Prop 8 Trial Monday

  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Jan 05, 2010 10:22 PM GMT
    Have you heard about the Prop 8 federal lawsuit?

    There is some urgent and important news about the trial. I just took action and hope that you will join me.

    U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker -- who will be overseeing a federal court challenge to Prop 8 starting this Monday (January 11) -- is considering whether or not to open the court room to TV cameras. The court just announced that it is seeking public comment on the proposal to televise the trial -- and that all comments must be submitted to the court by a Friday deadline.

    We have just this one chance to make our voices heard -- thousands of Americans calling for equality, transparency and accountability. That's why the Courage Campaign Institute is teaming up with CREDO Action to collect as many signatures as possible asking Judge Walker to televise the case.

    I just signed a letter, asking Judge Walker to televise the Prop 8 trial. Will you join me? They need your signature by FRIDAY at 9 a.m.:

    http://www.couragecampaign.org/TeleviseTheTrial

    If you know other people who believe this trial should be televised as well, please forward this message to them. On Friday, Courage and CREDO will hand-deliver all of our signatures to Judge Vaughn Walker before the deadline.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2010 11:36 PM GMT
    It's a done deal. And in YouTube no less.

    "The first major experiment with broadcasting a federal trial has found its case, and it is bound to create controversy (and some great television). A federal judge in San Francisco said today that the trial over the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, that banned same-sex marriages in the state, will be televised starting on Jan. 11. The American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is helping fund the case against Prop 8, announced in a tweet that the judge approved televising the case and having video available on Youtube, pending the okay of an appeals court which approved the experiment. The trial will not be available “live,” something requested by media outlets. Instead, the trial will be recorded by the court and then made available later, according to a spokesperson for the court."

    - http://www.mediaite.com/online/califorinias-same-sex-debate-gains-transparency-prop-8-trial-to-be-televised/
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Jan 11, 2010 11:02 PM GMT
    good news and bad news:

    In just three days, an astounding 140,671 Americans signed our letter asking Judge Vaughn Walker to "televise the trial" -- and we hand-delivered 138,248 of your signatures to the court Friday morning.

    The good news: Judge Walker just announced the amazing final results on public comments: 138,542 in favor, 32 opposed. Congrats to the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action communities!

    The bad news: Opponents of marriage equality filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday, begging to hide the trial from the American public. And a few hours ago, the Supreme Court delayed their decision until Wednesday.

    Prop 8 supporters and anti-equality organizations like the National Organization for Marriage have spent tens of millions of dollars on 30-second ads scaring the American people into thinking that same-sex marriage will destroy our country. And now, when federal judges want to open the courtrooms to America, Prop 8 supporters want to unplug the TV.

    What are they hiding? And what are organizations like NOM and Focus on the Family willing to do and say to keep the American people from finding out the truth?

    The Prop 8 trial starts today. That's why the Courage Campaign Institute is launching the "Prop 8 Trial Tracker" -- a web site that will hold right-wing organizations accountable for what they say every day of the Prop 8 trial. We need your support immediately. Will you contribute $25, $50, $100 or more right now to help us get the truth out ASAP?

    http://www.couragecampaign.org/GetTheTruthOut

    On the defensive, Prop 8 supporters are scared they will lose. Maggie Gallagher, President of NOM, has made Judge Vaughn Walker the immediate target of NOM's misinformation strategy, launching a baseless attack on the judge a few days ago:
    "The case will be a show trial in a kangaroo court. I don't say that lightly of any federal judge, but Judge Walker's extraordinary bias has already been flagrantly on display."
    As the trial unfolds, we can expect NOM and their allies to continue to try and convince the public the court is biased. And our Prop 8 Trial Tracker will continue to monitor these misleading right-wing claims, in and outside the courtroom, and report the truth.

    We're launching the Prop 8 Trial Tracker as a public service to get the truth out. But we can't do it without your support. Please contribute $25, $50, $100 or more right now to support our work during the Prop 8 trial to hold the right-wing accountable:

    http://www.couragecampaign.org/GetTheTruthOut

    Thank you for helping us get the truth out ASAP.

    Rick Jacobs
    Chair, Courage Campaign Institute
  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Jan 11, 2010 11:16 PM GMT
    Proposition 8 opponent testifies about importance of marriage


    [QUOTE]

    "He is the love of my life. I love him probably more than I love myself. I would do anything for him," Zarrillo said.

    [/QUOTE]


    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/prop-8-opponent-testifies-about-importance-of-marriage.html
  • inmidair

    Posts: 70

    Jan 12, 2010 12:44 AM GMT
    I've been reading the live blogging on here:

    http://prop8trialtracker.com/

    It's absolutely riveting. I hope that they start publishing the videos.
  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Jan 12, 2010 2:27 AM GMT
    ^
    thanks....excellent site. icon_smile.gif


    Text of Ted Olson’s Opening Statement in Prop. 8 Trial – As Prepared

    http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/news/text-of-ted-olsons-opening-statement-in-prop-8-trial-as-prepared/


    From the trial:

    Author of Public Vows, Professor Nancy Cott (Yale & Harvard) spoke.



    http://www.amazon.com/Public-Vows-History-Marriage-Nation/dp/0674008758/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263262439&sr=8-1


    Cott:

    [QUOTE]Marriage is both a public and private institution. Most people who consider marrying, think of the private and private property relations between them. But the state has a public interest in marriage. It’s a means by which the state regulates people. There are other paradoxes in the nature of marriage. Marriage is only possible for individuals who can exercise the liberty value of our citizens, yet the private realm is a place in which decisions can be made freely[/QUOTE]



    [QUOTE]

    The ability to marry, to say I do, is a civil right. It demonstrates liberty. This can be seen in American history when slaves could not legally marry. As unfreed persons, they could not consent. They lacked that very basic liberty of person to say I do which meant they were taking on the state’s obligates and vice versa. A slave could not take on that set of obligations because they were not free.



    When slaves were emancipated, they flocked to get married. IT was not trivial to them by any means. They saw the ability to replace the informal unions with legalized vows that the state would protect. One quotation, the title of an article, “The marriage covenant is the foundation of all our rights,” said a former slave who became a northern soldier. The point here is that this slave built his life on that civil right.



    She refers to Dred Scott who tried to claim he was a citizen. He was denied that claim. Justice Tawny spent three paragraphs saying that marriage laws in the state in which Dred Scott was prevented him from marrying a white woman was a stigma that made him less than a full citizen. It was a piece of evidence that shows that he could not be a full citizen.



    [/QUOTE]



    This web site is awesome....it continues here...


    http://prop8trialtracker.com/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2010 2:34 AM GMT
    I love how the twisted that logo around.icon_biggrin.gif


    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/gay-rights-supporters-upset-by-prop-8-video-decision.html

    So it won't be broadcasted?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 12, 2010 3:47 AM GMT
    Our Wonderfully "Fair" as in Fox Broadcasting Fair
    put a stay on the Judge's order
    citing that witnesses might be harassed icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2010 4:27 AM GMT
    Part of the problem we're dealing with is the issue of perception of our rights under the law. This is quoted directly from the AP article, written by Lisa Leff and Paul Elias:

    The judge asked if they had evidence the Constitution grants gays the right to marry and if states have a reasonable right to deny those marriages.

    Among other things, Walker asked how Proposition 8 could be discriminatory since California already allows domestic partnerships that carry the same rights and benefits of marriage.



    I expect far better from the AP than this.

    Obviously, this is a direct and blatant use of mis-information, as anybody with 5 minutes of legal training knows that the domestic partner laws DO NOT carry the same, or "all of the" rights and benefits of marriage.

    Just ask any gay person who has lost their "domestic partner" due to death, and see if the survivor's rights are respected in light of any claims that would be made by the deceased's blood relatives, especially if the dead person had any kind of estate. If the remaining partner is living in a house that was in the dead partner's name, the probate courts will swoop in and evict the survivor, domestic partnership be damned, if the relatives put up a challenge.

    As long as news agencies continue to allow such sloppy reporting, we will never be heard with any clarity.
  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Jan 12, 2010 9:06 AM GMT
    Prop 8 Plaintiffs With Ted Olsen On Today Show Early AM Tues

    http://renwl.org/news/prop-8/prop-8-plaintiffs-with-ted-olsen-on-today-show-early-am-weds
  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Jan 12, 2010 6:08 PM GMT


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2010 6:37 PM GMT
    I live in Cali and Im sick of hearing about this prop 8 crap, if everything could so easily go up for voting again right after if was defeated what type of bull would that be?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2010 6:51 PM GMT
    well don't both sides have to have witnesses? if this were the case, no on prop 8 will have successful gay couples who have or want kids and show how amazing and normal they are. and then on the flip side, prop 8 supporters will have bigots... probably have some person who was raised by a gay couple and will say awful things about his parents and blame it on the fact that they were gay, but not because of bad parenting.
  • inmidair

    Posts: 70

    Jan 12, 2010 7:09 PM GMT
    jprswim saidwell don't both sides have to have witnesses? if this were the case, no on prop 8 will have successful gay couples who have or want kids and show how amazing and normal they are. and then on the flip side, prop 8 supporters will have bigots... probably have some person who was raised by a gay couple and will say awful things about his parents and blame it on the fact that they were gay, but not because of bad parenting.


    What's interesting is that so far, the defense (prop 8 supports) seem to have only one expert witness; someone who has predictions about how same-sex marriages will damage opposite-sex marriages. Beyond that, the strategy so far has been to raise a bunch of objections, try to disallow evidence, and call into question the credibility of the expert witness for the prosecution, even though that witness is an award-winning professor from Harvard.

    They've also made at least one flagrant factual error in their opening statement, saying that "race has never been a restriction" on marriages.

    I find this totally fascinating.
  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Jan 12, 2010 7:21 PM GMT
    The Today Show:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34823128#34823128
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2010 10:47 PM GMT
    The more publicity this receives, the more this is going to hurt than help.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2010 10:54 PM GMT
    zeebyaboi saidPart of the problem we're dealing with is the issue of perception of our rights under the law. This is quoted directly from the AP article, written by Lisa Leff and Paul Elias:

    The judge asked if they had evidence the Constitution grants gays the right to marry and if states have a reasonable right to deny those marriages.

    Among other things, Walker asked how Proposition 8 could be discriminatory since California already allows domestic partnerships that carry the same rights and benefits of marriage.



    I expect far better from the AP than this.

    Obviously, this is a direct and blatant use of mis-information, as anybody with 5 minutes of legal training knows that the domestic partner laws DO NOT carry the same, or "all of the" rights and benefits of marriage.

    Just ask any gay person who has lost their "domestic partner" due to death, and see if the survivor's rights are respected in light of any claims that would be made by the deceased's blood relatives, especially if the dead person had any kind of estate. If the remaining partner is living in a house that was in the dead partner's name, the probate courts will swoop in and evict the survivor, domestic partnership be damned, if the relatives put up a challenge.

    As long as news agencies continue to allow such sloppy reporting, we will never be heard with any clarity.


    The only way to make sure your will is carried out after your death is to have a legal will. You can designate anyone you want to receive your assets. DON"T LET THE COURTS DECIDE.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2010 10:56 PM GMT
    G_Force saidThe more publicity this receives, the more this is going to hurt than help.


    Please don't speak to things you know absolutely nothing about. I don't mind when you rant about the power of God, and your mad photography skills because, frankly, I know you're a fucking nutjob, but this is a topic that's truly out of your league.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2010 11:05 PM GMT
    http://www.scotusblog.com/prop-8-court-tv-blocked/

    this link was just released and they decided that this trial will not be televised. DANG IT! i have been reading each play by play of the trial through bloggers and it is so fascinating. I am upset this is not being televised because the bigotry and lies are finally being revealed.

    i seriously keep hitting the refresh button following this case at http://prop8trialtracker.com/. i am glad i am home sick so i can follow this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2010 11:14 PM GMT
    reppaT said
    G_Force saidThe more publicity this receives, the more this is going to hurt than help.


    Please don't speak to things you know absolutely nothing about. I don't mind when you rant about the power of God, and your mad photography skills because, frankly, I know you're a fucking nutjob, but this is a topic that's truly out of your league.


    IIf you actually read about this, many in the gay community are not in favor of a high publicity of this and for good reasons. Please look at those reasons with an OPEN MIND instead of condemning these gays for this. And how does photography have anything to do with this? Now I know you can not speak objectively.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2010 11:25 PM GMT
    G_Force said
    reppaT said
    G_Force saidThe more publicity this receives, the more this is going to hurt than help.


    Please don't speak to things you know absolutely nothing about. I don't mind when you rant about the power of God, and your mad photography skills because, frankly, I know you're a fucking nutjob, but this is a topic that's truly out of your league.


    IIf you actually read about this, many in the gay community are not in favor of a high publicity of this and for good reasons. Please look at those reasons with an OPEN MIND instead of condemning these gays for this. And how does photography have anything to do with this? Now I know you can not speak objectively.


    where did you read this? and what are the good reasons? please provide links since you have found them. the truth is...

    "Walker then said that he received a substantial number of comments by 5:00pm Friday, 138,574 with the overwhelming majority in favor of the rule change; there were 32 comments opposed. People laughed. He said uproar, however, was very helpful – noting that it is highly unfortunate that the courts have not dealt with the issue of public access in the past. Finally, after some 20 years, we’ll get some sensible movement forward, Walker said.

    It seems Walker just counted the paper signatures, meaning that ours and CREDO’s members accounted for 138,248 of total submitted, thus 326 came from other sources. Those 326 dwarf the laughable total submitted by the opposition and brings into question, just how concerned they are about the videotaping of the trial, if they were unable to muster up much energy among their supporters."
    http://prop8trialtracker.com/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2010 11:32 PM GMT
    G_Force said
    The only way to make sure your will is carried out after your death is to have a legal will. You can designate anyone you want to receive your assets. DON"T LET THE COURTS DECIDE.


    I'll echo the above poster in saying don't post remarks without proof of their truth. I have known plenty of Gay couples where one of the partners dies, and even though the remaining partner is named in the will to inherit the home they shared, the deceased's blood relatives can easily contest such a will naming a Gay lover as beneficiary or hier, and such challenges, depending on the state, are often found to be lawful, and often the surviving Gay partner loses everything they've built together.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2010 11:43 PM GMT
    G_Farce. Why not do a little Googling before you post bullshit? With Google, everything you're looking for is just a few keyboard strokes away.

    zo8izt.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2010 1:22 AM GMT
    The decision not to allow the broadcasting has nothing to do with bigotry and the fear of truths-to-be-revealed. People can speculate that the reason why the broadcast was not allowed by the Supreme Court is because the judges supporting the stay are bigoted. This is mere speculation.

    The decision issued was to determine whether the district court violated federal law by amending its local rules regarding broadcasting. The question was not whether the federal courthouse should broadcast the prop 8 trial.

    If you want to read it from the source, click this link. The majority and dissenting opinions are well written and give both sides of the debate. They all make valid points.
    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/09A648.pdf
  • inmidair

    Posts: 70

    Jan 14, 2010 10:46 PM GMT
    The expert testimony is fascinating again today. I think we've all experienced this:

    http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/14/liveblogging-day-4-part-iv-afternoon-session-begins/