Part Two of Prop 8 Trial Closing Arguments: Team Wrong At Bat
1. The Purpose of Marriage is to Make Babies Bla Bla Bla
Okay guys okay! Now that lunchtime is over it is The Other Side’s Turn. In the previous trial the pain of hearing every negative stereotype and outrageous misrepresentation of our community was tempered by the bizarreness and hilarity of the Prop 8 witnesses. Now there are no witnesses so that might not happen, but we can do our best anyways. Now Cooper is talking, and hoo boy he didn’t take long to get started:
“Why has marriage been defined the same for so long? The purpose of marriage is to channel potentially procreative relationships into a union with a man and a woman so that children can be raised by two heterosexual parents.”
It must feel awesome to be Cooper’s wife I mean procreative partner. Puts a lot of pressure on the kids though. You know, to succeed. And not be gay. Luckily though Judge Walker isn’t pulling any punches either!
Judge Walker: Do people get married to benefit the community?
Charles Cooper: Your honor…
Judge Walker: When people get married, they don’t say, “Oh boy, I can benefit society.” (Laughter) They say they are marrying to be with their life partner.
Oh that Judge Walker! Laugh a minute, that one. He asks why the state regulates marriage at all, which is really actually a fucking excellent question, and asks why not leave it to private contract. Cooper says it’s because “without the marital relationship, society would come to an end.”
Jesus Christ, someone roll that guy a joint, he needs to chill the fuck out.
Judge Walker seems to feel the same way; he asks, “If that is the premise for marriage, is that a proper premise?”
I’ve read Cooper’s answer three times now and honestly don’t know what he’s saying (though it’s so fun when people answer questions with questions, I love it!) so I’m just going to let you peruse it for yourself:
Is that premise irrational unless it insists on procreation? Is it enough that the state and society attempt to insure and increase the likelihood that naturally procreative sexual relationships will take place in stable family environments for the sake of raising children so that society itself does not have to step in? So that society does not run the risk of all of the social consequences of unwed mothers and the like?
Basically what’s happening here is that Olson was right, and the procreation thing is just something the h8ers came up with for trial so it would seem less like they hated gay people, and so nothing Cooper is saying is really holding water.
Judge Walker points out that if the state cared that much about babies, there are much more efficient ways to make that happen than by making sure only straight people can marry, and also that parenting has nothing to do with marriage, like a vast number of parent-child relationships did not come out of a procreative married relationship, so maybe this is a little beside the point?
Cooper responds to this with a bunch of crazy shit that sounds like 1984:
“The state still has an interest in that child. The state must take responsibility for the upbringing of that child. Whether it’s extraordinary measures and the state has to take full responsibility or when the child has the bulk of the situation where this arises, the mother is still alive, but the mother and father does not have the same ability as a marital unit.”
Um, hi, what the fuck does that mean. This?
Judge Walker tries to tactfully bring us back by asking “What does the evidence in this trial say?” Um, I’m not sure what this means either. The answer is: “The relationship of the parent and child is that by which the infant is protected.” Yes? I guess? From what? Lead poisoning? Schoolyard bullying? The economically segregated US Public School system?
Maybe the problem is that someone actually did roll this guy a joint before he came up to the podium.
Yeah maybe because now Cooper is kind of BSing which is the worst thing you can do with Judge Walker.
Cooper says vaguely that the evidence is “in the cases;” that lots of Supreme Court cases say that “marriage serves the public interest” and that children are important, and is also like “Oh, Blankenhorn talked about this, you don’t remember?” Yeah, we do, and it didn’t go over so well that time either.
2. We Don’t Hate Gays, We Just Love Children
Judge Walker is Not Amused. Cooper says that about two-thirds of judges have upheld this view, and that for gay people to claim that Prop 8 was motivated by homophobia and not just a sincere love of children is “not just a slur on the 7 million Californians who supported Prop 8, but a slur on 70 of the 80 judges who have ruled to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.”
There is so much talk here of children. Oh Jesus, Cooper, yeah I’m really fucking sorry if I hurt your feelings on that one. I guess I just didn’t realize how fucking concerned you were that I have the opportunity to shove a fetus out of my vagina. Also your Mom called and wants to know: “If 70 out of 80 judges walk off a cliff, are you going to do that too Judge Walker?”
Regardless, the only judge who matters thinks this is all nonsense:
Walker’s got this on lock: “If you had seven million people on your side, why did you have only one witness?” I actually know the answer to this: it’s because most of those people were brainwashed by the Mormon Church and its minions. Seriously, the movie comes out next week.
I think Cooper is getting a little bellig now. Maybe the line was too long at lunch, and he didn’t get a sandwich:
“Go to your chambers and look at any book and you will find unequivocal evidence that procreation is the reason for marriage unless it was written by one of their experts or within the last 30 years. You will not find anywhere in the pages of history any suggestion that the traditional definition of marriage, ubiquitous in history, had anything to do with homosexuality.”
I would watch your tone, son; I’ve seen Law and Order and they can throw you out for contempt of court if you get real uppity like that. Walker doesn’t do this yet, but he does ask “And what should I conclude from that?” Gurl, you woke up sassy today.
Also, apparently Maggie Gallagher is here? Liveblog says “Maggie of NOM is sitting barefoot in the court.” Wow!
Over a series of obnoxiously slow questions, we are reaching a point where Cooper is admitting that the reason you can see mention of homosexual marriage “in the last 30 years” is because, um, this thing called social change? Maybe you could read a book on that. There have been several written over the last 30 years. The last 2,010 years for that matter. Seriously, way more than just the one, promise, go to the library.
3. Interracial Marriage Also About The Children Surprise
Now he’s talking about how the only reason interracial marriage became legal was because the state realized illegitimate children were being born, and “the purpose of marriage is to have legitimate children… the 8th circuit recognized that there is a state interest.”
This is so fucking bizarre, it’s like he lives in some alternate universe that is ruled by an iron-fisted Godking who knows when any infant is born anywhere in the world, and immediately claims it as its own. Since the rest of us do not live in this universe though everything he says sounds fucking crazy.
For example: married couples who don’t have children? Um, also can we just take a moment to remember that science and technology change the world, and we have The Pill now and things are different? I mean, if we just had some sort of class in schools, like sex ed or something, then we could really get somewhere…
Also, Maggie Gallagher update: I think she was like resting her feet up on the back of the pew, and the bailiff made her put them back down. Nice.
Judge Walker asks very reasonably if there’s really any difference to the “state interest” if people have adopted or in vitro kids instead of penis-in-vagina ones, and Cooper goes on a rant worthy of that one woman who wanders through the Public Gardens screaming sometimes: Something about “irresponsible procreation” and fidelity, and operating to society’s benefit, and being “less likely to engage in sexual relationships with third parties.”
I honestly don’t really know what it meant, but I’m having a really hard time seeing how it could possibly apply to the subject at hand. Gay people can’t irresponsibly procreate? Like, of all the over-the-top Skins plotlines, none of them were “Naomi accidentally gets Emily pregnant!” because that isn’t possible. So marriage exists because straight people accidentally have children, like on Intervention.
Once again Walker tries to be the voice of reason: “Where does it show that the procreative function was a rationale for voters in upholding Prop 8?”
Cooper responds with “The Yes on 8 position specifically references that marriage is a fundamental relationship in society.”
Do you remember a time when words meant things? I don’t.
4. I Rule That Cooper is Just Fucking Crazy
Honestly, maybe it’s me, but nothing that Cooper is saying makes any sense to me here. There’s like three solid paragraphs of just nonstop speech that means nothing. Here is a selection just so you can get a sense of what I’m looking through:
“There has not been a case before the federal judiciary or as far as we can tell the state judiciary that applies to anything other than rational basis with four district court exceptions. We submit that 9th circuit has binding authority. Ten other courts of appeal with 6 decisions after Lawrence have held rational basis for sexual orientation cases. Out of 40 some odd district cases, all have been the same save four that have not survived (I may not have gotten this right). You are being asked to participate in a Tsunami.”
Is this a secret code? Is he communicating with the mother ship? I DON’T KNOW. Also, there’s this:
“If you prove that they are right on any facts by plaintiffs, then you still must rule against them unless you can show that every legislative fact relevant cannot be true.”
Well! Someone woke up very opinionated today.
Judge Walker is trying to figure some of this shit out, and asks Cooper, “the natural procreative ability of hetero couples – that’s your evidence?” Yes. Apparently it is.
Walker asks if Cooper’s line of reasoning asks that they not only rule against the plaintiffs but also invalidate the 18,000 marriages that already exist in California. Cooper says “No, that’s not our position at all,” which is weird because I was pretty sure it was?
Anyways, Cooper talks circles around himself about how this is not true, everyone can be friends, he knows a bunch of gay people, actually he doesn’t say that last part.
Now he switches gears, and says he wants to close out this part by talking about the Lofton case in Florida, which is the one that prohibited gay adoption. He says that in that case, the court ruled that “it was not rendered irrational that children do best when raised by own mother and father,” and that this means that:
“legislature could rationally conclude that natural parents of opposite sex versus children being raised by a same-sex couple that has not been proven reasonably by scientific evidence to be good for children.”
Well, um, I guess that’s that. Cooper wraps this point up by saying that “evidence provided by plaintiffs does not rise above scientifically debatable fact.”
YES, “DEBATABLE’ IS THE WORD I WOULD USE. I can’t figure out whether Cooper believes this or if he’s just freestyling, like when you have a presentation to give in sophomore year biology but didn’t do any reading so just decide to go big or go home on Chlorophyll: Green Pigment or Menace?
5. Um. EW.
And oh Jesus, Cooper just had to close this one out with something to make me vomit in my mouth:
“They’ve gone to great lengths to talk about the religious beliefs of many who supported Prop. 8. Hardly remarkable that religious people are involved. It’s part of our tradition from abolitionists to civil rights and it’s constitutionally protected.”
YES, THAT IS RIGHT. YOU ARE EXACTLY LIKE ABOLITIONISTS. I bet they’re all looking down on you from heaven right now very proudly. I’m sure James Baldwin is just ready to fucking high-five you for how fucking precisely you have replicated the spirit of the civil rights movement. Angela Davis has a fruit basket on its way to your house right fucking now. Oh my God, maybe he will be hit by a train when he leaves the courtroom.
What If It Never Ends
No just kidding that will not happen, we are not even leaving the courtroom, COOPER IS STILL TALKING. Stand by.
Apparently he is not done because there is some kind of weird legal loophole where the more I hate people, the longer they are allowed to talk. This feels like family dinner at Thanksgiving. Anyways. Cooper is going back to talking about whether sexual orientation is “immutable” — really so far his whole segment has just been a Lowlights Of The Original Prop 8 Trial, and this is no exception. We went through this whole fucking thing about how women are very “elastic,” which means that sometimes we, uh, identify differently throughout our lives, which means obvs that our identities aren’t even REAL and that we COULD marry that construction worker who yells at us on our way to work because we could be straight if we wanted to but we just don’t want to. Probably because we’re bitches, or sluts, or something. So there’s the recap of that. That’s what Cooper is talking about now, where he’s essentially trying to argue that sexual orientation shouldn’t be treated like other suspect classes because it like “can change” and therefore “is not real.” I have this really strong and immature urge to like “give Cooper a wedgie” or “trap him inside a locker” right now. Sorry. Over it.
As Judge Walker points out, though, “Some times of the year everyone is Irish.” Exactly, my friend. Exactly.
Now we’re at the part where Cooper is like “I’m not saying queers have never been discriminated against, but I’m saying that it’s 2010, and everything is fine now.” Clearly this is someone who was never called a whiny litle f*g in high school. Or maybe he was and that’s his problem. HEY-O. He goes on for like fucking ever about how gays aren’t as politically powerless as Team Totally Right witnesses made them out to be, and that means we should not let them get married, somehow. He’s wrong though, because as Judge Walker points out there are a lot of protected classes that aren’t literally powerless, and that doesn’t make them less protected. I’m just going to go there — we have a black President right now? Did you know that? And I don’t think anyone except Glenn Beck has proposed that black and African-American people should no longer be a protected class, so I’m going to go ahead and say this argument is over.
Actually It Was Peer-Reviewed By His Mother
Now we’re getting to my favorite part, the part where we talk about what shitty witnesses the other side has.
Judge Walker: Why should Mr. Blankenhorn’s testimony qualify as expert testimony. Does he meet the standards?
Cooper: I submit that he does. I don’t have anything to add to the submission we made earlier. Under the 9th circuit standard of the qualification of an expert, he is amply qualified. His professional life for 20 years have been devoted to the study of marriage…
J: Were they peer-reviewed?
Judge Walker: Am I correct that the only peer-reviewed article of Blankenhorn was not on the subject of marriage?
Cooper: Sir, as I stand here right now. I don’t know…don’t remember.
As I stand here right now, I’m going to buy Judge Walker a drink.
This next part gets a little hazy because we start talking about what marriage means “as an institution,” which is like reading Roland Barthes or some shit, like I don’t know what any of those words mean and I have a very expensive college degree. Mostly Cooper is talking about what will happen when we “change the definition” of marriage and how no one can predict it, which is dumb because no definitions of anything are actually going to change, I hate this man.
He also gets really snarky and says that since the plaintiffs can’t prove that the consequences of legalizing marriage will be positive, and all the defense has to do is prove that they could possibly reasonably maybe be negative, that they should just win the case. I don’t know enough about the law to know whether this is true, but I know it makes Cooper sound like a giant dick. And not the Vixskin kind either. I’m going to leave you with these last words of his, just so you can really savor the douchey flavor in your mouth:
Judge Walker: A disability has been put on marriage. Do you not have to show that there is need, that it’s enough to impose on some citizens a restriction from which others do not suffer? Is it enough to say “I don’t know?”
WELL THEN. This would really suck if we didn’t get to listen to Olson’s rebuttal but guess what WE DO. Hold on to your panties ladies and gentlemen, this shit is about to get real.
Are you ready for some fresh-to-death Ted Olson smackdown? I know I am. I am ready to rebutt the shit out of those assholes.
Here we go! Judge Walker asks Olson what happens if we win – he’s implying a comparison to Roe v. Wade, where the issue of abortion was technically legally decided but is clearly not a closed debate in the actual real world. Olson is like whatever, bro, that’s what people said about interracial marriage too, and look where we are now.
That’s all well and good and whatever, but then Olson really starts to get into it. To be honest, the h8ers had a pretty sloppily run trial, and Olson isn’t going to let them get away with it. “Mr. Cooper cites from books of people who would not come into court to be subjected to the judicial process.” Really, take ten minutes to go back through their testimony – all of their “experts” were either crazy, stupid, wrong, or all three. Like really, I haven’t been able to get away with stuff in Shakespeare 101 lecture that they tried to pull in court. I didn’t do that well in Shakespeare.
Also, ohmigod, I just can’t get over how in love I am with Ted Olson. Like really. Anyone else is going to have to wear a suit and tie and say things like “objection, your honor” to have a chance with me. “Mr. Cooper says first you have to accept my definition that marriage is between a man and a woman and marriage between man and man or woman and woman would change definition. Of course it did, because you defined it. How does it help to keep gays and lesbians out of the club?”
Also, omg, THIS:
“Now a word on pro-creation. What if the state changes its mind? There are governments that have ruled that too much pro-creation is bad. If CA so decides in 10 years, would the state have the right to cut off marriage? No. None of the cases to which Mr. Cooper referred, including Maynard, referred to divorce, mandatory leave for public school teachers, family occupancy of homes, prisoners, and the last case in Texas which ruled for homosexuals.”
It’s really reassuring to me to know that it’s not just that I personally disagree with these crazy people, but that they are actually objectively wrong on many levels. Like really, they are not very good at their jobs. If the government has a vested interest in procreation, it hasn’t done a very good job making that apparent; and if it’s really so slipshod about these things, why shouldn’t gay families benefit? Since actually, you know, straight people procreate kind of a lot? So much so that millions of kids are in foster care? And then we adopt them into loving homes? Just saying. Also Olson just referenced Dr. King’s letter from Birmingham jail. Oh my God I just peed myself.
Also, just saying, the word “procreation” was not in any of the Prop 8 campaign ads. Just saying.
Ok you guys I’m really tired and have been drinking wine out of a plastic cup? So I’m going to leave you with Olson’s words and not mine, because he is smarter and also was probably not intoxicated in this courtroom.
It’s about a fundamental right to marry, not to marry in June or some other time, but to marry whom you love. Can’t rely on post-hoc. We have to take a group of people who have bee victims of discrimination and we want to foreclose them from a basic right – marriage. Strict scrutiny, rational basis or something in between, you have to have a good reason to take those rights away. “I don’t know” doesn’t cut it when you take a basic right from a group.
Well, we know how we feel. We know that we have huge boners for Olson and Boies. And we know that that Cooper dude is real fucking dumb. But we still don’t know how Judge Walker will decide, because the way that The Law works means that even though we are Totally Fucking Right we could still lose. And also that even if we are ruled as being Totally Fucking Right, we could still lose because this ish is going to the Supreme Court. Aren’t you excited? I’m excited. But you know we’ll be here with you to hold your hand and help wipe the mascara off your face either way, right? Girl, you know we got you.
On that note we are OUT for the night, love you bitches Olson&Boies 4 LYFE!
Pages: 1 2See entire article on one page
…whoa, never mind homophobia, there’s quite a bit of hate against blended families, polyamorous people, single parents, couples without kids, it-takes-a-village-to-raise-a-child type families! If “kids function better with a mother and a father” is the entirety of their argument, then should single parents be arrested? Should couples not be allowed to marry unless they promise to have children? What about infertile people, no marriage licenses for them? And all those abused, abandoned children, no love for them?
those are all very valid questions tiara. i think it is probably fair to say that cooper and the people he represents do in fact hate all the groups you mentioned. i’m just going to throw that out there.
I was really thrilled about this recap – the bit about the tsunami made me laugh maniacally / deliriously from my couch – and then I saw that there is but one lone comment.
Sup, Tiara? Excellent points, all.
Walker’s obvious disdain for Cooper mirrors my own, and then some.
This whole matter is fused to my very own heart and the fabric of my wonky little family, and I need good news. Fast, good news.
Thanks for the awesome wrap-up!
I almost thought I had imagined the tsunami thing, thank you for confirming that that was a real thing and not something I had hallucinated
wow a lot of words! but they were all riveting rachel!
not surprised by this whole spouting a lot of words which don’t actually make sense together thing, maybe it’s just meant to convey the force of their convictions! bah.
Brilliant recap, obviously I think our arguments are persuasive but I’m still paranoid that somehow Walker is going to find a way to rule in the H8ters favor.
I think Walker pretty much openly hates Cooper, but I guess he is “a real judge” who cares about “the law” so that may not guarantee us anything, you’re right. fingers crossed!
“Do you remember a time when words meant things? I don’t” <- Exactly
Chlorophyll is an extremely real menace, though; I hope you take that very seriously. It endangers the moral fibers of the love-blanket that society’s heteroexemplary marital units and/or their value-worshipping-and-law-abiding progeny require to (asexually) snuggle under…and the like.
I wish I had read this article in reverse, ’cause leaving off with Cooper’s last statement literally made me puke as well. Otherwise, I’m totes excited to see the return of Judgement Daze via the Auto-awesome-straddle team. for reals. :D
don’t worry there is more to come and i think we are going to end on an up note for reals. if not i’ll buy you a drink or something. are you coming to the autostraddle party? come to the autostraddle party
haha, thanks. I wish I could! I’m just outside of chicago and am doing the starving not-quite-an-artist thing, so no $ for a trip like that. I’ll totes be with you in spirit though:D
Rachel, I love you so hard. I really want to bake you a cake or something.
no you promised we would get married wasteunit. i remember from the previous recaps. i will not accept anything less.
Oh my goodness, you’re right. I’m very sorry. Married we shall be! How ’bout I bake a wedding cake to tide us over until it’s legal?
Rachel is amazing, you guys. For real.
rachel i am buying you so many drinks for these.
also, “I’m not saying queers have never been discriminated against, but I’m saying that it’s 2010, and everything is fine now.” did he really say this?? everything is not fine! there are fake proms and people getting pushed off cliffs and ilene chaiken is still talking/wearing trashbags.
I just want to say that I so, so want to read this recap, but I know I’m going to have nothing to do at work tomorrow, so I’m saving it for then. But this is so hard because Rachel, you are so good!
Okay, ending useless comment here. I’ll be back tomorrow with something constructive, hopefully.
you better, i’m going to keep checking until you do
Cooper must have been pregaming the closing arguments with Miss South Carolina’s pageant coach.
Thanks you for your witty analysis Autostraddle/Rachel! Also, thankyou for listening to the nutbars (Cooper, et.al.) so I don’t have to! As an Australian, I love these recaps for reporting something we would never get over here. Thanks!
I skipped reading the lone article written by my national news outlet on the trial ’cause I knew I’d get a much funnier and wayyyy better informed one from Autostraddle. Wasn’t wrong.
Also, “since the plaintiffs can’t prove that the consequences of legalizing marriage will be positive” – people are going to be able to freely marry the person they love, how is it even possible to argue that that is not going to be positive?
Like, I get that he probs means for society/for the good of the species in the long run or something etc but I think considering all the postulating that’s going on here, the love and happiness that will result from the death of Prop8 is the only real, predictable outcome.
Sure, because his a court and everything’s fair, they can argue that it *might* result in tsunamis? or something?…(wth was that?) but they really cannot argue that it won’t result in you know, the attainment of rights and freedoms (or at least the happiness/goodness/whatever that comes from getting that which you have been so long denied if they can’t admit that marriage actually is a right)for many, many people, which is a positive thing, no matter which side you’re arguing on.
Basically, when Prop8 fails, people will be happy and have freedom, how is that not obviously positive? It doesn’t even need to be proven that there will be positives, it’s that obvious. Ergo, their argument is flawed, Cooper is crazy and I need a cookie.
“Cooper is crazy and I need a cookie.”
also i actually did eat a ton of cookies while writing this, it’s the only way
I think.. I think I need to go buy a couple sixpacks of beer right now.. And drown myself in it to relieve the pure stupidity of every single thing Cooper said.
I’m trying to figure out how having a tube shoved up my twat and past my cervix to spray the inside of my uterus with baby juice counts as sexual activity with a third party…
I’ve had it done 3 times.
Best sex of my life.
The AS recaps of Prop 8 are amongst the best things I’ve read on the internet. Or anywhere.
Thank you for listening to the nuts so that we don’t have to. Great article Rachel!
you’re welcome aneke!
Rachel, please be careful with your heart. In the end a love affair with Ted Olson will only cause pain.
Right now he seems like a really great guy. He’s brilliant, he’s persuasive and he’s on our side. But he’s also the guy that persuaded the Supreme Court to hand Bush the election in 2000. And just this year, he successfully argued that corporations should get to buy elections cause they’re just like people and therefore entitled to free speech protections.
You’re probably be better off if you can avoid getting too attached. Eventually, he will disappoint.
i bet he’d be great at getting me out of speeding tickets though, right? right?
Hey legal eagle Jessica — if Walker rules that Prop 8 is invalid, might there be a 2004 style wedding frenzy between that and the date of the appeal to the Ninth Circuit?
Generally trial orders are effective almost right away, so if the Court holds Prop 8 invalid, marriage for same-sex couples could resume more or less immediately. (I think there’s maybe a 10-day waiting period, but I could be wrong about that).
However, even if we win, either Judge Walker or the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could stay the ruling, meaning that the opinion wouldn’t have an immediate effect. In that case, same-sex couples would still be unable to marry, and the frenzy would have to wait at least until the Ninth Circuit has a chance to review the case.
I don’t know what to add to what others have already said, this recap is amazing, thanks, thanks.
Is there a chance this process will bring us to federal gay marriage? I mean, if it goes to the supreme court and we win, how will they justify that a federal body has ruled over something the validity of which is restricted only to some states? I don’t know the US law, nor the English language for that matter.
I don’t know US law or English either but as far as I can tell, if the Supreme Court rules that Prop 8 is fundamentally discriminatory it does not bode well for the federal Defense Against Marriage Amendment, which is why everyone (including me) is shitting themselves over this.
It really depends on the precise language of the Supreme Court opinion; we could win in a big way or a little way.
If five Supreme Court justices say that any law that prohibits gay and lesbian couples from having equal access to marriage is unconstitutional, then current laws limiting marriage would have to fall across the country (including DOMA).
If, instead, five Supreme Court Justices sign onto an opinion that strikes down Proposition 8 based on the particular fact pattern in California (where all people had access to marriage and then the right was removed from a particular group that has historically faced discrimination), we still win. But the implications are not as broad, and it wouldn’t necessarily invalidate laws in other states that restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples.
As a side note, we could also lose in a big way or a little way. But I’d prefer not to think about that.
Funny I came here today looking for stuff about the trial, and you found me on Huff Po!
We all in Sacramento?
Hey Tankiegirlie, I discovered AutoS yesterday and had to pass the site along over at Huff Po. I got totally wrapped in the trial – and thanks to Rachel & Jessica I learned tons, laughed and stayed mostly sane. Stopped back today to see if R had touched base with a clairvoyant or something so we all can know what happens next!! jt (dallas, tx)
okay so i read this late but my number one feeling is judge walker is amazing because i don’t understand how he managed to sit through all of cooper’s bullshit and not, like, throw a building at him.
Rachel? Um. Hi. You know that I’m honored to have you writing for us, yeah? That I am SO VERY THANKFUL you write these recaps so I can understand the hate, yes? You know this. And you’ve made my head explode. Really really good job here you fancy lady.
Also, for the record, I really literally laughed out loud by myself reading this:
“…and Cooper goes on a rant worthy of that one woman who wanders through the Public Gardens screaming sometimes.” amazing. just. Amazing.
Also “Cooper’s wife I mean procreative partner” was priceless. Great job!
Alex it is an honor and a privilege to write things that go below your graphics of the Terminator. I really really mean that.
Also I love it when something I wrote was not a feature AND THEN SUDDENLY IS
I’ve said it before and I will say it again: Rachel, I love it best of all when you write things. My brain feels full of knowledge and information like a wet sponge.
omg yes let’s!
‘“without the marital relationship, society would come to an end”’ What in the worllld Mr. Cooper?? Thank you for plowing through his unintelligible closing argument Rachel, great recap!
yeah I think he was like smoking that stuff that makes you think the world is going to end? anyways, you’re welcome bolgabomka!
Pingback: Mombian » Blog Archive » Weekly Political Roundup: Prop 8 Closing Arguments Edition
I’m super late reading this but you know how when you read something awesome/witty/brilliant you want to quote it? There are so many things in this recap I want to quote.
So agreed. some of my favorites are:
– I like to imagine they are wearing complementary Spandex suits and capes.
– “hey, what’s up, TO. What you doing this weekend?”
“Oh you know ending inequality for all, kissing babies.”
– Also your Mom called…
– “4. I Rule That Cooper is Just Fucking Crazy.” I think a few of us actually questioned if there was a Tsunami that we had somehow not realized was occuring bc we’re paying so much attention to Prop 8 news. (No? Just me then.)
it should be noted that many of those funny things are actually Riese, added in during edits. she is a lot funnier than i am, she just has less time to write recaps.
Pingback: Weekly Political Roundup: Prop 8 Closing Arguments Edition - Mombian