Day 2 was history day in the Prop 8 trial. David Link found the great George Chauncey's testimony compelling. To prove the longtime animus against gay people, another historian noted that you cannot find a reference in the press of gay or homosexual people before the 1960s. Try putting "gay" or "homosexual" into Google or any search engine and there's nothing before the 60s. Except there is:
Try using these [terms]: “deviant;” “degenerate;” “pervert.” That is the way homosexuality was both understood and reported (when it was reported at all) in days gone by. Those are the words, and the preconceptions, that would have been dominant, if not exclusive in the minds of the single demographic we can most reliably count on to vote against us today – seniors. Those who grew up in the 1930s and 40s and 50s would have, first, avoided any possible discussion of such an unpleasant and impolite subject as homosexuality…
It is no surprise that so many older voters simply cannot stomach a vote for our equality; the surprise is how many have been able to get past that uniform view of our supposed depravity. That residue of our inescapable immorality shaped their entire consciousness about us.
Timothy Kincaid brushes up on the work of David Blankenhorn.
Blankenhorn will be a major witness – Kincaid calls him the "primary witness" – for the defense. Blankenhorn has "supported federal recognition of civil unions provided that religious objection was protected":
Unlike many die-hard anti-gay activists, he does not argue that children are endangered by having same-sex parents. Indeed, if so then why would he argue for federal recognition of same-sex relationships? So all he can argue is that there is tremendous importance in the word “marriage” but not necessarily in the structure.
In other words, Blankenhorn does not see a benefit to refusing to recognize same-sex relationships. This leaves him in the position of arguing the distinctions between all the rights, and the name. His only consistent argument must be that same-sex couples should have rights but social disadvantage, a second-class recognition, a lesser status.
The Dish 