July 15, 2010 at 10:18 am

    WOW! Thid video is inspiring!

    Reply
  • 35. Babak  |  July 15, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Its happening…….one country, one state at a time. Im so excited (even though Im single) that one day I too can be legally married.

    Come on California……..and the US……..lets get it together!

    Reply
  • 36. James Tuttle  |  July 15, 2010 at 11:22 am

    This is truly exciting! The video is very heartwarming to watch. Hopefully soon, us here in CA, and eventually everyone across America, will be celebrating such a victory. I can’t wait for the day to come. =-)

    Reply
  • 37. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  July 15, 2010 at 11:24 am

    This just in via email…
    Our lovely gNOMe Brian Brown writes about DOMA being overruled; about gNOMe-mobile tour that began in Augusta, Maine; cries over poor Argentina giving those damn gays the right to marry and over DC ruling not to allow a ballot initiative to forbid same-sex marriage.

    Last Thursday, the unthinkable happened. One federal judge in Boston overruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act. One judge created his own Constitution, a world where our Founding Fathers somehow gave four judges in Massachusetts the right to dictate to Congress and the people of the United States how they must define marriage for the purposes of federal law.

    “Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade?” Maggie said, lighting in to the decision. “The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case.”

    The Judge issued his ruling late Thursday afternoon, but by 5:30 p.m. NOM had gotten your voice and your values out. This is not just a bad ruling from a judge; it is a sign of the deceit and collusion of Pres. Obama’s Justice Department in sabotaging the defense of DOMA.

    This was a sham trial, between two parties who both wanted the government to lose this case.
    Check out the piece I wrote for the Daily Caller to see all the ways Obama threw this case. Here’s a sliver:
    “President Obama is afraid he cannot deliver on his promise to overturn DOMA in Congress, so he’s bringing in courts to do his dirty work. It was an underhanded trick, a sham trial, by folks who have sworn to uphold the law of the land. If the Justice Department lawyers couldn’t defend the law, they could have at least stepped aside. To pretend to defend, while actually undercutting DOMA, was and is a low blow. …Ultimately it becomes increasingly clear that Congress must act to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage, whether through a federal marriage amendment or some other means.”

    Others soon noticed the facts we laid out. In fact the distinguished legal scholar Prof. Richard Epstein (who personally favors gay marriage) ripped Judge Tauro’s poor legal reasoning, his taking over democratic rights that belong to the people as a whole, and the appearance of “collusive litigation” Obama’s poor defense raises.

    Our quick response lead to enormous press coverage–Associated Press, Christian Broadcasting Network, CBS News, USA Today, Human Events, NPR, Hartford Courant, Citizen Link, etc.–especially because we had such a big response planned: NOM’s 19-city Summer for Marriage Bus Tour, which kicked off yesterday in Augusta, Maine, the state capital!

    Together with my wife and six kids, we set off in the NOMmobile to let folks know that marriage is on the move! This kind of national series of rallies has never happened before on the marriage issue. This is history in the making. This is something really new–and exciting! NOM’s Summer for Marriage bus tour will help us alert new supporters, build our activist list, and counteract the mainstream media news blackout–all to help us build the army of supporters we need to win this fight!

    Here’s a photo of Daddy and Johnny in front of the NOMmobile.

    We kicked off our rally in Maine because we wanted to start the tour in a place where the people defied the pundits and the politicians to vote for marriage. The people of Maine did what the “experts” said would be impossible: They took territory back from the gay-marriage advocates and asserted the people’s right to vote for marriage.

    Thanks so much to local heroes of the Maine marriage fight for coming out for marriage! Charla Bansley from the state chapter of Concerned Women for America and Bob Emrich of Maine Jeremiah Project, along with me and NOM’s own indefatigable Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (director of The Ruth Institute), addressed the crowd.

    As you read this the NOMmobile is probably in Manchester, New Hampshire for rally #2 or headed south towards Albany for rally #3 of our nationwide barnstorming tour. Honk if you see us driving by! And please, ask your friends and family to join our virtual tour.

    Our hearts go out to the good folks of Argentina today who stood up for marriage. Check out this demonstration opposing same-sex marriage–70,000 people or more!

    Video footage of massive pro-marriage demonstration in Argentina.

    A new movement has been birthed in Argentina and will continue to fight for what is right. We here in America salute your courage in speaking truth to power!

    One final bit of news: Something else big has just been birthed here in this country, the D.C. Values PAC. Bishop Jackson’s heroic leadership has lead to something no one has ever seen before: a coalition of black Democrats leaders and white suburban Christian Republicans to help elect pro-marriage and pro-life black Democrats in the District of Columbia.

    On Monday I was at Georgia Brown’s in D.C. in a room that was 80 percent African-American leaders, including two local commissioners and a candidate for the D.C. City Council. God is making amazing things happen. Old barriers are breaking down, new ideas are springing up–and you are the ones making all of this possible.

    Thank you!

    Don’t forget to sign up for the virtual bus tour–and come out if we are coming to a city near you:
    July 17, Albany, NY
    July 18 Providence, RI
    July 20 Trenton NJ—and more!
    For info on the bus tour click here.

    God’s blessing to you and your family! Please pray for marriage and for the success of our Summer for Marriage national bus tour!

    Faithfully,
    Brian S. Brown
    President
    National Organization for Marriage

    Reply
    • 38. Sheryl Carver  |  July 15, 2010 at 2:34 pm

      Oh, barf!

      It is still very hard for me to understand such willful ignorance, made scarier by being coupled with the certainty that he knows the TRUTH (about everything, apparently).

      Reply
      • 39. JonT  |  July 16, 2010 at 12:38 am

        Yeah, it’s that Absolute Truth(TM) meme his religion pushes into him continuously.

        Reply
    • 40. SB Mom  |  July 15, 2010 at 3:27 pm

      Yes, God is “making things happen”. He’s inspiring people to make the right decisions in establishing Equality in our country.

      Reply
    • 41. JonT  |  July 16, 2010 at 12:36 am

      Oh geez.

      So much hyperbole, so little posting space.

      It truly is a talent to ignore reality and fact to the degree these nutbags do.

      One judge. Creating his own Constitution. These guys are just crazy – pure and simple.

      Reply
      • 42. Kathleen  |  July 16, 2010 at 12:38 am

        It’s easy to convince people when they have little education and no critical thinking skills.

        Reply
      • 43. JonT  |  July 16, 2010 at 12:49 am

        @Kathleen: It’s easy to convince people when they have little education and no critical thinking skills.

        Hell Kathleen, its like they don’t even want to think. It’s deliberate, willful ignorance. Close your eyes, cover your ears and yell “nyanyanyanya!” as loud as you can.

        I just do not understand that kind of… existence.

        Maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe I should not try to understand it, only learn how to properly steamroll over it. :)

        Reply
  • 44. Straight Ally #3008  |  July 15, 2010 at 11:31 am

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

    (Audio aid from famous Argentinian-born announcer Andrés Cantor’s reaction to Landon Donovan’s game-saving World Cup goal)

    Reply
  • 45. Suzanne (not for much longer) O.  |  July 15, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    For all the National Organization for Marriage supporters:
    “Don’t Cry For Me Argentina”!

    Reply
  • 46. Ronnie  |  July 15, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    In honor of Argentina becoming the 10th country to Legalize Marriage Equality…”What’s new Buenos Aires?”….<3..Ronnie:

    Reply
    • 47. fiona64  |  July 15, 2010 at 12:51 pm

      I was thinking about this song yesterday when I read the news.

      How about one dedicated to Louis Marinello and his Summer of Hate bus? “Another Suitcase in Another Hall” comes immediately to mind, and I can’t get YouTube at work.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 48. Ronnie  |  July 15, 2010 at 1:01 pm

        by request of my dopty-mom, fiona64…I dedicate this song to Louis Marinello….<3…Ronnie:

        Reply
      • 49. fiona64  |  July 15, 2010 at 1:16 pm

        Thank you, ‘dopty-son. :-)

        <3

        Reply
      • 50. Ronnie  |  July 15, 2010 at 1:20 pm

        you’re welcome…<3…Ronnie

        Reply
  • 51. Alan E.  |  July 15, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    I would like to point out that when listening to NPR this morning, this story was one of the first at the top of the 8 o’clock hour. They even featured a quote from Catholic leaders saying this would degrade families and children. The very next story to follow was yet another update on the child abuse claims within the Catholic Church.

    Reply
    • 52. Chris  |  July 15, 2010 at 1:46 pm

      Someone should compare the number of children abused in a same-sex marriage to the number of children abused in hetero marriages.

      I think those numbers would be useful for ending discussions with people who fuss about how marriage equality will harm children.

      Reply
  • 53. Sheryl  |  July 15, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    Wonderful news about Argentina.

    As for NOM, well if marriage equality becomes the standard, as it should, they’d have to find something else to fight or join the ranks of the unemployed.

    Wish they’d bring the Summer of Marriage tour to SF so that i could participate in the protest.

    Sheryl, Mormon mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay.

    Reply
    • 54. fiona64  |  July 15, 2010 at 1:37 pm

      I posted a question on Louis Marinelli’s blog about why they weren’t bringing their little bus o’ “love” (yes, complete with sarcasti-quotes) west of the Mississippi and seemed to only be choosing locations where they were guaranteed an opportunity to preach to the converted.

      No response.

      Reply
    • 55. Chris  |  July 15, 2010 at 1:41 pm

      How about that, Brian and I have something in common after all. We both consider ourselves pro-marriage.

      I think I’m a little more pro-marriage than he is, though. I believe in making marriage accessible and he believes in taking it away from people.

      Maybe Brian isn’t very pro-marriage after all.

      Reply
  • 56. Sagesse  |  July 15, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    “Greenwald suggests that one reason Argentina supports marriage equality is that its recent history of dictatorship and pervasive abuse of human rights has sensitized the population to questions of equality.”

    Greenwald’s observation is probably right for Argentina, Spain and Portugal, but it is only part of the story. Canada didn’t have a revolution, but we did peacefully and amicably negotiate our independence from our benevolent parent, Britain, in 1982. At the time, we wrote a Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the benefit of having witnessed the intervening world history since 1776: the American Civil War, women’s suffrage, Japanese internment in both our countries during WWII, the Holocaust, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and the beginnings of the gay rights movement. We had the opportunity to learn from others’ misfortune.

    Canada, and many European nations have also had a much easier time accommodating LGBT rights than the US because of our political structure. To illustrate the differences I’ll use Canada as an example, because I’m familiar with it, but most of the points apply to others.

    In the US legislation is fragmented, and it’s easy (too easy?) to create layers of obstacles to civil rights, which then have to be torn down, one by one, expending political capital each and every time. The Constitution was written under the unfortunate handicap of recognizing that all men are created equal, except of course for the ones who are property. Politics has always been the art of the possible.

    In Canada, civil rights are determined federally. There is one national constitution that was written to be inclusive, and applies to everyone; the provinces don’t have separate constitutions. The government is a representative democracy only; there is no ballot initiative/referendum process at any level. The Senate only exists at the national level (and it’s a different beast altogether); we don’t have to get two separate groups of elected officials to agree on everything at the provincial level. There are only ten political subdivisions (provinces); we don’t have to decide everything 50 times. We somehow ‘get’ the separation of church and state; not an issue in the public debate.

    All of which is intended to be observation, not criticism. I happen to think the US is a great country, still working at perfecting its union. But it may help explain why others can create change; other countries do not spend as much time rehashing and redeciding cultural issues.

    Reply
    • 57. Sagesse  |  July 17, 2010 at 8:47 am

      An addendum to my previous post on the impact of a nation’s political structure on how it recognizes civil rights, and LGBT rights in particular.

      Canada, and many western countries define marriage nationally… once. Civil unions/DP is a less controversial compromise. Thus, nationwide, the UK has civil unions, Canada has marriage equality. In the US, the option of civil unions/DPs exists in every state.

      When measuring public opinion in the US, if you add together the people who think civil unions are ok and the people who think marriage equality is ok, you get a majority who favour legal recognition of same sex partnerships in some form… This compares with the 70% approval in Argentina. It also compares with the 70%, more or less, approval ratings in the US for other LGBT rights (DADT, ENDA) that don’t involve marriage. So long as the marriage vote is ‘split’ between marriage and civil unions, it’s harder to get past 50% marriage approval, because DP is a middle of the road alternative.

      Don’t know where I’m going with this, but perhaps there is a way to shift the national discussion (and Supreme Court arguments) to understanding that the support for legal recognition is broader that five states plus DC, and broader than explicit approval for marriage in polling would suggest?

      Reply
  • 58. Bob  |  July 15, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Sagesse, you left out the very basic and ongoing struggle for Aboriginal rights, and the governments very public acknowledgement and apology by parliament, for harm done intentionally, by Churches, supported by the gov’t, this is a very open acknowledgement of the dangers of mingling affairss of Church and State, as a Country that is part of our history and we are still in midst of the process of reconcilling that damage. To the extent of writing that into our history books, and letting First Nations tell their side of the story.
    Yes we are coming to that place of knowing the importance of separating Church and State,
    And we will come closer when LGBT history is included too.

    Reply
    • 59. Sagesse  |  July 15, 2010 at 3:03 pm

      I didn’t say I understood WHY Canada (and overwhelmingly Catholic states like Argentina, Spain and Portugal) ‘get’ separation of church and state, because frankly I don’t :). I mean, it’s the only sane way to run a country, but…. And you’re right, it hasn’t always been that way… but it seems to be now.

      And you’re right, we did treat our indigenous peoples abominably. I didn’t think to include it because the gutting of their rights took place long ago, and the struggle to make it up to them continues because, quite honestly, there is no way to make up for that.

      Reply
      • 60. Bob  |  July 15, 2010 at 4:03 pm

        Sagesse, the gutting of indegenous peoples rights has been ongoing process, the recent admission of that process, brings it into reality for us today, rather than ignore it or denial, there is admission of this damage done jointly by the Church sancitoned by the government, it is this present admission that brings this to the foreground for us. and is present today,

        I agree the damage done, which the government admitted was to KILL the INDIAN in the child, can not be made up for, but acknowledging it, is the hudge step in reconcilling this part of our history. And also the gaurantee, we will not travel down that road again. and that is the part of the struggle that continues today, not to make up, but to ensure it is not repeated.

        And I think we were able to see the reality of how Churches were attempting to repeat that exact same abuse towards our LGBT community.

        The abuse against indegenous peoples , and their ability to keep it in our face to the present day, has been and is an ongoing gift, if we are able to learn from it, and other atrocities, as I agree we are.

        Reply
      • 61. Bob  |  July 16, 2010 at 10:50 am

        Today the Iroguois Nation, made headlines in a number of papers, regarding “passport flap” to read some of the comments in those articles will disclose ongoing racist attidudes prevelant today,
        Interestiing, part of their Nation is in State of New York, Hillory Clinton attempted to come to their aid.

        I find it interesting to see the correlationj, between racist attiudes, and those of the religious right, BIGOTRY

        Reply
  • 62. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  July 15, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    Thank you Sagesse….that was well written and nicely explained.
    Answered a few things for me :-)

    Reply
  • 63. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  July 15, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    “[O]ne reason Argentina supports marriage equality is that its recent history of dictatorship and pervasive abuse of human rights has sensitized the population to questions of equality. This might help explain marriage equality in Spain and Portugal, which were also ruled by repressive, socially conservative dictatorships until the mid-1970s, and where activism in support of LGBT rights became prominent as soon as Franco’s and Salazar’s regimes fell.”
    –Robert Cruickshank (bolding mine)

    What country do you know that had a dictatorship recently? — Russia!
    Who repealed sodomy law first? — Russia (1993) v. USA (2003)!
    Who repealed ban for gays to serve in the military first? — Russia (2003) v. USA (pending)!
    I don’t want to say anything, and I certainly do not believe we’ll get there first (I’m Russian), but look at the supposedly progressive Europe with their half-way-there civil unions (let’s include there USA) and then look at 10 countries that have marriage equality.  Progressive, huh?  Rights and freedoms, huh?  Separation of state and church, huh? Lies!

    Reply
  • 64. Sagesse  |  July 15, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Immigration reform again, still..

    Lawmakers Push Immigration/UAFA

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/07/15/Lawmakers_Push_Immigration_UAFA/

    Reply
    • 65. Shun  |  July 15, 2010 at 5:38 pm

      The article is just shows once again how the Republicans choose to be ignorant and just focus on gay marriage and illegal immigration…when the UAFA (in language) isn’t about either issue at all.

      Reply
  • 66. bbock  |  July 15, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    What? They don’t have Mormons in Argentina? Cheap steaks, gay marriage and no Mormons. Go Argentina!

    Reply
    • 67. Alan E.  |  July 15, 2010 at 4:12 pm

      One day, I will go to Argentine just to try a steak.

      Reply
      • 68. Dave P.  |  July 15, 2010 at 4:44 pm

        By coincidence, I’m going to Argentina in October for a vacation. I’m not very promiscuous at all but I may do more than just try a steak :) I mean, have you SEEN those guys??

        Reply
      • 69. JonT  |  July 16, 2010 at 12:43 am

        @Dave P: Oh behave!

        And yes, yes I have :)

        Reply
    • 70. Kathleen  |  July 15, 2010 at 4:20 pm

      They have Mormons, just not as many of them and they were far from silent, but seemed more restrained in what was officially said by church leaders.
      http://wwrn.org/articles/33864/

      Reply
      • 71. Jeff  |  July 15, 2010 at 4:38 pm

        Argentina according to the LDS Church has 355,987 members of the church, of which 30% are active in the church – meaning there are just under 107,000 members of the church there that actually go to church. There are 40 million people that live in Argentina – .003% of the population is LDS. (The church counts you as a member unless you ask them not to – meaning if you stop going they still count you. If they cant track you down and you die they remove you from membership records on your 100th birthday)

        Reply
  • 72. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  July 15, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    Felicidad, Argentina!!!!!

    Reply
  • […] “Summer for Marriage: One Man, One Woman” tour to the DOMA case to the news out of Argentina last […]

    Reply
  • 74. Franck  |  July 15, 2010 at 11:22 pm

    I actually tiled my last blog post “Three cheers for Argentina.” The news made my day though, sadly, there was no one I could share the joy with outside the internet…

    Go Argentina. Now I understand why you have a sun on your flag. Shine brightly!

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1120 days, as of today.

    Reply
  • 75. JonT  |  July 16, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    @Alan E: ‘Any highlights you could post would be great!

    I actually had cut/pasted several interesting segments into a text file, but by the end I realized I had 2-3 pages – didn’t think that would be appropriate.

    As I go through them though, I’ll see about posting some interesting points as I come across them. Though the last two segments of day 1 were the most interesting so far. Have not started on day 2 yet.

    The others I’m not sure of. That’s what the internet is for, though!

    Yes :) Was tired, didn’t want to bother to look. Besides, ever done a google search on ‘elicit motive’? :)

    Reply
    • 76. Alan E.  |  July 16, 2010 at 4:24 pm

      I can imagine, but I find that a wikipedia search will net you results you are actually looking for. I will sometimes add “wikipedia” in the search text in the google search bar.

      Reply
    • 77. Sagesse  |  July 16, 2010 at 4:48 pm

      Try ‘illicit’. The court reporter may have picked it up as ‘elicit’?

      Reply
      • 78. JonT  |  July 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm

        I have noticed that indeed there are misspellings and other issues with the transcripts from time to time. :) To be honest, I’m impressed with what they do get.

        I will post some segments from Day 2, Vol 2 shortly. I guess I will keep it in this thread, as there is no specific DADT thread for me to use.

        If this is wrong, or annoying, let me know.

        Reply
    • 79. JonT  |  July 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm

      DADT trial, day 2 highlights. This will be long, sorry. I mainly
      focus on Stephen Vossler’s testimony, perhaps too much of it. An
      actual soldier, who served with actual gay people in the actual army. Hopefully the formatting will be okay too – my first attempt at a post like this.

      From: http://online.logcabin.org/day-2-vol-ii.pdf

      MR. GARDNER = defense atty

      Q = Ms. Myers, plantiff’s atty

      A = STEPHEN VOSSLER, plaintif witness,
      Korean language specialist, testfying on what it was like sharing
      quarters with another Korean language specialist (Derek Thomas)
      who was undergoing discharge proceeding under DADT.



      10:58
      Q And during the time that you lived with Mr. Thomas, was he
      in the process of being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t
      Tell”?
      A Yes. When I moved into the room that he was already
      occupying, he was already in the process of being discharged.
      Q And during that process, about how long did you live with
      Mr. Thomas?
      A About nine months.

      Q During the time that you lived with Mr. Thomas, did you
      find that he, in your experience, was doing well as a soldier?
      MR. GARDNER: Objection. Leading.
      THE COURT: Overruled.
      You may answer.
      THE WITNESS: I noticed that Derek wasn’t — just
      generally speaking, wasn’t doing well. I thought it was very
      difficult on him, because he was such a talented soldier. He
      had graduated the Korean basic course. He graduated very well.

      He certainly passed his course, which is difficult. He was also very
      good at the physical training portion of being a soldier. He was also
      very skilled at some of the other type of tasks while he was there. He
      volunteered to be a trainer of other soldiers and taught them some
      basic soldiering skills. And he was very proficient at all of that.

      And during the discharge process, he was doing day-to-day duties that
      consisted more of things that would generally be reserved for somebody
      who was either being punished or was being discharged because they
      couldn’t meet the requirements for being a soldier, whether it be they
      weren’t technically or tactically proficient enough or they couldn’t
      pass the physical fitness test. And he was none of those things. He
      was, generally speaking, a very good soldier, an above-average
      soldier, and was just doing things that — he was separated from the
      rest of the unit, doing things that he was overqualified for.


      11:02
      Q And during the time that you were living with him, you
      said that Mr. Thomas was not participating with his unit any
      longer; is that correct?
      A That’s correct.
      Q And in your view, what does it mean if a soldier is not
      allowed to participate with his unit?
      A Well, that generally means that he or she is a bad
      soldier.
      Q Is that what you thought of Mr. Thomas?
      A Initially, yes.
      Q And why did you think that?
      A Well, I guess the logic was that if the Army saw fit to pull him
      apart from the rest of the unit in terms of day-to-day duty, then it
      must be just.


      11:06

      Q Is it your understanding that Mr. Thomas was overqualified
      for the jobs that he was doing during the time he was being
      discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”?
      A He was — yeah, he was obviously overqualified for his
      tasks. I mean, in order to even have an opportunity to train
      for the job that he was trained for, you have to be quite
      exceptional.
      Q Did you have any problems living with Mr. Thomas?
      A I did not. It was awkward at first, but that passed.
      Q And why was it awkward at first when you started living
      with Mr. Thomas?

      A I was not comfortable being in such close proximity to
      somebody who was gay, a gay man. That was something that I had
      never experienced up until that point. And I guess I had it in
      my head that that would be something that I would constantly
      have to battle, in that he would be coming onto me or — I was
      just worried that it would be a very sort of tense living situation.

      Q Was it a tense living situation?
      A No, it was not.
      Q Did any of your concerns about how Mr. Thomas might behave
      come to pass?
      A Other than having to listen to a little bit more Cher than
      I would normally choose to do, no. It was actually a pretty
      great living situation.

      [LOL – re Cher reference :)]


      Q And why was it a pretty great living situation?
      A He was a very good roommate. He was very courteous. If I
      was sleeping or just relaxing or something when he came back
      late, he would leave the lights off. He’s very quiet; he’s
      very clean. He would bring friends over. We would all hang
      out. We’d go out to dinner. It was a good friendship. It was
      a good living situation.

      11:10

      Q Did you develop close friendships with other people while
      you were at the Defense Language Institute?
      A Yes. I developed a lot of close friendships while I was
      there.
      Q Was one of those close relationships with Specialist
      Jarrod Chlapowski?
      A Yes, it was.

      Q What were some of Specialist Chlapowski’s characteristics
      that created the foundation for your friendship with him?

      A We were very similar in sort of our outlook on the
      military. We were both young men, very competitive, very
      physically fit; and we spent time on our own sort of
      cultivating those skills. We tried to be the top of our class.
      We studied very hard. We worked very hard, at our language, at
      our soldiering skills. We were fellow nerds. We would read
      books and discuss things. I was a science fiction guy; he was
      a fantasy guy. And we shared a lot of the same personal
      interests. They weren’t exactly the same, but they were close
      enough to interest us, but not so far apart that we were
      disinterested.

      Q And what language was Specialist Chlapowski studying?
      A He was also a Korean language student.
      Q And to circle back quickly, during the time that you lived
      with Mr. Thomas, did you ever have any problems sharing a
      bathroom or shower space with him?
      A I did not have any problems.
      Q During the time that you became friends with
      Specialist Chlapowski, did you learn anything else of interest
      about him?

      A Yes. At one point his roommate showed me a picture of Jarrod and
      another man standing very close to each other on a beach, and he said,
      Did you know that Jarrod was gay?
      Q How did you react to that information about Mr. Chlapowski’s sexual
      orientation?

      A I thought it was — I just thought it was kind of a crazy
      story that his roommate made up, because, in my mind, there was
      no way that Jarrod could be gay. So I just — I didn’t dismiss
      it in terms of I just forgot about it, but I did dismiss it in
      terms of its point. I didn’t think that Jarrod was gay. And
      then later in the week, when I confronted Jarrod about it, I
      didn’t ask him, Hey, are you gay; I said, Hey, can you believe
      this crazy story your roommate told me; he said that you were
      gay; isn’t that crazy?
      Q And why didn’t you think Specialist Chlapowski could be
      homosexual?

      A Up until that point, I still held some very stereotyping
      beliefs about gays and lesbians. I thought that — whereas
      Derek Thomas sort of fit the bill, so to speak, he was very
      flamboyant, very effeminate, Jarrod was quite the opposite. He
      was very masculine, very sort of centered. He’s a very sort of
      mellow personality, very professional, very calm.


      Q When you talked to Specialist Chlapowski about his sexual
      orientation, what was his reaction?
      THE WITNESS: He was obviously very uncomfortable. I
      think he was probably scared, maybe a little embarrassed. I
      don’t really know what his emotions were. But he was obviously
      very uncomfortable. And rather than denying it, rather than
      saying, No, I’m not gay; ha ha, that is a very funny story, he
      said, Yeah, I am gay; is that a problem?

      Q And how did his disclosure of his sexual orientation make
      you feel?
      A Well, it was awkward at first. It was something that I
      didn’t expect, and I was kind of in disbelief, because I didn’t
      think it would be possible for me to cultivate a friendship
      with a gay man.
      Q Did that prove to be not the case?
      A Yeah, that’s definitely not the case. We’re very good
      friends.


      11:41
      Q And why have you spoken out against “Don’t Ask, Don’t
      Tell” and devoted so much time to that issue?
      A In my opinion, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is — it’s a very
      discriminatory law, and I’ve watched it have some pretty grave
      effects on people. It was very difficult on my friend Derek.
      Jarrod always wanted to make a career out of the military, and
      he got out. And it just, in my opinion, doesn’t seem in line
      with American values. It’s very discriminatory, and I don’t
      understand how it’s a law in my country.

      [I’ll stop here, otherwise you might as well just read the pdf
      yourself. And you really should, they serve together and are good
      friends for some time and always need to be careful about what they
      say in public, lest a DADT investigation be launched against
      Jarrod.. That’s just not right.]

      Reply
    • 80. JonT  |  July 16, 2010 at 11:59 pm

      DADT Trial

      Day 2 volume 3, The saga continues.

      Note: This transcript was clearly done by someone else as the format
      is a little different (and harder to deal with). There may be some
      (more :) formatting errors, sorry. There are also no apparent
      timestamps in this volume. This was the last volume of day 2.

      From: http://online.logcabin.org/day-2-vol-iii.pdf


      Q. Ms. Feldman, plaintiff atty.

      A. ELIZABETH HILLMAN, Ph.D., PLAINTIFF’S WITNESS, SWORN
      Currently a professor of law (Phd), University of California
      Hastings College of law. [Served in the USAF, a space
      operations officer and as a strategic analyst in Denver,
      later posted to Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Base in Colorado Springs
      as an orbital analyst related to the Strategic Defense Initiative.]

      [Regarding her Masters thesis]


      Q. And did any part of your master’s thesis relate to the issue of
      gays and lesbians in the military?
      A. It did.
      Q. How did it relate to gays and lesbians in the military?
      A. One of the primary concerns by the — the officers and
      civilians who were deciding about women’s military uniforms
      was making sure women did not appear too mannish, that they
      look like men in uniform. And this was — this was
      reflected in the minutes of the boards that met and the
      committees and also in the designers’ notes as they did
      this. And it was — it was very difficult for the designers
      to come up with acceptably feminine uniforms within the
      confines of a — of the — the functional requirements of
      those uniforms.

      So what I wrote about in part was how the fear of women looking like
      men, which is very closely related to the fear of women being
      lesbians, shaped the design of women’s military uniforms.

      Q. How long were you employed at the Air Force Academy?
      A. About two years.
      Q. Why did you decide to leave the Air Force Academy?
      A. Because I realized I was a lesbian and that I couldn’t
      stay in the Air Force and still maintain the standards of
      professionalism that I felt obliged to maintain.
      Q. And what do mean by that, you felt that you couldn’t
      maintain the standards of professionalism?
      A. Every day when I walked past the elevator in — on the
      sixth floor of the building where my office was, I saw a
      sign that said “Academy core values: Integrity first,
      service before self, excellence in all we do.” And I felt that I
      couldn’t be — I couldn’t maintain those values and not — not be open
      about my sexual orientation.

      Q. Do you feel that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” prevented you
      from remaining a teacher at the Air Force Academy?

      MR. SIMPSON: Objection, your Honor. Leading.
      THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

      THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

      [after testimony certfying her an expert in military law and justice]

      Q. Can you describe the role of women in the U.S. military
      following the end of the draft and moving into the
      all-voluntary force?
      A. Women rescued the all-volunteer force. Their quality
      indicators were higher than the men who enlisted in those
      first years without a draft. Women gradually moved into an
      increasing number of military occupations, and they also
      gradually moved up the promotion chain and were appointed
      and earned higher levels of military service and control.
      The restriction on women’s ability to command men was
      lifted, and the rules regarding women not being permitted in
      certain jobs were lifted, especially in the 1990s.

      Q. Professor Hillman, based on your research, how has
      “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” impacted women in the military?

      A. Much more than it has impacted men in the military.
      The reason for that is what we just talked about. The
      military is a non-traditional career choice for women, and
      the appearance of women in military uniform is more
      masculine than the appearance of women in many other
      professions. For women to join a nontraditional masculine
      profession, they are automatically suspect to accusations
      that they don’t like men, that they wish to be men, that
      they are, in fact, lesbians. So women are vulnerable to
      charges of lesbianism in a way that men in the military are
      not.

      Q. And have you studied the percentage of women that have
      been discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”?

      A. Yes.
      Q. What percentage of women are discharged from the
      military compared to the percentage of total women in the
      military?
      A. It’s two to three times as high as the men who are
      discharged. In other words, women are 15 percent of the
      total force. Women are, perhaps, 30 percent of the
      discharges. But I will say those discharge figures don’t
      represent the full impact, the disproportionate impact, of
      that policy on service women. Because in many ways the
      harassment and derision that is associated with accusations
      of lesbianism doesn’t show up in the actual discharge
      figures for the policy itself.

      Q. You mentioned “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before. Do you
      believe that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” furthers the incident
      of sexual harassment against women in the military?

      A. Yes.
      Q. Why do you believe that’s the case?
      A. Because it makes it more difficult for women to rebuff
      sexual advances of men. Because it makes lesbian-baiting
      possible because of the ban on women’s open service by women
      who might be lesbians and because it creates a hierarchy of
      sexual orientation that clearly privileges heterosexuality
      over homosexuality.

      Q. Can you describe or explain for the court what
      lesbian-baiting is?
      A. When a women is accused of being a lesbian and is
      therefore subject to discharge and censure under the policy.
      Q. And you talked about a hierarchy of sexual orientation.
      Can you explain what you meant by that?
      A. Well, if a wom[a]n didn’t have to fear being accused of
      being homosexual, then there wouldn’t be this potential for
      harassment and abuse within the confines of a military
      workplace.

      Q. And why does “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” disproportionately
      impact African-American women?

      A. That answer is not extant in the literature. But the scholars who
      study this surmise that it is because African-American women in many
      different workplaces who are in positions of authority are more likely
      to be challenged, and they are more likely to be challenged sexually,
      in particular. So they are in an even more vulnerable position than
      non-African-American female service members.

      [followed by cross examination by defense (US Government)]

      Q = MR. SIMPSON, defense atty
      A = ELIZABETH HILLMAN, Ph.D., PLAINTIFF’S WITNESS, SWORN



      Q. Now, I believe you testified regarding “lesbian
      baiting.”
      Are you familiar, Professor, with the hearings
      before Congress that occurred before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
      was enacted?
      A. Yes.
      Q. Are you aware that a Judith Stiehm provided testimony
      before Congress?
      A. Yes.
      Q. And are you aware that Judith Stiehm provided testimony
      regarding this phenomenon that you’ve called lesbian
      baiting?
      A. Yes. And no one listened to her.

      Q. Nevertheless, that testimony is included within the legislative
      record; correct?
      A. Yes. A voice in the wilderness.

      Q. Professor, are you aware that the Department of Defense
      has recently issued new regulations regarding “Don’t Ask,
      Don’t Tell”?
      A. Yes.
      Q. Those regulations — is it true, that those regulations
      limit what constitutes credible evidence of homosexual
      conduct?
      A. Yes.
      Q. Those regulations — is it true, that those regulations
      limit what constitutes credible evidence of homosexual
      conduct?
      A. Yes.
      Q. Would you agree that those regulations make more
      difficult the use of lesbian baiting to discharge a female
      service member?
      A. They might, yes.
      Q. Would you agree, Professor, that most discharges under
      “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” result from a statement?
      A. Yes.

      Q. Maybe I should go back a little bit on that. This
      charge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” fall either within one
      caused by a statement or one caused by conduct, and act;
      correct?
      A. Yes, although there is a very blurred distinction
      between statement and conduct. I do know that the numbers
      of discharges that the government attributes to statements
      of sexual orientation accounts for the lion’s share of
      discharges under the policy.
      Q. Do you know what that percentage is?
      A. I believe it’s upwards of three-quarters.
      Q. That are attributable to statements?
      A. Yes.

      [Really?! Statements?, would be nice to know the breakdown
      between self-statements and 3rd party statements.]

      [lots of evidentiary arguments, time discussions, etc. Court adjourned at 3:54 p.m]

      Reply
      • 81. Kathleen  |  July 17, 2010 at 12:16 am

        JonT, thanks so much for posting these excerpts. I still haven’t read the transcripts and appreciate having important sections posted here.

        Reply
      • 82. JonT  |  July 17, 2010 at 3:33 am

        @Kathleen: ‘JonT, thanks so much for posting these excerpts. I still haven’t read the transcripts and appreciate having important sections posted here.

        Your welcome – I must say I’m surprised there does not really seem to be any other ‘tracker’ for this trial. It is an important trial, at least for me.

        I may however, move this onto a blogspot site I setup a few months ago (which is kind of collecting dust currently) as I’m not sure it’s really appropriate to continue to append large posts to this ‘Argentina’ page, and there’s no possibility of correcting mistakes (like the C/P booboo I made in the last post) once I hit submit :)

        In addition, we’ve only heard from 3 of the 17 witnesses plaintiffs (the good guys) intend to bring up so, we’re just getting started… :)

        Still need to read Day 3 over the weekend, I’ll let you know what happens (ie: whether I post here, or push over to the blogspot page). Probably a blogspot page.

        Reply
      • 83. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  July 17, 2010 at 3:42 am

        @JonT
        Thank you!
        Your excerpts actually made me want to read the whole thing in full.  For some reason I expected to find there a lot of military dry talk, hence I wasn’t particularly interested in reading it.

        Also, on my behalf and on behalf of Felyx I must say that we both agree: it is a very important trial and it deserves to be analyzed and discussed.  Felyx told me he doesn’t understand this obsession with NOM’s tour and wishes we were discussing something that is more important, i.e. DADT trial while we are awaiting for Walker’s decision and for DOMA’s possible appeal (there are 5 days left for the Department of Justice to decide if it would appeal Tauro’s judgment!).

        Reply
      • 84. JonT  |  July 19, 2010 at 12:57 am

        Ok, so what I’ve done is moved this onto my own blogspot blog I setup a couple months ago.

        It will just be easier to fix errors, formatting etc :)

        I’ve already cut and pasted the last entries.

        I have added 2 new entries, one for Day 3, Volume 1, and another for Day 3 Volume’s 2&3. There appear to be 3 volumes per full day of court.

        The blog is located at: http://catissad.blogspot.com

        I will post 2 more follow up to this post so you can go directly to Day 3’s entries (posted seperately to avoid moderation delays).

        In the future, I will post a link to any further entries I put up there, in whatever thread happens to be current at the time. I do not promise to do this every day, every volume – that would require far more time than I have, but I will do what I can.

        Reply
      • 85. JonT  |  July 19, 2010 at 12:58 am

        Day 3, Volume 1:

        http://catissad.blogspot.com/2010/07/federal-dadt-trial-log-cabin_18.html

        Reply
      • 86. JonT  |  July 19, 2010 at 12:58 am

        Day 3, Volume 2 & 3

        http://catissad.blogspot.com/2010/07/federal-dadt-trial-log-cabin_19.html

        Good night :)

        Reply
      • 87. Kathleen  |  July 19, 2010 at 1:03 am

        Good night, JonT. Thank you for the links to your blog. :)

        Reply
      • 88. Alan E.  |  July 19, 2010 at 9:29 am

        Thanks a lot JonT! I don’t have time to read the transcripts right now (George Chauncey and homework are taking priority right now), so little snippets are great to see how it is moving along. I will be sure to read it all one day, though.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,297 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...