The trial "has the potential to become a media circus," wrote attorney Charles Cooper. "The record is already replete with evidence showing that any publicizing of support for Prop. 8 has inevitably led to harassment, economic reprisal, threats, and even physical violence. In this atmosphere, witnesses are understandably quite distressed at the prospect of their testimony being broadcast worldwide on YouTube."...What wussies!
"Those who want to ban gay marriage spent millions of dollars to reach the public with misleading ads, rallies and news conferences during the campaign to pass Prop. 8. We are curious why they now fear the publicity they once craved," said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights.
"Apparently transparency is their enemy, but the people deserve to know exactly what it is they have to hide."
Transparency!
***
And give us transparency on the healthcare negotiations too.
पोस्ट्स
२५ टिप्पण्या:
Gays are boycotting the Century Theaters and other businesses run by Prop 8 campaign donors who decided to bite the hands of those who fed them, and their sympathizers.
Althouse said:
Transparency!
So you're for doing away with secret ballots too?
Not me, thanks!
The retaliation can only help the pro Prop. 8 side of the argument.
But since when do we put trials on You Tube?
The fear of reprisal, or even just embarrassment, keeps all sorts of court proceedings closed. The interest is in encouraging and protecting witnesses to be open.
Who, here, doesn't want the witnesses to feel secure and be open with the court?
What possible disputed facts will be "tried" this trial? Oral argument may be helpful, but the fact that the judge is even having a trial is ridiculous. The judge is abusing his authority because he thinks it will be a teachable moment for the country, and I wouldn't want to be the defendant at such a proceeding.
Tranparency? The only transparency we're likely to get in the congressional health care kabuki show is "Helen Keller transparency": You can't see it, you can't hear it, you can't talk about it. But you can sure as hell smell it, because it stinks to high heaven.
Look at it this way.
People are going to be discussing the constitutionality of Prop 8. It's possible for someone who is vehemently pro-gay marriage to conclude that the constitution of the state exists apart from his or her personal opinion.
Or at least it should be.
But that's not the way people will see it who think that reality is whatever they want it to be or whatever it seems like it ought to be.
Someone being asked "what does the State Constitution say" will not be able to argue on constitutional grounds one way or the other without what ought to be an objective assessment being made personal and *yes* facing professional reprisal for it.
fls, you see the problem with this don't you?
Turn it around. If reality is what people want it to be then the door is opened for any inequity that gets some public push behind it. If retaliation and destruction are waged on those who attempt to be objective instead of subjective, then what check is there to excess of any sort?
Boycotting a business is a normal sort of thing, but those promoting gay marriage in California have attacked individuals and vilified people, refusing to even consider that people concerned about the destruction of marriage are reacting to something real. No, it's just that they hate gay people and want to take away their rights and even a semi-dim bulb can see marriage and families falling apart around them and understand that not expanding something is different from taking something away.
There is a whole lot of imaginative creation of new realities going on there.
It won't be live; the videos will be posted at the end of each trial day.
Still, I hope the request to ban these videos succeeds on appeal.
We have to think of the feelings and emotions of those who support Prop 8. They might be hurt by being critiqued in the media and on blogs. And their businesses might be boycotted, or they could be perceived in a negative professional light. These folks shouldn't have to bear the responsibility of participating in the political process.
Also there is the issue of possible threats of violence, or even acts of violence, against people who support Prop 8 in the trial. Traditional conservatives shouldn't have to deal with this sort of harassment. Obviously these liberals hate traditional values and hate those who support Prop 8. Perhaps California ought to consider specific legislation outlawing crime or threats of crime against traditional conservatives? I think that would help deal with the hate.
Obviously these liberals hate traditional values and hate those who support Prop 8.
And some of them even enjoy mimicking hate crimes: Palin Effigy
@El Pollo Real-
I'm glad that those on the right are more mature!
Oh, Julius, are you implying that "harassment, economic reprisal, threats, and even physical violence" are part of the legitimate "responsibility of (sic.) participating in the political process" or the legal process in the US?
Just askin'.
Obviously there will be nothing "opaque" about even an untelevised proceeding. Everything said in the courtroom will be in the public record. The anti-Prop.-8 faction is advocating for video images that they can use to stir up physical and economic violence against supporters of Prop. 8. It is most disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise.
@elHombre- No, I think I was pretty clear in saying that those who support Prop 8 shouldn't have to deal with "harassment", "economic reprisal", "threats", and certainly not "physical violence".
@Tyrone- "Economic violence"??! Oh that's a dandy term-- why didn't I think of that? Like a boycott, you mean???
Milo Aviles and Chad Michael Morissete, who have made their home at Fountain Avenue and Orange Grove in West Hollywood a revolving progressive political art installation, are selling the mannequin - the spitting image of the former GOP Vice Presidential candidate complete with the hemp necktie (yes, the noose is free) - along with a large poster of her running mate Arizona Senator John McCain, in order to raise funds to fight Proposition 8 in the courts.
Julius Ray Hoffman wrote:
I'm glad that those on the right are more mature!
Please try and stay on topic Julius!
The ballot is secret but campaign contributions are not. Dollars are speech according to Buckley v. Valeo, but the speech isn't anonymous.
But of course what the backers think about the constitutionality of the law or gay marriage or anything else isn't relevant, because the backers didn't enact the law. The voters of the State of California enacted the law.
But really, if we want transparency in the courts, let's start by putting the conversations between Walker and Kozinski enacting the rule change on the record.
This is bullshit. All it does is remind me of that Mormon woman in L.A. that gays practically held hostage in her own restaurant because they discovered she gave to the anti-prop 8 campaign to be in line with her church. When they're willing to pull shit like that, it's only right that this stuff shouldn't be on the web.
The gays are being disingenuous as hell.
I voted against Proposition 8. But I'm also strongly against the courts declaring it invalid. Gay marriage is not more important than voting rights, nor is it more important than the rule of law.
Proposition 8 is stupid, but entirely constitutional.
Why do people who support homosexual marriage continually insist that this is a ban? How can you ban something that never existed in the first place?
what do the defenders of the constitutionality of the denial of equal marriage rights have to fear from the public hearing their arguments? it would seem that they don't trust in the validity of their position.
we now have marriage equality in a number of countries, including our nearest neighbors to the north and south, and in several states in our own country. there are also currently some two thousand legally married couples in california. i would very much like to hear the reasoning for stripping these couples of their legal status and denying any further couples from enjoying the same rights and responsibilities under the law as any other citizen. why do they insist that it should be argued in secret??
Julius Ray Hoffman said...
We have to think of the feelings and emotions of those who support Prop 8. They might be hurt by being critiqued in the media and on blogs. And their businesses might be boycotted, or they could be perceived in a negative professional light. These folks shouldn't have to bear the responsibility of participating in the political process.
Also there is the issue of possible threats of violence, or even acts of violence, against people who support Prop 8 in the trial.
A correction to your statement:
The threats of violence were very real - not "possible". And the threats of violence - nor, in some cases actual violence - were not limited to those who actively supported Prop 8 either with financial contributions or with their vote.
Apparently "Burn their churches to the ground and tax the ashes" is an acceptable sentiment to some.
And, for the record, if a business or corporation publicly chooses to support any cause as a business or a corporation, I fully support boycotting that company as an option.
Threatening an entire company or business economically because a single member of its staff chose to support a cause through a personal donation is an entirely different situation, however.
The anti-prop 8 crowd are their own worst enemies. I say let the events be televised. These Castro District exhibitionists will pull the usual secular nonsense turning the proceedings into a carnivale of debauchery. They will offend not only the moderate gays but most of those in the flyover states who have no idea what goes on in the 'burbs of San Francisco and Berkeley.
One more thing, these cowards thrive on insulting the very people from whom they crave acceptance. When I see them taking their flagrant cause to the ghetto churces in Watts I will change my opinion of them. Until then, show up in my Church throwing things around and dressing like hooker Nuns they will be unceremoniously escorted out with the trash until they can behave themselves
This is the reason why mandatory disclosure of campaign contributions is a bad idea and probably unconstitutional. Bring back anonymous everything.
So, let me get this straight:
The Mormons - a community kicked out of America and forged in the harshness of the wilderness west - are going to cave and scurry for cover under a little publicity?
Is that how it's going to go?
How can you ban something that never existed in the first place?
Same-sex marriages "existed" from May (when the Cal Sup Ct declared Prop. 22 unconstitutional) till November, when they were banned by Prop.8. However, Prop 8 had no provisions dealing with SSMs validly contracted from May to November, 2008. So the CSC held them to be valid.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा