Prop. 8 backers say TV coverage of trial unwise

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Sponsors of California's ban on same-sex marriage, which faces a federal court trial in San Francisco next month, have told the trial judge that his suggestion to televise the proceedings is both unwise and illegal.

Television coverage could expose witnesses and other trial participants to harassment and intimidation, backers of Proposition 8 said in a court filing Monday. They said some of their witnesses "have indicated that they would not be willing to testify" if the trial was televised.

They also argued that a long-standing court rule prohibits cameras and cannot be changed until the court invites and considers public comment. The filing by attorney Charles Cooper hinted that the Yes-on-8 campaign would ask higher courts to intervene if Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker approved TV coverage.

... A lawyer for the couples challenging Prop. 8 supported television coverage in a filing Tuesday, citing the "overwhelming national public interest in the issues." Safety concerns voiced by defenders of the measure are "unsubstantiated and groundless speculation," said attorney Theodore Boutrous.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/29/BA9A1BB627.DTL

[LiberalAndProud]

1. Afraid of harassment and intimidation ... oh the irony.

I think they are just embarrassed to put their bigotry on public display.

[Zhade]

31. So thick and rich, you can practically savor it.

NT!

[jpak]

2. Waaaaa!!!11

Poor babies - after what they did here in Maine this fall (repeal of gay marriage law commercials and more) - I want their identifies revealed.

[WriteDown]

3. I agree...

but I think that no trials should be televised. Not just this one.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Why? If there is no defendant facing cirminal charges

and the events in court will touch the lives of millions of people, I do not see any need for secrecy in the courtroom. Those Prop 8 people accuse us all, and we have a right to face our accusers, in my opinion. You think they should be able to shout 'sinner' from hiding. But why, exactly? What is the reasoning?

[dmr]

13. Yes, this touches the lives of millions of people

and that includes not only California, but possibly the rest of the nation.

I'd like to see and hear from those deep pocket outsiders who may plan to go from state to state inflicting their beliefs upon the rest of us.

Let's bring this all out into the open, and deal with it.

When a group of people want, in the name of God, to legislate 'morality', would they not want to rise up, above secrecy, before God, and testify?

This is their ultimate chance to be heard, is it not?

[WriteDown]

15. A good example would be the OJ Simpson civil trial....

Do you think the Goldman family should have been put through that? Plenty of civil cases have real victims. They should ask both parties if they approve of televising. If either objects then it's no go.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. That may be a good example when murder victims families are involved but a HORRIBLE example ...

... when major public policy is being decided.

In this case, one side shouldn't get to have a veto. This should be televised just like a meeting of the legislature.

[WriteDown]

22. If it needs to to televised like the legislature then the legislature should take it up...q

If any of the witnesses think they're in danger though, I do not want to dismiss their concerns.

[No Elephants]

45. Courtrooms in our legal system have been open to the public since before America was a gleam

in the eye of colonizers. If any Legislature, most of which are peopled by a majority of lawyers, had wanted to change that, it would have.

Relatively new in our legal system: A judge decides whether or not a litigant's interest in a closed courtroom, gag orders, banning cameras or whatever outweigh's the public interest in having government proceedings be public. Most often in a free society, it doesn't (although minor children do get special protections in both criminal and civil proceedings).

[TommyO]

34. This is not the OJ Simpson trial

It's about the stripping of a civil right from hundreds of thousands of Californians, and ultimately millions of US citizens.

The anti-gay forces want to hide their hate and bigotry to make it more acceptable, we cannot allow this. Expose the haters, expose the hate, expose the discrimination, expose the collusion that led to the removal of our right to marry in California.

[WriteDown]

66. Doesn't matter....

If someone believes they are in danger from testimony, they should not televise their testimony.

[No Elephants]

43. I never heard the Goldmans complain about cameras in the courtroom, in either the criminal trial or

the civil trial.

Trials have always been public matters. That is for the benefit of society as a whole, not the benefit or detriment of the parties. Society as a whole pays for the judicial system. If you want to use it, welcoming the public, including the media, is the price you have to pay.

Have no clue why you think OJ should decide whether the public has a right to know what goes on in its courts, which are one of its three branches of government.

Any party who seeks secrecy may apply to the court, which makes a decision on that, just like it decides so many issues.

Sorry you don't like our system of government.

[No Elephants]

55. Too late to edit, but the Goldmans affirmatively WANTED cameras in the civil courtroom.

"Both the news media and attorneys for the Goldman family had hoped that Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki would allow cameras in the courtroom for the civil trial." http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/23/simpson.cameras/index.html

Apparently, the judge did not want cameras watching HIM, as they watched Ito, who took a lot of criticism for the way that he conducted that trial. As if the public did not have an interest in see how judges comport themselves when a defendant has fame and money.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/23/simpson.cameras/index.html

[WriteDown]

67. Interesting...

I would not want to put certsin litigants through that though.

[W T F]

6. Why not? trials are public record?

[WriteDown]

16. See post 15. nt

[No Elephants]

46. Seeing post 15 would be a waste of time, though.

[NashVegas]

12. I Agree That Trials Should Not Be Televised At All

But they are and, as a realist, think this one deserves the same attention as any.

[jpak]

28. Public trials over public issues need public TV coverage

These people have something to hide and they should not be allowed to get away with banning TV coverage.

[WriteDown]

68. No....

If someone believes they will be endandered by television coverage then it should not be. If its a legislative issuem then the legislature should take it up.

[LiberalAndProud]

74. Witness' identies can be protected even with cameras in the courtroom.

I has been done in the past. Your argument doesn't withstand scrutiny.

[WriteDown]

80. That would work too...

That IS my argument. :)

[jpak]

77. More bullshit to protect criminals and fundie homophobe republicans

Secret trials are sooooo Cheney

[WriteDown]

81. Secret trials?

Pretty sure there are still stenographers and artists in there.

[Zoeisright]

5. Prop Hate supoporters are just like cockroaches.

They scurry from light and exposure.

[msongs]

7. maybe the mormon church could look at this as a recruitment opportunity nt

[fasttense]

8. It makes me wonder about what those witnesses have to say that is so secret?

Why do those witnesses want to remain anonymous? Could it be that they might not be telling the whole truth? Could it be that they know what they are about to say is wrong?

This is not a criminal case, this is not about domestic abuse and personal danger is highly unlikely.

So, why do they want to hide what they say in difficult to retrieve court documents?

Sounds to me like they are cowards.

[fascisthunter]

9. Unwise... no, it will expose you and those of you behind this religious fanaticism

if you had a legit case and really thought you were right, you wouldn't have a poblem with transparency. What you sickos are doing should be illegal.

[newtothegame]

10. I'm surprised Prop 8 posts even get attention on DU...

When we could have actually stopped it, we were busy posting pictures of Obama in his sunglasses and talking about how bad-ass he looked.

[AngryAmish]

11. There is not much support for gay folks around here, unfortunately

[Zhade]

30. Ironic, given that Skinner expects all DUers to support our equal right to marry.

I've even had the joy of seeing bigots banned over it.

[No Elephants]

47. Isn't that inconsistent with the other duty of DUers?

Don't DUers also have an obligation to support Obama's re-election (when that time comes) Doesn't Obama oppose the right of gays in America to marry bc, when it comes to marriage, "God is in the mix?"

[Zhade]

84. No. DUers are NOT obligated to support his re-election.

They just are not allowed to push other candidates here -- in the general election, that is, not any primary.

And yes, obama is a bigot on this issue. It's an interesting question to ponder; would Skinner stick with his principles and ban obama if he came on DU and attacked proponents of our right to marry?

[Le Taz Hot]

44. I have to disagree there

I think most DUers are very supportive of gay rights and the accompanying issues -- especially this one. I think most understand that this is a fundamental Civil Rights issue. The cheerleaders are here to cheer on the Democratic party no matter what they do -- good or bad. With a name like "DemocraticUnderground" it sort of attracts them. But I don't believe they are the majority by any means. They're just the loudest and most prolific posters.

[slackmaster]

14. There was no stopping it, and there won't be until a majority of CA voters approve of same-sex

marriages.

[EFerrari]

17. It's hard to say. The Catholic Church out organized and out-strategized

the anti-8 campaign by a mile. And Los Angeles Co. has awful voting systems. Remember all the problems they had out there in the primaries?

[slackmaster]

23. I'm no big fan of polls, but they consistently show CA voters as opposing SSM by a small margin

Typically about 52% against.

[EFerrari]

24. I put myself on three different action lists -- like the HRC list --

in the run up to the vote. I got nada in my mailbox as far as a month out. They were too complacent or didn't have enough help, I don't know which.

And the Church in San Francisco went out of its way to lull them into complacency, going as far as handing out a service award to a gay philanthropist and taking the criticism for it. The Archbishop sent out the signal that he wasn't going to fight very hard when in reality, he was 'way out ahead of the anti-8 folks.

I'm not gay and so remembering hanging back and waiting for direction or instructions from the campaign leadership. Never again. Next time, the sleeves get rolled up because this is bullshit.

[LiberalAndProud]

78. Complacency ... that's the word.

Before it passed, I couldn't conceive that Prop 8 could pass. My bad.

The timing wasn't accidental either, IMO. Political activists on our side were focused elsewhere.

[TommyO]

37. A much higher percentage were against "mixed race" marriages

I guess they should still be prohibited too, eh?

[No Elephants]

51. Great point. More proof that human rights should not be ballot issues.

[slackmaster]

59. No, what that means is this fight is winnable and can be won soon

I guess they should still be prohibited too, eh?

I don't understand how anyone could get that from anything I have ever written on DU.

[No Elephants]

49. How does that counter Reply #17? The way people vote CAN be influenced.

Either that, or we waste a hell of a lot of time, effort and money in this country on primary battles, not to mention the time between primaries and elections.

[slackmaster]

58. It wasn't intended to counter reply #17

I agree that votes can essentially be bought by out-spending your opposition. I experienced that first-hand when I worked on a campaign for a city council race here in San Diego last year. Being the best person for an elected office or having the best position on a ballot proposition can carry you only so far. After that it's the Golden Rule - He who has the most gold rules.

My point is that when you are working against the attitude of the majority, i.e. how people felt before campaign money started flowing into advertising efforts, you have an uphill battle. It's a lot easier to persuade people to vote your way when they agree with you.

I believe that a lot of the opposition to SSM, and the root cause of homophobia in general, is the product of simple ignorance. A lot of people still believe that sexual orientation is the result of a conscious choice. Knock down that barrier, and it will be a lot easier to get the rights of LGBT people recognized.

[Raster]

33. The Catholics and THE MORMONS! They were the ones that floated the millions of dollars

in "soft" donations. They were the ones that originally paid for setting up the infrastructure to begin gathering signatures. They were the ones caught lying about their involvement.

[BlueIdaho]

38. Especially the Mormons...

Never afraid to spend money to create more fear and hate.

[EFerrari]

41. The SF Archdiocese INVITED the Mormons in. Sneaky, eh?

[No Elephants]

42. Thrifty, too. The Catholic Church ain't as rich as it used to be. The Mormon Church is growing.

[Raster]

64. In the beginning, Prop H8 was cooked up by the Bishop of the Salt Lake City Diocese AND

The Mormon High Command. The believed that the attack had to begin in California, and that if they could get Prop H8 to pass in CA, it would give their anti-gay movement momentum through the rest of the States. It is NO UNDERSTATEMENT to say that if not for the mormon church, there would NOT HAVE BEEN Prop H8!

[EFerrari]

65. The Archbishop of San Franciso used to be the Bishop of SLC.

Same @sshole. Yes, CA was a real coup for them.

[LiberalAndProud]

79. They didn't start in California. They started in the easier states.

And I can't say I didn't have a bit of resentment, wondering where the hell everybody was when Nebraska's "Defense of Marriage" act passed.

[TommyO]

35. Bullshit!

This is a perfect situation for the courts to support our constitutional right to marry, regardless of how many bigots voted against gay people in California.

[slackmaster]

60. I'm on your side TommyO, so please don't shoot the messenger here

I donated money to No on 8. I had a No on 8 sign in my yard for several weeks. I voted No on 8.

The effort to overturn Prop. 8 in the courts is going to fail. I've been involved in California politics for a long time, and I am pretty familiar with the legal issues being raised. I think that trying to fight this one in court is a waste of time and money, and it's not going to result in what really needs to happen - Changing peoples' hearts and minds.

The only alternative to getting voters to see the light is to financially out-piss the pro-discrimination forces in a future election, and you know how deep their pockets are.

[t0dd]

70. Interracial marriage was decided by the courts, as should gay marriage

I'm not interested in winning over the hearts and minds of a bigoted majority.

And I'm curious to know how you know what no one else does. Are you a lawyer? Explain to me how you "know" the Prop. 8 case will fail. I'm willing to bet it doesn't at the district court level, and I bet it will get appealed to the SCOTUS. But I guess you "know" it'll fail there too, despite the Lawrence v. Texas majority (minus Souter + Sotomayor) being intact.

Maybe you and the Joe "baby steps" Solmonese crowd would prefer taking your time to achieve equality in fifty years (maybe) until straight people are "comfortable" and "approve" of two people being able to publicly commit to each other, but I'd rather give our court system an opportunity to do what they are supposed to do.

[slackmaster]

71. Racial minorities were already protected classes under federal law when that was decided

LGBT people presently are not recognized as protected classes under federal law.

Fast-forward to the end of this story: If they put this trial on TV it will be one of the most boring cases ever televised. The judge will basically say there is no federal issue to decide.

[t0dd]

72. You don't know what you are talking about

I guess Judge Walker was so insistent on a speedy trial because he is eager to dismiss the case because there's no federal issues to decide. :eyes:

Prop. 8 violates the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. It discriminates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. It singles out a suspect class of individuals for disfavored legal status. Just because there is no precedent doesn't mean one cannot be set.

Olson and Boies know what they are doing. They have solid reasoning. They wouldn't have taken the case if they didn't. But I'm sure you know more than Ted Olson does. :eyes:

You are severely misinformed if you think its impossible for this case to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[slackmaster]

73. Surely the fact that Olson and Boies are being paid shitloads of money has nothing to do with it

:eyes:

[No Elephants]

48. You say that as though no one can influence how voters vote. Churches put a hell of a lot of $$

and effort into their Prop Hate effort.

[slackmaster]

62. When an issue is close, the side that spends the most money usually wins

Having the majority against you before any money is spent always puts you at a disadvantage.

[jmowreader]

40. We couldn't have stopped that

This is what we were up against:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75J3TN9Zzck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-jc4ujp9Ok&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4nqtDrJI7A&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8j2y9WtTPw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNaHpHl3t8g&feature=related

We have GOT to do better than we are. How about:

* a commercial with a woman sitting in front of a hospital talking about how her partner is dying of (fill in name of terminal disease that is not AIDS). Woman can't even visit because non-"family members" can't enter a hospital room.
* woman talking about how her ex-husband gained sole custody of their two kids because he got remarried to a woman, but she can't take a same-sex spouse and the judge decided the children should be raised in a two-parent home.
* man talking about how he can't marry his partner of 35 years with a man who's been married four times. Discuss how same-sex relationships can be as stable as, or more than, opposite-sex ones.
* same sex couple (either gender) talking with married couple about the "children" issue. Let the married people rant on and on about children. Toward the end the same-sex couple asks "and how many children do you have?" The married couple stammers and finally gets out "none." 'But that's just it. You've been married for ten years and have no kids. By your logic the government should have dissolved your marriage because you don't have children.' "No! It's our right to be a childless married couple!" 'A right you want to deny to us.'

But what do WE do? A ripoff of the shitty Apple "I'm a Mac / I'm a PC" spots.

[No Elephants]

52. The body of your post denies your subject line.

You did not show that we could not have stopped it, only that our tactics should have been smarter.

[jmowreader]

76. The body of my post does not deny my subject line

The Right knows one thing above all: The Left has not figured out how to fight their smears, or we're unwilling to do so.

We are unwilling to put a little girl in a black dress, put a lily in her hand, stand her in front of a group of people arranged like they would be for a funeral and explain that she's there because her mom died of a pregnancy-gone-wrong that COULD have been corrected by an abortion, but because the right-wingers have so vilified the procedure the closest abortion provider was 500 miles away and her mom couldn't get there in time to save her life. The Right has no problem with getting a miscarried fetus, dumping blood on it, taking a picture of it, labeling it an aborted fetus and wrapping a truck with that photo...then driving it past elementary schools.

Okay, let's send the RW into duck-and-cover mode on this Traditional Marriage shit. According to them, "traditional marriage" is between a man and a woman, nothing else. In reality, "traditional marriage" is ARRANGED marriage. Try this on for size: We put a man who looks like Lewis from Revenge of the Nerds or Rick Moranis from Little Shop of Horrors]/i] and a very pretty woman in chairs in the waiting room of a professional office. There's about a foot between the chairs. They talk about how they have a "traditional" marriage--an "arranged" marriage, which is what the religious right wanted all along. As they talk we realize just how incompatible they really are, culminating with the man admitting they're not trying to keep their marriage together, and the woman stating they're only trying to figure out how to keep from killing each other. There will be lines like:

Man: "The matchmaker said she was warm and loving."
Woman: "The matchmaker said he came from a rich family."

Man: "But my parents ARE rich."
Woman: "They're also forty-two. They have eight other kids. And they hate me."

Man: "The matchmaker said you loved children."
Woman: "She didn't say she wanted me to MARRY one!"

At the end we put up a card: "Let people marry who they love. Vote no on Proposition 8."

[LiberalAndProud]

75. Do you think the timing was accidental?

I don't.

[mbperrin]

18. The courts are public. Laws are made for public effects.

Televise 'em all. I'm tired of secret shit.

[WriteDown]

20. Rape trials? nt

[TommyO]

36. This is not a rape trial

This is a civil suit about the stripping of civil rights from a group of people.

[WriteDown]

69. Doesn't matter....

Would you have wanted Roe V. Wsde televised? If any party feels they are in danger, then it should not be televised.

[No Elephants]

53. They've been on camera. And this is not a criminal trial.

[Tailormyst]

21. Oh the irony........

[EFerrari]

25. I know. How do these people avoid their heads exploding from the hypocrisy.

[Tailormyst]

26. I know, right?

It's really easy.... if they don't want people to know what ugly bigoted people they are then they shouldn't be ugly bigoted activists set on destroying the lives of other people.

If they TRULY. TRULY feel they are doing God's work then they should have the courage to stand up and trust that their hate filled God will have their backs. Or better yet, they should WANT to become martyrs for their "righteous" cause.

[KansDem]

27. Wait! Aren't Mormons the ones who come around after you're dead and try to convert your soul?

Isn't that an invasion of privacy?

But they fear being exposed as financial supporters of Prop. 8?

Invasion of privacy, they say?

What hypocrisy!!! :rofl:

[jmowreader]

39. Yeah. That's them.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mormonism_Baptism_for_the_Dead.asp

According to the Mormon Church, anyone who hasn't been baptized into the Mormon church gets sent to Spirit Prison after they die until someone comes around to turn them into Mormons and take them to Heaven.

This transcendence thing is one of the Heavy Mysteries to me.

If I die an Atheist I get sent to Christian hell even though my belief system rejects a spiritual destination.
If I die a Muslim, Jew or whatever, I get to go through the gates of Paradise, Jewish Heaven or wherever, but there's a guy standing there to pull me over to the Christian checkpoint, at which time I'll go to Christian Hell.
If I die a Catholic, according to Chick Theology I get sent to hell because I went to a polytheistic church--Jack really can't stand the patron saints.
If I die a Protestant, I get to go to regular heaven but once I'm past the checkpoint the Mormons throw me into spirit prison until one of the Temple Mormons gets me sprung
But if I die a Mormon, I pass Spirit Prison, go into Mormon Heaven but get grabbed at the door, taken to the Baptist checkpoint and thrown straight into hell because they're convinced the Book of Mormon was written by the devil.

So which way do I go? Any religion I could possibly go with will ultimately get me thrown into SOMEONE's hell. I think I'll stick with atheism. You still go to hell, but before you get there you don't have to denounce same-sex marriage, firebomb abortion clinics, pay ten percent of your income to a social club that's going to use it to build a $25 million building that I can sit in on Sunday morning to hear what a horrific person I am...jeeze, if I just want ritual abuse I'll go to the VFW hall in Fayetteville and tell 'em I was never airborne.

[No Elephants]

54. Legally, I don't think dead people have a right to privacy.

http://www.tpub.com/content/armymedical/MD0067/MD00670113.htm
I don't think there's a privacy issue anyway.

Mormons find names from public sources, just as geneaologists do. Then, based upon having the name, they purport to baptize the deceased person who had that name by proxy (to give the deceased a better chance of getting to heaven, I guess). However, the baptisms are not public.

Americans do have a right to be free from the Mormon religion, but that would be a right against government, not against the Mormon Church.

So, legally, we're screwn re: posthumous baptism.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Bigots hide behind the same constitutional rights they deny to LGBTs

Interesting times in which we live.

[David Zephyr]

32. Televise it so everyone can see their hatred exposed.

K&R.

[Joanne98]

50. Oh the Taliban terrorists are concerned for their safety?

The same Taliban that promotes shooting abortion doctors? That's rich!

[No Elephants]

56. Which California court rule are they talking about. According to CNN, California LAW says that

a judge has wide discretion whether or not to allow cameras in the courtroom. http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/23/simpson.cameras/index.html


Please don't tell me lawyers for the Mormons would lie through their teeth to the court?


I know Mormons do not believe that Jesus is/was the Son of God, but a truth is attributed to Jesus by the third chapter of the Book of John:


"19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."


As far as safety of witnesses, for crap's sake, people testify against mobsters. That is how our legal system works. Deal with it.

[Hepburn]

61. The case is in FEDDIE court....

...STATE court rules do not apply even though the Feddie court is located in the State of Calif. Traditionally, Feddie courts do not allow hearings/trials to be televised.

[robo50]

63. So does this mean it will NOT be on TV??

Or is it just "traditional" and not prohibited?

[Hepburn]

82. As I understand, it is more tradition than a set rule. n/t

[Hepburn]

57. TV coverage for the Yessers bigots is like....

...turning on a light in a filthy kitchen and watching the roaches scatter.

[marshall]

83. Perhaps they will decide it's "unwise" to testify

Oh the irony.

[Thor_MN]

85. If your beliefs are not stong enough to stand up for, why should they be imposed on all?

I personally don't like the thought of anyone vomiting. So I think we should legislate banning it. But only for people that go to church. But I feel that I would be shunned on my beliefs so I want to enact the laws in privacy.

For the clueless :sarcasm: