The Prop 8 Trial

[+ Lucky]

The idea of having straight lawyers take up the mantra of gay marriage on their own terms, and following their own agenda, was controversial from the start. I doubt it would have gotten far if they were not both legal eagles of great fame.

The whole rigamarole about televising the trial was of little use to us. I am sure I am not alone in avoiding wanting to watch any of it.

 

But, I do read, and what I am reading about the trial disturbs me. Are the lawyers putting homosexuality itself on trial in order to win an approval of gay marriage? Or am I just the victim of news clips?

 

I guess what I am asking here is for someone who has followed the trial closely to let us know what the truth of the approach is. So far we have had gay people testify about how wonderful they are and how they feel love too.

It seems awfully crass to have to prove our worth as people in order to get a judge to overturn an initiative. Even if he does, the Supremes have already made it clear 5-4 that we will lose.

 

Here's what you can learn from the LA Times:

 

Proposition 8 trial turns its attention to children

 

A witness for opponents of the gay marriage ban says children of same-sex couples are not more likely to be maladjusted. The measure's legal team cites a contradictory study.

 

 

• Related
  
• http://www.latimes.com/media/thumbnails/story/2010-01/51630810-15124832-157105.jpg Psychologist testifies on 'remarkable similarities' of gay and straight couples
  
• Bias raises gays' risk of mental disorders, witness at Prop. 8 trial says
  
• http://www.latimes.com/media/alternatethumbnails/story/2010-01/51587788-11230940.jpg Tearful testimony on discrimination at Prop. 8 trial
  
• Stories
  
• Witnesses in Prop. 8 trial examine history of marriage, gays
  

[+ deej]

The thing that pisses me off about not televising the proceedings is the reason given by prop8 proponents: they're afraid to show themselves.

 

They're OK taking away civil rights (and the SCOTUS has confirmed marriage as a basic civil rights every time the subject has come up) but only if they can do it in the dark like cockroaches.

[Guest andrewd]

Agreed! They are fearful of retribution or (gasp!) being shunned, mistreated, or worse, called names & harrassed, should people learn their identities! Alanis says it best, "Isn't it ironic, don't ya think?"

[+ Lucky]

The TV thing was a red herring.

[+ deej]

They've fought tooth and toenail to keep their donor lists and witness lists secret too.

 

Cockroaches.

[rvwnsd]

They've fought tooth and toenail to keep their donor lists and witness lists secret too.

 

Cockroaches.

 

Are you suggesting that the Human Rights Campaign publish its donor list? I don't agree with these people, but let's be fair.

[MsGuy]

But, I do read, and what I am reading about the trial disturbs me. Are the lawyers putting homosexuality itself on trial in order to win an approval of gay marriage? Or am I just the victim of news clips?

I guess what I am asking here is for someone who has followed the trial closely to let us know what the truth of the approach is. So far we have had gay people testify about how wonderful they are and how they feel love too.

 

I read somewhere that the judge may be giving the parties leeway to go into all manner of things in order to build a broad record that would support a favorable ruling during the appeal process. Didn't the NAACP follow a similar approach to Brown v. Board?

 

It seems awfully crass to have to prove our worth as people in order to get a judge to overturn an initiative. Even if he does, the Supremes have already made it clear 5-4 that we will lose.

 

 

I suppose that, if He can find time between hurricanes, earthquakes and the like, God might see his way clear to gather one of the more intolerant of the Brethren to his bosom. Otherwise I agree, it's a clear 5-4 loss, maybe even 6-3. Worse, it affords Scalia & friends an opportunity to rework Romer, Lawrence and the rest of the landmark cases that extended the equal protection clause to gays. Pushing this case foward now rather than waiting a few years is an invitation to disaster.

 

Neither Ted Olson nor David Boies, the lead attorneys for plaintiffs, have any skin in the game. Neither has a history of defending gay rights in court. Almost to a man lawyers and groups that have been doing the real work of advancing our cause have denounced this case as premature and dangerous. To me this stinks of a vanity lawsuit filed by lawyers whose motivation has precious little to do with a dedication to the protection of gays.

----

It's foolish to expect the Supreme Court to do our work for us. After we have 15 or 20 states in our pocket, have repealed DOMA & DADT, OK, then we ask the Court to step up and do its duty. Not before.

----

Lucky took the trouble to find some good links to relevant material, so I googled around a bit to find this article. It does a good job of explaining what's at stake and why this case is a bad idea.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2240843/

[MsGuy]

They've fought tooth and toenail to keep their donor lists and witness lists secret too.

Cockroaches.

 

Deej, rvwnsd makes a good point. Opening up those donor lists would have a hell of a chilling effect on many folks willingness to support unpopular causes. I suspect that organizations like the ACLU, LAMBDA and the NAACP have had good reason to protect donor names in times past.

[+ Lucky]

Lucky took the trouble to find some good links to relevant material, so I googled around a bit to find this article. It does a good job of explaining what's at stake and why this case is a bad idea.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2240843/

 

 

Thanks for the link. It is a good article, but only confirms my fears.

[+ sniper]

Are you suggesting that the Human Rights Campaign publish its donor list? I don't agree with these people, but let's be fair.

 

Donor lists, fine, but they're keeping names of people who petitioned to put things on the ballot secret. How do you know somebody didn't forge your name on a petition if you can't see the list?

[+ Lucky]

The LA Times today on the 5-4 Court. I agree that Justice Kennedy may eventually rule for gays:

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-gay-marriage17-2010jan17,0,151791.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29

 

 

AND, the happy couple (Boies-Olson) is featured in Maureen Dowd's column today:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opinion/17dowd.html

[MsGuy]

"I agree that Justice Kennedy may eventually rule for gays:"

 

That would be a truly historic Brown v. Board moment and, IMO, is the reason the happy couple have attached themselves to the case. Who would have thought the keystone case for equal protection for gays would be argued by the equivalent of Johnny Cochran & F. Lee Bailey? Oh. My. Lord.

 

Well, what's done is done and I'm going to do my damnedest to hang around long enough to see how this all turns out. If Kennedy swings our way, I will be standing in the middle of Main Street singing "Oh Happy Day" 'till they haul me off.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSx386Bf5H4

[Kevin Slater]

"I agree that Justice Kennedy may eventually rule for gays:"

 

That would be a truly historic Brown v. Board moment

 

Wish it were so. Brown was especially significant in that it was a unanimous decision overturning a whole lot of precedent. Whereas a simple majority opinion is just as legally binding, it also gives the dissent a chance to air grievances and lay groundwork for future arguments to subsequently overturn or at least narrow the ruling. Brown put the nail in segregation; a tenuous 5-4 in this case with the inevitable dissent would not be such a strong societal message nor much to hang your hat on.

 

Kevin Slater

[+ Lucky]

Wikipedia on Kennedy's Gay Cases

 

Gay rights and homosexuality

 

Kennedy has often taken a strong stance in favor of expanding Constitutional rights to cover sexual orientation. He wrote the Court's opinion in the controversial 1996 case, Romer v. Evans, invalidating a provision in the Colorado Constitution denying homosexuals the right to bring local discrimination claims. In 2003, he authored the Court's opinion Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated criminal prohibitions against homosexual sodomy under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, overturning the Court's previous contrary ruling in 1986's Bowers v. Hardwick. In doing so, however, he was very careful to limit the extent of the opinion, declaring that the case did not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. In both cases, he sided with the more liberal members of the Court. Lawrence also controversially referred to foreign laws, specifically ones enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the European Court of Human Rights, in justifying its result. Kennedy voted, with 4 other Justices, to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's organizational right to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale in 2000. On 19 October 2009 Justice Kennedy temporarily blocked Washington state officials from releasing the names of people who signed petitions for a referendum ballot measure that would repeal a gay rights domestic partnership law.