Plaintiffs’ Counsel David Boies continues his cross examination of Defendant-Intervenors’ Expert Witness Kenneth Miller. Then D-I Counsel David Thompson conducts redirect of Miller. After that, we’ll see David Blankenhorn testify for the D-Is, with possibly cross and redirect. Judge Vaughn Walker has scheduled to finish today; we’ll see if that will happen. We’re not aware of courtroom time reserved beyond today for this case.
Please see FDL’s Prop 8 Hub for news and commentary on this trial, along with other information, including CVs of all expert witnesses, my Air America interviews, related links from other sources, a Twitter feed of #prop8 news, and a place to make donations to support our work here in San Francisco the past three weeks. If you can help out, that would be wonderful!
As previously noted, we expect there will be no closing arguments for several weeks, as Judge Vaughn Walker has asked for time to review the testimony and voluminous exhibits before hearing counsel’s closing arguments.
Walker: Good morning, ready to continue?
Boies: Admit 794A, witness’s circled/question mark list of sources he relied on and those that were provided by counsel.
Boies: Please look at this exit polling (PX2853) following Prop 8. Have you seen this?
Miller: yes I have
Boies: From looking at exit polls, did people who attend church were they highly more likely to vote YES on Prop 8?
Miller: Looking at exhibit….
B: My question is to your state of mind,then we’ll look at exhibit.
M: Yes, it is fair to say that more frequent churchgoers were more favorable to Prop 8 by a considerable margin.
B: See page 8, 32% of the pop that attended church weekly voted YES 84% of the time. Is that consistent?
B: everyone else voted No more than they voted yes.
M: Three categories, those who occasionally, they voted NO by a narrow margin
B: 54% of the time, greater than the final margin of the actual vote?
M: Final margin was 52/48
B: So the answer to my question is yes?
M: Yes, by a narrow margin 54 is larger than 52
B: Put up demonstrative 25, please. Prof Miller, one of the strong allies of the G&L community you identified were labor unions. Did you investigate how members of labor unions actually voted in the Prop 8 election?
M: I don’t recall the vote
B: Look at page 12. third item down, broken down by union member in the household. Of union members, 56% voted Yes, correct?
M: I have no reason to doubt that.
B: Is it consistent with your understanding that a majority of union households voted yes?
M: It appears that way from this exit poll.
B: Do you know of evidence otherwwise?
M: No I don’t
B: Now the demonstrative, of associations, do they favor LGBT rights or same sex marriage.
N: I’m not sure
B: When youwent through your demonstratives yerterday with Mr THompson, did you mean to say that these churches, associations, organizations support LGBT rights or same sex marriage?
B: Not sure I understnad — let’s go through. Psychologists first. have you investigated why they support same sex marriage?
M: I have seen that they are registered as supporters of same sex marriage.
B: So you know they are in favor but not why?
B: Psychiatrists? Do you know WHY they support same sex marriage?
M: No I have not
B: College and university professors?
M: I beleive there was a facuilty association vote, and from my personal anecdotal experience,goes to fairness.
B: Legal associations?
M: Commmitment to the norm of fairness, I suppose.
B: Tab 103, look at that. DIX271, Gallup poll, have you reviewed this?
M: I’m not sure I reviewed it.
B: now this poll includes a wquestion asked during the last prez election, correct?
M: Yes, I see that question
B: People were asked if their party nominated a well-qualified person for prez, would they vote for that person if they had certain characteriztics?
M: Yes I see that
B: Catholic, 95% qwould vote yes?
M: That’s what the ppoll says here yes
B: 94& for a African American?
M: Yes it says that
B: 92% for a Jew
B: 87% for Hispanic
B: 72% for a Mormon
B: 56% for a candidate married three times?
M: 57% would vote for a candidate 72 years old
B: But only 54% would vote for a well qualified L or G candidate?
B: Does that tell you something about the prejudice and discrimination afgainst homosexuals?
M: It’s a data point
B: Is that a yes?
M: It’s a data point
B: Do you have reason to doubt that?
M: No I don’t
B: Let’s look at PX2859, HRC report. Did youlook at this doc?
M: Not sure
B: Take a look please
M: I may have done
B: look at page five, graf ?. " A fundamental American value is that people who pay their taxes and do their jobs should be treated fairly, byt LGBTs have no protection under federal law from being fired for their job. Untold millions are not covered by federal law. They are refused work, fired, and discriminated in the workplace." Do you have reason to disagree with that?
M: Let me take a look at that please. I have no sense of who "they" are.
B: Didn’t you find out that that was the case in your research?
M: I found lots of lawsuits, so on that basis I guess they have been.
B: Have you investigated how many would fall into that category?
M: I have not
B: Have you an approximate number?
M: I don’t know
B: Have you looked into whether it is large or small?
B: No I have not.
B: next page shows 130 cases presented in various workplaces. Anti-gay disc includes daily harassment including name calling, physical threats, humiliation, and prejudice in the workplace." Did you find that to be true?
M: I have no reason to doubt that
B: Look at Tab 30, PX874, publication of CA State Schools Coalition. Are you familiar with this coalition?
B: Are you familiar with the 4H Center for Youth Development at UCDavis, this report is from them?
M: Where is that?
B: Right at the top
B: On tab 34?
B: NO — Tab Thirty!
M: Yes, I see it now.
B: Under key findings: "hjarassment and bullying based on actual or perceived sexual orientation are pervasive. 7.5% of CA students reported being harassed for these reasons. Over 200,000 CA studenets being harassed every year. Is that true?
M: I have no basis to know
B: Did you research?
M: No I didn’t
B: You did not research harassment in schools?
M: No I did not.
B: Now go to Tab 89, PX2864, amicus submitted by Estrich and Kane, you spoke about this earlier, yes?
B: Page 17: very top of the page, take a moment to familiarize yourself with the context and let me know when you are finished.
[Miller reads for about 90 seconds]
B: Prof Estrich/Kane say: Many prejudiced voters favor any major that disfavors LGBT, and even moderate voters disfavor ‘predatory’ homosexuals. Do you doubt that?
M: Compound sentence
B: Okay,piece bypiece, do you beleive there are stereotypes of predatory homosexuals who prey on vulnerable children?
M: There have been such prejudices.
B: Did you investigate these stereotypes?
M: No I have not
B: And is there a stereotype that homosecxuals want to destroy tradiitonal families?
B: I am asking your view.
B: It is a simple question, sir do you beleive there are these stereotypes?
M: Yes I do believe there are such stereotypes?
B: Do you believe then that voters who voted for Prop 8 were driven by these stereotypes?
M: Wait, wait, I didn’t say the undermining families was a stereotype.
B: Listen to this quetion: leaving same sex marriage asied, do you believe there is a stereotype that homosexuals undermine traditional families?
M: I don’t want to coflate the two
B: No one is asking you to conflate the two?!
M: Well same sex marriage/….
B: NO! NOT SAME SEX MARRIAGE! Do you beleive there is a stereotype that traditionalmarriage is underminde by homosexuals?
M: I don’t know
B: Okay, let’s go on, what is your opinion as an expert, you came in here as an expert, saying you did this study of gays and lesbians and political power. In connection with that, did you reach a conclusion about whether the stereotype about homosexuals as predatory on innocent children caused people to vote for Prop 8?
M: Yes people voted for Prop 8 based on some stereotypes
B: What number?
M: No poll can tell you thast
B: So you don’t know, after all your study abd research>
M: No I don’t
B: Now let’s look at this book Dangerous Democracy, under Minority Rights. It says initiatives produce different results than legislation in terms of protecting minority rights, and you list several examples, r3ight>
M: Yes that is true
Pge 52, you studied Oregon Washington and CA, three states with high use of referenda, fo rthe past forty years preceding 1999?
M: Yes 1939 to 1999
B: You describe that as the past four decades here, right?
B: See the graf "The problem however is that initiatives can easily tap into an anti-minority strains —
HECKLER REMOVED SHOUTING FROM COURTROOM BY COURT PERSONNEL
[cannot understand what he’s saying]
Judge Walker: Carry on, Mr Boies
B: "These states tried to ovdrturns bans on private discrimination in housing, set English as the official language, overturn protection of the rights of homosexuals…."
M: I also said they shouldn’t be characatured as the Majority too easily tyrannized…."
B: But that’s not the whole sentence, is it?
M: No, then it says –
B: Then is says that these can easily tap into anti-minority sentiment. And then you give examples… Then you write, "The problem however… This is your graf, right?
M: Well I wrote it with someone else
B: Is this is not your view now?
M: Well I dont’t agree now?
B: Did you ever say this graf was wrong, ever?
M: NOt in those words
B: Did you ever say it was inaccurate?
M: Not in those words.
B: Now here you were studying refernda in high-use states, a fourdecade study. Was it inaccurate, your results?
M: I would cast it differently now
B: Yes I am sure you would as a witnes for the defense. BUt is it inaccurate.
M: Well it’s different.
B: Okay one step at a time, do believe they can easily tapinto anti minority sentiment?
M: It can occur
B: Has it occured>
M: On occasion
B: Is it still the case that the initiatives you studied, in this catergory — you mean the categhory of initiatives that tap into a strain of anti-minority sentiment, yes?
B: So the examples yuou give of that kind include state efforts to restirct the rights of homosexuyals,correct?
M: Among several others
B: Well I did notmean to imply it is the only, but this was on etype right?
M: Yes it was.
B: Now here you say some of these expressly restricted the rights of minorities. Do you stil agree with that?
M: I have no reason to disagree with that, no.
B: Look at page 42. "Initiative goernemnt leads to a higher level of bias against minority rights in the median voter, expressly what the check andbalance system was intended to protect." What are you referring to?
M: When you look at the median voter, he’s the one in the middle.
B: Now look at tab 35,m this is your Santa Clara law review articel, already in evidence, correct?
M: Yes it is my articel
B: Relationship of initiatives to undermining the protections for minorities, on page 8, first full graf: "The substance of populist-oriented nititiative lawmaking substitutes majoritarian values for minorit right protections." What does majoritarian values mean?
M: I assume I meant the values of the mahjority of voters.
B: Now on page 12: "All of these consequences of majority votes are distrubing to commentators from a range of observers of many political persuasions as they look at the conseeuqnences of progressive reforms."
M: Initially, initiatives were critiqued from the right, now from the left.
B: Indeed, if you turn to page 33, footnote 65, you write: "Direct democracy’s threat to minority rights is one of the reasons Madison favored the represeantative system with its checks and balances." That’s what you referred to as you Madisonian analysis, yes?
M: I used the Madisonian critique of direct democracy
B: Are you familiar with Federalist Society?
M: Yes I am
B: Are they left organization?
M: Not that familiar\
B: they are a right organization, aren’t they?
M: Yes I think they are
B: Now go to page 37 (reads) "… minority rights, it’s clear the direct initiative system has been used to disadvantage minority rights…" Do you beleive that today?
M: I do
B: "checks and balances system is designed to harmonize maj with min rights." You wrote that
B: You beleive that now?
B: (Reads list of diadvantage groups in article…) After your reference to homosexuals, you have a footnote that’s on page 54, number 68. You say "recent exampples, prop 22 in 2000" was Prop 22 in 2000 and example of the direct inititative system bypassing checks and balances to disadvantage minority rtights?
M: Yes I wrote that but it is factually incorrect. It says that Prop 22 constitutionalized restrictions.
B: Well, it was statory, correct.
M: Yes, and not constitutional
B: You wrote this at the time and beleived it?
M: I no longer beleive that
B: well let’s see about that, shall we?
B: Go to Tab 1 your deposition, page 162 lines 22-25. In december 2009, correct?
B: After you wrote your book?
B: Your most recent book>
B: (reads testimony regarding disadvantaging homosexuals through the initiative process) Did you give that testimony?
B: And do you still believe it?
M: Yes I do
B: Now go to Tab 80, Seattle Law Review: PX2855: Look at the bottom of paghe six
M: [turns very slowly to page six]
B: You write "resentment… restoration of majoritarian interests, repeal of protection of minority rights, steady stream of initiatives in CO and CA, almost all challenged in court" Based on your four decade study. DId you write that?
B: "In the US system courts have long had the responsbility when political process ordinarily relied on to protect minority rights. When Minority rights are restricted, the court is committed to strictly scrutinized such measures…."
M: Yes I wrote thast
B: when you wrote about the "the prejudiece against them does not work to protect minority rights" when you refer to "those political processes," what are you referring to?
M: MY understanding of this quote….
B: But you wrote this!
M: I am quoting Justice Stone
B: You have embedded a quote form Justice Stone in your articel,yes?
M: He’s referring to democratic processes
B: Which ones?
B: Tab 35, page 12: "nearly half of CA initiatives have been invalidated in court."
M: Not all minority rights affected.
B: "Populist initiatives that undermine minority rights are often challenged in court, whereas protection of the environment is rarly challenged in court." You wrote that, right?
B: Tab 80, page 7, a passage we’ve already looked at, but I have another question in this context. THe very last sentence: This conflict between initiatives and the courts protective role naturally gfenerates litigation." Did you do a study?
B: is that statement correct?
B: Is it correct today?
M: Maybe not that terminology, but it is still correct.
B: Look at Tab 82 PX2857, book Dangerous Democracy, page 53. "
[Walker continues to use his highlighter quite a bit today]
B: "What permits the intitative from becoming the pervasive way minority rights are taken away? The courts." You believe that?
M: My views have broadened
B: In a constitutional amendment process, ONLY the courts can protect rights?
M: Unless repealed, yes
B: "In exercise of court review, it must protect unpopular minorities" (gist) You see that?
B: As a political scientist, you would agree with thast today?
M: Difference between established rights and expanding rights
B: When Prop 8 was passed, G&L had the right to marry? That’s a yes or no question?
M There was a pending ballot inititia–
B: NO, sir, there was the right to marry when Prop 8 passed. Yes No or or Idon’t know.
M: There was a pending –
B: So the answer is Yes?
M: Yes the court –
B: Thank you.
B: Did Brown v Board protect or expand a right?
M: The fourteenth amenedment –
B: Simple question: As a polscientist, did Brown protect or expand a right?
M: Fourtheenth amendment –
B: Was it protecting a right? IS that your view?
B: Page 55 next. "
[missed some in a very long save]
B: Did you believe ALL of this paragraph when you wrote?
M: Some of it, to an extent
B: Did you disagree that the courts should be more vigilant?
M: Well others have the opposite view that courts should be more deferential to initiatives
B: Well you didn’t change your mind? You don’t say here that you are exploring the issue?
M: No, but I didn’t strongly hold this view at the time
B: Did you say here that you were exploring this? Did you say you might think it’s true?
B: NO I should have phrased it differntly.
B: :whereas in the intitative process the courts are the first and last resort" Do you agree?
M: Yes, and–
B: If the answer is YES we don’t need to hear any more, sir. Once the intitive passes, the only filter is the court, right?
M: Unless the ref allows for its own repeal.
B: Prop 8 didn’t do that, did it?
B: Now first, you did believe that the courts were the first and last resourt, you wrote it over and over in lots of articles.
M: Yes, wellI wrote that.
B: You wrote it repeatedly, you clearly believe that right?
B: PX2856, Tab 81 now page 10 an Article "Anatomy of a Backlash," written by you?
M: It was a presentation, not published.
B: You prepared this for publication and testified to this article on direct, yes?
M: Yes I did
B: Page 10: "Once this majority (that passes an initiative) puts its preference into the state constitution, the leg and state courts can’t take it out. Only federal courts are the remedy." Did youbelieve that?
B: You believe it today
M: Depends upon the rules of the state
B: We’re talking about CA, right?
M: Here, yes
B: you know that in CA the federal courts provide the only checks?
M: The legislature could put it on the ballot
B: And propose it to the same majority?
M: Electorate changes every time
B: Majorities change? Recall my questions?
M Maybe you;d better repear it
B: Is it true of all minority groups that there is less prejudice?
B: And you don’t know how many voters were motivated by prejudice and stereotuyping, right?
B: Turning to Hate Crimes laws, the Mathew Shepard law, as a fedreral law that demonstrates political power?
M: One index
B: Were there other federal laws passed that demonstrate G&L politcial power?
M: Well there are executive orders…
B: Did you hear my question: is there other federal legisaltion?
M: It’s the only federal legislation from Congress.
B: All legilsation comes from COngress?
M: WEll yes
B: What was its formal name?
N: Mathew Shepard
B: (reads name, includes James Byrd) Also supported and valuable to African Americans?
M: well they were already protected
B: Wasn’t this valuable to all Americans?
M: Not sure what you mean
B: Don’t you feel better knowing people are protected from hate crimes>
M: In terms of good political policy?
B: Yes, aren’t all Americans better off with this law,not just G&*Ls?
B: Familiar with Megan’s Law?
B: Would youview the passage of Megan’s LAw as demonstrating the politcial power of children, would you? Or wouldn’t you?
M: There’s a lot of conern about children.
B: This demonstrates the political power of little girls who are raped and killed?
B: Is it a widely held view that hate crimes are bad in America?
M: Lots of reasons for the concern
B: regardless of the minorty
M: Widely held view thats we shouls criminalize hate crimes
B: Have you looked at hate crimes?
M: There’s a report out of LA
B: Have looked at that?
B: Hate Crimes Statistics, DoJ, FBI 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. Tabs 12, 13, 14, 15.
Did you look at these stats?
M: I beleive I did
B: Do you see that the second highesst targeted minority are G&L?
M: Not sure
B: Look at 2008 first. What minority was most subject to violent hate crimes, if you know. Independent of these exhibits, do you have an opinion?
M: G&L are high I would guess.
B: Have you investigted that?
M: Not closely no
B: Adjusting for percent of the pop, do you know what minority is most subjhect to hate crimes generally?
M: Would have to look at moreclosely, would have to look at how many G&*L in the population
B: Have you an opinion on that?
M: Somewhere between 2 and 5%, I have read.
B: You also looked at LA stats?
B: Look at PX675, Tab 100 % PX834 Tab 92. These relate to hate crimes in CA and LA.
[confusion about tab numbers]
B: I apologize — it is Tab 102 and Tab 92. Offer 675 and 834.
Thompsn: No objection
Walker: Very well, they are in.
B: Did you review these documets?
M: Yes I beleive I did.
B: You described yesterday all the powerful politcal allies of G&L in CA?
B: And you acknowledge that Prop 8 passed?
B: And you anknowledge it opassed because of religion>?
M: I don’t know that.
B: Let’s go to your demonstrative #22, you talked about the religions that supported G&L rights generally, recall that?
B: You didn’t have a chart that shows religions opposed, did you?
B: You said CA Council of Churches represnets denoms of more that 1 million members.
B: Is it not a list of churches that support gay marriage
B: Do all these support same sex marriage?
M: It’s hard to say they don’t since they belong to this association.
B: Professor MIller, did these churches put out statements supporting same sex marriages>
M: Their national orgs did,some oppoosed
B: So some of these opppose gay marriage?
M: Yes, I guess so
B: Do you belong to organization whosse views you oppose?
B: And you don’t support all the views of all orgs you belong to?
B: PLEASE LISTEN TO THE QUESTION: The mere fact these churches are members of the CA Council of Churches doesn’t mean they support its views.
M: Depends on the definition of church, the national heirarchy might not support it.
B: No my question is: Their membership here doesn’t mean they support same sex marriage
M: I would agree with some form of your statement yes
B:L Incidentally, how many members of the Catholic Church re there in CA?
M: NOt off the top of my head, the largest denomination in CA
B: 30% of the electorate?
M: Not sure, perhaps of the population.
B: What is the comparable number then, of Catholics.
M: Not sure
B: So how many?
M: Not suer
B: Rough calculation
M: well there’s 36 million people in CA, 30% would be 12 mmillion. But it’s hard to measure, different eways.
B: Do you have an opinion as to whether 30% of CA is Catholic?
M: About a third identify as Catholic
B: What is the next largest religious group?
M: Peer research identifies evangelicals at the next largest, a broad category not a heirarchy
B: What %age
M: Studies not clear
B: No, your opinon
M: Best judgment would be 20%
B: So we have 30% Catholics and 20%evangelical, that’s 18 million people.
B: You know the position of the Catholic church?
B: Catholic church condemns homosexuality as a serious depravity, correct?
M: Not sure
B Offer PX770, Tab ? page , see at the bottom, "Sacred scripture condemns homosexuality as a serious depravity," right?
M: Need to find the context of the quote
B: You need the context?
M: Well there;s a difference between condemnation of the acts and condmenation of the person.
B: But the Church’s; opinion…
M: (reasd agian)
B: Had you any doubt of their disapproval before that?
B: Whyat;s the largest church after the Catholics, in CA?
M: Besides evangeicals?
M: Difficult area for definition…
B: Is the Southern Baptist the largest church in CA after Catholics?
M: Nationally, yes, not sure in CA
B: Have you looked at it?
M: Yes I have
B: And they call homosexuality an abomination?
M: I was not aware of that
B: PX771, third graf: "The Bible clearly teaches that homosexual nehavior is an abomination and shameful before God" See that sentence?
M: Yes I do.
B: Now did you investigate the views of other ochurches than Catholic, Evangelicals, and Southern Baptists?
M: Yes I looked at Jewish, which are divided. Generally favor same sex marriage and oppose Prop 8. Orthodox opposes same sex marriage and supported prop 8.
B: Orthodox believes condemned by law of Moses and should be put to death (quoting)
M: Don’t recall that quote
B: Tab 70, PX2844 admitted?
Walker: Very well
B: Second graf: "
WALKER: This is orthodox christianity, no?
Boies: Yes, your honor, I have exhibits confused
B: Did you investigate the views of Orthodox Christianity, which is large in CA?
M: Yes, but I don’t recall thier views
B: Are you aware of any OrthoChristian that favor same sex marriage?
M: Some listed in the CA Council of churches
B: Those are indiviual churches, yes?
M: Don’t think so
B: Go back to Demonstrative 22
M: Listed Greek ORthodix Church
B: Do you know a Greek Orthodox Church that supports same sex marriage?
M: One local unit in the coalition
B: Yes No or I don’t know
B: Is the Ca Council of Churches a coalition? Did they band togehter to support same sex marriage? Is that their purpose?
M: On their legislative agenda
B: Is that their reason for banding together, to support same sex marriage?
M: I’m not familiar
B: PX2839 2842 various statements of religious groups.
THOMPSON: No objection
B: As part of your work, did youinvestigate the religious groups favoring Prop 8 contributed far more money and manpower than those opposed to prop 8?
M: I wasn’t able to determine the monetary or organizational contribution of the progressive chhurches to the NO campiagn. Iknow a little bit more about the ointernal documents of the YES campaign.
B: You had acces to the Prop 8 campaign?
M: I know more about it than the No cmapiagn.
B: PX 2552, Tab 96. (admitted) You had this available to you, yes?
M: Yes I did
B: Second page, second graf: "Grassroots signatures… " this is an email from Mr Prentice: largest church response ever in CA, 300 churches involved in distributing petitions. Support of Prop 8, yes?
M: That’s whast it says
B: And that’s how tyou interpreted it when you did your analysis, yes?
THOMPSON: Subject to our sstanding obkjection.,…
B: Also an email form Mr PRentice, "LDS church is so out, giving from state’s Mormons is six million with no sign of slowing down….k The mormons have been out walking neighborhoods with about 20000 volunteers the last two weekends." Do you know that to be true?
M: I have no independaent knowledge, but I beleive this to be true.
B: You said you can’t compare the contributioins of religious groups opposed to prop 8 to those in favor?
M: Can’t quantify, but my impression is that proponents of 8 had more support.
B: Churches who supported Prop 8 devoted substantially more money, volunters, time to the work than those opposed?
M: From media reports —
B: No, your opinion, do you have an expert opinion?
B: Yes I do, those in favor had more.
B: Do you have an opinion about whether churches in favor of Prop 8 provided mosst of the institutional support for Prop 8 campaign?
M: By institutional support –
B: When you use the term institutional support what do you mean?
M: Different campaigns are different
B: well let’s take Prop 8 as an example, what to you mean?
M: fundraising, GOTV, turnout, publicity, professional consultants,
B: You believe churches and religious organizations provided most of the institutional support for prop 8
M: I don’t believe –
B: Let me ask you to look at Tab 25 PX796:
[Miller pours water]
B: turn to page 55 please: second graf, you say: "Churches and religious organizations provided most of Prop 8’s institutional support, with Catholics, Evalgelicals, and Mormons leading the way," This was i 2009 in your French peer reviewed article, yes?
M: Yes it is.
B "Bishops and evangelical pastors got money and pushed parishioners. Mormons organizaed oa massive effort to support,2% of the population, but national support, volunteer effort, and fundraising came from them." Beleive that at the time and still do?
B: Even though you aren’t an expert on the NO campiagn, did its primary institutional support come from churches and religious organizations>?
B: What part of No on 8 was form churche?
M: Don’t know
B: What &%age?
M: Have no idesa, havent seen thier numbers.
B: religion was criticalin determining voter attitudes?
M: For somevoters
B: But it was critical to voters?
M: Only to some
B: Turn to the next page: "Several factors were critical: age, religiosity, gender. REligion was critical to attitudes." Di dyou velieve that at teh time?
M: I meant some voters.
B: You don’t say :"some voters" here do you?
M: No, I don’t believe it was acritical factor for all voters, just some
B: Look back to page 47 of this article, then, Context, right at the top of the page :Many observers were mystified as to CA who was in the forefront of same sex marriage and civil rights for G&L and supported Democrats and gave Obama such a high percentage of the vote, but supported Prop 8" You then answer that question, WHY and HOW this contradiction can be explained: BY EXAMINING THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTERISTICS OF DEMOCRATIC VOTERS
M: I say thathere, but later –
B: Not later, here!
B: Dr Miller?
B: We went through the contradiction, then you said how to explain the contractiction? You believed that then, ansd you believe it now?
M: It was an iportant factor yes
B: NOT AN IMPORTNAT FACTOR _- look at whast you wrote, sir? Were there other critical factors?
M: We haven’t seen polling…
B: You came in here as an expert, you wrote this in 2009. You then said you thought religious characteristics were a critical factor, just a moment ago. In your opinion, were there other critical factors?
B: What were they?
M: Based on polling –
B: NO! Your opinion: whast other critical factors were there?
M: REligiosity was a critical factor –
B: Yes, you say that here, but you don';t list others here.
B: I promised your counsel I would be done by now, and I am over my time, pplease just listen to my question and answer it.
B: In the article you say the opportunity to establish the right to gay marriage was lost because california’s democratic coalition splintered along religious lines?
M: Where is that?
B: It’s in your articel, page 57, but what is your opinion?>
THOMPSON: The witness has been cross examined for two and a half hours, he indicated about an hour ago he was tired, can we take a break please for ten minutes?
WALKER: Well there’s something that comes to mind about pots and kettles when I hear your complain about long cross examinations, Mr THompson, but I believe we could all do with a ten minute break. Return at ten minutes after the hour.
I WILL START A NEW LIVE BLOG THEN.