DEFENDANT EXPERTS UNDERCUT PROP. 8

Video of Defendants’ Experts Shown in Court Today; In Videos, Defendants’ Experts Disagree with Their Case

The Olson/Boies legal team today introduced into evidence videos of the depositions of Paul Nathanson, Ph.D. and Katherine Young, Ph.D., who are among the experts dropped by the defendants from their witness list. In the videos, Nathanson and Young make several statements that are harmful to the defendants’ case and that support the plaintiffs’ position.

Both are professors at McGill University. They were questioned by David Boies.

Partial transcript is below.

Nathanson and Young both state that equal marriage would increase family stability, improve the lives of children, and that gay men and lesbians have faced a long history of discrimination including violence. They also acknowledge broad scientific and professional consensus in favor of equal marriage.

The backers of Prop. 8 told the court this week that they were dropping four witnesses from their witness list, leaving only two. They claimed this was due to a reluctance to testify because of cameras in the courtroom. The trial, however, is not being broadcast. We have now seen three depositions of the withdrawn experts, which would form the basis for their cross-examinations, that resulted in the experts making admissions that disagreed with the backers of Prop. 8′s case, which is what actually led to the last-minute witness list reduction.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys last week introduced video of the deposition of Loren Marks of Louisiana State University, who had been expected to testify for the defendants that the ideal family structure is for children to be raised by two married “biological” parents, which Marks said meant the genetic parents.

Marks admitted that he only read parts of the studies he relied upon in making his conclusion. It was then pointed out that those studies actually defined “biological” parents in a way that included adoptive parents — not just genetic parents. Marks then stated that the word “biological” should be deleted from the report he prepared for this case, and also admitted he considered no research on gay and lesbian parents, effectively revealing his research as fatally flawed.

********NATHANSON********

A – I don’t know.
Q – Do you know what position the American Anthropological Association takes, if any, with respect to the issue of gay marriage?
A – They support it.  They support it.
Q – Do you know what the position, if any, of the American Psycho-Analytic Association is with respect to gay marriage?
A – They support it.
Q – Do you know what the position of the American Psychological Association is, if any, with respect to gay marriage?
A – They support it.
Q – Do you know what the position is of the American Psychiatric Association…
A – They support it.
Q – … with respect to gay marriage, if any?
A – They support it.
–
Q – Are you familiar with the American Academy of Paediatrics?
A – No.  No, I’m sorry, I am.  And they also support it.
Q – They also support what?
A – Gay marriage.
Q – Do you know any of the reasons why the American Academy of Paediatrics supports gay ma
A – They see no problem for children.
–
Q – Now, using opinion in the sense that you do as a researcher, do you have an opinion as to whether permitting gay people to marry increases the stability in commitment of their relationship?
A – It increases.
Q – It increases the stability in commitment of their relationship?
A – That’s right.
Q – As a researcher, using the term “opinion” the way you defined it, do you have an opinion as to whether permitting gay people to marry increases their happiness and sense of security and well-being?
Mr. PETER A.PATTERSON: Objection, this is beyond the scope of his expert report.
A – I think it does.
–
Q – Let’s try to break that down into two parts.  First, you recognize that gay couples are today raising children, correct?
A – Yes.
Q – And you believe that enabling those gay couples to marry would enhance their ability to be good parents to the chi
A – Yes.
–
Q – Yes.  Are you aware of any peer-reviewed studies published as to whether permitting gay people to marry affects the rearing of children?
A – Yes.
Q – And what peer-reviewed studies of that type are you aware of?
A – Sociological and psychological ones.
Q – And those are sociological and psychological studies published by the various associations we’ve identified?
A – Yes.
Q – And what do those peer-reviewed studies conclude, to your understanding?
A – They don’t detect problems and they don’t predict problems.
–
Q – … would you agree that, up until the last fifty (50) years, both religion and societies have been very hostile to homosexuals?
A – Yes.
Q – And that this hostility has caused homosexuals to be discriminated against, is that correct?
A – Yes.
Q – And indeed placed them in physical danger, correct?
A – Yes.
–
Q – Are you aware of any studies or analyses as to how societies’ hostility to homosexuals and homosexuality affected the psychology of homosexuals?
Mr. PETER A. PATTERSON: Objection, this is outside the scope of his report.
A – I’m aware that there have been, in fact, studies.
Mr. DAVID BOIES:
Q – And have those studies reached uniform conclusions?
A – Yes.
Q – And what are the uniform conclusions that those studies have reached?
A – That being the target of hatred or hostility is a bad thing, it has bad effects on people.
–
Q – Right.  Now, you used the term “hate” or “hatred” in your writing.  And would you define what you mean by that?
A – Culturally propagated hostility.  In other words, I don’t classify it as an emotion, I classify it as a cultural source.
Q – And I take it you would agree that there is what you referred to as culturally propagated hostility towards gay people?
A – There is some, yes.
Q – And would it be your opinion that, historically, there was a great deal of culturally propagated hostility towards gay people?
A – Yes.
–
Q – Are you familiar with the term “gay bashing”?
A – Yes.
Q – And what does that term refer to?
A – Attacks… physical attacks on gay people or at least perceived gay people.
Q – That is, sometimes people are attacked because they are perceived as gay people, even if they’re not.
A – Yes.
Q – But they are attacks that are directed… physical attacks that are directed against people who are perceived by the attackers to be gay?
A – Yes, as in the case of Matthew Shepard.
Q – Yes.  And would you define for the record who Matthew Shepard was?
A – He was a student in – where was it? – Wisconsin who was attacked by some people who saw him coming out of a bar… a gay bar, and killed him.  He was left impaled on a fence.
Q – And when did that happen?
A – That could have been seven (7) or eight (8) years ago.
–
Q – And did the defenders of the prejudice or stereotypes against Blacks argue that the discrimination was somehow protective of the family?
A – Yes.
–
Q – Yes.  And did the defenders of the prejudice or stereotypes against women argue that the discrimination against women was important to protect in the family?
A – Yes.

********YOUNG********

Q – Okay.  In the course of the work that you have done, have you come to form an opinion as to whether gay people have been historically the subject of prejudice and discrimination?
A – Yes, there have been certainly points in history where that has been true.
–
Q – Okay.  Let me use your word, “durability”.  Do you believe that children are advantaged by increasing the durability of the relationship of the couple raising them?
A – Yes.
Q – And do you believe that the durability of the relationship of a gay couple is enhanced by permitting the gay couple to marry?
A – On that variable, yes.
–
Q – And you believe that allowing gay couples to marry will increase the durability of those gay couples relationships, correct?
A – Okay.  I’ll say yes.
–
Q – Okay.  And increasing the durability of those relationships is beneficial to the children that they’re raising, correct?
A – On that one factor, yes.
–
Q – And is it the case that the number of children being raised in families that you describe as the norm was decreasing significantly befor marriage in the United States?
A – It was decreasing.
–
Q – Okay.  Is it the case that love and commitment are the reasons that most people feel for wanting to marry?
A – Today?  Probably yes.
Q – Indeed, you have seen studies that indicate that, correct?
A – Yes.
Q – And you have not seen any studies that indicate the contrary, correct?
A – Correct.
–
Q – And do you believe that love and commitment are reasons that both gay people and heterosexuals have for want
A – Correct.
Q – This is a statement of the American Psychoanalytic Association and I want to direct your attention to the position statement issued by the American Psychoanalytic Association approved January seventeenth (17th), two thousand eight (2008), you see that title, “Marriage Resolution”?
A – Yeah, yeah.
Q – And let me ask you to look at the marriage resolution, it begins,”WHEREAS homosexuality is a normal variant of adult sexuality…”, you see that?
A – M’hm.
Q – Do you have any reason to disagree with that statement?
A – I would prefer to have a working definition of homosexuality here, but I have no basic problem with this.
Q – The second statement says, “WHEREAS gay men and lesbians possess the same potential and desire for sustained loving and lasting relationships as heterosexuals…”, you see that?
A – Yes.
Q – Do you agree with that?
A – Yes.
Q – The next statement says, “WHEREAS same-sex couples are raising children and have the same potential and desire as heterosexual couples to love and parent children…”, you see that?
A – Yes.
Q – Do you agree with that?
A – Yes.
–
Q – Okay.  So, if you have a single parent, your view is it doesn’t make any difference whether that single parent is a male or a female, correct?
A – Correct.
Q – And your opinion is it doesn’t make any difference whether that single parent is gay or straight, correct?
A – Correct.
–
Q – My question is, is it your view that because something was the norm in the past, it should be continued in the future?
A – Okay, now, I’ll answer that question.  It’s not…do I answer it?
Q -Yes.
A – Okay, not necessarily.
Q – Okay.
A – Just because something is a norm, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is an appropriate norm, and it has to then be reassessed in the contemporary context to see if t norm should remain.
–
Q – All right.  We talked earlier about the fact that gay people have historically been subject to prejudice and discrimination, you recall that?
A – Yes.
Q – Now, it’s the case that women have also historically been subject to prejudice and discrimination, correct?
A – Correct.
Q – And the prejudice and discrimination against women, like the prejudice and discrimination against gay people, was often justified by religion assertions and beliefs, correct?
A – Sometimes it was, yes.
Q – Often it was, correct?
A – Often it was.
Q – And the discrimination and prejudice against women was also often justified by the argument that it promoted or protected the traditional family, correct?
A – Yes.
Q – And various racial groups including Blacks have historically been subject to prejudice and discrimination, correct?
A – Correct.
Q – And that prejudice and discrimination, again, like the prejudice and discrimination against gay and lesbians, was often justified by religion, correct?
A – Yes.

###