Rights Deniers Whine About Public Spotlight In Court

[Procrustes Stretched]

That's OK, it's happened to me before.

I wonder what idiocy te deniers of rights will argue today.

Usually they hide behind the children...now it looks like they will hide behind ''the voters''

gawd' how pathetic

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

SAN FRANCISCO — It was not the type of question that one usually hears from lawyers in federal court.

Related
Justices to Review Plan for Webcasts of a Trial (January 12, 2010)

Times Topics: Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships | California's Proposition 8 (Same-Sex Marriage)

“What does it mean,” Theodore B. Olson asked his client, Kristin M. Perry, “to be a lesbian?”

Mr. Olson’s question came during one of several attention-grabbing moments on the first day of the trial here on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. It is a case that is expected to feature three weeks of evidence, experts and — if Monday was an indication — emotionally charged testimony on everything from the nature of gay sexuality to the nature of a romantic same-sex marriage proposal.

Ms. Perry, a 45-year-old child services professional who brought the case with her partner, Sandra B. Stier, 47, and a male couple, recounted how she had slowly fallen in love with Ms. Stier.

“I remember thinking that she was the sparkliest person I’d ever met,” Ms. Perry said, drawing giggles from the packed courtroom. When she told Ms. Stier of her feelings, she said, “she told me she loved me, too.” Ms. Perry proposed marriage in 2003, although same-sex marriage was illegal then in California and every other state.

“She looked really happy,” Ms. Perry recalled, “and then she looked really confused.”

Such human touches, of course, are part of the legal strategy Mr. Olson and his law partner on this case, David Boies, who have cast their efforts to overturn Proposition 8 as a seminal civil rights struggle.

“That is exactly why we have courts, why we have the Constitution and why we have the 14th Amendment,” Mr. Olson said in his opening statement, adding that while some groups “may not be the most popular people,” the court still should uphold their rights. “That is why we are here today,” he said.

Supporters of Proposition 8, who were granted legal status to defend the ban in court, were quick to disagree. Their lawyers sharply questioned early witnesses about whether lessons on same-sex marriage belong in elementary school.

“Do you think first- and second-graders should be taught about sex in public schools?” Brian Raum, a lawyer for the defendants, asked Paul T. Katami, who is a plaintiff, as is his partner, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo.

Mr. Katami responded that it depended “on how it’s being taught,” before adding “I do know that children are growing up a lot faster.”

The defendants also showed clips from the campaign for Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote. Mr. Raum asked Mr. Katami why he found one slogan of the “Yes on 8” campaign — “Protect Your Children” — offensive.

“I have a problem with the verbiage of ‘protect your children’ because it insinuates that they have to protect them from something that’s going to harm them,” Mr. Katami said.

Judge Vaughn R. Walker of Federal District Court, who is hearing the case, repeatedly interrupted the opening statements of Mr. Olson and the lead defense counsel, Charles J. Cooper, admonishing the lawyers to provide hard evidence — not just rhetoric.

Both parried with the judge, with Mr. Olson promising expert testimony showing “the grievous harm” caused to gay men and lesbians not allowed to marry, and Mr. Cooper countering that the defense would show that allowing same-sex marriage would undermine traditional marriage and urging “special regard for this venerable institution.”

With the plaintiffs presenting their case first, much early testimony was sympathetic to the same-sex couples, who brought some humor to what was an often tense courtroom atmosphere.

Ms. Perry, for instance, said that she had tried dating boys when she was growing up in rural Bakersfield, Calif., if only for a chance to “have a date for the prom,” but that she had always known she was a lesbian.

Asked by Mr. Olson if she could change her sexual feelings, Ms. Perry paused, then replied: “I’m 45 years old. I don’t think so.”

-Personal Focus as Same-Sex-Marriage Trial Opens in California - NYTimes.com

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why do the anti ray marriage rights people fear? Like cockroaches many are used to playing in the dark.

I suspect a few are afraid of the skeletons in their closets may be shaken.

Plus deciet, deception and lies fear the light.

Backers of Proposition 8 filed an emergency petition with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today to prevent the broadcast of a federal trial on the constitutionality California's ban on same-sex marriage.
The trial, scheduled to start Monday, was supposed to be videotaped by the court and disseminated on YouTube and in other federal courthouses.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the Proposition 8 campaign, said the broadcast would be unprecedented and would violate federal court rules. He said the scheduled broadcast "collides with the longstanding policy of the federal courts not to televise trials."

"Many supporters of Proposition 8 who are being dragged into this case are fearful about being questioned about their personal, political and religious beliefs on the stand and having that televised," Pugno said.

Your not talking about rays getting married you mean gays right? Ok OK now that i poked at you let me be serious

Answer me 3 questions (the last one is more for others than you but answer anyway):

1) Is that the longstanding POLICY?
2) If it is then why would they break policy?
3) If it isn't then what is the beef about it being televised?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: January 11, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court indicated Monday that it might soon have something significant to say about whether and when video coverage of federal trials is appropriate.

Shortly before a federal trial over same-sex marriage began in San Francisco, the court temporarily blocked a judge’s plan to broadcast the trial on the Internet. Saying they needed more time to consider the issues, the justices said their order would remain in effect until Wednesday at 4 p.m. Eastern time.

The Supreme Court does not allow video coverage of arguments in its courtroom, and cameras are routinely banned from most federal courtrooms. In an experiment begun last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes the Federal District Court in San Francisco, agreed to allow federal judges to permit cameras in civil cases.

The trial judge in the San Francisco case, Judge Vaughn R. Walker, had intended to allow streaming video to several federal courthouses around the nation and had planned to post it after the end of each day’s proceedings on YouTube. The Supreme Court order allowed only “streaming to other rooms” within the San Francisco courthouse, where an overflow crowd of journalists and spectators attended the trial’s opening on Monday.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented from the order. He agreed that further consideration of the issues was warranted and said he was “pleased that the stay is time limited.” But he said he would have considered the issues without a stay, in part because the defendants had not shown they were likely to suffer irreparable harm without one.

In the trial, proponents of same-sex marriage hope to show that there is no adequate justification under the federal Constitution for Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment overturning a decision of the state’s Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriage. Opponents of such marriages say the federal challenge amounts to a pointless show trial in a community predisposed to favor the unions.

In papers filed Saturday in the Supreme Court, Charles J. Cooper, a lawyer representing opponents of same-sex marriage, argued that a stay was needed to prevent “harassment, economic reprisal, threat and even physical violence” against witnesses prepared to testify in favor of Proposition 8. Some witnesses said they would withdraw if the trial was broadcast, the brief said.

“Whether to broadcast trial court proceedings, especially in controversial, high-profile cases such as this,” Mr. Cooper said in urging the Supreme Court to intercede, “is an issue of surpassing national importance.”

In a response filed Sunday, Theodore B. Olson, representing proponents of same-sex marriage, said the case would affect hundreds of thousands of gay men and lesbians in California and thus warranted broadcast coverage.

“Concerns about the possibility of compromised safety, witness intimidation or harassment of trial participants,” Mr. Olson added, “are utterly unsubstantiated and groundless speculation.”

All of the witnesses said to fear harassment were paid experts named after Judge Walker first noted the possibility of broadcast coverage, Mr. Olson wrote, adding that the views of these experts were already well known.

A coalition of news organizations also urged the Supreme Court not to grant a stay. Its brief noted that the case did not involve criminal fair-trial rights and would not be heard by a jury.

“Any witnesses will be testifying in open public court at the trial, with heavy accompanying publicity in the print and electronic media,” Thomas R. Burke wrote for the news organizations. “If the purported harms identified by petitioners exist at all, they will flow from the witnesses’ mere participation in the trial.”

-Justices Block Plan for Webcasts of Proposition 8 Trial - NYTimes.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

| After a defense cross-examination of Professor George Chauncey emphasizing the increased social acceptance of gay men and lesbians, the legal team for the plaintiffs tried to refocus the case on the prevalence of discrimination.

They introduced extensive video footage from the deposition of Hak-Shing William Tam, a voluntary defendant in the Proposition 8 case who is also a central figure in the controversy over whether video coverage of the trial can be done for YouTube.

It was the first time that the court was shown an image of Mr. Tam, who attempted to withdraw from the case late last week — when it seemed that YouTube coverage was likely — citing concerns for his safety.

“In the past I have received threats on my life, had my property vandalized and am recognized on the streets due to my association with Proposition 8,” he wrote in a motion filed last Friday. The Supreme Court granted a stay on YouTube coverage, but it expires Wednesday afternoon.

Mr. Tam is expected to testify later in the trial.

Is this the face of principle or hate?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

| After a defense cross-examination of Professor George Chauncey emphasizing the increased social acceptance of gay men and lesbians, the legal team for the plaintiffs tried to refocus the case on the prevalence of discrimination.

They introduced extensive video footage from the deposition of Hak-Shing William Tam, a voluntary defendant in the Proposition 8 case who is also a central figure in the controversy over whether video coverage of the trial can be done for YouTube.

It was the first time that the court was shown an image of Mr. Tam, who attempted to withdraw from the case late last week — when it seemed that YouTube coverage was likely — citing concerns for his safety.

“In the past I have received threats on my life, had my property vandalized and am recognized on the streets due to my association with Proposition 8,” he wrote in a motion filed last Friday. The Supreme Court granted a stay on YouTube coverage, but it expires Wednesday afternoon.

Mr. Tam is expected to testify later in the trial.

Is this the face of principle or hate?

Let us judge this man by his words and actions...

Mr. Tam spoke in the deposition of his efforts to organize rallies around the Bay Area in support of Proposition 8. He also discussed his literature that he had published in both English and Chinese on the subject.

Mr. Tam said that exposure to the concept of gay marriage in schools has a negative effect on children and added that, though a Google search, he had found evidence of an official “gay agenda” established in the 1970s

After showing the video, the plaintiff’s attorney, Therese Stewart, asked Professor Chauncey if the history of public and media images of gays in the mid-20th century were relevant to Mr. Tam’s opinions.

The scholar said, “There’s a deep fear about simple exposure to homosexuality or to same-sex marriage that might will lead children to become gay.”

Professor Chauncey described it as “the kind of hostility and kind of arguments that have been made for several decades now.”

Original Post: 11:11 a.m. Pacific Time | For nearly two hours on Tuesday afternoon, Professor George Chauncey, a Yale historian, gave the San Francisco courtroom presided over by Judge Vaughn Walker an overview of the history of discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans in the 20th century.

When Perry v. Schwarzenegger resumed on Wednesday morning, a defense lawyer, David Thompson, used examples — ranging from the success of the television show “Will and Grace” and the movie “Brokeback Mountain” to the support of gay civil rights from the state’s largest newspapers — to underscore the dramatic change in social attitudes toward gay men and lesbians in recent decades.

Mr. Thompson pointed out, as he questioned Professor Chauncey, that gay men and lesbians have the support of powerful Washington lawmakers like Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank — who himself is gay — and Senator Barbara Boxer. He quoted a 2002 Gallup poll that found that while 44 percent of Americans said homosexuality was an unacceptable lifestyle, 86 percent said homosexuals should have equal rights.

He also pointed to the “widespread outrage” after the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay student at the University of Wyoming and and asserted that, over all, there had been “a significant shift in public opinion toward acceptance of gay people.”

As he had done while cross-examining Nancy F. Cott, a Harvard historian who testified Tuesday about the history of marriage restrictions, Mr. Thompson often framed his questions around words taken from Professor Chauncey’s own scholarly writings.

He did so when he asked, “There has been a remarkable growth of acceptance of gay people in our time, correct?”

Professor Chauncey answered, “I think there’s been a growth in support and a growing polarization of American society over gay issues.”

On the subject of anti-gay messages sent through the media over the decades — a subject Professor Chauncey had covered at length under direct examination — Mr. Thompson asked if the scholar agreed with a book excerpt that argued that the conduct of the Proposition 8 campaign showed a “sea change.”

Professor Chauncey answered, “I do think the Proposition 8 campaign and certainly its most official manifestation were more polite than the earlier campaigns, although they also drew on some of the fears that were resonant because of the earlier campaigns.”


-------------- Same-Sex Marriage Case, Day 3: The Defense Pushes Back - Bay Area Blog - NYTimes.com
Firedoglake.com is live blogging the trial, as is Rick Jacobs on Prop 8 Trial Tracker. The Alliance Defense Fund posts regular Twitter updates. Eve Conant of Newsweek is also filing online reports, as are two Berkeley law students.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Edwin Meese and others have said the judge in the case is suspect. yet the judge is a Meese/Reagan nominee.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It was assigned to Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who was appointed by President George H. W. Bush (actually, Ronald Reagan first selected Judge Walker, and Bush I reselected him when he was not confirmed during the Reagan years). He is considered an unpredictable judge.

more deceit and dishonesty from the right.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20090529.html

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Answer me 3 questions (the last one is more for others than you but answer anyway):

1) Is that the longstanding POLICY?
2) If it is then why would they break policy?
3) If it isn't then what is the beef about it being televised?

1)Policy has been against televised. but recently that policy changed.

2)Because things change. Progress and public access.

 

[Father Time]

The guy thinks mere exposure to gay people will make people gay?

I'll never understand the logic that if kids see something, anything, they will want to imitate it without a second thought.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The guy thinks mere exposure to gay people will make people gay?

I'll never understand the logic that if kids see something, anything, they will want to imitate it without a second thought.

crazy, huh?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/101249-prop-8-backer-exposed-as-a-liar.html

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why do the anti ray marriage rights people fear? Like cockroaches many are used to playing in the dark.

I suspect a few are afraid of the skeletons in their closets may be shaken.

Plus deciet, deception and lies fear the light.

Backers of Proposition 8 filed an emergency petition with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today to prevent the broadcast of a federal trial on the constitutionality California's ban on same-sex marriage.
The trial, scheduled to start Monday, was supposed to be videotaped by the court and disseminated on YouTube and in other federal courthouses.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the Proposition 8 campaign, said the broadcast would be unprecedented and would violate federal court rules. He said the scheduled broadcast "collides with the longstanding policy of the federal courts not to televise trials."

"Many supporters of Proposition 8 who are being dragged into this case are fearful about being questioned about their personal, political and religious beliefs on the stand and having that televised," Pugno said.

Your not talking about rays getting married you mean gays right? Ok OK now that i poked at you let me be serious

Answer me 3 questions (the last one is more for others than you but answer anyway):

1) Is that the longstanding POLICY?
2) If it is then why would they break policy?
3) If it isn't then what is the beef about it being televised?

I answered in another post...?

btw, Prop. 8, the trial that should be seen - latimes.com

It's too bad the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that California's Proposition 8 trial on same-sex marriage -- Perry vs. Schwarzenegger -- may not be broadcast beyond the courthouse. Like the Scopes "monkey trial" with which it is sometimes compared, Perry is not a legal case in the strict sense. It is a morality play aimed at all of us, speaking in a sense for all of us, and we should get to hear it.

In 1925, the national media descended on the small mountain town of Dayton, Tenn., to watch legendary lawyer Clarence Darrow go up against Populist leader William Jennings Bryan. The ostensible basis for the suit was whether barring an instructor from teaching evolution violated his rights. In truth, Scopes became a stage play reflecting a brewing public debate between fundamentalist Christian values and enlightenment scientific positions. The trial was covered by hordes of print journalists and was the first to be broadcast nationally by radio, and countless Americans tuned in.

The parallels with the Perry trial are telling. It too is peopled by star lawyers, most notably David Boies and Theodore Olson, who faced off in Bush vs. Gore and have now joined hands in support of gay marriage. The issue is equally fundamental. And what happens in San Francisco may be the first step in the resolution of an issue that not only affects, but implicates, us all.

The question of cameras in the courtroom involves a trade-off between every citizen's right to watch the processes of government and fairness to the parties, witnesses and jurors. It is all the more complicated here by questions of whether the trial court followed procedures in allowing the broadcast in the first place.

But Perry, like Scopes, is no ordinary trial. In most court cases, something happened, and the purpose of the trial is to ascertain exactly what that was. Did the defendant mug the victim or cook the corporation's books; was a company negligent to design the car the way it did? When it comes to courtrooms, we worry about fact-finding biased by the presence of cameras, and about witness and juror safety.

The questions being tried in Perry are of an entirely different nature. To "prove" their case, the plaintiffs must show that California has no legitimate -- let alone compelling -- interest in regulating who gets married. So the witnesses are "testifying" about the history and meaning of marriage, the profoundness of their love for one another, the morality of homosexuality and animus about gays. Guess what. Legal procedure won't resolve these "facts."