This week marked the commencement of the San Francisco Federal Court case over the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. For those who do not recall the particulars of the legislation, the proposition was supported by various conservative and religious groups who raised over $40 million dollars, much of which came from outside the state, in order to fund their opposition campaign.
The campaign in support of Proposition 8 put forth various claims about the alleged effect legalizing gay marriage would have on heterosexual marriages and children in the state of California. Backers of Proposition 8, which included people like William Tam and an organization called "Protect Marriage," had no problem disseminating all sorts of claims to the public in effort to obtain support for their initiative. These claims included outlandish charges like the legalization of same-sex marriage would result in "gay sex being taught in schools." In fact, during the campaign, backers of Prop 8 had no problem making all sorts of misrepresentations to scare people into supporting their proposition. Many of these representations were pervasively known to be false. They were quite public about their quest, which included ongoing commercials on radio and television, large scale dissemination of materials in the mail, door-to-door canvassing of voters, and putting up signs stating "protect marriage." This widescale campaign was unlike anything perviously seen in California and ultimately it successfully persuaded a slight majority of the voters who participated in that election, to pass the initiative.
Having conducted what has been viewed by many as a smear campaign, based on the public dissemination of falsehoods, it is rather ironic that the same individuals who so vociferously supported this initiative in public prior to the election, now allege that they have a right of privacy which needs to be respected and that the court should decline to publicly broadcast the proceedings as had been planned.
Aside from the request by William Tam, to now be excused from the case as a defendant (which he voluntarily petitioned the court previously for) because he is "tired and wants peace," Protect Marriage and others want to keep the public in the dark about what the impact of Proposition 8 really means for many Californians. The trial was expected to be covered by the media so that it could be observed by the public. Under the guise of claiming that they will be intimidated if the proceedings are available to the public, Protect Marriage and others have asked the United States Supreme Court to block the broadcast of the proceedings. The Supreme Court granted the request on a temporary basis this week. While the grant was not a final decision, the effect of it is such that it is more likely than not that the Supreme Court will not rule until after the trial is over.
It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court decided to block the broadcast of the proceedings. In essence, the same people who used the public as a sword in their quest to attack gay rights, have now been able to successfully use the court system as a shield to suddenly take themselves out of the public eye, knowing full well that the exposure of the trial will make people aware of the various falsehoods that they alleged in support of their campaign.
This act of manipulation of the legal system should, in and of itself, cause voters to question whether there was any merit to supporting the proposition to begin with. Having made their claims in the public without any regard for the fear that they created by making false statements and by using scare tactics, these same organizations should not be permitted to cover up their falsehoods by not allowing the public to view the proceedings in the media. It appears that the supporters of the proposition do not want the voters in California to suffer from "buyer's remorse." It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court's ruling has enabled these people to again use the legal system to try and promote their agenda. Their refusal to allow the public to properly scrutinize their claims, and the motivation behind the sponsorship of Proposition 8, is the ultimate act of cowardice and the public should view it as just that.
completely befuddled.
How about PROP STR8 HATE - Husbands will be prevented from seeing their dying wives in the hospital. Wives will be the last person to be told (if at all) if husbands are in the military
Or maybe PROP STR8 ROBBERY - The 20-30 year pension your now deceased husband accumulated to protect you AND your 3 children will be taken away permanently.
Sounds like extraordinarily hateful, evil "legal" acts to me. And these are just TWO (2) rights.
We need to author referendums on state ballots they have to defend such as:
Houses of worship recieve 10% off the tax on that building compared to what a secular owner would pay. Call it American Charity Act.
or taking every cent of their "faith-based" government funding, I'll be damned if I'll PAY MY taxes to have these thugs turn around and discriminate in hiring, and using the extra money to attack OUR families.
Breyers dissent is not very compelilng at all and missed the heart of the action. He basically said,. that if there is enough interest and a pilot program had been authorized., they should be allowed to proceed. To hell with the rules.
Mr. Silberberg, for the above assertion to be true, 52% of the population of California would have to be so weak that they could be used by someone or some group as a "sword".
"This act of manipulation of the legal system..."
Forgive me, Sir, but I fail to see how following normal, standard procedures for filing a motion and securing a decision from the highest court in the land comstitutes a "manipulation". This is our legal system and this is how it works. Are you proposing that we create a new and different legal system specifically so that things will turn out as you wish on this issue?
From the LIARS who used a filthy pedofile commercial in Kalamazoo where a little girl is followed from a playground into a restroom...with the clear implication the pedofile must be gay, Had that ad showed a little white girl followed into a restroom by a Black man, or a Latino, or a Muslim NO STATION would have aired it, and it should be charged as HATE SPEECH.
In any election, the losing side could claim that the winning side used the public as a sword. Therefor the claim is meaningless.
As stated above, the motion which went to the U. S. Supreme Court was done in the normal manner, the same as it has been done in countless thosands of other cases. If the standard legal procedures are not to your liking then perhaps you should seek to change them before bringing your concerns before the courts.
The Mormons and their front group National Organization for Marriage, along with Catholic Bishops IGNORE, and BREAK campaign finance laws in state, after state, after state.
It'd be in the best interest of the Courts and these organizations to have these proceedings in PUBLIC, you do this too cute by half cr*p, and make the trial look like a kangaroo court, don't whine when you coniviving has the sh*t hit the fan.....after the fact
NO OTHER MINORITY would tollerate this crud..
What evidence do you have that Catholic Bishops ignore and break campaign finance laws? Can you cite some legal decisions or is your above comment based solely upon your subjective opinion? If the above is your subjective opinion, they you may wish to indicate that rather than presenting your allegations as proven fact.
Since Hawaii Mormons have used FAKE front groups to do their dirty political cr*p.
Mormons also have statements on record that they don't want to be seen spearheading the anti-gay efforts,not that they aren't doing it, they just don't want to be SEEN DOING IT.
NOM refuses to release their donor's names, which is in VIOLATION of ME and CA campaign finance disclosure laws. AND NJ AND NY.
You can read the ME Attorney General demanding NOMs donor's list and the ME court case saying they have NO grounds to not disclose that.
" U. S. District Court in Maine DENIES NOM's Attempt To Hide Donors!!!"
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13804/u-s-district-court-in-maine-denies-noms-attempt-to-hide-donors
"NOM has expanded its lawsuit against Maine, now saying that not only should they not have to comply with financial disclosure laws regarding the source of funding for their ballot initiative campaigns, they should not have to disclose where they get the money they spend to support or oppose individual candidates."
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/12/nom-expands-lawsuit-to-evade-maines.html
You have also failed to prodluce a single shred of objective evidence that Catholic Bishops are breaking campaign finance laws. Could it be that no such evidence exists for that allegation either?
If you are going to make serious allegations like this, it is wise to be prepared to back them up with facts, objective evidence of some sort.
i suppose they were too afraid of what the public might learn from the trial.
As to the military, I think anyone who wants to step up and be part of the defense of this nation deserves our thanks and our best, not scorn. Given how hateful most Middle Eastern/Muslim/Arab societies are towards gays (it is a death sentence in many of them) I can't think of better 'payback' than learning that a gay soldier or Marine took part in greasing a bunch of terrorists if and when the opportunity presented itself. The thought of that is sweet!
To their deteriment, gays still have a self inflcted PR problem that will dog them unless and until they address it. Issues like aggressively targeting groups like the Boy Scouts have hurt them far more than helped them.
On the other hand the media has lost so much integrity and behaves so irresponsibly these days. Having this case not spill out onto cable to be twisted by, inappropriately or mistakenly commented on, or opined about by 'entertainers' to arouse their fan base for the sole purpose of increasing ratings, may be a silver lining.
If we still lived in an era where serious professional journalists, policy and issues experts were properly engaged and the MSM also could be trusted to act in a responsible, ethical and professional manner to treat both sides of the case objectively, I would more vociferously argue for live media coverage. Just my opinion at the moment.
The problem is NOT that one side wanted no public trial. It was because of the radical actions of pro-gay zealots who would attack those who testify. As a victim of such actions from the right wing, I can sympathize with such concerns. That is why the left has LONG agrued that our membership lists and contributors should remain confidential too.
THAT'S a felony the four Yes supporters ADMITTED sending.
The felony could bring a 4 year sentance PER LETTER. Where are their trials?
oh yeah they didn't even get arrested, o6ne was a high ranking LDS lawyer
so don't pretend there wasn't crud coming from the anti gay folks, I saw signs repeatedly destroyed and a swastica painted on a driveway.
Prop8 relied on bigotry and misinformation. They played to peoples fears and exploited children while doing so. In addition they were almost fully funded by religious organizations with vested interest in spreading doctrine. Of course they want none of this to come out. This was never a matter of 'faith' or tradition it was a matter of hate and they can't prove otherwise.
Bigotry and misinformation is all these people have to offer; and there's not a dime's worth of difference between them and the anti-Semites and segregationists of the 20th century. As for homosexuality being a "lifestyle choice", religion is a choice, so let's call the religious fascists' bluff on that -- deep-six First Amendment protections for churches. And it's time to start taxing them, come to think of it. This country can no longer afford to have churches and clergy sucking on the government tit.
I also suspect it is the ultimate act of bigotry: court justices protecting bigotry for bigotry's sake, at the expense of justice.
You nailed THAT.
Ironic, yes. Surprising, no. Cowardice is endemic to the religious right wing.
The more sensational a court case is, the less it should be publicly televised, in my book. For me, it's common sense, not "cowardice".
This decision to hide the Prop * trial from the Public signals the deep and irrational animosity of Gays deeply embedded into our justice system. A very sad decision in our Nation's History.