|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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. It’s inconceivable to us these days to say that a couple of a different racial background can’t get married. Separate is not equal. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage. We’re 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, that’s always been involving a man and a woman,’ when the Supreme Court has talked about it they’ve said it’s an associational right, it’s a liberty right, it’s a privacy right, and it’s 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
Stile writes:
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Which way do you think he leans?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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 8’s 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 didn’t 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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 (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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 (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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 (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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! |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024