Controversies around Prop 8 and the lawsuit to overturn it continue almost unabated. Anti-equality activists want all film of the trial "put under lock and key," so that no one may view it. The presiding judge in the case had shown a 3 minute clip during a lecture he gave and that got Prop 8 proponents in a tizzy.
You might remember that proponents of Prop 8 were adamantly against allowing the public see and hear their actual case. Prop 8 opponents, in contrast, were happy to make it public.
When it came to the majority voting on whether a minority had the same rights as themselves, Prop 8 proponents were advocates of "let the public decide." When it comes to the trial itself, they don't want the public to have easy access.
So, why the sudden switch from trusting the public to demanding secrecy?
Perhaps the reason is that political campaigns and courtrooms have different sets of rules. A courtroom has procedures aimed at ferreting out truth; political campaigns rely on spin, sometimes deception.
The trial showed that opponents of marriage equality simply didn't have a case. The evidence offered was extremely weak. And they didn't offer as evidence the same claims they made during the campaign. The reason is simple -- their campaign relied heavily on lies and distortions.
For example, during the trial, Prop 8 attorney Charles Cooper said marriage was established for procreative purposes and marriage equality would harm that. Judge Walker asked how that would be and the reply was, "My answer is, I don't know. I don't know."
Cooper tried to argue a version of the precautionary principle, which basically means that if anyone can imagine harm, without concrete evidence, there is sufficient cause to ban the thing in question. He literally said, "There are things we can't know, that's my point." We should ban equality of rights because of what he doesn't know. Interesting logic.
Election campaigns are different. There is no cross examination and no rules of evidence to get in the way. Prop 8 proponents used that to advantage with a series of television ads that knowingly distorted the facts.
They claimed Catholic Charities in Massachusetts was forced to close because it would be required to recognize gay marriage. Catholic Charities had been ordered by the church to discriminate against gay people. But this, in itself, is actually legal for religious groups.
However, Catholic Charities also acted as a state contractor and received state and federal money. It was told that while legally allowed to discriminate, it couldn't do so if it wanted to put its hands in taxpayers' pockets. The charity said it would rather discriminate than take tax funds. But it also said it would close down, because the church didn't want to use its own money for these services. A Mormon charity which did not take tax funds, offering the same sort of discriminatory adoption services, stayed open.
Another Prop 8 commercial claimed a New Jersey church lost tax exemption for not recognizing gay marriage. Odd, since New Jersey didn't allow gay marriage. The case was quite different. A church owned a pavilion on the boardwalk and had applied to get tax exemption for it. It was not a church itself. They argued the property should be tax exempt because it was open to all the public as a service to the community. They were granted tax exemption on that condition. They then denied use of the building to gay people, showing it was not open to the public as previously claimed. They gained the right to discriminate on private property, but because it was now private property, and not a public service, lost the tax exemption.
Another example of dishonesty was a commercial about kids in a San Francisco school being forced to attend a gay marriage. No child actually attended a gay marriage, but some did greet their teacher outside City Hall after she got married. They were not forced to go there; their parents took them. It was not a school project, but a parental request that was approved.
The parents took their children there to surprise the teacher. It was done during lunch hour, using public transit, chaperoned by parents, not by officials from the school. Prop 8 then used photos of these children, without parental permission, for their deceitful television ad. While falsely claiming that parental rights were being denied because of "gay marriage," Prop 8 used the children against the wishes of their parents.
One mother aptly said:
"Prop 8 claims to be about families, but we're here to say you can't be for families by attacking our families. You can't be for families and take these children's innocent images and flash them not only on television statewide, but on your fund raising page."
None of this would fly in court. In court, a bad case is at a disadvantage since it has to use facts, not just dishonest appeals to fearful emotions. The head of an anti-equality campaign in Maine, Marc Mutty, admitted that they used dishonest tactics to win votes. In the video below he said:
"One of the problems that I have: I know what we need to do and what we need to do is slam people over the head, not only with a two-by-four, but a two-by-four with nails sticking out of it. ... Unfortunately, I think it's a lousy approach, but it's the only thing we've got and it's the only way. That's the way campaigns work. And we use a lot of hyperbole, and I think that's always dangerous. You know, we say things like 'Teachers will be forced to...!' Well, that's not a completely accurate statement and we all know it isn't, you know? ... Let's look back at our ads and see what we say. And I think we use hyperbole to a point where, you know, it's like 'Gee-ee-eez!'"
He said it well. "It's the only thing we've got." That just doesn't work in court.
Erica Keppler: The Desperate Catholic Clerical War on Gays
"Anti-equality activists"? What exactly does this mean? If it means people who are for supporting restrictions on marriage, then same-sex marriage activists are also "anti-equality activists" since they are for restrictions on age, number of partners, and familial relationships.
Like the pot calling the kettle...
How about a website with a blacklist database of anyone who donated to support marriage in California? Or someone burning a church's holy scripture on its doorsteps? Or a brick thrown through the window of a home which had a "Yes on 8" sign in their yard? Or all of the other physical, verbal, and psychological harassment by activists? Maybe these events showed that adding flame to the fire of hatred against supporters of marriage would be deleterious. Could that not all be part of the case?
Harassment, lies, and distortion is not appropriate by either side of this issue. Let the arguments and precedence stand on their merits.
of course proponents of Prop 8 did not want the public to hear their actual case. haters don't want people to know how they hate others and clearly do not believe in 'equality for all'.
i would bet that the people who voted for prop 8 were mostly republicans. and if republicans could they would run this country from way underground. deep down in the cold concrete.
Agreed! (F+F)
--ez
Love your comment.
It was a few months ago that the term "Anti-Gay Industry" hit me square in the gut. It's almost unbelievable to think that people are making livings churning out garbage as do the "National Organization for Marriage," the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, etc. What's also striking is that these institutions belch out their anti-Gay rhetoric with tax-exempt status.
Despite all their efforts, I am heartened that more young adults are coming out in their universities, workplaces and now...the military. Even in the Churches, people are becoming more open to Gay women and men, but are also willing to support us in our fight for marriage equality.
Our right to marry the person we love will eventually be won - and in the not-too-distant future. Stay strong, friend - and live well!
--ez
(fanned and faved)
Alas, too few seek them.
F&F.
BTW, I agree with you that the only way that two men getting married can affect my marriage is if I am one of those men. I wish people would look back on history (haha because people now don't care to read or think) and see that the arguments being made to inhibit people's rights are the same used before to keep other "different" people from enjoying life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Just my thoughts
TZR
Which is not true if my position is revealed in court proceedings. And if I fear retribution for my political stance.....
But I empathize with your position, even if it does have an epistemological problem. :D
What could be the logical outcome of justifying such protest as the Gay Lesbian and Transgender Community did?
What if the shoe were on the other foot. Say Anti Gay rights groups were able to cull donation records from public records, and started showing up at residences and workplaces, of contributors. Contributors. Not the leaders of a Gay advocacy groups. Not at the business addresses of the Advocacy groups, but at the homes and residences of their supporters?
Based on the rhetoric used to support the El Coyote actions, such protests would be acceptable and proper forms of public speech.
New facts:
Anti Gay Rights group finds out that a teacher or day care center employee has made a donation to a gay rights cause-group-or political action committee. They go to the school, public, private, or religious school, in numbers and protest loudly and become enraged to the point that the teacher, aid, or other employee must leave in fear of safety.
Lets say the school then fires the teacher,etc as his/her poor judgment in making the contribution affected the economic well being of the school, and constituted a threat to the safety of the children.
Is that the kind of world that El Coyote advocates want and envision?
Children attend schools and parents of those children may be concerned if there was an employee teaching their children that had beliefs that ran counter to the majority of the parents. Could be gay rights, anarchist thought, pro life, pro choice, etc pick your controversy. Thus as other posters have pointed out, for some reason if the clientele of a business are philosophically opposed to that employee's beliefs, it is proper to protest to purge their offensive views from from that business and/or society at whole. By that standard an belief in the minority could be purged by a majority. That is so far away from our founding constitutional system of rights, as to be scary.
That is the exact reasoning of those that protested at the El Coyote and got the manager fired, based on a personal contribution to Prop 8.
The business could be any business.
Say it was in Salt Lake Utah, and you as an employee made a donation to a cause, as a matter of public record was reported, and a bunch of protesters showed up at your job and you were fired. I dont think you would support that and would allege discrimination. The problem is you cannot look past your views and beliefs to see how wrong the situation is.
It is always good to see, "if the shoe was on the other foot" how would you react.
The strategy of various leftist groups to take direct personal action against their opposition. To make it personal.
Case example:
The El Coyote Restaurant debacle.
Facts:
The El Coyote Restaurant is located in Hollywood. It's female manager made a $100 donation to Prop 8. The Prop 8 campaign was required by law to disclose her donation on publicly available campaign donation filings.
The gay rights-anti Prop 8 groups reviewed the filings and decided to go to the El Coyote to protest, threatening boycotts of the woman's employer's restaurant. First off, the woman feared for her safety as she was forced to flee as the protesters confronted her at the restaurant and became enraged when she stated she was a Mormon and not apologize or pay penance to the Lamba legal center.
Second the employer fired the woman for fear of boycott, loss of business, and other reasons that only he knows. and was essentially extorted by the protesters into making a $5000 donation to Lamba and to fire the manager.
Dont believe it: see it
http://laist.com/2008/11/14/photos_from_the_el_coyote_protest.php#photo-1
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/8194/
In this country you should have a right to your religious beliefs. You should have the right to make donations to political causes without fear to your personal and economic safety.
After all, this was a private citizen pursuing her constitutional rights.
My rights as a US citizen are not up for popular vote.
When you try to put my civil rights up to a popular vote, then I will smite you any way I can.
Depend on it.
That sounds fatal. All the more reason people like yourself should not be allowed to access records of political donations to determine addresses of contributors to causes such as Prop 8.
Really, you say I have the right to my beliefs but then turn it upside down by making a less than veiled threat. So it would be then your right to smite your opposition in any manner you would find acceptable. That smacks of totalitarianism and worse.
Frankly, I don't care if you are gay, married, or what. If you are in a committed relationship, good for you.
However, I strongly disagree with such tactics as you promote, and what happened at the El Coyote. People should be allowed to pursue their rights to religious and political thought without personal attack. That is the American Way.