A video recording recovered by police from a car belonging to Mohammad Habibzada, 24, and Shafiq Hashemi and Sayed Bassam, both 21, show the cousins shooting at the other victims, Assistant District Attorney Brian Buckelew said.

No serious injuries have been reported from the 11 additional shootings.

“We’re looking to talk to others who may have been victimized,” Buckelew said.

The cousins from Hayward, Calif., are accused of shooting a 27-year-old man in the cheek as he was smoking outside a bar in San Francisco’s Mission district on Feb. 26.

The victim called police and said he’d been shot by a passing car. Police pulled the suspects over as the cousins drove by the bar a second time as officers were interviewing the victim.

Police allegedly found a “rifle-style” BB gun and a video camera inside the car. Investigators later discovered a recording of the shooting on the camera, police said.

“They basically stated to officers that they came to San Francisco to target gay people,” police spokesman Samson Chan said.

The cousins have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon with a hate crime enhancement discharge of a firearm with gross negligence, and attempted mayhem for the initial shooting.

They are in custody after a judge granted prosecutors’ request Friday to raise the suspects’ bail to $450,000 each, pending the new charges, which are expected to be filed in the next couple weeks.

The move provides funding to maintain the district’s existing program, which includes an anti-discrimination curriculum at all grade levels and a Web site to help educators.

While San Francisco is considered a gay mecca, district officials contend gay and lesbian students are more likely to be bullied, skip school or attempt suicide according to an article in Education Week.

A district survey found that 13 percent of San Francisco’s middle schoolers and 11 percent of high schoolers identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

According to the Education Week story, “The school board approved the resolution unanimously after hearing testimony from more than two dozen students, teachers and parents who urged support for the measure.”

(San Francisco) The first federal case to decide if the U.S. Constitution prevents states from stopping same-sex weddings came to an anti-climatic break Wednesday after a judge heard nearly 12 days of wide-ranging testimony on the meaning of marriage, the nature of sexual orientation, and the role of religion in shaping attitudes about both.

Attorneys for sponsors of California’s Proposition 8 tentatively rested their case after introducing materials from the 2008 election campaign.

They called just two expert witnesses, including David Blankenhorn, president of the New York-based Institute for American Values, who capped the historic proceedings by saying the rights of same-sex couples should come second to preserving the cherished social institution of marriage.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker heard the case without a jury and said he will take time to review the evidence before allowing closing arguments, probably in March or April. He has no deadline for reaching a decision.

After testimony ended, Walker came down from the bench and shook hands with both legal teams.

“I just want to take a moment to congratulate you (on) what a good job you’ve both done,” he said, calling it a fascinating case.

His eventual verdict is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Throughout the trial, lawyers for the two gay couples who filed the lawsuit seeking to overturn the ballot measure tried to show the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized marriage as a fundamental right and that there is no lawful reason to deny it to gays.

They also argued that Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, was a product of anti-gay prejudice rooted in religion and psychological theories about homosexuality that have long since been discredited.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer David Boies said Walker had been provided with more than enough evidence to strike down the ban.

“We said on the first day of trial we would prove three things,” he said during a news conference outside court. “Marriage is a fundamental right; that depriving gays and lesbians the right to marry hurts them and hurts their children; and there was no reason, no societal benefit in not allowing them to get married.”

The defense countered that limiting marriage to a man and a woman serves a paramount social function by promoting stable biological families – a purpose that outweighs civil rights concerns.

Defense lawyers methodically cross-examined the parade of academic experts who testified for the plaintiffs then kept their part of the case brief.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer who served on the executive committee of the Proposition 8 campaign, said the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs.

“They have to prove the people voted irrationally when they voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage,” said Pugno, who often complained during the trial that voters and religion should not be put on trial.

“The question is whether the people have a right to decide what is best,” he told reporters.

Lawyers on both sides delved into the premises that surround the polarized public discourse on gay marriage, touching on the fitness of gay parents, religious views on homosexuality, gender roles in marriage and the history of the gay rights movement.

They also aired topics that are less likely to be part of the polite debate, such as stereotypes that depict gays as pedophiles and link same-sex relationships to the specter of polygamy.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs called more than a dozen witnesses, including Nancy Cott, a Harvard University historian who testified that monogamous, state-sanctioned marriage between one man and one woman is a relatively recent concept in human civilization.

Ryan Kendall, a gay Colorado man, recalled how being subjected to therapy designed to make him straight drove him to the brink of suicide.

The plaintiffs – Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, a lesbian couple from Berkeley, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, a gay couple from Burbank – also took the witness stand to describe why they regard the domestic partnerships that California allows gay couples to enter are a poor substitute for matrimony.

Lawyers for the couples also called William Tam, a proponent of Proposition 8, as a hostile witness to discuss his view that allowing gays to get married would lead to incest, polygamy and child abuse.

Defense lawyers called just two witnesses. Kenneth Miller, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, testified that gays enjoy considerable political clout and were not a disadvantaged minority, as depicted by plaintiffs.

Under cross-examination, Blankenhorn conceded there were many valid reasons for allowing gays to wed, but the considerations are outweighed by the likely damage it would cause the already weakened state of heterosexual unions.

He acknowledged, however, that allowing gays to wed would have positive consequences for same-sex couples and society, such as scoring “a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion,” reducing anti-gay prejudice and hate crimes, and creating a higher standard of living for same-sex couples.

The assertion by Claremont McKenna College professor Kenneth Miller came as he was being cross-examined Monday on his testimony that gays in California enjoy substantial political power as a result of nearly unanimous support from high-ranking elected officials, labor unions, newspapers, corporations and progressive religious groups.

“Is there any other minority you can identify that is discharged from the military when they are doing a perfectly good job just because somebody discovers their status?” asked David Boies, a lawyer for two same-sex couples suing to overturn the state’s gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.

“I’m not aware of any,” Miller answered.

But Miller resisted Boies’ persistent attempts to get him to put Proposition 8 in the same category as the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military. Boies asked Miller if he agreed with another political scientist with whom he had co-authored a book chapter that Proposition 8 is inherently discriminatory.

“It’s differential treatment. Whether it’s legally discriminatory, I don’t know,” Miller said.

The question of whether the gay rights movement constitutes a potent political force is central to efforts by lawyers seeking to challenge the state’s same-sex marriage ban on grounds that it unlawfully targeted a disadvantaged group.

Miller said one indication of the gay rights movement’s clout in California was that neither Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nor any other statewide office holders endorsed Proposition 8. But perhaps the best measure of the movement’s strength was the $43 million amassed to defeat the gay marriage ban in 2008, he said. That was $3.4 million more than initiative backers raised.

“Gay and lesbian interests are well-represented, can get anything they like passed through the Legislature, raise millions and millions of dollars,” Miller said. “You just can’t with a straight face say gays and lesbians are a politically weak minority in California.”

Earlier Monday, a team of lawyers led by Boies and former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson rested the plaintiffs’ case after spending more than nine days presenting evidence on the meaning of marriage, the nature of sexual orientation, and the role of religion in shaping attitudes about both.

The last volley in their attempt to prove that Proposition 8 was a product of anti-gay bias and served no legitimate public interest was videotape of a simulcast produced for California churches in which supporters of the ban said gay marriage would lead to polygamy and bestiality.

Lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 are expected to call their second expert witness on Tuesday. He is David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, a private group that advocates on behalf of responsible fatherhood and traditional marriage.

Chief city economist Edmund Egan said married people accumulate more wealth and have more to spend on property and consumer goods, which bolsters tax revenue.

He also said the city must spend more on health care for uninsured workers because same-sex couples are not always covered under their partner’s employee health care plans.

“It’s clear to me that Proposition 8 has a negative material impact on the city of San Francisco,” he said. “These are impacts that are hard to quantify, but over the long term they can be powerful.”

Egan testified during the fourth day of a federal trial on a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, the ballot measure approved by statewide voters in 2008.

The city was allowed to join the suit to demonstrate that governments bear some of the costs of the ban.

Egan said San Francisco has seen higher mental health costs because of discrimination against gays and now spends $2.5 million a year on specialized services for them.

“I believe that the prohibition of marriage of same-sex couples is a form of discrimination, and it’s reasonable to assume that if that prohibition were removed there would be over time a lessening of the discrimination those individuals see in their daily lives,” he said.

Egan acknowledged he could not quantify many of the potential revenue and savings benefits San Francisco would realize if same-sex couples could marry. The most solid estimate he cited was $2.6 million the city was losing in hotel and sales tax revenue every year from weddings that can’t take place.

He based the figure on the 5,100 marriage licenses San Francisco issued to same-sex couples during a five-month period in 2008 when gay marriage was legal, as well as on wedding industry data on how much couples spend on average when they tie the knot.

“Certainly San Francisco experienced an uptake in weddings (in 2008), and I can conclude with that the economic activity associated with weddings increased as well,” he said.

In addition, if same-sex couples were recognized by the federal government and could file joint income tax returns, they would realize tax savings that could be spend locally, Egan said.

The vote by the Alameda Board of Education on Tuesday did little to ease tensions in the island city near Oakland. A lawsuit and threats of recalling school board members accompanied debate over the so-called Lesson 9 curriculum adopted in May to prevent anti-gay bullying.

Gay parents in the community wanted their children protected from bullying, while other parents argued that elementary school is too early to talk to students about gay people.

The new anti-bullying lessons approved by the board, at the recommendation of School Superintendent Kirsten Vital, will be supplemented by children’s books that explicitly address six specific forms of bias, including against gays.

“This has torn apart our community,” said school trustee Trish Herrera Spencer, the board member most opposed to the gay curriculum and who opposed adding the supplemental books. She said the board’s latest action did not take into consideration “the strong beliefs” of all in the community.

The 45-minute Lesson 9, which was to be taught once a year in each grade starting with kindergarten, sparked a lawsuit, accusations that religious families were being discriminated against and threats of a recall election against the three board members who approved it.

Vital said her recommendation was meant to counter complaints from parents opposed to the original lesson because it highlighted only one type of bullying.

“There is not an off-the-shelf, perfect curriculum that is going to work for our community,” Vital said, explaining that she wants to solicit book recommendations, bring them back to the school board for approval in a few months and then work with teachers to develop accompanying lesson plans in time for the 2010-11 academic year.

Several parents said they did not trust a teachers’ committee to pick books that would both satisfy gay and lesbian parents and parents with religious views that do not condone homosexuality.

“Freedom of religion is protected from harassment and discrimination from anyone. It may be of no consequence to some, but it is a very integral part of many traditional families and should be honored,” said Kellie Wood, who has three children in Alameda schools and is part of a group circulating recall election petitions. “If we’re all honest, the friction between two protected classes, in particular, will not go away.”

Kathy Passmore, a lesbian mother of two, said she hears students using anti-gay language in her job as a sixth grade teacher in Alameda. She urged the school board to retain the spirit of Lesson 9.

“The children of gay families exist and are attending ASUD schools every single day,” she said. “They are here.”

Alameda, an island city that foots Oakland and is home to a Coast Guard installation and a former Naval base that is being eyed for housing, is the latest community to be divided by its school district’s desire to curb anti-gay bullying and the concerns of parents who do not want their children to hear about gay and lesbian issues in school.

During last year’s campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages in California, the measure’s sponsors ran commercials featuring a Massachusetts couple who unsuccessfully sued their local district for the right to pull their child out of anti-bullying lessons that included references to gay households.

A year later, the same public relations firm that developed that ad developed a new one for the campaign to outlaw gay marriage in Maine focusing on a second-grade picture book that was part of Alameda’s Lesson 9. The book, “Who’s In A Family,” contains pictures of families headed by grandparents, single parents and gay parents, among others.

A dozen Alameda families sued the school district earlier this year over its contention that parents did not have to be notified in advance when teachers planned to give the lessons so they could keep their children from receiving them. Last week, an Alameda Superior Court judge sided with the school district, ruling that a state law allowing parents to have their “opt-out” of discussions about human sexuality did not apply to Lesson 9.

Kevin Snider, a lawyer with the conservative Pacific Justice Institute who represented the Alameda families, said before the school board’s vote that his clients would not appeal the judge’s ruling if the school board eliminated Lesson 9. He did not immediately return a call Wednesday for clarification on whether the board’s action satisfied that condition.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has ended his campaign to be governor of California. In a press release, Newsom pointed to his family as the reason.

“With a young family and responsibilities at City Hall, I have found it impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort the way it needs to – and should be – done,” the mayor said.

There is  suggestion, however, that the real reasons are because there was no grondswell for Newsom and donors were not willing to give up cash.

More about this later.

A Democratic assemblyman who heckled the governor during a recent event in San Francisco actually received two messages: the veto letter itself and a not-so-subtle rebuke creatively hidden within it.

Like a find-the-word puzzle, the second message was visible by stringing together the first letter of each line down the left-hand margin. It consisted of a common four-letter vulgarity followed by the letters “y-o-u.”

“My goodness. What a coincidence,” said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear. “I suppose when you do so many vetoes, something like this is bound to happen.”

Schwarzenegger’s veto messages are sent to the lawmakers who authored the bills, and posted on the governor’s Web site. McLear noted that the left-hand margin of past veto messages has spelled out words such as “poet” and “soap.”

The target was San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, who had sponsored AB1176. The bill, which passed unanimously in the Assembly and Senate, would have granted the Port of San Francisco expanded financing power to redevelop a former shipyard into a new neighborhood known as Pier 70.

“Kudos to the governor for his creative use of coincidence,” said Ammiano’s spokesman, Quintin Mecke. “You certainly have to have a sense of humor in politics. Unfortunately, this humor came at the cost of the Port of San Francisco.”

Whether coincidence or smackdown, the phrase contained in Schwarzenegger’s Oct. 12 veto message could be seen as retaliation for Ammiano’s behavior during a local Democratic Party fundraiser earlier this month in San Francisco.

Schwarzenegger, a Republican, had been invited to the event by former San Francisco mayor and Assembly speaker Willie Brown, a Democrat.

His appearance at the Fairmont Hotel caught many of the attendees by surprise and came after a summer of contentious budget negotiations that forced lawmakers to cut billions of dollars from core state services, including education and health care programs.

On a video clip of the governor’s appearance, Ammiano can be heard shouting “you lie” and other derogatory phrases as other attendees booed and heckled Schwarzenegger’s brief speech.

After the governor left, Ammiano took the stage and gave a rambling diatribe in which he criticized Schwarzenegger for a wide variety of perceived offenses. In part, the freshman lawmaker was upset that Schwarzenegger had vetoed bills in 2005 and 2007 that would have legalized gay marriage.

The governor has said the issue should be decided by voters or the state Supreme Court. Schwarzenegger also opposed Proposition 8, the initiative voters passed in November to ban same-sex marriage.

Of the eight Ammiano bills sent to the governor’s desk this year, Schwarzenegger vetoed six – five of them after the Oct. 7 heckling incident.

Mecke, Ammiano’s spokesman, said the lawmaker wants to move on.

“We will call it even and start with a clean slate with the governor from here on out,” he said.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker also signaled Wednesday that the measure’s sponsors will need to show that allowing gay couples to wed threatens traditional male-female unions.

Walker said significant questions remain about whether the voter-approved ban discriminates against gays and lesbians in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Before ruling, Walker grilled a lawyer for the measure’s backers who asserted that Proposition 8 was legitimate because it fostered “naturally procreative relationships.”

The judge demanded to hear how that goal would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal.