Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, January 13, 2010
Homo / News An Ominous Sign
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM
However the federal court hearing the challenge to California's Prop 8 rules—uphold Prop 8, throw out Prop 8—the case is ultimately headed to the United State Supreme Court... which ruled today, in a 5-4 decision, to block the broadcast of the trial. The plaintiffs—the good (pro-gay) guys—wanted the trial to be broadcast and the court had decided to allow the broadcast. But the defendants—the bad (anti-gay) guys—like to conduct their anti-gay hate campaigns with as much secrecy as they can so sued to stop the broadcast. And a bare majority of the Supreme Court just sided with the haters. Which is... gee... kinda ominous.
Earlier this week Rachel Maddow wondered why the haters wanted to hide...
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The Courage Campaign's Rick Jacobs—his live blog is providing the best coverage of the trial—knows why they want to hide:
The proponents of Prop. 8 seek to hide and obfuscate. They did not want their own ad played in court. They did not want documents from their own strategists to become public because the documents show clearly that their entire campaign was built on the decades of prejudice and fear that we heard about in detail yesterday from Prof. Chauncey. As Ted Olson keeps saying, their arguments do not hold up in public or in court. They only win when they can manipulate the media and the public, using scare tactics.
1
It's not going to change unless that pending bill in the Senate judiciary committee simply overrules the Supremes and various Federal court judges with bulletproof legal language that they in turn can't overrule.
2
Reading some comments made in the trial this morning. One of the defending attorneys was trying to imply to the court that gays deserve special treatment based on the violence they supposedly committed towards prop 8 proponents.
4
Indeed an ominous sign. I suspect if (when) it gets to the Supremes, the haters will get their way. There is just too much Xtian conservative bias on this SCOTUS since the Roberts and Alito appointments.
It'd sure be great to see some dead wood retire while a Dem is still in office, tho we'll not be seeing any of the Scalia camp leaving on a Dem's watch.
It'd sure be great to see some dead wood retire while a Dem is still in office, tho we'll not be seeing any of the Scalia camp leaving on a Dem's watch.
5
Stop hyperventilating. It's well known that the swing vote on this is Justice Kennedy (you remember, he wrote the majority opinion on Lawrence v. Texas), and Kennedy is absolutely, categorically opposed to having cameras in the Supreme Court. This wasn't about anything but the cameras.
6
Joe @1: Nothing can "overrule" the Supremes. That's why they're the Supremes. Though they may be able to structure legislation that gets around the problem they had. That's about the best you can do.
7
Should the US Supreme Court determine that Gay Americans should not enjoy the same civil right of marriage as straight Americans (but maybe a separate and equal thingy called Domestic Unions or such), what do you all think Gay Americans will do? I find that question far more compelling than 'To televise or not to televise'.
I'd like to see a public forum to discuss the "what if" of this all. Just an exercise mind you.
I'd like to see a public forum to discuss the "what if" of this all. Just an exercise mind you.
8
"The plaintiffs—the good (pro-gay) guys"
"the defendants—the bad (anti-gay) guys"
Is precisly why the Supremes needed to block the broadcast of the trial.
"the defendants—the bad (anti-gay) guys"
Is precisly why the Supremes needed to block the broadcast of the trial.
9
5280 Yes they can you dolt. It depends on what type of law, statutory or constitutional, and what type of scrutiny applies if it is constitutional. The ledbetter stuff recently was a classic example. SCOTUS says that title 7 language says this, Legislature goes "ewww" and amends the language, now the court's previous holding is irrelevant against the new language.
PS: Kennedy hates cameras so no biggie.
PS: Kennedy hates cameras so no biggie.
11
Cameras in the courtroom are not necessarily a good idea. They would be helpful - in theory - to air the filth and the lies and the fantasies of the Loveschilds of the world but really I don't have faith that even our allies would pay attention to the enormous amount of detail that is coming out of this trial.
It's all still available - even if it's not viewable.
Oh and here is Tam's reasons about why he doesn't want to take the stand: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/01…
He doesn't like it when people challenge him on his absurd sexual fantasies.
If it's perfectly fine for people like Tam to say that gay people want to fuck children, then I guess we ought to start saying that Republicans want to fuck children too.
Same thing, right? No harm no foul.
It's all still available - even if it's not viewable.
Oh and here is Tam's reasons about why he doesn't want to take the stand: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/01…
He doesn't like it when people challenge him on his absurd sexual fantasies.
If it's perfectly fine for people like Tam to say that gay people want to fuck children, then I guess we ought to start saying that Republicans want to fuck children too.
Same thing, right? No harm no foul.
13
Everybody knows what has happened when gay advocates and their supporters have had any information concerning those that they view as "the bad guys". Lives destroyed, people fired from jobs, businesses and their owners harassed, houses of worship desecrated. You see when you depart from the premise that those (in the majority by the way) are "the bad guys" for standing up for their core societal values and you see yourself as "the good guys", then it would come as no surprise that you (gay orgs and allies) will act out your beliefs accordingly. That is to say battling who you believe to be "the bad guys".
14
You know, I thought the same thing as Dan when I initially heard the news. BUT I think @5 is right, and Kennedy for the most part has been pro-gay in his rulings, Romer v Evans, Lawrence v Texas, etc. Although he did side with the Boy Scouts and stopped us from releasing names in the Ref 71 campaign.
It's gonna be nail-biter and could go either way. I'm buoyed by how cogent the arguments by Olson and Boies are, but scared that the makeup of the current SCOTUS is going to make their efforts futile.
It's gonna be nail-biter and could go either way. I'm buoyed by how cogent the arguments by Olson and Boies are, but scared that the makeup of the current SCOTUS is going to make their efforts futile.
15
@13: Hate crimes against GLBT citizens in CA have spiked after Prop 8. A woman was gangraped by a group of men who confronted her about her gay rights stickers over in the East Bay. Two men in Seaside Oregon were beaten brutally. A man in Seattle was attacked on Capitol Hill. Just weeks after the murder of a gay man, Puerto Rico is proposing to "defend marriage". There have been brutal physical attacks in Queens, NY and so on and so forth.
If the party line from you is that you are constantly fighting against us, then I will treat any confrontation from people like you that can even remotely be seen as physical as an attack on my life and will defend myself accordingly.
If the party line from you is that you are constantly fighting against us, then I will treat any confrontation from people like you that can even remotely be seen as physical as an attack on my life and will defend myself accordingly.
16
Loveschild -
Your friend Tam hasn't ever filed a police report about one incident involving revenge. Have you?
Whose lives have been destroyed? Carrie Prejean?
Who has been arrested for harrassment and property damaage? Has anyone been charged?
When gay people are stabbed in the face (Buffalo NY two weeks ago), stabbed to death (Indiana December 2009), beaten, robbed and maced at a mall (Cheektowaga NY two weeks ago) and dismemebered and burned (last fall) for doing nothing other than being gay you better have one shred of evidence to support your pissy tears about harrassment and desecration unless you have proof.
Evidence - not your whining lies and distortions and bullshit. YOU kill people by promoting defamation against gay people.
YOU do. YOU should face the terror Don Belton faced you sick sanctimonious selfsish godless monster - you truly are heartless and completely without conscience if you place the tears of Tam ahead of the death and assault and maiming of gay people because it advances your point of view.
You are sick.
Your friend Tam hasn't ever filed a police report about one incident involving revenge. Have you?
Whose lives have been destroyed? Carrie Prejean?
Who has been arrested for harrassment and property damaage? Has anyone been charged?
When gay people are stabbed in the face (Buffalo NY two weeks ago), stabbed to death (Indiana December 2009), beaten, robbed and maced at a mall (Cheektowaga NY two weeks ago) and dismemebered and burned (last fall) for doing nothing other than being gay you better have one shred of evidence to support your pissy tears about harrassment and desecration unless you have proof.
Evidence - not your whining lies and distortions and bullshit. YOU kill people by promoting defamation against gay people.
YOU do. YOU should face the terror Don Belton faced you sick sanctimonious selfsish godless monster - you truly are heartless and completely without conscience if you place the tears of Tam ahead of the death and assault and maiming of gay people because it advances your point of view.
You are sick.
17
@9: You're the reason why I don't usually respond to unregistered commenters. You call me a "dolt," then go on to re-state exactly what I said. Sheesh.
18
Been following the live coverage at prop8trialtracker and The Seminal, as well as a few Twitter posters.
Occasionally wish you were in there liveblogging it too, Savage!
Occasionally wish you were in there liveblogging it too, Savage!
19
@13 - name one house of worship desecrated. Link to the news story. (And sorry, gays kissing in front of one does not count as desecration.)
Name one life destroyed: link to the news story
Name the "people" fired, plural. (Resignation in shame doesn't count.) Link to the news stories.
Face it: Christians are ashamed of what they are doing, because it is unchristian. That's why they don't want to be on TV.
Name one life destroyed: link to the news story
Name the "people" fired, plural. (Resignation in shame doesn't count.) Link to the news stories.
Face it: Christians are ashamed of what they are doing, because it is unchristian. That's why they don't want to be on TV.
20
SCOTUS’s decision to prevent broadcasting of the 9th-Circuit Trial is a brilliant strategic decision. SCOTUS has already decided that it will condone/support hatred and discrimination against LBGT people. If SCOTUS HAD allowed the broadcasting of the trial, then when the case gets to SCOTUS and it rules in favor of hatred and institutionalized discrimination against LGBT people, then average Americans would see just how biased and unjust SCOTUS actually has become.
If any average American could see the video-footage of the real hateful, vitriolic reasons why the “Christian Right” seeks to dehumanize LGBT people, then the public would not stand for it. Bravo to SCOTUS.
If any average American could see the video-footage of the real hateful, vitriolic reasons why the “Christian Right” seeks to dehumanize LGBT people, then the public would not stand for it. Bravo to SCOTUS.
22
A ruling on video broadcasting is very different from a ruling on the merits of a decision based on the fabulous record plaintiffs are building. I'm optimistic.
24
Not ominous at all. Clearly it would have been good for the good guys if everyone could see just how bad the bad guys are, but unless you believe that the Justices simply don't read the briefs and make up their minds ahead of time, there is absolutely no relationship between the decision on televising the argument and their ultimate decision on the merits of same-sex marriage. I promise you they would have ruled this way no matter what the case was about. Also, it could be years before the case gets to the Supreme Court, plenty of time for Justices who think they already know how they would rule to change their minds.
27
@25: Which is worse, yours or the real result of prop 8: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-bea…
http://cbs5.com/local/lesbian.gang.rape.…
http://cbs5.com/local/lesbian.gang.rape.…
The woman, who lives openly with a female partner, was attacked on Dec. 13 after she got out of her car affixed with a rainbow gay pride sticker, according to investigators.
She was raped multiple times inside and outside the vehicle and left naked outside an abandoned building while the alleged assailants took her wallet and drove off in her car, police said.
The brutality of the attack shook even seasoned investigators in Richmond, a city of about 100,000 across the bay from San Francisco with one of California's highest homicide rates. Police say they have received hundreds of calls from across the country offering money and support for the woman.
28
@24 Actually, that's exactly what I think -- that 4 of the 9 have already made up their minds, the ones who will vote against, and then there's the fencesitter. Call me cynical -- or just realistic.
31
@27
Where does it indicate that the criminals who assaulted the women where Yes on 8 supporters, or supporters of traditional marriage for that matter? The few cases I cite on the other hand were done by the No side supporters.
Where does it indicate that the criminals who assaulted the women where Yes on 8 supporters, or supporters of traditional marriage for that matter? The few cases I cite on the other hand were done by the No side supporters.
32
I think the supreme court blocking the cameras is not surprising. They are leery of cameras in a courtroom, period and many other high profile cases have not allowed them.
One can make the argument that the presence of cameras unduly influences the behavior of the attorneys
( OJ Simpson case comes to mind). That being said the presence also allows for accurate reportage while the case is argued. I think the bloggers are doing a fine job covering this and I wish the MSM would do more.
Aside from that, this is going to be an interesting test of conventional assumptions about gays in society.
One can make the argument that the presence of cameras unduly influences the behavior of the attorneys
( OJ Simpson case comes to mind). That being said the presence also allows for accurate reportage while the case is argued. I think the bloggers are doing a fine job covering this and I wish the MSM would do more.
Aside from that, this is going to be an interesting test of conventional assumptions about gays in society.
33
Here's something else that causes concern re Kennedy:
Especially after 2005, when Sandra Day O'Connor, who had previously been known as the court's "swing vote", retired, Kennedy began to get that title for himself. Kennedy is more conservative than former Justice O'Connor was on issues of race, religion, and abortion, and intensely dislikes being labeled a "swing vote".
On the Roberts Court, Justice Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 2008-2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, 5.
Especially after 2005, when Sandra Day O'Connor, who had previously been known as the court's "swing vote", retired, Kennedy began to get that title for himself. Kennedy is more conservative than former Justice O'Connor was on issues of race, religion, and abortion, and intensely dislikes being labeled a "swing vote".
On the Roberts Court, Justice Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 2008-2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, 5.
34
@31: But they can determine anti-prop-8 bb-gun holes from other bb-gun holes, right?
Granted, it's probably a safe assumption that anti-prop-8 folks did it. Just like it's probably safe to assume that people who attack gays because they are gay are fine with prop-8. The gays want to harm our children, after all, right? "Protect our children" was the theme of the campaign.
Granted, it's probably a safe assumption that anti-prop-8 folks did it. Just like it's probably safe to assume that people who attack gays because they are gay are fine with prop-8. The gays want to harm our children, after all, right? "Protect our children" was the theme of the campaign.
35
Oh, and I'm still waiting for the ruined lives. (Again, wallowing in shame for what they did doesn't coun't.)
36
@31: Loveschild, you cuntwhorebitch, you are a liar and a bigot. You say that the attacks on gays tend to be just random crimes while the damage done to churches is always due to gay marriage controversy. Well:
Hate-crime enhancements were added to charges against Salvador, which could mean a more severe sentence if he is convicted. Authorities say the woman was taunted for being a lesbian during the 45-minute assault. (from #27's link)
Authorities are not saying whether it was related to California's Prop 8 or whether it was random vandalism. Church members, however, believe it is because the church has taken a stand against same-sex marriage. (from your #31 link)
Look up the numbers of anti-gay hate crimes committed annually, and the number of crimes committed against gay marriage opponents and their churches.
How many lives ruined by homophobic harassment? I don't see so many people in the gutter because of societal acceptance of gays.
Get off of your soapbox, you lying cuntwhorebitch.
Hate-crime enhancements were added to charges against Salvador, which could mean a more severe sentence if he is convicted. Authorities say the woman was taunted for being a lesbian during the 45-minute assault. (from #27's link)
Authorities are not saying whether it was related to California's Prop 8 or whether it was random vandalism. Church members, however, believe it is because the church has taken a stand against same-sex marriage. (from your #31 link)
Look up the numbers of anti-gay hate crimes committed annually, and the number of crimes committed against gay marriage opponents and their churches.
How many lives ruined by homophobic harassment? I don't see so many people in the gutter because of societal acceptance of gays.
Get off of your soapbox, you lying cuntwhorebitch.
39
The high court split 5-4 Wednesday, with the conservative justices in the majority. Justice Kennedy was the swing vote.
If Perry v. Schwarzenegger ends up going to the Supreme Court, which I'm sure it will, I'm certain that Kennedy will be the swing vote in that as well.
In her excellent article in The New Yorker, Margaret Talbot wrote...
If Perry v. Schwarzenegger ends up going to the Supreme Court, which I'm sure it will, I'm certain that Kennedy will be the swing vote in that as well.
In her excellent article in The New Yorker, Margaret Talbot wrote...
Nan Hunter, a law professor at Georgetown University, is skeptical about Olson and Boies’s chances. “As a purely formal matter, one could argue that Olson and Boies are correct,” Hunter said. “But invalidating roughly forty state laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman is an awfully heavy lift for the Supreme Court, and especially for Justices who take a limited role of the scope for the judiciary.” She added, “I fear that their strategy is: Ted Olson will speak, Anthony Kennedy will listen, and the earth will move. I hope I’m wrong about this—they’re excellent lawyers—but I fear, frankly, that there’s more ego than analysis in that.”
40
Leave poor Loveschild alone.
Didn't her comments just last month on the bill before the Ugandan legislature teach you more than you ever wanted to know about her. Her position on that issue spoke volumes about her. (Read two of her comments bellow if you can't remember.) You can't really expect her to acknowledge that the actual beatings and murder of humans is more tragic than some girl getting bopped on the head with a bible or a church suffering glitter and water damage, it isn't within her at this time. The initials LC no longer stand for Loveschild, they stand for Lost Cause. Let her cower in fear in peace, her worlds crashing and she isn't coping with it well.
@2,3,7,10:
Nice to see that besides displaying the usual supercilious attitude that you parade here you have now added paranoia to your repertoire.
As for me dear Bacon unlike many on your side I have no interest in meddling in the affairs of sovereign self ruled nations, unless my fellow Americans on your side of the fence take an active role in attacking them.
I will not be distracted from the attempts at silencing being done here in my country in NJ, NY and as you have inadvertently commented DC.
To those few pro-traditional family folks that frequent this blog, i advise you to take notice and don't be distracted, they don't rest and while you might think that ME might have brought a warning to them that is not the case. Help in whatever way you can in spreading the word in DC because time is running out there, also there's a possible vote in NY today so take note and if you're in the district or any of the two states in their target now please become active. These people are not resting for the holidays and neither should we.
Posted by Loveschild on December 1, 2009 at 11:27 AM
@64 I'm telling you, you better chill, that's the best "option" you can resolve to take on this. Because if you don't you (or those you claim to care about) will be treading on thin ice and just as i was sure that the death penalty was going to be removed from the bill if the instigation keeps on I'm positively sure you will see it come back and instituted into law. Don't think for a moment that Ugandans are going to be perpetual pushovers, if they see more attacks on this bill they'll return to the original draft, no matter what anyone says.
Posted by Loveschild on December 10, 2009 at 12:54 PM
More...
Didn't her comments just last month on the bill before the Ugandan legislature teach you more than you ever wanted to know about her. Her position on that issue spoke volumes about her. (Read two of her comments bellow if you can't remember.) You can't really expect her to acknowledge that the actual beatings and murder of humans is more tragic than some girl getting bopped on the head with a bible or a church suffering glitter and water damage, it isn't within her at this time. The initials LC no longer stand for Loveschild, they stand for Lost Cause. Let her cower in fear in peace, her worlds crashing and she isn't coping with it well.
@2,3,7,10:
Nice to see that besides displaying the usual supercilious attitude that you parade here you have now added paranoia to your repertoire.
As for me dear Bacon unlike many on your side I have no interest in meddling in the affairs of sovereign self ruled nations, unless my fellow Americans on your side of the fence take an active role in attacking them.
I will not be distracted from the attempts at silencing being done here in my country in NJ, NY and as you have inadvertently commented DC.
To those few pro-traditional family folks that frequent this blog, i advise you to take notice and don't be distracted, they don't rest and while you might think that ME might have brought a warning to them that is not the case. Help in whatever way you can in spreading the word in DC because time is running out there, also there's a possible vote in NY today so take note and if you're in the district or any of the two states in their target now please become active. These people are not resting for the holidays and neither should we.
Posted by Loveschild on December 1, 2009 at 11:27 AM
@64 I'm telling you, you better chill, that's the best "option" you can resolve to take on this. Because if you don't you (or those you claim to care about) will be treading on thin ice and just as i was sure that the death penalty was going to be removed from the bill if the instigation keeps on I'm positively sure you will see it come back and instituted into law. Don't think for a moment that Ugandans are going to be perpetual pushovers, if they see more attacks on this bill they'll return to the original draft, no matter what anyone says.
Posted by Loveschild on December 10, 2009 at 12:54 PM
41
13/Loveschild: You see when you depart from the premise that those (in the majority by the way) are "the bad guys" for standing up for their core societal values and you see yourself as "the good guys"...
People "standing up for their core societal values" isn't good or bad per se. It depends on what those "core societal values" are. The "core societal values" of Afrikaaners in South Africa created their policy of apartheid. Earlier in U.S. history "core societal values" of people prevented women and blacks from voting and prevented people of different races from marrying.
The problem with the "core societal values" of religious conservatives vis-a-vis gays & lesbians is that they are bad values: hatred, intolerance, prejudice. People who are religious, but liberal, accept and embrace gays and lesbians as "children of God" who are equal in every respect to straight people.
People "standing up for their core societal values" isn't good or bad per se. It depends on what those "core societal values" are. The "core societal values" of Afrikaaners in South Africa created their policy of apartheid. Earlier in U.S. history "core societal values" of people prevented women and blacks from voting and prevented people of different races from marrying.
The problem with the "core societal values" of religious conservatives vis-a-vis gays & lesbians is that they are bad values: hatred, intolerance, prejudice. People who are religious, but liberal, accept and embrace gays and lesbians as "children of God" who are equal in every respect to straight people.
42
Loveschild is exactly who we are fighting against. And yes we are fighting, though it should remain non-physical because we're better than the people on her side. It's a scary fight because there is no sanity on their side, and how do you fight insanity?
She and those with her have no concept of what they're doing, because to them we're somehow sub-human. So when we die it's a bit of a shame, at most, but when some BB holes and some spray paint dare to "desecrate" some buildings (they are not Houses of God, God has better taste) it justifies treating us like dogs.
Let her spout off, about this and anything else she wants to. The more everyone hears how stupid her and others' "reasoning" is the more people will turn away.
She and those with her have no concept of what they're doing, because to them we're somehow sub-human. So when we die it's a bit of a shame, at most, but when some BB holes and some spray paint dare to "desecrate" some buildings (they are not Houses of God, God has better taste) it justifies treating us like dogs.
Let her spout off, about this and anything else she wants to. The more everyone hears how stupid her and others' "reasoning" is the more people will turn away.
43
@31: From the news report:
Hm, surge in hate crimes, attackers knew victim was a lesbian. Is this what the Yes on 8 people were talking about when they mentioned gay math? That only gay folks know how to put 2 and 2 together?
Detectives say the 28-year-old victim was attacked on Dec. 13 after she got out of her car, which bore a rainbow gay pride sticker. The alleged attackers made comments indicating they knew she was a lesbian, police said.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg…
Hm, surge in hate crimes, attackers knew victim was a lesbian. Is this what the Yes on 8 people were talking about when they mentioned gay math? That only gay folks know how to put 2 and 2 together?
44
@40: If we... rearrange the letters in "Loveschild", we get "Clevis Hold".
Oh my god, it's been Clevis Hold all along? That dastardly fop! QUICK! Let's rush to his home on Courtwick Lane and heap great verbal insult upon his person and upset his smoking parlor and sitting room!
Oh my god, it's been Clevis Hold all along? That dastardly fop! QUICK! Let's rush to his home on Courtwick Lane and heap great verbal insult upon his person and upset his smoking parlor and sitting room!
46
so much for neutral journalistic integrity, dan (as if you were ever an actual journalist in the first place, heey-ohhh!).
47
Hey, 46, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Indeed, I also find it ridiculous that they don't want the judgment publicly broadcast. But there's one thing missing from this post: what was the rationale used to block the broadcasting? On what legal grounds -- after the judge in question had already OKed it -- did the anti-gay-marriage lawyers actually get the Supreme Court to agree to prohibit it? What did they claim?
Just curious.
Indeed, I also find it ridiculous that they don't want the judgment publicly broadcast. But there's one thing missing from this post: what was the rationale used to block the broadcasting? On what legal grounds -- after the judge in question had already OKed it -- did the anti-gay-marriage lawyers actually get the Supreme Court to agree to prohibit it? What did they claim?
Just curious.
48
Kennedy pretends to be camera shy; in reality, he fears a viewer might notice Thomas whacking off under his robes.
49
The Supreme Court should be applauded for pulling the plug on Walker's Freak Show...
The California's Proposition 8 trial is being held in San Francisco, one of the most pro-gay marriage venues in the country. This is a decided home-court advantage for those challenging the law and, by implication, the nation's marriage laws.
Judge Vaughn Walker has pushed this case to trial despite many objections from the proponents of Prop 8. Already, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has been peppered with appeals from the backers of Prop 8 over Walker's procedural rulings, which have significantly tilted the litigation environment in favor of the opponents.
It is virtually unprecedented that Walker is forcing a full-blown trial of this issue.
Either limiting the definition of marriage to one man and one woman is constitutional, or it isn't. This is a question of law. That's why every other challenge to a state marriage law has been decided on the basis of legal precedent, analysis of legislative intent, scholarly analysis and expert reports.
The constitutionality of Proposition 8 does not hinge on the views of the sponsors of Prop 8 about marriage and sexuality, nor does it depend on the TV commercials and other communications put forth by the campaign in favor of the measure. Yet Walker has not only ruled that these issues are relevant, so are the private thoughts of backers never communicated to voters.
Walker will allow the plaintiffs' lawyers to grill the sponsors of the initiative, their campaign consultants and key supporters on the stand. They'll be asked to explain and defend their private views about homosexuality, religion and a variety of other matters.
Wlaker is after legal theater instead of Justice. He revealed his true intentions with his unprecedented ruling allowing cameras in the courtroom and videos to be run on YouTube.
More...
The California's Proposition 8 trial is being held in San Francisco, one of the most pro-gay marriage venues in the country. This is a decided home-court advantage for those challenging the law and, by implication, the nation's marriage laws.
Judge Vaughn Walker has pushed this case to trial despite many objections from the proponents of Prop 8. Already, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has been peppered with appeals from the backers of Prop 8 over Walker's procedural rulings, which have significantly tilted the litigation environment in favor of the opponents.
It is virtually unprecedented that Walker is forcing a full-blown trial of this issue.
Either limiting the definition of marriage to one man and one woman is constitutional, or it isn't. This is a question of law. That's why every other challenge to a state marriage law has been decided on the basis of legal precedent, analysis of legislative intent, scholarly analysis and expert reports.
The constitutionality of Proposition 8 does not hinge on the views of the sponsors of Prop 8 about marriage and sexuality, nor does it depend on the TV commercials and other communications put forth by the campaign in favor of the measure. Yet Walker has not only ruled that these issues are relevant, so are the private thoughts of backers never communicated to voters.
Walker will allow the plaintiffs' lawyers to grill the sponsors of the initiative, their campaign consultants and key supporters on the stand. They'll be asked to explain and defend their private views about homosexuality, religion and a variety of other matters.
Wlaker is after legal theater instead of Justice. He revealed his true intentions with his unprecedented ruling allowing cameras in the courtroom and videos to be run on YouTube.
50
Some theater group needs to put together a reenactment from the transcript, and like soon. The UK used to ban the voice of Gerry Adams, of Sinn Féin, so the BBC did a workaround, by getting an actor to reenact his quotes. Why doesn't someone do the same thing. It would be great to piss off the haters on the SCOTUS, and even this SCOTUS couldn't ban a reenactment.
51
I'm pretty new to the Stranger and its comment threads, but I had to stick my oar in here. I've read a number of comments by the person who goes by 'loveschild' and I just can't figure out where all that hate is coming from. Seriously, in your #13 comment you said that 'everyone knows' what happens, when in fact I've never heard of any gay-on-hater violence that didn't seem utterly trumped up - while on the other hand I've seen the devastation to lives, love and property that your brand of hate causes gay people. What kind of religion do you follow, anyway? Are you REALLY a klansman, or klanswoman, or klanstrans or WHATEVER? Because outside of the Klan, the Mormons and Maggie Gallagher, I've never heard anybody say things so vile and attribute them to love the way you do.
Am I just naive?
Am I just naive?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (52) RSS