Equality On Trial

46239 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fequalityontrial.com%2F2010%2F01%2F14%2Fnew-york-times-on-scotus-ruling-sad-example-of-the-quashing-of-public-discourse%2FNew+York+Times+on+SCOTUS+ruling%3A+%22Sad+example+of+the+quashing+of+public+discourse%222010-01-14+10%3A18%3A35couragecampaignhttp%3A%2F%2Fprop8trialtracker.com%2F%3Fp%3D462 Leave a Comment

• 1. Scott Kiskaddon  |  January 13, 2010 at 7:54 pm

  I hope that people can see this trial. It means little if the minds of the people can't change with the law.

• 2. Eden James  |  January 13, 2010 at 8:10 pm

  Yeah, you make an excellent point, Scott.

  One wonders if the aftermath of a same-sex marriage ruling by the Supreme Court could be similar to the aftermath of Roe v. Wade — when the country polarized into two camps. But, of course, it already is that way.

  Not televising this trial is a real lost opportunity to help our culture change with the law and the times. It's no wonder the Yes on 8 folks were dead set against allowing cameras in the courtroom.

• 3. Charles Frederick  |  January 13, 2010 at 9:10 pm

  Guys, reading the New York Times is all well and good, it's well known to be a left-biased newspaper, and I usually agree with their editorials, but if you want to know how many people are paying attention to this important moment, read a newspaper with a wider distribution–for example, the WSJ.
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12633423339782694…
  All they have here is an article that implicitly criticizes Judge Walker in the headline. But what surprised me is that there is nothing on either (A) the front page [this was page 5], (B) in the readers' most popular, or (C) an editorial.

  They are really ignoring it! I would argue that the Right's basic strategy on this issue is the same as in the courtroom–just avoid all discussion of their actual bigoted feelings on the subject, whether they are conscious of this or not.

• 4. Rebecca  |  January 13, 2010 at 11:18 pm

  From that WST article- "Judge Vaughn Walker has upset some opponents of gay marriage by allowing gay couples to testify on the meaning of marriage."

  So we're fighting for our rights- and our human experiences are not supposed to be included as evidence in said debate? WTF? Oh, I'm so sorry we upset you with our wanting to testify on our own behalf, Reichties. What malarchy.

• 5. Rebecca  |  January 13, 2010 at 11:18 pm

  Er, WSJ, that is.

• 6. Amy  |  January 13, 2010 at 11:45 pm

  We will defeat them! If not at this turn at another and the reason: because it is the right thing to do. All these smoke screens around hiding the truth from the public to avoid education…it's really sad because they know it's the right thing to do as well (in some dark unbrainwashed part of themselves) and fear people will see that. I hope Judge Walker takes away marriage from all, goes to civil unions for all and straight people can wake up who've been married for 30 years, turn to eachother and be single. "Oh it"s not fair!" No shit! That's what we've been saying.

• 7. Leslie  |  January 14, 2010 at 12:05 am

  Does anyone know where there might be similar "live blogging" or reporting of this issue from the perspective of those who support Prop H8te? I would like to keep up with how the other side is analyzing this.

• 8. Micha  |  January 14, 2010 at 12:19 am

  I don't want to support higher web traffic to their site (don't dare click on an ad which might give them money!), but here is the opposition (defendant) side's twitter feed: http://twitter.com/protectmarriage
  They're also posting articles and updates on the protectmarriage.com website. I also check them periodically ("Know thine enemy"…)

• 9. Womyn2me  |  January 14, 2010 at 12:24 am

  I am thrilled to have this site with the liveblogging. Its helping me keep up during my workday with is really important, and frankly, incredibly interesting proceding.

  Recommendation to everyone using the site. if you can afford ANY amt of money, donate here. also, if you can, purchase the books that some of the expert witnesses have published for a bit more info and as a way to pay back their support.

• 10. Andy  |  January 14, 2010 at 12:35 am

  The ref. to death threats and white powder in envelopes by the majority opinion – surely this is the tactic of the militant fundamentalists who sent 170 of these to abortion clinics; is there anything to suggest these may have been sent to their own side to discredit the pro-gay lobby (as appears to have happened in Singapore) or even to help prevent the broadcast?

• 11. RAL  |  January 14, 2010 at 12:41 am

  Notice how carefully they're controlling their message. No comments, no feedback on the daily summary, just selective spin from Andrew Pugno and others.

  Imagine if they did allow comments. Not only would they get our feedback, they would also get embarrassing feedback from their own supporters. Remember, they're arguing that someone could have supported prop 8 for reasons other than animus towards gay people. But we all know they benefitted (democratically speaking) from those who supported prop 8 for purely reasons of animus. Allowing comments (from their side) could underscore that very effectively.

• 12. Pete  |  January 14, 2010 at 12:44 am

  I don't understand this at all. The defendants all participated in a very public outcry against the GL&T community. Up to the day of the trail. Their names are already on record, they are in the transcripts, and certainly still in the news so anonymity is out. We can read the "action" from all the bloggers (Thank you all for doing what the courts are refusing to do – inform the public). Why would an audio visual recording of the proceeding be unlawful? I would think the courts would favor this opportunity for transparency and to gain the publics trust.

• 13. Tim  |  January 14, 2010 at 12:51 am

  My goodness! I went over to peek at the Protect Marriage blog and it is HORRIFIC. (I made sure not to accidentally click any ad, thanks Micha!) Everything is completely SPUN and recast to appear in their favor, and it is so condescending and smug. Stuff like "Amazingly, Ms. Cott actually took on the impossible task of describing the American history of marriage without acknowledging that it has, until very recently, been universally understood as only between a man and a woman." I mean, that completely glosses over her testimony and makes it seem like she was just off her rocker.

  Also, "Chauncey said he believed the teaching about homosexual marriage was, in fact, an appropriate subject for young children to be taught, even if it is over the objection of their parents." Fearmongering in his account of this trial on fearmongering! What slime! How can anyone not see that anti-gay bias is at the root of all of this. Everything by the defense only serves to try to mask that.

  Thanks so much to the people here for putting out a fair account of the proceedings. If it weren't for you guys (and if it weren't for our worthless Supreme Court), all we'd see is the spun garbage of their lawyers!

• 14. David from Sandy  |  January 14, 2010 at 12:56 am

  Coverage of Judge Walker’s trial has been sparse (to non-existent) in The Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/) which is surprising considering that members of the Locally Dominant Sect donated millions of dollars and uncounted hours of volunteer time to strip our fellow citizens of equal protection before the law.

  If you live in or near Salt Lake City (or anywhere west of Maine), please contact your favorite Trib staffer (cc: Terry Orme orme@sltrib.com) to suggest additional coverage by the only major independent newspaper published in Utardia—The Pretty Hate State (a.k.a. Utah).

  David
  Sandy UT

• 15. James Sweet  |  January 14, 2010 at 12:57 am

  It's even worse than that. This trial is a long shot to win at SCOTUS. You think the conservative majority is going to name LGBT a suspect class? Please. And if they are not a suspect class, then it's very difficult to envision the case winning.

  It still could have been a strategic victory if it forced gay marriage opponents to present their best non-lying arguments (because lies like "kindergartners will learn teh buttsex!" won't fly in federal court), so all the world could see the bigotry behind it. But no luck on that front either…

• 16. James Sweet  |  January 14, 2010 at 12:58 am

  I have noticed that virtually every time I read a blog post that I vehemently disagree with, comments are turned off. "Lalalalala, I can't hear you!"

• 17. Jonathan  |  January 14, 2010 at 1:09 am

  I suggest that we create a website that shows pictures of the anti-gay witnesses and both blurbs from their testimony and links to the full testimony. This will allow us to see those who are against us, and work to avoid association with ANYTHING they support, going forward.

• 18. Beth  |  January 14, 2010 at 1:10 am

  Washington Post op-ed says "sorry, I think judge Walker made the right decision because of the poor Prop 8 Supperters." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/201…

• 19. Madjoy  |  January 14, 2010 at 1:13 am

  Even though I signed the petition, I have to admit that I can understand the reasoning behind not letting it be aired publicly – both for this case, and for the precedent it sets in the future. It's important that people can testify in a trial without feeling like they're risking harassment. Can you imagine asking a rape victim to let hir trial be videotaped and posted on Youtube? Obviously it's not the same thing in this case, but I can understand it.

  And let's be honest – reading Tam's speech angered you enough, right? Imagine watching video of him testifying in court saying similar things. I can easily imagine people wanting to harass him. Hell, I'm tempted to harass him as is (in a completely non-violent way).

  So – I really wish this case were being televised so I could watch it because it's fascinating and it'd be great to get the word out about this, but in some ways, I'm glad we didn't set that precedent.

• 20. BobbiCW  |  January 14, 2010 at 1:26 am

  And I suggest that would be playing right into their hands. All we need are more "victims", right?

• 21. Michael Herman  |  January 14, 2010 at 1:39 am

  "The moment a mere numerical superiority by either states or voters in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority, and for their own selfish purpose or advancement, hamper or oppress that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and equal rights — that moment will mark the failure of our constitutional system."
  Franklin D. Roosevelt

• 22. Steven  |  January 14, 2010 at 1:45 am

  I daily watch four different blogs/news pages.

  When the Prop. 8 event comes up, I'm posting the link for the Prop. 8 Trial Tracker.

  I urge everyone to do the same on any sites that they read or belong…spread the word!

• 23. Matthew S.  |  January 14, 2010 at 1:54 am

  Even if the trial had been broadcast, the unfortunate reality is that the people who would MOST benefit from the teachability of the moment are precisely the people who have already made up their limited little minds that we are evil and don't deserve civil rights anyway. If those people were even remotely open to considering a point of view other than the one they've been brainwashed to believe, Prop. 8 might never have made it onto the ballot in the first place.

• 24. Pearl  |  January 14, 2010 at 1:57 am

  I think Thomas Jefferson got it right.

  "I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

  "The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes." –Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779
  http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/je…

• 25. truebeliever  |  January 14, 2010 at 1:58 am

  I read the recap blog at the protectmarriage site and was also surprised (I know, I shouldn't have been) at how they summarize the day's event for their supporters instead of just reporting the transcript and letting them decide for themselves how successful their defense appears.

  I think their blog summaries would be useful evidence in this trial to prove that what protectmarriage tells their supporters is vastly different than what is actually happening, the deception is profound.

• 26. Manon  |  January 14, 2010 at 2:00 am

  Don't kid yourself. There is plenty of spin here as well…it just happens to be the spin we agree with:)

• 27. MikeB  |  January 14, 2010 at 2:01 am

  If you want the trial to be public in the interest of letting people make up their own minds, then aren't you also making an argument that the people should be able to vote on the issue?

  Whereas, if you want the court to decide the issue, then let only the court hear the testimony since the public's opinion is essentially irrelevant in deciding the issue.

• 28. Prup (aka Jim Benton  |  January 14, 2010 at 2:24 am

  I am going to take a surprising stand here and be glad that SCOTUS ruled this way, for one reason only. One reason the radical right fringfe that is now the FoxNews-based center of the Republican Party has been bashing the correct trying of the 'underwear bomber' and the Gitmo detainees in civil court has been the consistent argument that 'they can use their trials for propaganda purposes.'

  The response, correctly, is that they can't because there are no cameras allowed in federal courts. As important as our rioghts are, they are not the only question alive in this country, and I do not want to give our enemies — who, I have and will be insisting, are merely one piece of a somewhat interlocked struggle — a victory on another front when we can have sites like this 'doing everything but showing pictures' for the trial.

• 29. Marc  |  January 14, 2010 at 2:26 am

  I posted this news to Current.com, Al Gore's news station (http://current.com/items/91901569_scotus-upholds-television-ban-on-prop-8-trial.htm). Sadly, there isn't a story about it there, and my story has only been viewed 65 times…

  Last night I was terribly depressed, but as P8TT picks up Day 4, I am invigorated to know that I can follow it here.

  THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.

• 30. J.P.  |  January 14, 2010 at 2:35 am

  it is as if they feel they will be "gay bashed" and now want to hide and go back in the "closet."

  well i have been gay bashed and am still an out proud gay man and would stand up to anyone for my beliefs.

  I am sorry but if you want everyone to live to your beliefs, but don't want to share them… BOO!

• 31. Tim  |  January 14, 2010 at 2:37 am

  Of course, but here they usually set it aside from the transcription. It was pretty darn clear when Rick was transcribing what was going on the courtroom vs. which arguments outraged him or convinced him.

  Over there, there's no transcription, and everything turns into "plaintiff's expert said X which was so detrimental to their case!" or "plaintiff's expert said Y, a shocking statement that flies in the face of Christian religion!" I'm exaggerating, but you know what I mean; the difference is profound.

• 32. SherylC  |  January 14, 2010 at 3:08 am

  I think the one (easy public access to the trial) does NOT imply the other (right to vote on the issue). Just because a person can observe something being done does not mean that person gets to vote on it.

  If the proceedings were broadcast, individuals could easily see the evidence that was used by the court as basis for its ruling. Transparency at its best. And it just might lead some anti-marriage people to reconsider their opinions/beliefs, regardless of the court's ruling.

• 33. Marlene Bomer  |  January 14, 2010 at 3:44 am

  Just remember, TB that one of the main tenets of the religious reicht is control.

  If you don't agree 1000% with what the minister is preaching (because *he* has a direct line to their patriarchal god!) then you're an apostate, and thus unlean in their eyes and not a *real* Christian!

  If you somehow watch, read, or listen to anything which the belief system is against (rock & roll, for example) you'll be tempted to stay from the narrow path to righteousness because you'll then start to learn to think for yourself, and thus are not a *true* Christian in their eyes!

• 34. Paul  |  January 14, 2010 at 4:02 am

  Why are we not marching to the various court houses demanding for us and everyone else to see the trial??? Why are we letting this get swept under the rug? Why isn't CC or EQCA leading us to do something to get the people to realize that the government is hiding something from them????

• 35. Tigger  |  January 14, 2010 at 4:09 am

  “The moment a mere numerical superiority by either states or voters in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority, and for their own selfish purpose or advancement, hamper or oppress that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and equal rights — that moment will mark the failure of our constitutional system.”
  Franklin D. Roosevelt

  Brilliant find!!

• 36. Rene and Daryl  |  January 14, 2010 at 4:22 am

  http://www.montereyherald.com/breaking/ci_1419113…

  10:38 a.m.: Trial is being taped, but only for judge's use

  With San Francisco's chief economist Edmund Egan still under cross-examination, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has just taken the usual morning break. Walker, meanwhile, has officially put an end to to any prospects of the trial being broadcast on the Internet, informing the courtroom he is withdrawing the plan from the pilot program established in December by the 9th Circuit Judicial Council, the policy arm of the federal courts in the West.

  Proposition 8 lawyer Charles Cooper submitted a letter to the court asking that any taping of the trial be discontinued, but Walker rejected that request, saying he is permitted under court rules to videotape proceedings for his own use. He did assure Cooper, though, that it could not be "used for public broadcasting or televising." Cooper seemed satisfied with that restriction.

  From a practical standpoint, what it all means is that a videotape of the historic trial will exist for posterity. But nobody will be able to see it.

• 37. Steffi  |  January 14, 2010 at 5:47 am

  I read this tracker word by word every day and spread the happenings to anyone who would stand still long enough for me to report it here in Germany
  Today when being at the public swimming pool I told a friend very detailed all during our 1hour swimming time and loud enough for everyone else in there who want's to listen to understand what I am saying I notice a (very) slight change of awareness every day

• 38. A.J. in Anaheim  |  January 14, 2010 at 7:50 am

  From today's Orange County Register's editorial on Marriage and the State, "It is too bad that the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday indefinitely blocked cameras from covering the trial, with the video being posted online. This would have allowed many more people to be exposed to detailed arguments, governed by courtroom standards regarding relevance to the legal issues at hand, than otherwise would be the case."

• 39. stephanie lynn  |  January 14, 2010 at 7:56 am

  http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displ…

Leave a Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.