Author: Teddy Partridge

In multiple shocking developments to the American judicial system on the same day, Judge Vaughn Walker was outed as gay in the San Francisco Chronicle website SFGate.com this morning — and in a horrifying riposte, Justice Sam Alito was outed as male on the Courage Campaign’s Prop 8 Trial Tracker web-page by courageous out-er Brian Leubitz.

Judge Vaughn Walker is, of course, hearing the federal challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which bars gays and lesbians from marrying. According to Matier & Ross, city-paper political gossip-mongers:

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

Well, the bigots and homophobes certainly can’t expect a fair trial after that, can they? It makes a mockery of every single one of the judge’s questions about gays and lesbians, when he said “they” — and meant “we.” Won’t the tighty-righties make a big deal about this ‘new’ information about the judge, who was (incidentally) randomly assigned this case? In response, Andy Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com had this to say:

“We are not going to say anything about that,” Pugno said.

He was quick to assert, however, that Prop. 8 backers haven’t gotten a fair shake from Walker in court. He cited both the judge’s order for the campaign to turn over thousands of pages of internal memos to the other side and Walker’s decision to allow the trial to be broadcast – both of which were overturned by higher courts.

“In many ways, the sponsors of Prop. 8 have been put at significant disadvantage throughout the case,” Pugno said. “Regardless of the reason for it.”

Yeah, a significant disadvantage is when the judge who rules against your side is overridden on appeal, twice.

And in a shocking response to the in-paper revelation about Judge Walker, activist and known gay person Brian Leubitz revealed something even more horrifying about Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the odious and swiftly overturned-by-Congress Lilly Ledbetter decision, about a woman’s right to sue her employer for fair wages: he’s male!

So, did anybody comment about Justice Alito’s gender when he wrote the outrageous opinion in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire that said that under the Civil Rights Act women could not sue after 180 days from the discriminatory decision, even if they didn’t know about the decision for years? The decision that ultimately spurred the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Act because it was so egregious.

Clearly, America is going to need a new standard of disclosure and recusal based on the identity and background of judges. It’s not about being activist judges anymore — now it’s about who judges are. We need to know not simply what judges’ views are before putting them on the bench for life; we need to know exactly how their identify might affect a specific ruling they might be called upon to make.

And since this case now in Vaughn Walker’s San Francisco courtroom is headed for the Supreme Court notwithstanding any lower court rulings, and since the Prop 8 defense is primarily about the sacred procreative aspect of marriage, Chief Justice John Roberts ought to set an example: married at 41, two adopted children.

Anything you’d like to tell us about yourself, Johnny R?

 

Now the testimony phase of the Prop 8 Trial has ended, the covers have been pulled back on the motives and operations of the proponents of Prop 8. While we had an entire Prop 8 political campaign in 2008, and since then a court case to the California Supreme Court, it is only in the federal trial that a spotlight has shined on the animus and motivations of the people who want to restrict the civil marriage rights of gays and lesbians.

Whenever someone asks me “how was it?” to sit through almost every minute of opening arguments and testimony, and cross examination, I flash on poor Mary Todd: “Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play?” Because while there were some spectacular moments from David Boies as he exposed the pitiful non-expertise of both the remaining witnesses the Defendant-Intervenors called, and some real humor from Judge Vaughn Walker — my most vivid memory from those twelve days will always be the realization that, for the proponents of Prop 8, gays and lesbians have quite enough power right now. We should be happy with what we have. And stop demanding more.

Because gays and lesbians have political allies (only a few of those named at trial actually support full marriage rights) and because we are featured in television shows (even though the Ellen and Will & Grace sitcoms are long gone) and because we have disposable income (we do?!) and because we are, at long last, federally protected from violent hate crimes, we should be content.

We should be content that politicians march in our festive Pride parades, and that some gays & lesbians get elected to office here and there, and that the President speaks to national meetings of our moneyed leadership. We should be content that the Congress might actually take up the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Defense of Marriage Act and the Don’t-Ask/Don’t-Tell discrimination against those actively serving in the military. Because, somehow, having our issues discussed and debated in public (whether legislation is actually passed or not) denotes just about enough power — power that gays & lesbians should be very happy to have.

We should be content that some states let us marry; we should be happy that some states let us adopt; we should be pleased that some states let us foster kids. And we should be ecstatic that some states even let us contract in some odd, cobbled together, frequently rewritten, specially designed but not at all clearly understood unit called Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships. The fact that we are second-class citizens in the constitutions of more than twenty states should not matter, because, well, Barney Frank chairs the House Banking Committee!

Hurray!

After a while of this — and it was the primary argument of the Defendant-Intervenors — it was easier to turn off my brain and type what they said without actually processing any of it. As I go back and read some of the liveblogging, I am amazed that I really don’t recall a lot of it. It just went from my ears to my fingertips, without actually engaging my brain.

Because it was so toxic, so painful, so absurd — would be the alleged promiscuity of gay men somehow redefine marriage for all men? Would children essentially be snatched from loving opposite-marriage homes, to be placed with single gay or lesbian parents, or with same-sex couples? Would boys want to marry princes, or girls princesses? Would daughters want to have sex with other girls since they couldn’t get dates with boys, and gay marriage made same-sex relationships seem okay? And would the never-changed institution of marriage — the same exact institution through all of human history, apparently — withstand this new assault?

And who would teach the sons of lesbian parents how to change the car’s oil?

When we reached that absurdity, it was like a thunderbolt for me. I had already realized they wanted to repeal The Enlightenment, they had no basic understanding of the scientific method, and they did not grasp logic at its root. But when we were told, finally, that prohibiting same-sex marriage was really about learning how to change your car’s oil, I understood: no argument is too silly, no underpinnings are too fundamentalist, no religiosity is too cloying. These people will use any illogic they can grab hold of in an attempt to impose their values and morals and religious code on others.

Because their religious code is best for them, it must be best for you and me. That, in essence, is all they have: that they know best for all of us. And that we’d better pay attention and model American civil institutions on their religious beliefs.

That’s it. That’s what they want.

But in our pluralistic multicultural democracy, we simply cannot allow them to have that. It just won’t work. Unless we want America to become the Republic of Gilead, this movement of theirs must be stopped, right here and right now.

Thank you for the opportunity to “turn the lights on” during the past three weeks. (And yes, I know — the video has some factual inaccuracies about who exactly turned off the cameras. But it’s cute, huh?) I will be back at the federal courthouse in San Francisco for closing arguments (watch FDL for that announcement, expected in March or perhaps April) and of course for Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling following those closing arguments.

Please keep an eye on the FDL Prop 8 Hub for more news going forward. All our Prop 8 liveblogging is there, in case you missed any of it. Additionally, there is some great analysis by several of our thoughtful FDL writers, among them David Dayen, Marcy Wheeler, bmaz, Peterr, egregious, and Lisa Derrick.

And, finally, please support our efforts if you can. Every little bit helps.

{Video from Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s company HitRECord, via Towleroad and Julia Rosen at the Courage Campaign’s Prop 8 Trial Tracker}

 

[Ed. Note: FDL has complete team coverage of Perry v. Schwarzenegger–including more legal analysis, court documents, videos, and liveblogging direct from the federal court in San Francisco. You can find it all on our dedicated Prop 8 page.]

We will resume at five minutes (past?) the hour with David Boies’ cross examination of David Blankenhorn.

Boies: Did you agree with this document that marriage has six importnat dimensions?

A: Yes I did

Q: The first is that it is a legal contract
A: Yes
Q: whether hetero or samesex, it would be a legal contract
A: Yes
Q: The second dimension is financial. Same for hetero ansd ss”?
A: yes
Q: marriage is a sacred promise?
A: YEs
Q: Sexual union?
A: Yes
Q: Personal bond?
A: Yes
Q: Family-making bond? Does this sixth dimension mean only two people or a way of establishing children?
A: I’m afraid — can you repeat?

Q: let me break it up. This sixth dimension is that it is afmaily making bond. When two marry they make a family, right?
A: Yes
Q: whether same or opposite sex?
A: Yes
Q: Can both ss and opp raise children in a family=making bond?
A: Yes sir, the important word is the word raise.

Q: In that connection, let me ask you to turn to Tab 9. PX2898, articel in Social Sceince Quarterly: Same Sex Marriage & Negative Eternalities.
A: I am looking at this for the first time.
Q: Do you know either of these authors?
A: Not familiar
Q: You don’t know any of theri worwk?
A: Can’t say I do.
Q: Your honor take judicial notice?
OBJECTION (or question)

 

[Ed. Note: FDL has complete team coverage of Perry v. Schwarzenegger–including more legal analysis, court documents, videos, and liveblogging direct from the federal court in San Francisco. You can find it all on our dedicated Prop 8 page.]

Today’s court session in Courtroom 17 at the Philip Burton Courthouse in San Francisco features Plaintiffs’ Counsel David Boies resuming his cross examination of Defendant-Intervenors’ Expert Witness David Blankenhorn.

Because both the questioner and the witness have the same first initial of their last name, I will use a Q&A format (with possible interjections by Judge Vaughn Walker as ‘Walker’ or ‘W’) for this cross examination.

Questions for today’s testimony: Will Boies continue to require YES/NO/I DON’T KNOW answers to his questions? Will Blankenhorn adhere to counsel’s requirement for the format of his answers? Will Judge Walker intercede early on to instruct the witness, or wait for a request from Boies after some wrangling? Will a good night’s sleep, as Judge Walker prescribed for us all, will both counsel and witness approach today’s questioning (and, more importantly, answering) more constructively and, um, responsively.

Q: I am going to try to make things go a little better today, good morning Mr BLankenhorn. DO you beleive marriage is public good?
A: Yes I do
Q: And you believe that children benefit from their parents being married?
A: yes certainly
Q: And do you believe that children of G&L couples would benefit from their parents being married?
A: Well, I do think it would be better for them
Q: You absoulutely believe it would be better for children of same sex couples to have married parents?
A: Yes

Q: (reads from B’s book) You say the rights of G&L should take second place to the institution of marriage?
A: Point me to the sentence?
Q: Reads next sentence.) You wrote that?
A: Yes
Q: You still believe that?
A: Yes, I was trying to say — I was saying — I meant that I accpeted the validity of the arguments of those who disagreed with me, but my answer is yes.

 

[Ed. Note: FDL has complete team coverage of Perry v. Schwarzenegger–including more legal analysis, court documents, videos, and liveblogging direct from the federal court in San Francisco. You can find it all on our dedicated Prop 8 page.]

While Judge Walker considers a motion to suppress (with cameras and sound off, courtroom cleared) and has lunch, we wait to resume at approximately 1:10 pm pacific time, presumably with Defendant-Intervenors’ Expert Witness David Blankenhorn.

Walker: We need a court reporter, Mr Cooper, before we begin.

Awaiting court reporter, Cooper and Walker appear ready to begin.

[I rode up in the elevator with David Boies from the cafeteria, and told him “I think that was a great morning.” He replied, “Yes it was great, wasn’t it?” And I said “Thank you for that, I really enjoyed it.” And he said, “Thank you very much, I did too.”]

Cooper calls David Blankenhorn (sworn, says and spells name)

Cooper’s associate distributed binders.

Cooper: Please turn to Tab 1, your declaration, unnumbered page right behind page 25. Is that your CV?

B: Yes sir

C: Behind Tab A, your honor, exhibit DIX2693, just Mr Blankenhorn’s CV.

C: Background and edeucaiton

Harvard 1977 degree in social studies, and 1979 History, University od Warwick, MA in England, with distinction.

Fellowships?

Year abroad, UNiversity of Warwick.

After UWarwick,what did you do?

VISTA, community organizer in Massachusetts. COntinued that in several different communities in MA and VA.

What kind of work?

Working and living in low income communities, our jobs were to create grassroots organiztions to advocate for reforms they thought were important.

What were some of the challenges?

You see them firsthand, seeing the weakened state of community and family institutions — especially how children were lving withuot their fathers — led me to my next round of work.

What was that?

In 1987 I started the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan thinktank about marriage, children and wellbeing of community.

What is your role?

I am the President.

What is the work?

Commission research, hold conferences, signature product: Report to the Nation, an interdisciplinary team of scholars jointly release reportt and recommendations.

Subject matters focus on?

Fatherhood,marriage,child rearing, child well being, family structure.

DOes it produce regular piublications?

“State of Our Unions” is our annual report about marriage, and a regular report called “Why Marriage Matters”

What is that?

15 scholars work together very carefully on what they felt were the principal social sscience findings on marriage in America. As more research comes available, we will publish our third report.

Are you personally involved?

As principal writer and invesstigator, identify teams of scholars and work with them in a non-leadership capacity as they do their work.

Is there a subject matter you devote your personal efforts to?

Marriage, fatherhood, family structure.

Books you wrote?

“Fatherless America” about the consequences of having 35% of US children living apart from their fathers; serious social problem. 2007: “The Future of Marriage” looks at what happening to marriage today and how to strengthen it.

Let’s start with “Fatherless America.” Describe your research.

Interviews with fathers in six different cities, transcripts were the basis of the book, and a literature review. Also I convened scholarly conferences or gatherings where commisioned papers were produced on father absence, furthered my thinking.

Did it receive commentary?

Widely and generally respectfully reviewed: NYT

Did you appear anywhere because of it?

Public speaking a universities and civic groups and elsewhere.

You said it was reviewed, Dr Michael Lamb reviewed it, right?

Yes, he disagreed with some of its findings and said some respectful things about it.

Cooper: Demonstrative NUmber One, is this what Dr Lamb said?

B: It is among the nicer things he said.

Cooper: I believe it is in evidence, confusion about its evidence number.

Walker: The witness’s book or Dr Lamb’s article?

C: The book

C: Now your other book, turn to Tab Two in your binder, whast is that?

B: Cover of my book The Future of Marriage, talks about what is happening to marriage, consequences of these trends.

C: How did you research and prepare to author this book?

B: Concentrated period of time immersed with some colleagues, to learn about marriage anthropologically acrtoss cultures, interdiscplinary group of three scholars to discuss the issue, accumuluted body of my collected information about this topic for the years I have been studying it.

C: How was it received>?

B: Got some attention, public speaking roles, in the book I said we should not adopt same sex marriage, so it got some attention for that.

[static is really bad right now; can’t really hear; the IT department needs to fix this system BADLY — NOW]

 

[Ed. Note: FDL has complete team coverage of Perry v. Schwarzenegger–including more legal analysis, court documents, videos, and liveblogging direct from the federal court in San Francisco. You can find it all on our dedicated Prop 8 page.]

Plaintiffs’ Counsel David Boies continues his cross examination of Defendant-Intervenors’ Expert Witness Kenneth Miller. Then D-I Counsel David Thompson conducts redirect of Miller. After that, we’ll see David Blankenhorn testify for the D-Is, with possibly cross and redirect. Judge Vaughn Walker has scheduled to finish today; we’ll see if that will happen. We’re not aware of courtroom time reserved beyond today for this case.

Please see FDL’s Prop 8 Hub for news and commentary on this trial, along with other information, including CVs of all expert witnesses, my Air America interviews, related links from other sources, a Twitter feed of #prop8 news, and a place to make donations to support our work here in San Francisco the past three weeks. If you can help out, that would be wonderful!

As previously noted, we expect there will be no closing arguments for several weeks, as Judge Vaughn Walker has asked for time to review the testimony and voluminous exhibits before hearing counsel’s closing arguments.

Walker: Good morning, ready to continue?
Boies: Yes

 

[Ed. Note: FDL has complete team coverage of Perry v. Schwarzenegger–including more legal analysis, court documents, videos, and liveblogging direct from the federal court in San Francisco. You can find it all on our dedicated Prop 8 page.]

Tuesday, Plaintiffs’ Counsel David Boies will continue his cross examination of Defendant-Intervenors’ Expert Witness Kenneth Miller. Then D-I Counsel David Thompson will conduct redirect of Miller. After that, we’ll see David Blankenhorn testify for the D-Is, with possibly cross and redirect. Judge Vaughn Walker has scheduled to finish Tuesday; we’ll see if (and hope!) that will happen.

Liveblogging will continue at the Seminal at 8:30am pacific time. See you then!

 

[Ed. Note: FDL has complete team coverage of Perry v. Schwarzenegger–including more legal analysis, court documents, videos, and liveblogging direct from the federal court in San Francisco. You can find it all on our dedicated Prop 8 page.]

Continuing David Boies’ cross examination of Defendant-Intervenors’ Expert Witness Dr Kenneth Miller at ten minutes before the hour.

We are on break now.

Waiting now for the Judge to take the bench.

Betting here is that we will go until five; mixed decision on whether we will finish with Miller today.

Boies: PX1869, Tab 35: Santa Clara Law Review, you wrote this?
M: Yes
B: Offered
Walker: Very well, hearing no objection
B: Second full graf: “Moreover by liminting the opportunieis for opponents to participate the intitiative process makes it more difficult for opponents to participate in the legislative process.”
You wrote that?
M: Yes
B: And do youbelieve that today?
M: Yes
B (reads) “The initiative process fosters confrontation rather than consensus building.” Dod you wrtite that?
M: Yes
B: Do you believe it now?
M: Yes, but I might word it differently now.
B: Well do you believe it to be true now?
M: More or less, yes

B: Page six (reads) “Thus in CA both inititative constitutional amendements and inisitiative statutes undermine representative goveermnet.” Did you write that?
M: Yes
B: What did you mean by that?
M: Not sure, but initiatives have the tendency to make it more difficult for the legislature to do its job. Lock in spending, or cuts, and they can’t do their work within the voted-on framework.

 

[Ed. Note: FDL has complete team coverage of Perry v. Schwarzenegger–including more legal analysis, court documents, videos, and liveblogging direct from the federal court in San Francisco. You can find it all on our dedicated Prop 8 page.]

Part Two of the liveblog here

Part One of the liveblog here

We continue after lunch (1:10pm pacific) with the direct examination of Defendant-Intervenors’ Expert Witness Dr Kenneth Miller by D-I Counsel David Thompson.

Will advise when we resume.

THompson: California Council of Churches supports LGBT rights?

Miller: yes, all these listed churches do.

Walker: Go back to that for a minute, do all those listed churches perform same sex marriages?

Miller: No, I don’t know if they do, wait I’m sure not all of them do, sometimes the local churches are different form that naitonal church.

Thompson: wrt Religiosity, is CA religious?

M: CA is one of the least ten religious states, when it comes to church-going and adherence to a faith.

T: wrt professional associations?

M: Many of these are favorable to LGBT rights.

T: What about university professors? How can they be allies?

M: They testify, they write op-ed pieces, they move in and out of government service.

T: Legal organizaitons? How can they be political allies?

M: Lawyers in general are very active in the politcal process. They run for office, serve in appointed positions, serve as gatekeepers as judges all of whom have been lawyers at one time. They shape public policy.

T: Another determinant: persuasion, how does this play as a determinant of power.

 

[Ed. Note: FDL has complete team coverage of Perry v. Schwarzenegger–including more legal analysis, court documents, videos, and liveblogging direct from the federal court in San Francisco. You can find it all on our dedicated Prop 8 page.]

From the American Foundation for Equal Rights (plaintiffs’ representative) we have this preview of Day Ten (Monday) of the Prop 8 trial along with their summary of the success of Dr Herek’s long testimony and cross examination on Friday. See you soon!

DAY TEN OF PROP. 8 TRIAL ON MONDAY/AVAIL INFO
Trial on Unconstitutionality of Prop. 8 Begins Day Ten in U.S. District Court on Jan. 25;
Plaintiffs to Enter Evidence and Rest Case
For latest information, visit www.equalrightsfoundation.org

The federal trial over the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 will continue Monday, January 25 at 8:30 am. Before resting their case, the plaintiffs will present documents and videos that reinforce points made during the first two weeks of trial.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights launched the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case and brought together Theodore Olson and David Boies to lead the litigation.

Taking the stand Friday, Jan. 22 was Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. a Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis. He testified about the nature of sexual orientation; that mainstream mental health professionals and behavioral scientists do not regard homosexuality as an illness or disorder, and that “change therapies” have been scientifically discounted, and can be extremely harmful. He endured more than five hours of cross examination without wavering from his testimony.

Herek testified that sexual orientation was not readily changeable, and that “change therapies are especially harmful because they present view that homosexuality is an illness or disorder, so when therapy doesn’t work, individuals are led to think it’s a personal and moral failure.”

He also testified about the stigma and prejudice that gay men and lesbians face; the harm to gay men and lesbians and their families caused by Prop. 8; and how domestic partnerships are inferior to marriage and are linked with the stigma gay men and lesbians face.

A “social stigma” gave “a level of permission to attack” gays and lesbians, Herek said. “[Marriage] is not simply a word. Just the fact we’re here today suggests this is more than a word.”

Olson and Boies also showed Dr. Herek the deposition testimony of defendants’ expert Daniel Robinson, one of the four expert witnesses dropped from their witness list. Robinson, like the three other experts dropped from their list, made statements damaging to the defendants’ case and in support of the plaintiffs during his deposition, as was shown in court this week.

For, example, the defendants’ experts stated that equal marriage would increase family stability and improve the lives of children; that sexual orientation is not something that can be readily changed; and that gay men and lesbians have faced a long history of discrimination including violence – discrimination that continues today and that includes Prop. 8. They also acknowledge broad scientific and professional consensus in favor of equal marriage.

UPDATE: Apparently Defendant-Intervenors added Frank Schubert, the head of Prop 8 Campaign Manager consulting firm Schubert Flynt, to their witness list on Saturday, 48 hours before they plan to call him today. Plaintiffs’ counsel has asked that he be prohibited from testifying, since the subjects he will be asked to testify to are the same ones that his own counsel, and D-I counsel, told him NOT to testify to 76 times during his deposition.

I think we might have some fireworks over this proposed addition of a non-responsive deposition witness this morning. See you there!

 

“Heterosexuality isn’t normal. It’s just common.” — Dorothy Parker

I’ve been listening for two weeks now to testimony and questions in a federal courtroom here in San Francisco about what’s wrong with people like me: we’re powerless, we’re politically uncrossable; we’re less well off than straight families, we have more disposable income; we’re hated and despised, but Will & Grace was a tremendous success. We’re underrepresented in Congress, but there’s more federal HIV/AIDS research money than there was in 1983 — lots more!

We’ve heard that coerced reparative therapy is horrific but that sexual orientation can be fluid. We’ve heard that Senators think homosexuality is more dangerous than terrorism but that the woman who’s now Speaker of the House made her maiden floor speech about HIV/AIDS prevention funding. We’ve learned that there are religious denominations that welcome us, marry us, and sustain our families; and we heard that the alliance of Roman Catholics, Latter Day Saints and evangelical Christians to pass Proposition 8 was an unprecedented coalition in America that ignored fundamental doctrinal differences to organize against a common, terrifying enemy: gays and lesbians who want the state to marry them.

We’ve heard that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and that children of gay and lesbian parents are just as well-adjusted as children of opposite-sex couples. We’ve been told that children must be protected from gays and lesbians marrying and we’ve learned that parents getting married is the best thing that can happen to kids.

But the thing that has sustained me, what’s kept me going, what’s made it all worthwhile as I sit in the 19th floor Ceremonial Courtroom day after day typing, typing, mistyping — is the laughter. The laughter rings out among those of us in the room there to hear our lives weighed in the balance, when an absurdity issues from the counsel for the defendant-intervenors, or their withdrawn expert witness depositions replayed on tape, or the defendant-intervenors: that gays are 12 times more likely to molest little children; that gay marriage leads to polygamy, incest and bestiality; that children are confused that a prince can marry a prince. That socially liberal countries that have legalized same sex marriage now have more divorce among opposite sex couples, and that one caused the other.

While there have been tears in the courtroom as we listen to the Plaintiffs tell their stories and the witnesses provide their experience and expertise, it’s the laughter that has meant the most to me. Because if a political movement is mocked and laughed at for its absurd notions and fundamental unfairness, it cannot last long. If its notions simply defy logic and elicit laughter and mockery from fair-minded people, and if its central tenet is one that people really don’t care about very much, then it isn’t going to make headway for very long.

And it simply will not fly, this denying marriage to people who love one another.

So, in that spirit of laughter and mockery, as we begin the last week of the testimony portion of the Proposition 8 trial, I wanted all of you to share in the laughter with our friends from WakeUpWorld.

Tomorrow, join me bright and early at The Seminal for more liveblogging (we have reached liveblogging thread number 38!). Check in at the FDL Prop 8 Hub for more news (including a Twitter feed of all the #prop8 tweets!) throughout the day. Finally, you can support our efforts to bring you the up-to-the-minute liveblogging of the biggest civil rights trial of the century.

But, mostly: just laugh along with us on the 19th floor. It’s gotten me through this. It’ll get us all through it together.

Thanks!