« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Video: The 2 that 8 didn't want you to see

by Jeremy Hooper

This week, the pro-Prop 8 side withdrew two people, Paul Nathanson, Ph.D. and Katherine Young, Ph.D, from their federal trial witness list, supposedly because of those oh-so-scary cameras in the courtroom. However, after seeing these newly posted deposition videos (which were shown today in court by our side), it doesn't take a regal legal beagle to realize that these two religious experts were really dropped because they make OUR case, not our opposition's. Enjoy:

Paul Nathanson Deposition Transcript & Video [AFER]
Katherine Young Deposition Transcript & Video [AFER]

Those oath things, man. They sure are bullsh*t killers!


**SEE ALSO: To hear the kind of bias that the Prop 8 side was hoping to get out of these two, check out a paper they co-wrote on the subject. Be sure to note the Catholic ties: Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

Katherine Young is soooooooo pissed off in that video! She must have really wanted that gig, and the big bad meanies made her tell the truth. You can read the "Oh! Shit! They're going to can my ass if I tell the truth, but I will go to jail for perjury if I don't," on her face pissed-off, pursed-lips face.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 20, 2010 3:35:32 PM

OH!!! OH!!! OH!!! JEREMY!!! JEREMY!!! JEREMY!!! Look what *I've* just found, speaking of the American Anthropological Association of which Paul nathenson speaks: http://www.faithinamerica.info/traditionalMarriage.php And, the AAA has THIS to say on their own academic website: http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-Family.cfm

It's an article published by a member of the AAA stating that, contrary to what numerous politicians and especially what Maggie Gallagher and NOM, or even the Catholic Church are saying--you know, that marriage has ALWAYS been 1 man/ 1 woman, like, FOR-EVER!!!--that there exists documentation and observable phenomena that that simply is not true and blatantly misrepresents the historical and ethnographic/ anthropological record by trying to hide the reality from whomever one is speaking to.

Oh, and don't let the URL frighten you; this website is actually from a group [Faith In America] who dedicated to "End[ing] the harm caused by religious-based bigotry"!

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 20, 2010 3:42:47 PM

By the way, J-dawg, how in the WORLD did this testimony get leaked onto the 'Net? And, does anyone know where the reenactment is scheduled to play at on YouTube? Haven't heard another whiff about that, yet.

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 20, 2010 3:58:11 PM

Wade: as of 4PM EST, the reenactments are not up. Supposed to hit today.


Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 20, 2010 4:05:58 PM

Thanks a heap for the up-day, you fabulous 'mo, you!

BTW, is anyone curious about what Katie's writing down with that big red pen?! She is also behaving as though she couldn't care less!

And, is it possible for a.) our side to declare that, primarily, religious animus was the impetus for voting in favor of prop 8; and b.) is is legally possible for the Judge to easily reach the verdict that, yes indeed, religion stepped its grounds and targeted a distinct "suspect class" for discrimination? Anyone note any Nazi parallels, there? ;o)

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 20, 2010 4:12:45 PM

Oh my freaking gawds, I'm still watching the vids, and it seems that ol' Katie just LAMPOONED the Defense's case entirely by stating that (and I quote), "Just because something is a 'norm', doesn't necessarily mean that it's an appropriate 'norm'. It has to then be reassessed within the contemporary context to 8see* if there are good reasons *why* that 'norm' should remain." (Prop 8: "Katie, you just sank my battle ship!!!")

Gee, I wonder how they got her to veer so far left from her obviously religious-based views, if I understand her antagonistic precepts correctly? Awe, man...can't they call MAGGIE GALLAGHER to the stand, yet; or at the very least depose her, too?! PLEASE?!?!?!?! ;o)

DAYUM! You da' MAM, J-dawg! ;o)

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 20, 2010 4:25:28 PM

The article authored by the two of them at catholiceducation.org includes this:

"There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. One of us, in fact, is gay."


Here's the additional info I found:

"Paul Nathanson, a professor at McGill University in Canada and a practicing homosexual, says that 'advocates of gay marriage have made no serious attempt to consider the possible harms, and object to those who want more time to assess the evidence from other periods or other cultures.'"

source: http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/the-cultural-argument-against-gay-marriage

"Paul Nathanson, a sociologist, a scholar, and a homosexual writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves--things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive..."

source: http://www.comereason.org/newsletters/feb04.htm

"...quote by noted Canadian scholar and homosexual, Paul Nathanson, who wrote:

"'Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival,...every human society has had
to promote it actively. ...Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm.'"

What's up with this guy... celibate? partnered? some flavor of ex-gay?

source: http://wolfcreekbaptist.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=98

Posted by: Bose | Jan 20, 2010 5:15:45 PM

One more thought...

And yet, Nathanson discredited himself as a supposed expert by not knowing when to shut up related to Matthew Shepard, phrasing it as if Shepard might not have been gay, was killed in Wisconsin, and got the timeline wrong.

So, a gay man who has studied and written extensively on gay marriage is clueless about this piece of lgbt history?

(not getting it here...)

Posted by: Bose | Jan 20, 2010 5:32:21 PM

This is high comedy for so many reasons...

If the realization that Paul Nathanson, Ph.D. and Katherine Young, Ph.D are actually supporting our case is somehow over your head (and doesn't make you laugh) you will at least speculate that Paul Nathanson could land at 5.5 on the Kinsey Homosexuality Scale! (from 0-6)

BTW, Paul... I was forced to take the Kinsey Homosexuality test when I was a young man and landed at a 5.4 on the scale (which is REALLY gay..no one is actually a 6) ........ AND YOU HAVE A BIGGER LISP THAN ME! HA HA HA :)

If you've ever been deposed, are skilled in the art of deposition prep or have been forced to sit through days of depositions and have now learned to love it as a form of art -- watch this entire video, it's hilarious.

Posted by: JB | Jan 20, 2010 5:50:53 PM

Apparently written by Nathanson in 2003:

"...I should just add that 'gay identity' is a very recent innovation. Until the day before yesterday, no one had ever heard of either that or 'sexual orientation.' Most of those now called 'gay' considered themselves ordinary folks, not innately different, who occasionally had sex with other men or other women; most of them married and had children, therefore, without deceiving anyone. (A few of them, however, really cannot function heterosexually; these folks were either unhappily married or single.)"

source: http://www.marriagedebate.com/2003/09/whats-sex-got-to-do-with-it-paul.htm

And finally, Nathanson speaking of his personal connection to the issues:

"Though gay myself, I'm really, deeply ambivalent about civil unions for gay people. I approve, on the one hand, because I believe that all citizens should have access to basic financial or legal benefits. Everyone has access to medicare in Canada, for instance. If access to that in the United States depends on marriage, then the argument against gay marriage is much weaker there. On the other hand, I believe that marriage should be a privileged relationship; those who take the responsibility for children (which is the first premise of and ultimate rationale for marriage) should be rewarded for doing so. And not only in financial terms. They really should have higher status than other people. Not because they're straight, but because they're parents and thus contribute something essential to the entire community."

source: http://www.marriagedebate.com/2003/08/alternatives-to-marriage-paul.htm

Posted by: Bose | Jan 20, 2010 6:09:58 PM

Bose, just watching the depo video, it was pretty obvious that Nathanson was gay. His thesis might have been beneficial in a court of public opinion, but in a court of law, the flaws overcame the rhetoric.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 20, 2010 6:25:47 PM

Wow that is interesting. They do make our case, I saw those videos on another site and I had thought they were supporters of gay marriage.

Posted by: Tony P | Jan 20, 2010 7:09:44 PM

"Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm"?!?!?! WTF?! Nathenson (and Gallagher!) seriously have not examined other cultures with differing views. he's a heterosexist apologist! Yes, of course the late prof. of History, John Boswell (who's BRILLIANT) stated that we live (presently) in a culture of enforced heterosexuality. However, this has only been since the onset of Christianity, as homosexuality was tolerated according to historians up until about the 14th. century. Other cultures have a far more fluid view. My Celtic ancestors, for example, were recorded as preferring homosexual relationships according to a contemporary Greek historian who walked among them in Gaul [ancient France and part of Germany]. According to openly Gay professional and prof. of Anthropology, Will Roscoe, numerous pre-Colonial Native American ensconced a reverence for men and women whom we would call "Gay" or homosexual. (Note: John Boswell discusses the fascinating use of the term "Gay", and has found that it has always referred to homosexuals during the Medieval and Ren. periods.) These native Americans were viewed as natural-born Shamans, and were sought after as spouses by the other men. While the Chuckchi Shamans (which Roscoe also disclosed in his most recent work), known as "Soft men" in our tongue, have almost identical reverence and were allowed to marry a member of the same sex...again, they were much sought after as spouses by other men!

Incidentally, 2 academic articles re: the history of Gay marriage have been published in the Virginia Law Review:

* "A History of Same-Sex Marriage", by William Eskridge
* "Will We get What We Ask For: Why Legalizing Gay and Lesbian Marriage Will Not 'Dismantle the Legal Structure of Gender in Every marriage'," by Nancy Polikoff

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 20, 2010 7:21:44 PM

I can't overstate that it is really a big deal to give a deposition in FEDERAL court. Trust me, I know first hand and spent a week of my life in a chair like that with some of the best lawyers in the country defending my positions. Just preparation alone for the event took over 6 months.

Having had that experience.... what I find shocking about this video is that RULE NUMBER 1 for giving a deposition at that level is you NEVER testify under oath about what someone else thinks. That specific person/organization has to testify on their own behalf as to what they think. This prevents you from reducing your own arguement. i.e. when they ask what xyz organization thinks about xxx.. you say something like, "I can't testify under oath about what xyz thinks"

Rule number 2: You never expand on an answer.. You only answer the question and end the response there. He put himself in that trap about Matt Shepard... the lawyer never would have even brought it up if he hadn't used it.

Rule number 3: You aren't having a conversation with the lawyer. It's a trap. The person deposed needs to "constipate" the process as much as possible. i.e. Repeat the question after the lawyer asks it, even jot a few notes down. Anything to slow down the process of one person asking a question and another person giving an answer.

Anyone that has spent over a million dollars on lawyers for one lawsuit (I'm sure both sides are spending at least 5 each) knows these things.

This proves that the positions the opposition holds are slowly being reduced to nothing.

Posted by: JB | Jan 20, 2010 7:33:06 PM

Thanks for link WADE.

Posted by: LOrion | Jan 20, 2010 7:43:24 PM

OH good heavens.

I read about three of their counter-arguments and the holes were so big you could drive a extra-wide through them.

Just look at: those who have children deserve special treatment so we'll reward straight folks. Ummm, that's not the same thing, pal.

And the argument that children of gay couples need both parents. Well, duh. The only obvious answer is to take away their kids and give 'em to heteros. Try saying that in court.

Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Jan 20, 2010 7:46:12 PM

VIDEOS taken down. Here are links to ones still up per GRM. GayRightsMedia

David Boies Witness Deposition Videos Removed But Downloads Discovered: PN - http://bit.ly/4r70u9 KY - http://bit.ly/89cL0N

Posted by: LOrion | Jan 20, 2010 10:36:28 PM

Unfortunately AFER took down the videos from YouTube, though the transcripts are still on their website. I've discovered that many people downloaded them while they were up and have made them available:

Paul Nathanson Deposition Video - http://bit.ly/4r70u9
Katherine Young Deposition Video - http://bit.ly/89cL0N

Posted by: Bodhi | Jan 20, 2010 10:40:52 PM

@ Timothy: Right on, bro.! In fact, both these "arguments" have been more than implied by Gallagher throughout her rote speeches over the years;* they are especially clear if one LISTENS close enough! She never says them directly, of course, but the message is STILL there (and that should scare ALL of us!).

* IE. heteros deserve special rights and privileges because they can either re-produce or rear children (although neither explains why str8 sterile, elderly, or even mentally challenged individuals can marry when we cannot; Mags tries and distracts us when we press her about that).
* IE. that allowing us ANY civil and legal protections and rights of ANY kind is a direct threat to Christian religious institution because they discriminate against us on religious grounds.
* IE. ol' Mags worries that "marriage" ('cause she wants everyone to think of marriage in religious terms to return us to a "marriage culture") might be perceived by future generations not just as males and females pair-bonding in a legal and public manner, but that the "definition" of marriage will popularly be conceived as simply, "any two individuals who fall in love".
* IE. that we will sexually confuse future generations (and our children) to believe that it's okay to be Gay by our mere public presence; she and the rest of these anti-Marriage Equality hate groups [eg. LUV Iowa] literally want us to be shamed back into the closet, to be invisible and non-existent.
* IE. children deserve to know and be known by their own biological parents, which more than implies the fact that she believes that gays should be barred from ever adopting (after all, it's surely a manner in which she believes that we're corrupting future generations!). 'Course, she NEVER discusses the fact that hetero. parents don't always DESERVE to be parents!

(I could go on and on about her heinous arguments that few--if ANY--in the media seem to overtly question and deconstruct for the puerile BS that they really are!)

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 20, 2010 10:51:48 PM

Bodhi... you rock!

Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Jan 20, 2010 11:22:07 PM

Someone has put the videos back up on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/user/PerryVSchwarzenegger

Posted by: Bodhi | Jan 20, 2010 11:39:31 PM

The Young-Nathanson article is an awesomely precious hot house flower of Neo-Catholic wishfulness, but we should note that the Canadian Courts, the intended target, did not buy it.

One has to ask just how sinful these folks would say that it would be to point out that a whole lot of the time, in a whole lot of places, that good old fashioned heterosexual marriage was about enhancing men's status as property owners. Women, children, and even men might get lucky and actually spend some married time in constructive personal relationships, but what the societies involved were usually goosing was an image of male competence that included owning the labor of children and their mothers, and if possible owning some of the women's families' property. The point was to enhance the men's standing with other men in a widely understood but hugely destructive patriarchal social order. The rate at which children in those circumstances died off of avoidable or managable conditions makes it pretty clear that actually raising children was not usually a high priority concern.

Posted by: Jonathan Justice | Jan 21, 2010 12:54:22 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails