Thoughts in a Haystack

Here's some more funny (to a lawyer, at least) stuff from the Prop 8 decision:

Proponents elected not to call the majority of their designated witnesses to testify at trial and called not a single official proponent of Proposition 8 to explain the discrepancies between the arguments in favor of Proposition 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court. Proponents informed the court on the first day of trial, January 11, 2010, that they were withdrawing Loren Marks, Paul Nathanson, Daniel N. Robinson and Katherine Young as witnesses. Proponents' counsel stated in court on Friday, January 15, 2010, that their witnesses "were extremely concerned about their personal safety, and did not want to appear with any recording of any sort, whatsoever."

The timeline shows, however, that proponents failed to make any effort to call their witnesses after the potential for public broadcast in the case had been eliminated. ... The record does not reveal the reason behind proponents' failure to call their expert witnesses.

Plaintiffs entered into evidence the deposition testimony of two of proponents' withdrawn witnesses, as their testimony supported plaintiffs' claims. Katherine Young was to testify on comparative religion and the universal definition of marriage. Paul Nathanson was to testify on religious attitudes towards Proposition 8. [Both are professors of religion at McGill University.]

... Young testified at her deposition that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and that same-sex couples possess the same desire for love and commitment as opposite-sex couples. Young also explained that several cultures around the world and across centuries have had variations of marital relationships for same-sex couples.

... Nathanson testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians and that there is no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples. (p. 35-36)

Now, I think the judge is being a little sly here, feigning puzzlement as to why the proponents' lay witnesses would profess fear of "any recording of any sort" after it was decided the trial would not be televised, as originally planned. There is an implication that the "any recording" included being questioned under oath.

In any event, for the proponents' attorneys to put forward expert witnesses and allow them to be deposed without finding out in full their views on the issues in the case seems incredible. Of course, given the judge's review of the two "experts" they did put on the stand, it is possible that they could not find any expert who would not shoot Prop 8 in the foot.
.