I guess I’m going to be played by Rob Reiner. Maybe they thought his experience playing “Meathead” would be a plus, in this new role. I always have liked everything his father did on the old ”Dick Van Dyke Show.”
| « TWO CHANCES FOR REMEMBERANCE THIS 9/11/11 | Loss and Meaning after Trauma » |
Wouldn’t be so jaw-dropping if folks bothered to listen to your argument or read anything you’ve written on the subject.
Hope one of these all stars have the decency to invite you out for a drink. Perhaps their world would grow a little more complicated.
Perhaps if David Blankenhorn had the decency to endorse something that would make us more American, then not only would these all-stars invite him out to dinner, but he could quit whining about how mistreated he has been for profiting off of his efforts to enshrine discrimination in the California constitution.
1) What I find funniest is that Nancy Cott is being played by Lisa Simpson.
2) The odd thing is, as I recall — and maybe I’m misremembering — David didn’t actually speak those words during the trial. The attorney read the words aloud from one of David’s past writings, and asked David to verify that those were his words and he still believed them.
3) I wonder if a video will be made available of the staged reading?
Barry: What happened is, when I was on the stand, Boise spoke a sentence to me, and asked, did I agree with that sentence, and I answered that I wrote those very words, and that yes, I did and do agree with them. Of course he did not care to explore, at that time, the context in which I wrote those words, or what, in that section of my book, I was actually trying to say. He just wanted a punch line, a “gotcha” experience, and while he did not (in my of course biased view) achieve that goal during his actual examination, he did achieved it retroactively, after the fact, in the sense of creating a PR line that can be endlessly repeated in press releases and by Hollywood actors.
As I think you know, a major theme of my book is that there are good arguments on both sides of this issue. (I think I am pretty much a party of one in holding this view.) That’s why he could do what he did. Any argument that admits of complexity can be picked apart by any lawyer (or by any high school debater) in exactly this way, as long as it doesn’t matter to anyone what was actually being said.
“…he did achieved it retroactively, after the fact, in the sense of creating a PR line that can be endlessly repeated in press releases and by Hollywood actors.”
Well maybe it would be better, then, if the people could watch the actual tapes of the trial.
Of course, that would interfere with some professional “marriage defense” groups’ running narrative that public figures like Shmavid Shmlakenhorn,* who writes books and gives talks about opposing marriage equality, will be in grave danger if people find out they are public figures against marriage equality.
*Name changed so as not to give away the identity of someone who testified in the Prop 8 trial
David, as you know I’ve criticized your views now and then. :-p
But I’ve always disagreed with the criticisms of your testimony at the trial. As far as I can tell (having read some transcripts), you answered questions honestly. And as a witness, that should be your only job. To do anything else — to try and change your answers to help your “side” win, for example — would be inappropriate behavior.
Even if your testimony was bad for Charles Cooper’s case (and I’m not saying it was), that would be Charles Cooper’s fault, not yours. His job was to select witnesses that would help win his case; your job was to answer questions honestly.
But the legal team that hired you as an expert knew all of that about you and likely read your book, and still put you on the stand. So a paid expert who is unhappy with how opposing counsel makes them look shouldn’t blame the lawyers who did their job, but instead blame the people who hired them and who failed to properly prepare them or head off that line of attack.
Fannie: I’ve never tried to hide my views on this subject (why would someone who wants to hide his views write a book about it?) and I’ve never tried to hide the fact that I testified at the trial. I’m not sure what you are driving at.
Jeffrey: I not blaming Boise for anything, I’m not finding any fault with Cook, and I’m not in any way unhappy with how I was “made to look” on the stand. In fact, quite the contrary. I know that my view is necessarily subjective, but I think that I answered the questions well — I can’t think of how I would answer anything differently if I were to do it over again — and in my view Boise was able to do little if any damage to the substantive claims that I put forward in my written submission and in my testimony. All I am saying is, that after the whole thing was over, the PR machine basically put out two ideas — one, that I have no qualifications; and two, that Boise talked me into admitting that gay marriage would make America more American. And I’m further saying that, in my view, saying those two things over and over again as PR tactics don’t really get us very far into the actual substance of anything, including the substance of what I was testifying about. And no, I’m not “whining” about it; I’m just making making the observation, based on my (subjective) experience of having been there.
P.S. Barry — thanks.
David,
I wasn’t referring to you, I was referring to those who are trying to seal the tapes of the trial- and who fought to keep the people from watching the trial on television on the grounds that the witnesses were scared because of the Big Mean Gays Who Would Definitely Hurt Them for testifying.
Via The Washington Times:
What I’m driving at is that to many, Brown’s statements seemed like a disingenuous attempt to vilify LGBT people- especially since the witnesses were public figures such as yourself who have written books about the issue and who people already recognize as being against marriage equality.
Fannie: OK, I see your point now. I had not heard Brian Brown’s comment. I don’t believe in televising trials — I thought putting the O.J. trial on TV was bad public policy, for example — but my reasons for holding that belief have nothing to do with the physical safety of expert witnesses. I never felt physically threatened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Proposition_8_supporters
Thanks for clarifying, David.
Karen, I’m not sure you understand the argument. Brown, and others, were arguing that people who were already very public opponents of marriage equality were scared to testify because people might find out that they opposed marriage equality. So, your citation of Wikipedia is irrelevant. David, above, admitted that he wasn’t scared to testify.
And, I should note, that many of those protesting tactics that LGBT advocates engaged in after Prop 8 were perfectly legitimate and peaceful means of advocacy (eg- candlelight vigils, boycotts, and marches).
I know there were some unfortunate instances of threats and harassment, which are entirely unacceptable, but these were condemned by major LGBT rights groups.
Just as many opponents of equality protest that they are unfairly portrayed as hateful bigots because of the actions of some marriage equality opponents, it is very unfair of “marriage defenders” to paint all or most LGBT advocates as violent monsters because of the actions of very few LGBT advocates. Unfortunately, certain anti-equality groups really harp on and spread the message that most LGBT people and allies are horrible people.
That that characterization is unfair and inaccurate seems like something most reasonable people could agree upon.