Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 94 (8832 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2018 2:16 PM
220 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,520 Year: 5,343/29,783 Month: 1,275/1,467 Week: 161/311 Day: 30/63 Hour: 1/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
51NextFF
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 1 of 759 (542643)
01-11-2010 2:32 PM


The case, Perry v. Schwartzenegger, is groundbreaking in a number of different ways. It's the first case, to my knowledge, that will involve a trial. In addition, to get beyond the political rhetoric, the judge has ordered the parties to present evidence on the following questions:

Can sexual orientation be changed?

How would legalizing gay marriage affect traditional marriages?

What is the the effect on children of being raised by two mothers or two fathers?

Curiously, the state has apparently refused to defend Proposition 8, so the judge has allowed the proponents of the legislation to mount a defense.

Most fascinating is the team of attorneys representing the plaintiffs. One, Theodore Olson, a former U.S. Solicitor General under Bush II, is known for his staunchly conservative views. Regarding gay marriage, he has this to say:

The Loving case was forty-two years ago. Its inconceivable to us these days to say that a couple of a different racial background cant get married. Separate is not equal. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage. Were not inventing any new right, or creating a new right, or asking the courts to recognize a new right. The Supreme Court has said over and over and over again that marriage is a fundamental right, and although our opponents say, Well, thats always been involving a man and a woman, when the Supreme Court has talked about it theyve said its an associational right, its a liberty right, its a privacy right, and its an expression of your identity, which is all wrapped up in the Constitution.

This according to The New Yorker.

His co-counsel, David Boies, is a Democratic trial lawyer who opposed Olson in Bush v. Gore. Strange bedfellows to say the least.

Reading between the lines, I think this judge is looking to try to provide definitive answers based on evidence to the myriad claims made by those opposing gay marriage. He has also ordered that the trial may be taped and distributed on You Tube. The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily stayed that order and is expected to issue a final ruling by Wednesday.

I'm anticipating a very interesting trial.

Edited by subbie, : Tyop


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Stile, posted 01-12-2010 8:41 AM subbie has responded
 Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 01-13-2010 12:49 AM subbie has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3142
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2 of 759 (542724)
01-12-2010 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
01-11-2010 2:32 PM


You Tube
Very interesting.

Lots of questions about this:

The trial is public, yes? That is, if I lived in the area and had the free time, I could walk into the court room and listen in on the proceedings, right?

"Important" cases have been televised before, right? I think the OJ trial was televised? Have others been televised as well?

Is the precedent for this, basically, that "important" cases get more access to public venues? That is, the Supreme Court is basically just deciding how important this case is when determining if it is allowed on You Tube (or TV) or not? Or are there other considerations?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 01-11-2010 2:32 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 01-12-2010 9:20 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 01-12-2010 9:54 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6312
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 3 of 759 (542729)
01-12-2010 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Stile
01-12-2010 8:41 AM


Stile writes:

quote:
The trial is public, yes? That is, if I lived in the area and had the free time, I could walk into the court room and listen in on the proceedings, right?

Good luck on that. While the trial is public, getting access to the court will be tightly controlled. Since this trial is of such great concern, they will want to make sure that access is given to what they consider the "appropriate" people such as members of the press, affected parties, etc. I'm sure there will be slots available for interested members of the public, but there won't be many and you may have to explain why you deserve it more than others.

quote:
"Important" cases have been televised before, right? I think the OJ trial was televised? Have others been televised as well?

Cameras in the court are extremely controversial. While the entire "CourtTV" cable channel was based upon having televised court cases (and the OJ Simpson trial certainly boosted their profile), courts have often been resistant to having cameras in the courtroom for fear of it affecting the trial. The defendant is entitled to a fair trial and while the affairs of the court are to be public, there is a difference between making it public and shouting it from the rooftops.

As we saw in the OJ case, the lawyers became very aware of the cameras and played to them.

With regard to the Prop 8 case, we see this playing out: Those wanting the trial publicized want to make sure that those defending the law have their bigotry exposed for all the world to see. Those that are demanding no cameras are claiming that by having the trial publicized, the witnesses will be intimidated (which plays to the plaintiff's point that the only basis for Prop 8 is animus toward gay people which is a violation of the 14th Amendment.)

quote:
Is the precedent for this, basically, that "important" cases get more access to public venues?

No, the precedent is basically whether or not the judge thinks he can keep control of the proceedings with cameras to deal with on top of the actual trial. Some cases are so controversial that having them played on the nightly news is problematic.

The Supreme Court has never allowed cameras in the court. It was a huge deal when, during Bush v. Gore, they allowed an audiocast of the questioning. If I recall correctly, they have never allowed it since.

The questioning regarding the arguing of Prop 8 before the California Supreme Court was broadcast.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Stile, posted 01-12-2010 8:41 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 4 of 759 (542733)
01-12-2010 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Stile
01-12-2010 8:41 AM


Re: You Tube
quote:
The trial is public, yes? That is, if I lived in the area and had the free time, I could walk into the court room and listen in on the proceedings, right?

Well, yes and no. As you might imagine, demand to watch this trial is very high, higher than the capacity of the courtroom where it's being held. It's my understanding that the judge has allowed a closed circuit feed of the proceedings into an overflow room in the courthouse. I have no idea if that room has filled as well, but it wouldn't surprise me.

quote:
"Important" cases have been televised before, right? I think the OJ trial was televised? Have others been televised as well?

My understanding is that many cases are televised in California. I'm not sure what the criteria are, but it makes sense that cases with a higher public interest would be more likely to be televised. But I'd guess that each individual judge has the discretion to allow or bar cameras on a case by case basis.

quote:
That is, the Supreme Court is basically just deciding how important this case is when determining if it is allowed on You Tube (or TV) or not? Or are there other considerations?

My understanding is that those arguing in support of Prop 8 are opposed to televising the trial and, apparently, their reason for their opposition is witnesses testifying in support of the Prop are afraid of retaliation because of their support. In general, I would think that fear of witness intimidation, or witnesses being influenced by the presence of cameras, would be a legitimate reason to bar cameras from a given trial. However, I will leave it to the readers to make their own conclusion about the reasonableness of that argument in this particular case.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Stile, posted 01-12-2010 8:41 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 5 of 759 (542780)
01-12-2010 2:44 PM


Trial blogger, multiple posts per day.
This site has someone live blogging from the trial, posting multiple times during the day. He's obviously biased in terms of the outcome he'd like to see, but I get the feeling that he's doing his best to provide an accurate description of the proceedings.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 01-12-2010 5:16 PM subbie has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1036 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 6 of 759 (542798)
01-12-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
01-12-2010 2:44 PM


Re: Trial blogger, multiple posts per day.
Which way do you think he leans?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 01-12-2010 2:44 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 01-12-2010 11:47 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 7 of 759 (542816)
01-12-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taz
01-12-2010 5:16 PM


Re: Trial blogger, multiple posts per day.
This page has links to all the various blog entries as well as other pieces that the site has done on the trial.

It's clear to me that the blogger is pro gay marriage. Among other things, on day one, during the Plaintiffs' opening, he wrote this:

Opening statement: Ted Olson

This case is about marriage and equality. Plaintiffs are being denied the right to marry, described by SCOTUS as one of the most vital personal rights pursuant to the right to the pursuit of happiness, intimate choice, expression of emotional support, the exercise of spiritual unity, the highest expression of self. It is the most important right in our society.

(I am choking up here)

I interpret the parenthetical comment as his editorializing.

He also wrote this:

Olson: Harm done is significant. Prop 8 harmed individual citizens. Prop 8s purpose was straightforward but not evil. Took away a right.

[Judge Walker]: But not a right they had had very long, correct? MErely [sic] months prior, these relationships could become marriages.

O: SCOCA didnt CREATE the right, it RECOGNIZES the right. (nice save, Ted)

Again, interpreting the parenthetical comment as the blogger's editorializing.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 01-12-2010 5:16 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 8 of 759 (542818)
01-13-2010 12:17 AM


More blogging
For those interested in different takes on the trial, here are some more bloggers.

Newsweek blogger Eve Conant, not trying to give the same kind of verbatim reporting, but a more general summary of the events.

The Alliance Defense Fund, which I understand is funding the defense of Prop 8, is twittering.

Prop 8 Trial Tracker is an obviously pro gay marriage site (their slogan is Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Holding the right-wing accountable).


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 9 of 759 (542821)
01-13-2010 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
01-11-2010 2:32 PM


Conservatives
Most fascinating is the team of attorneys representing the plaintiffs. One, Theodore Olson, a former U.S. Solicitor General under Bush II, is known for his staunchly conservative views. Regarding gay marriage, he has this to say:

This is something I never understood about "Conservatives".

An AUTHENTIC Republican position on gay marriage is extremely simple - "The Government shouldn't be involved in people's personal lives".

That's the heart of small government. That's the basis of support for all sorts of position on religion, gun ownership, small businesses, etc.

It's only because of completely irrational input by the Religious Right that the Republican's have completely lost their hold on what conclusions stem from their core values.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 01-11-2010 2:32 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by subbie, posted 01-13-2010 1:07 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 10 of 759 (542822)
01-13-2010 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Nuggin
01-13-2010 12:49 AM


Re: Conservatives
I couldn't agree more.

Rachel Maddow, in this clip makes the same point, as does Ted Olson.

The Godstapo has destroyed the Republican party.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 01-13-2010 12:49 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16011
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 11 of 759 (542844)
01-13-2010 10:08 AM


Dennis Hollingsworth
Dennis Hollingsworth, the Intervenor-Defendant in the case, says it is his mission to "save marriage in California".

So, boys and girls, can you guess which of the Ten Commandments he's broken?

Yes, that's right. The one about adultery. Apparently he feels that marriage is sacred bond between a man and any number of women, and that if he can't be monogamous no-one else should be.


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 08-04-2010 6:13 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 12 of 759 (542933)
01-13-2010 10:48 PM


Supreme Court blocks broadcast of trial.
As reported in SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court has issued an order blocking the broadcasting of the trial. Although the order is not technically final, any further challenges to the order will take longer than the trial is expected to. The Supreme Court's action is based on it's conclusion that the district court failed to follow proper procedures in amending a rule prohibiting broadcasting trial and that irreparable harm would likely result if the ban isn't put into place.

It was a 5-4 per curiam order. Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 13 of 759 (548988)
03-03-2010 1:16 AM


Trial transcripts
Testimony has ended and the parties are taking some time to prepare for final argument. Based on a conversation at the end of the trial, I expect that will be scheduled soon, if it hasn't already.

A complete collection of the transcripts of the trial can be found here. I have not yet read the full transcripts, but intend to devote some time to doing so in the next few days or so.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 14 of 759 (572220)
08-04-2010 5:13 PM


California's gay marriage ban struck down
Story here. I haven't had time to read it yet, will comment later.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


  
jar
Member
Posts: 30153
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 15 of 759 (572221)
08-04-2010 5:31 PM


Good first step but still a long way to go.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
  
1
23456
...
51NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018