Those who make careers of raising and banking money by denying equal rights to others -- Maggie Gallagher of National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and Frank Schubert -- want to maintain total control over the media on the eve of the most historic civil rights case in at least a generation.
Judge Vaughn Walker, who will on Monday preside over the lawsuit brought respectively by a gay and lesbian couple and argued by Ted Olson and David Boies, has asked for public comment on whether or not the trial should be televised. Predictably, the plaintiffs argue for transparency and openness while those who created the injustice through their thirty second ad campaign of fear, seek to keep the public out.
A bit of history is in order here. Prop. 8 passed on 4 November 2008 by a 52%-48% vote here in California. Since that time, four other states joined Massachusetts to legalize same-sex marriage for a total of five (Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut.) The District of Columbia city council passed a law permitting same-sex marriage, but it has not yet come into force and the Congress, with nothing more important to do than prevent loving couples from marrying, still has the ability to overrule the city council. In November 2009, Maine also passed a referendum that overturned the state's same-sex marriage law, with funding largely via Maggie Gallagher's NOM. Ms. Gallagher is suing in Maine court to keep the source of that private, contrary to Maine's election law.
Ms. Gallagher would be well-advised to read the Constitution and the writings of such radicals as James Madison who wrote in Federalist No. 51 about the need for separation of powers. Neither Madison, nor the US Constitution, ever contemplated the concept of citizens voting to take each other's rights away. In fact, Madison wrote, "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part." Ms. Gallagher and her crew seem intent on setting Americans against Americans, using every tactic at their disposal to sew fear and discord, thus deeply fearing public scrutiny.
Enter the now-famous lawsuit, in which the legal dream team of Olson and Boies will argue that Prop. 8 violates many constitutional provisions, not the least of which is the Fourteenth Amendment that provides equal protection under the law. While NOM is not a party to this suit, its finger prints are everywhere as is its constant demand for secrecy in our democracy. Ms. Gallagher's staffer, Brian Brown, had this to say about the Reagan-selected and Bush- nominated Federal judge who is overseeing the case: "He has attempted to make this entire process a circus, and he wants to be the ringleader by putting it on television."
The Courage Campaign Institute, together with our partners at CREDO Mobile, yesterday responded to Judge Walker's call for public comment on whether or not the trial should be televised by asking our members to sign a petition to the judge. Within less than twenty four hours, well over 70,000 have signed it. We will deliver those signatures along with the comments to the court in Oakland on Friday, to meet the judge's deadline.
This case will affect millions of people in America. We see only one rational response in a democracy: let the people see the trial. Because individual lives may change as a result of this trial, secrecy has no place in our civil society. We would think that Ms. Gallagher and her colleagues would want the public to side with them. Are they afraid that their cause fails when it is fully understood by the American people?
Follow Rick Jacobs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rickjacobs
Again, there is a tremendous leap there in assuming that gay marriage is a right. Also, this is not a question of removing an existing right explicitly granted by The Constitution but rather of creating a new right not explicitly granted by The Constitution.
Heterosexuals can marry the person they love. Homosexuals cannot.
There is clear citizen inequity.
It's that simple.
Second, this quote: "Neither Madison, nor the US Constitution, ever contemplated the concept of citizens voting to take each other's rights away." True, but to be completely fair, I doubt that Madison or the Constitution ever contemplated same-sex marriage either. Bad example.
The current split in the Republican party also includes a split on gay marriage. That became apparent in NY-23 with Dede Scozzafava.
Ted Olson represented George W. Bush before the U. S. Supreme Court in "Bush v. Gore", the case which ultimately gave the presidency to Bush. How do you feel about Olson?
So how do you feel about Ted Olson?
Are you saying that the electorate would vote for gay marriage but for the efforts of the "evil" Frank Shubert? Are you saying that if voters weren't so ignorant they would vote for gay marriage? Are we talking about a purity contest or are we talking about the issue of gay marriage?
1) There has yet to be a referendum by voters where gay marriage has won.
2) The gay marriage law was overturned by voters in Maine by a 53% to 47% margin.
3) There is currently a constitutional lawsuit against the D. C. politicos for violating the rights of citizens by denying them a referendum on D. C.'s gay marriage law.
4) The New York State legislature failed to pass a gay marriage law as expected because the votes weren't there.
5) The last I heard, an attempt to legislate gay marriage in New Jersey was abandoned due to lack of votes to pass such a measure.
6) The gay marriage movement has it's own very wealthy contributors.
7) Harrassment by gay marriage activists of those who oppose gay marriage is well documented. In my opinion, such actions infringe upon First Ammendment rights. There seems to be an attempt to intimidate those who oppose gay marriage so keeping donors to NOM and other organizations confidential make sense.
8) Thirty states currently have laws defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
Use every legal avenue to seek what you want. That is the American way. If you are going to give "background", however, how about giving all of the background and not just select pieces. To deliberately omit facts, there by distorting the true picture, is unethical. If you want "ethical", then set an example!
Maybe those who are so dead-set on preventing OTHER people from marrying are worried that a full and public hearing might dispell some of the ignorant, control-freak bigotry upon which their position depends.
Discrimination against non-heterosexuals is common in most cultures. What countries offer more acceptable laws and attitudes?
Even South Africa has a more progressive constitution.
I hope Boise wins this but I don't think he is going to. I think this case is going to get kicked up the food chain either way, but I'd love for it to move forward with a positive ruling, and especially a stay of prop 8 in cali which would instantly allow people to get married again pending an over turning of this judges ruling. (I hope that made sense I'm just waking up.)
Bad time for this court case. Much better to repeal Prop 8.
J
Wow... that's a pretty impressive exaggeration there. 3 in 2 years? Or are you assuming another term? Not to mention that many of the picks he'd get wouldn't change the balance, and in fact may make it slightly more conservative judging by his first pick. Sotomayor may have liberal leanings, but let's be real here, she's no Ginsburg.
Some people wear sheets...
As a heterosexual married woman, I know I have nothing to fear or that somehow my marriage means less because more people are able to participate in matrimony. One day the US Supreme Court will declare that laws against equality for all in marriage are unconstitutional. I look forward to that day.