It is clear that Prop. 8 really stands for “Propaganda 8″. The trial has so far shown that our opponents did not really beat us. What they did was flood mailboxes, pulpits and the airwaves with hideous lies.
The trial in California is creating a real fact-based debate. For all the talk about marriage equality, such a genuine discussion has never really taken place. The vacuum has been filled with talking heads screaming on cable television, distorted :30 second television ads and preachers fulminating from the pulpit.
Having an issue hashed in this ignoble manner suited anti-gay activists. As long as emotion trumped reason and ignorance eclipsed education, our opponents would have the upper-hand. The trial threatened to change this dynamic, so conservatives on the Supreme Court overstepped their bounds and intervened this week, banning television cameras.
In the most underhanded way imaginable, they elected to keep citizens in the dark, because they are acutely aware their bigotry would melt in the light of day. The anti-gay bias coming from Antonin Scalia – and his political puppets Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts – is outrageous. It is disappointing that Anthony Kennedy went along for the ride. Perhaps, he joined this sordid bunch because he is inclined to vote against the freedom to marry. (I certainly hope not) Keeping the people ignorant and stifling the free flow of information might limit the number of individuals offended by a detestable ruling against liberty.
Here are a few key stories to read on the Propaganda 8 trial:
L.A. Times Editorial:
In what ways would same-sex marriages be the same or different from heterosexual marriages? Answer: It’s nobody’s business…Somehow, society — and in this case, a federal judge — are being put in the position of deciding whether these unions are “good enough” to earn the legal and social status of marriage. We don’t judge these issues for heterosexual marriages.
The Washington Post – “High court’s broadcast ruling under microscope”
It was a hastily written ruling by Supreme Court standards, and it carried a dissent almost equal in length to the majority’s opinion. But the 5 to 4 decision the court issued late Wednesday blocking the broadcast of a federal trial about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage is being scoured by legal analysts and activists for deeper meaning.
Slate Online: “The Supreme Court’s awful, heavy-handed decision to block videotaping of the gay marriage trial”
Breyer asks a basic question: What is the legal source of the court’s authority to tell a district court how to change its own rules? Breyer lists the judicial councils with the power to set rules for this California trial court. The Supreme Court isn’t on it. The justices haven’t interfered with the Circuit Judicial Councils that preside over such rule-making for 80 years — that is, since their creation. Breyer can’t find any precedent for what the court is doing. He calls it “inadvisable” and says the court is micromanaging. He is being polite. His most pointed dig is to quote Scalia saying, in a previous case, “I do not see the basis for any direct authority to supervise lower courts.” That was then, apparently.
Prop 8 Trial Tracker: “What Do They Have To Hide”
One of the most persistent features of the anti-equality movement is their desire to hide from public scrutiny. Whether it’ their efforts to close the trial to cameras or their efforts to block disclosure rules, Prop 8 supporters are adamant that they be allowed to hide their motives and even their names from us.
The Prop H8 crowd is contemptible. They seem only able to dish it out, but not to take it. The fact that the Supremes in essence placed a gag rule on televising this trial is contemptible. We have countries around the world slolwy but surely coming onboard with marriage equality but here is the U.S. where we are still having to put up with crap from people who haven’t evolved beyond the 1800s yet.
Unofortunately, this country allows the fundies too much freedom to ruin the lives of others. I believe that their rights stop where they impact mine. The fundies have the right to believe whatever hateful twaddle they wish. They do not have the right to use lies and distortions to roll back the rights of GLBT people. If we were to have a chance to vote on their freedom of religion and their marriages, I wonder how they would like it. Not at all, would be my guess. Well, they are trampling on my freedom to be legally married and in my faith, which does not forbid the joining of gay and lesbian couples.
This does not surprise me in the least. Fundamentalists will use every dirty trick in the book to make sure your rights are totally violated. If I had it my way, I’d take every single one of these Fundamentalists, lock them up and charge them with the high crime of insurrection against the USA, because that is basically what they are doing. If it’s not gays then its going to be some other minority next until they have this nation believing in a theocracy.
The conservatives on the court are a danger to America. They won’t rest until they’ve implemented their Catholic/Dominionist agenda. What power does the Supreme Court have to control a circuit court? None! Where are the “small government” conservatives these days? I thought they believed in limited government!
Their concept of “limited government” is more properly understood as “limited to whatever parts we like.”
For instance, “limited government” conservatives don’t blink at spending 700 billion a year on foreign wars (because it makes them feel tuff by proxy, and because it assuages their irrational fears), but they lose their minds over a health plan that costs 90 billion a year. When they talk about “limited government,” it should be understood that, like their cries of “socialism,” they are using meaningless words and phrases, because they’re not serious people.
Jeffrey, this has long been a fear of mine as well. Liberals do not understand that the Dominionists and other fascists of faith want to take over this country and run it something along the lines of the Republic of Gilead in Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”. These people play dirty and justify it as “forwarding God’s Work”.
If we scaled back on our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq or even pulled them out altogether, we would have more than enough money to fund a health insurance system. But no, all these people can do is to think of killing.
i personally stand for what the bible says
Good for you shayna. Bare in mind though, the Separation of Church and State clause of the First Amendment forbids any form of religious laws from being passed in this country. So whatever your Bible says, you’ve no rights to force others to follow by it’s rule.