Gay Marriage trial starts today in San Francisco.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The anti-gay folks are trying as hard as they can to dampen the perception of prejudice. In fact, one of their primary defense arguments is that the people of California voted for reasons other than animus. They are putting an immense amount of pressure on this for good reason. The document authored by Tam, one of the official proponents of prop 8, presented in court showed the incredibly homophobic nature of the proposition 8 campaign. The remarks made explicit references to "gay marriage leading to the legalization of underage sex and child molestation" and "the country falling into Satan's hands". The prop 8 side continually disavowed Tam's association despite the fact that he was a major contributor and promotor (not to mention official proponent) of the measure. Today in court, the prop 8 side were so paranoid about the revelations of this trial that they requested that the judge stop and destroy all the tape recordings only to be denied when the judge explained that the tape recordings were for internal court use and not for broadcast.

Unfortunately for us, the anti-gay side learned from their strategic mistakes and you can see from the entire mainstream prop 8 commercials that they put an immensely heavy emphasis on masking the prejudice. On day 2 of the trial, one of the expert witnesses on LGBT discrimination made a very good case that prop 8 was simply an extension of a hate-motivated campaign that has persisted in the country for almost a century. The underlying tones of anti-gay campaigns in the early 20th century all the way through Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" movement (and including several campaigns in the 80s and 90s) were all virtually identical to prop 8's campaign messaging. The "gays are out to get your children" permeates through all these campaigns and goes to show that prop 8 isn't in anyway a new movement but a continuation of an old one based on animus. It's no wonder why the anti-gay side doesn't want a broadcast of this to go public. As Gil said, it would cause tremendous harm to their national hate movement.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I also want to add that the anti-gay tweeter feeds reinforces the idea that their public perception is their biggest concern. From following their tweeter feeds, they have been distorting statements of witnesses to further their anti-gay rhetoric. Yesterday, the cross examiner for the defense brought out a statistic on monogamy among gay couples in front of the expert witness on LGBT psychology. The statistic said that 75% of male gay men do not value monogamy as important to a relationship. The witness said while that statistic was true, it was taken 25 years ago when domestic partnerships, much less marriage equality, wasn't even a reality and when gay relationships were largely secretive and hidden. She also mentioned that that statistic would likely be different today due to the increasing normalization and acceptance of gay relationships. Instantly, the "ProtectMarriage" twitter page proclaimed that the expert witness "admitted that 75% of gay relationships are non-monogamous". It was such a gross and insulting display of contempt for accuracy.

[Serafine666]

However, only the anti-gay marriage side is advocating banning it being broadcast. I strongly doubt they are worried about reprisals; what they want is information control. If one of their expert witnesses goes off that gays are an abomination according to the Bible, they don't want it televised so that just ANYONE can see it, that might damage their cause with fence sitters who might decide they don't want to support the agendas of such people.

You mean there's a person somewhere out there that has never heard some minister somewhere rant that the Bible says gays are an abomination? And has never heard a gay rights advocate publish the "hate speech" far and wide? Information control makes no sense if the information they supposedly want to control is commonly known and easily available; it'd be analagous to someone trying to control the information that the moon is full on a cloudless night: it's inevitable that somone will find out and there's no effective way to prevent it.

This issue should be made as open as possible so it is more transparant whose hands are in what pot and that what those groups are saying is a matter of public record.

Gil, the people who'll watch the broadcasts are the people who are interested and engaged enough to already know who's connected to who and what everyone involved says. Someone who flips to another channel when the propaganda is being aired, generally ignores everything but the sports page in the newspaper, exists primarily on social networking sites, pays no attention to online news tickers, etc isn't going to be aware of just one more source broadcasting information all the other sources would supply them with.

Besides, "protecting witnesses and experts" from being punished for saying the "wrong" thing? That's a silly argument. After all, gay people live that way ALL THEIR LIVES. They constantly have to live in the closet even when they are out to protect themselves from people who'd punish them for saying or doing the "wrong" thing. I'm sure the anti-gay marriage witnesses can endure for the length of a testimony.

It can be a really silly argument which is probably why the majority of Supreme Court would try to avoid being mocked by making their reasoning public and apparent.

[Gil Hamilton]

You mean there's a person somewhere out there that has never heard some minister somewhere rant that the Bible says gays are an abomination? And has never heard a gay rights advocate publish the "hate speech" far and wide? Information control makes no sense if the information they supposedly want to control is commonly known and easily available; it'd be analagous to someone trying to control the information that the moon is full on a cloudless night: it's inevitable that somone will find out and there's no effective way to prevent it.

Seeing and hearing people say the same hate speech from a witness stand of their own volition is a different kettle of fish, and the anti-marriage crowd doesn't want people to see it. Given that the performance of various sides in this trial is something that is going to influence how people vote, it's important that it be public.

Further, there ARE alot of people out there that haven't heard the specific propaganda used in Prop 8, largely cause mosty of the country isn't California and wasn't privy to it. I know I was horrified (after the fact, mind you) when I saw the bile that was put out by the Morm... er... "group that totally wasn't the Mormon Church". And this was on television in California! People ought to hear the propaganda from both ends, for and against.

Besides, if everything that is going to be said is old news and they aren't trying to put a control filter on that information, why bother trying to shut down its recording at all? If what you are saying is true and it will influence no one, then their argument that it shouldn't be broadcast is shot to hell.

Gil, the people who'll watch the broadcasts are the people who are interested and engaged enough to already know who's connected to who and what everyone involved says. Someone who flips to another channel when the propaganda is being aired, generally ignores everything but the sports page in the newspaper, exists primarily on social networking sites, pays no attention to online news tickers, etc isn't going to be aware of just one more source broadcasting information all the other sources would supply them with.

If this is true, then why ban its broadcast at all? After all, if you are right and everyone who is watching it knows everything and everyone involved, then it makes no difference. Further, it proves false the notion that this is for anyone's protection. After all, it doesn't protect anyone involved in the least if the people who are paying attention already know who they are and what they are saying, regardless of whether they see it on TV.

It can be a really silly argument which is probably why the majority of Supreme Court would try to avoid being mocked by making their reasoning public and apparent.

Their argument is nothing short of daft, they should be mocked no matter what for their notion that the poor little anti-gay marriage people need the protection for a few hours that gay people have been denied all their lives.

[Questor]

Reading the ruling (posted above and here). It seems that the SCOTUS did not consider anything but the legality of the way they changed the rules.

In

Instead, our review is confined to a narrow legal issue:
whether the District Court’s amendment of its local rules
to broadcast this trial complied with federal law. We
conclude that it likely did not and that applicants have
demonstrated that irreparable harm would likely result
from the District Court’s actions. We therefore stay the
court’s January 7, 2010, order to the extent that it permits
the live streaming of court proceedings to other federal
courthouses. We do not address other aspects of that
order, such as those related to the broadcast of court pro-
ceedings on the Internet, as this may be premature.

And here is the ruling:

The District Court attempted to change its rules at the
eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other
trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal
statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules
may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a
high-profile trial that would include witness testimony
about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that
others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as
well. The Court grants the application for a stay of the
District Court’s order of January 7, 2010, pending the
timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of
certiorari or the filing and disposition of a petition for a
writ of mandamus.

There is a lot of discussion, and none of it actually touches on what we were arguing. The whole force of the decision seems to be about the WAY that the rule was changed.

How long is usually considered reasonable for public review of a policy change? The ruling cites 30 days as normal for administrative agencies. Is that accurate?

[Edi]

That's the standard here for most things to allow for a period of comments from the public and other affected instances.

[Serafine666]

Further, there ARE alot of people out there that haven't heard the specific propaganda used in Prop 8, largely cause mosty of the country isn't California and wasn't privy to it.

The specific propaganda in the Prop 8 campaign is irrelevant because it was merely a carbon copy of what existed before in great volume for the easy access of the general populace. Fire-breathing ministers were going on like that long before anyone had heard of Proposition 8 and the gay rights crowd was dutifully putting it out there for the people to see.

Besides, if everything that is going to be said is old news and they aren't trying to put a control filter on that information, why bother trying to shut down its recording at all? If what you are saying is true and it will influence no one, then their argument that it shouldn't be broadcast is shot to hell.

Unless you think that the anti-8 folks actually argued to a judge "we don't want people hearing inflammatory comments made by our side", the argument against broadcast isn't shot to hell. The argument against broadcast was something completely different and however stupid the argument was, you've only succeeded in debunking what you believe their real reasons to be, not the argument they actually made to a judge.

If this is true, then why ban its broadcast at all? After all, if you are right and everyone who is watching it knows everything and everyone involved, then it makes no difference. Further, it proves false the notion that this is for anyone's protection. After all, it doesn't protect anyone involved in the least if the people who are paying attention already know who they are and what they are saying, regardless of whether they see it on TV.

You are correct. I don't necessarily believe the "protect people" argument to be really strong; I just suggested that it may have been the unspoken reasoning behind the Supreme Court decision. Given that many others (including someone at the bottom of page one of this thread) believe that the Supreme Court will rule against the plaintiffs for little to no reason at all, I'm hardly assuming the worst of them.

Their argument is nothing short of daft, they should be mocked no matter what for their notion that the poor little anti-gay marriage people need the protection for a few hours that gay people have been denied all their lives.

Well, some gay people at any rate; gays in court suing for one right or another is hardly something that just came like a bolt out of the blue in the year 2010. And quite a lot of gays seem to enjoy making full and vigorous use of their absolute right to speak their minds in public.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

You mean there's a person somewhere out there that has never heard some minister somewhere rant that the Bible says gays are an abomination? And has never heard a gay rights advocate publish the "hate speech" far and wide? Information control makes no sense if the information they supposedly want to control is commonly known and easily available; it'd be analagous to someone trying to control the information that the moon is full on a cloudless night: it's inevitable that somone will find out and there's no effective way to prevent it.

Are you trying to suggest that the inflammatory portions of the prop 8 message campaign is universally recognized in the state of California? Because that's not case - not even close. Just because people have heard anti-gay hate speeches doesn't mean they necessarily associate them with the prop 8 campaign. In fact, the mainstream prop 8 messaging campaign was extremely careful to stay away from that type of hateful rhetoric for that very reason in the majority of their television ads. The campaign leaders were very careful and deliberate in their message targeting. And their most bigoted bile were reserved for the homophobic fundamentalists. Broadcasting the trial would have given more public exposure to those elements of the campaign and it would certainly have caused damage to their reputation nationwide.

[Serafine666]

Are you trying to suggest that the inflammatory portions of the prop 8 message campaign is universally recognized in the state of California?

No, Pint0. Gil specifically mentioned Bible-bashers calling gays an abomination as something the anti-gay types would want to conceal. I, in turn, pointed out that reverends and ministers shooting their mouths off like that has been going on for a while and direct quotations (with videos sometimes) are readily available. Thus, it'd make no sense to suspect "information control" for information that is beyond their ability to control. Yes, this trial is about Proposition 8 specifically but the general tenor and content of the Prop 8 ads are not new nor are they particularly obscure for even the mildly well-informed.

Broadcasting the trial would have given more public exposure to those elements of the campaign and it would certainly have caused damage to their reputation nationwide.

This is certainly probable but their rhetoric has not changed significantly between campaigns for Proposition 8 in California, Question 1 in Maine, Measure 36 in Oregon, etc. Those who hear it and are outraged by it are probably familiar with it already. Those who hear it and don't care are also probably familiar with it. But it seems extremely unlikely that anyone who has been in a state where gay marriage or anything similar to it has been argued would be surprised by the rhetoric of the Prop 8 supporters. And whatever you may think of them, the Prop 8 people aren't so delusional as to believe that their more extreme views on gays are a secret. Thus why I believe that the information control theory seems very shaky as a possible motivation.

[Edi]

And the point keeps sailing over your head. Information control is a very plausible motive. The more difficult they make it to easily see their assholery first hand, the less exposure it gets and the more easily they can use "plausible deniability" to fool people.

The other side of the coin is that the more difficult it is to see easily, the less people are exposed to the possibility of seeing their targets as actual humans instead of as the caricatures the anti-gay side paints them as.

It's hard to understand how you can miss something that obvious.

[Thanas]

Also, both Boies and Olson are very telegenic. They look good on TV, the other side probably less so. This is a trial for public perception as much as for the law.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Are you trying to suggest that the inflammatory portions of the prop 8 message campaign is universally recognized in the state of California?

No, Pint0. Gil specifically mentioned Bible-bashers calling gays an abomination as something the anti-gay types would want to conceal. I, in turn, pointed out that reverends and ministers shooting their mouths off like that has been going on for a while and direct quotations (with videos sometimes) are readily available. Thus, it'd make no sense to suspect "information control" for information that is beyond their ability to control. Yes, this trial is about Proposition 8 specifically but the general tenor and content of the Prop 8 ads are not new nor are they particularly obscure for even the mildly well-informed.

You're continually dismissing the "information control" argument by stating there is no motive to do so because anti-gay rhetoric media is available to the public. But the fact that such anti-gay rhetoric media is available to the public does not mean that the public is aware of them in general nor would the public necessary connect it with the proposition 8 campaign even if they were. Considering the high media profile of this case, broadcasting the trial would mean greater exposure of such media to the public and a damning case for the connection of both the proposition 8 campaign and the more inflammatory anti-gay sentiments.

Broadcasting the trial would have given more public exposure to those elements of the campaign and it would certainly have caused damage to their reputation nationwide.

This is certainly probable but their rhetoric has not changed significantly between campaigns for Proposition 8 in California, Question 1 in Maine, Measure 36 in Oregon, etc. Those who hear it and are outraged by it are probably familiar with it already. Those who hear it and don't care are also probably familiar with it. But it seems extremely unlikely that anyone who has been in a state where gay marriage or anything similar to it has been argued would be surprised by the rhetoric of the Prop 8 supporters. And whatever you may think of them, the Prop 8 people aren't so delusional as to believe that their more extreme views on gays are a secret. Thus why I believe that the information control theory seems very shaky as a possible motivation.

You completely missed the point in my post. Do you think ALL proposition 8 propaganda is distributed evenly? What part of "the campaign leaders were very careful and deliberate in their message targeting" don't you understand? Voters are not and will not respond with outrage to the mainstream proposition 8 messages. But they will respond differently to the inflammatory proposition 8 messages, which were not commonly aired to the public.

[Serafine666]

You're continually dismissing the "information control" argument by stating there is no motive to do so because anti-gay rhetoric media is available to the public. But the fact that such anti-gay rhetoric media is available to the public does not mean that the public is aware of them in general nor would the public necessary connect it with the proposition 8 campaign even if they were. Considering the high media profile of this case, broadcasting the trial would mean greater exposure of such media to the public and a damning case for the connection of both the proposition 8 campaign and the more inflammatory anti-gay sentiments.

Why are you focusing so strongly on the Prop-8 campaign? It is distinct only in the post-election legal wrangling. It is the first time where the people who opposed the popular initiative to ban gay marriage were able to convince a federal judge to hear their case but otherwise, it was little different than the other campaigns in other states where the gay marriage battle was fought and the anti folks won.

You completely missed the point in my post. Do you think ALL proposition 8 propaganda is distributed evenly? What part of "the campaign leaders were very careful and deliberate in their message targeting" don't you understand? Voters are not and will not respond with outrage to the mainstream proposition 8 messages. But they will respond differently to the inflammatory proposition 8 messages, which were not commonly aired to the public.

I got your point, Pint0, but that isn't the same thing as agreeing with you. I think you're missing my point about the similarity between the rhetoric that went around in the Prop 8 campaign and the rhetoric that went around in other campaigns debating a similar issue. Do you really think California was the first place they were successful? The only place they aired their more inflammatory rhetoric? They don't magically become totally different for each state they campaign in and, in fact, would naturally be less restrained in "easy win" states and with sympathetic crowds. See, Pint0, you seem to be supporting the trial being broadcast across the internet for the consumption of people in every state while focusing very narrowly on what inflammatory advertisements from the campaign of a single state might make their way into the trial.
Who'll watch this trial, Pint0, if it was broadcasted? People who are actively engaged in the debate? They already know the inflammatory material because they're interested enough to seek it out. The actively interested? Anyone who cares would have gotten access to the inflammatory material much earlier as it was floated in previous campaigns. The indifferent? They wouldn't watch the trial any more than they pay attention to the advertisements. In essence, Pint0, you seem to believe that broadcasting the trial will inform a group of people who have never heard the inflammatory rhetoric that was typified by the pro-8 folks but don't seem to recognize that the people who have never heard the rhetoric are the least likely to seek out and watch video of the trial. Any group who has any interest in the debate and more specifically the building trend towards passing anti gay marriage legislation by popular initiative will learn nothing new about the depths to which the nuttier anti-gay-marriage folks will stoop. Moreover, the anti folks are aware of this and thus have no reason to be concerned that a vast new audience will learn of their uglier statements.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

You're continually dismissing the "information control" argument by stating there is no motive to do so because anti-gay rhetoric media is available to the public. But the fact that such anti-gay rhetoric media is available to the public does not mean that the public is aware of them in general nor would the public necessary connect it with the proposition 8 campaign even if they were. Considering the high media profile of this case, broadcasting the trial would mean greater exposure of such media to the public and a damning case for the connection of both the proposition 8 campaign and the more inflammatory anti-gay sentiments.

Why are you focusing so strongly on the Prop-8 campaign? It is distinct only in the post-election legal wrangling. It is the first time where the people who opposed the popular initiative to ban gay marriage were able to convince a federal judge to hear their case but otherwise, it was little different than the other campaigns in other states where the gay marriage battle was fought and the anti folks won.

The reason why I am constantly differentiating the prop 8 campaign from the rest of the anti-gay campaigns is because, in the minds of the public, there is a difference. People who live in California - hell GAY people who live California are mostly oblivious to the history of anti-gay ballot campaigns waged throughout this STATE, much less the entire country! The most similar anti-gay campaign waged in California was the Briggs Initiative. Most Californians don't even know what the hell that is! And even if they did, they would not make an immediate connection between Prop 6 and Prop 8.

I got your point, Pint0, but that isn't the same thing as agreeing with you. I think you're missing my point about the similarity between the rhetoric that went around in the Prop 8 campaign and the rhetoric that went around in other campaigns debating a similar issue. Do you really think California was the first place they were successful?

Proposition 8 is the first anti-gay measure campaign for many Californians. So in that context, yes, it was "the first place they were successful" for a sizable portion of the public.

The only place they aired their more inflammatory rhetoric?

Again, you ignore my point about connections people make between inflammatory rhetoric and the anti-gay campaigns. When people in California think of prop 8, they don't think of speeches that Fred Phelps give. They think of the seemingly genuine ads about children in schools.

They don't magically become totally different for each state they campaign in and, in fact, would naturally be less restrained in "easy win" states and with sympathetic crowds.

To an extent, they do. Each campaign is waged differently based on the demographic and the type of message that is needed to sway voters. Even if the underlying message is the same, the way it is communicated matters immensely and can change vastly. A campaign in Alabama will not look the same as a campaign in California. Maine and California were exceptionally similar but that is generally not the rule.

See, Pint0, you seem to be supporting the trial being broadcast across the internet for the consumption of people in every state while focusing very narrowly on what inflammatory advertisements from the campaign of a single state might make their way into the trial.
Who'll watch this trial, Pint0, if it was broadcasted? People who are actively engaged in the debate? They already know the inflammatory material because they're interested enough to seek it out.

Bollocks! The broadcast of the trial would be damaging to the other side because it's free mainstream media! Every major newspaper and network is covering the trial to some extent. Providing video would give exposure to people who would otherwise not pay attention to the obscure twitter feeds or blogging sites they would now have to visit in order to follow the trial.

The actively interested? Anyone who cares would have gotten access to the inflammatory material much earlier as it was floated in previous campaigns. The indifferent? They wouldn't watch the trial any more than they pay attention to the advertisements. In essence, Pint0, you seem to believe that broadcasting the trial will inform a group of people who have never heard the inflammatory rhetoric that was typified by the pro-8 folks but don't seem to recognize that the people who have never heard the rhetoric are the least likely to seek out and watch video of the trial. Any group who has any interest in the debate and more specifically the building trend towards passing anti gay marriage legislation by popular initiative will learn nothing new about the depths to which the nuttier anti-gay-marriage folks will stoop. Moreover, the anti folks are aware of this and thus have no reason to be concerned that a vast new audience will learn of their uglier statements.

Do you think air time is free or something? If the video of inflammatory anti-gay prop 8 videos are available on YouTube, do you think that it's now simple matter of making the rest of the public aware of it? 30 second TV snippets cost MILLIONS of dollars to air. Many of these inflammatory anti-gay prop 8 speeches were all over YouTube during the campaign in 2008 but only an exceptionally small percentage of the public was exposed to them for the simple fact that it was passed around via social networks and word of mouth and not through TV air time that costs millions of dollars. Live broadcast of a trial that is being covered by virtually every mainstream news network automatically generates far more greater exposure for the simple fact that it's essentially free air coverage of prop 8 to the public. The idea that the broadcast of this trial would make little to no difference in the exposure of the prop 8 campaign's more hateful messages is simply absurd and ignores the nature of the media in relation to the public.

[Serafine666]

The reason why I am constantly differentiating the prop 8 campaign from the rest of the anti-gay campaigns is because, in the minds of the public, there is a difference. People who live in California - hell GAY people who live California are mostly oblivious to the history of anti-gay ballot campaigns waged throughout this STATE, much less the entire country! The most similar anti-gay campaign waged in California was the Briggs Initiative. Most Californians don't even know what the hell that is! And even if they did, they would not make an immediate connection between Prop 6 and Prop 8.

Proposition 8 is the first anti-gay measure campaign for many Californians. So in that context, yes, it was "the first place they were successful" for a sizable portion of the public.

Again, you ignore my point about connections people make between inflammatory rhetoric and the anti-gay campaigns. When people in California think of prop 8, they don't think of speeches that Fred Phelps give. They think of the seemingly genuine ads about children in schools.

You know, Pint0, I might be missing something but it seems like the general tenor of your arguments is not such much that broadcasting the trial would inform and enlighten the general public all over the United States but more, that it would fully inform California voters of the despicable ways of the anti crowd so that when the initiative to repeal Prop 8 comes up, the battle will be all the easier. That is a completely legitimate argument but I'm not sure if it works well when you broaden it to say "people who have heard this before in other states where the issue came up will be enlightened by the broadcast."

To an extent, they do. Each campaign is waged differently based on the demographic and the type of message that is needed to sway voters. Even if the underlying message is the same, the way it is communicated matters immensely and can change vastly. A campaign in Alabama will not look the same as a campaign in California. Maine and California were exceptionally similar but that is generally not the rule.

True enough. But how much of the trial will be about a couple commercials that may or may not be more explicit than most people have seen?

Bollocks! The broadcast of the trial would be damaging to the other side because it's free mainstream media! Every major newspaper and network is covering the trial to some extent. Providing video would give exposure to people who would otherwise not pay attention to the obscure twitter feeds or blogging sites they would now have to visit in order to follow the trial.

I think you're severely underestimating the laziness of the typical person who lacks a motivated interest in this subject. People who want to know find out and people who don't care generally don't. It's a very unfortunate trend, especially when one side of a debate is behaving badly.

Do you think air time is free or something? If the video of inflammatory anti-gay prop 8 videos are available on YouTube, do you think that it's now simple matter of making the rest of the public aware of it? 30 second TV snippets cost MILLIONS of dollars to air. Many of these inflammatory anti-gay prop 8 speeches were all over YouTube during the campaign in 2008 but only an exceptionally small percentage of the public was exposed to them for the simple fact that it was passed around via social networks and word of mouth and not through TV air time that costs millions of dollars. Live broadcast of a trial that is being covered by virtually every mainstream news network automatically generates far more greater exposure for the simple fact that it's essentially free air coverage of prop 8 to the public. The idea that the broadcast of this trial would make little to no difference in the exposure of the prop 8 campaign's more hateful messages is simply absurd and ignores the nature of the media in relation to the public.

But assuming that the public will absorb it to the same extent that it is covered ignores the nature of people. Various networks loved to make hay out of the fact that no matter how often they covered events in Iraq, many people hadn't the slightest idea where the country was and never seemed to read below the 6-inch-tall headline. The media, along with both sides of the political spectrum, are constantly astounded by how many people continue to believe this or that no matter how much wall-to-wall coverage is given on the broadcast networks and in the papers debunking the absurd beliefs. That these things occur and are a subject of complaint points to a disconnect between the level of media howling and the extent to which the public absorbs what is being said. There is also the question of editorial balance: do you publish your giant headlines on the fact that Obama just signed the big healthcare bill or on the nastiness of the advertisements aired over a year ago now being shown in a courtroom somewhere? How long do those advertisements remain big news when there's war in Afganistan, relatively constant natural disasters, several major points of legislation coming into the works, a major election on the horizon, and so on? Fearing the rebroadcast of their nastier sentiments doesn't seem like a plausible concern for the anti gay marriage crowd with the overwhelming level of background noise.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

You know, Pint0, I might be missing something but it seems like the general tenor of your arguments is not such much that broadcasting the trial would inform and enlighten the general public all over the United States but more, that it would fully inform California voters of the despicable ways of the anti crowd so that when the initiative to repeal Prop 8 comes up, the battle will be all the easier. That is a completely legitimate argument but I'm not sure if it works well when you broaden it to say "people who have heard this before in other states where the issue came up will be enlightened by the broadcast."

Yes and no. Proposition 8 is fairly well known in the country for a state-specific ballot measure thanks to the media covering it on a national level. It is a brand name that voters all across the country can now compare to in light of its heightened visibility. In fact, the news media made several comparisons between Prop 8 and Question 1 in Maine. It would have a greater impact on Californian voters but that isn't to say it would not have any impact on the rest of the country.

To an extent, they do. Each campaign is waged differently based on the demographic and the type of message that is needed to sway voters. Even if the underlying message is the same, the way it is communicated matters immensely and can change vastly. A campaign in Alabama will not look the same as a campaign in California. Maine and California were exceptionally similar but that is generally not the rule.

True enough. But how much of the trial will be about a couple commercials that may or may not be more explicit than most people have seen?

A lot of it! The plaintiffs intend to highlight the more inflammatory points of the proposition 8 campaign as it is key to their case that they show that the measure was borne solely out of animus. And they have as detailed by the prop 8 trial tracker blog I linked to earlier.

Bollocks! The broadcast of the trial would be damaging to the other side because it's free mainstream media! Every major newspaper and network is covering the trial to some extent. Providing video would give exposure to people who would otherwise not pay attention to the obscure twitter feeds or blogging sites they would now have to visit in order to follow the trial.

I think you're severely underestimating the laziness of the typical person who lacks a motivated interest in this subject. People who want to know find out and people who don't care generally don't. It's a very unfortunate trend, especially when one side of a debate is behaving badly.

No, they won't go out of their way to follow the trial but if they're watching the news at night and it featured a rather enlightening snippet that shows that nastiness of the prop 8 campaign, it may get them to casually think more about the measure and the campaign while they're sitting on their couches.

But assuming that the public will absorb it to the same extent that it is covered ignores the nature of people. Various networks loved to make hay out of the fact that no matter how often they covered events in Iraq, many people hadn't the slightest idea where the country was and never seemed to read below the 6-inch-tall headline. The media, along with both sides of the political spectrum, are constantly astounded by how many people continue to believe this or that no matter how much wall-to-wall coverage is given on the broadcast networks and in the papers debunking the absurd beliefs. That these things occur and are a subject of complaint points to a disconnect between the level of media howling and the extent to which the public absorbs what is being said. There is also the question of editorial balance: do you publish your giant headlines on the fact that Obama just signed the big healthcare bill or on the nastiness of the advertisements aired over a year ago now being shown in a courtroom somewhere? How long do those advertisements remain big news when there's war in Afganistan, relatively constant natural disasters, several major points of legislation coming into the works, a major election on the horizon, and so on? Fearing the rebroadcast of their nastier sentiments doesn't seem like a plausible concern for the anti gay marriage crowd with the overwhelming level of background noise.

If the defense really aren't concerned about their nastier sentiments getting aired, then what are they truly afraid of? If we assume that the public won't catch much notice of their nastier sentiments, then their objections to being harassed is even more absurd! Every witness is already on record on being on one side or the other. Any individuals who have the capacity to intimidate them will already have access to the identities and positions of those witnesses. You're arguing that the general public will not even notice the broadcast of this trial. But at the same time, you're going to accept the pro-prop-8's arguments that the broadcast of this trial is going to spur people (who otherwise would be ignorant of this matter) to actively harass the witnesses?

[Serafine666]

Yes and no. Proposition 8 is fairly well known in the country for a state-specific ballot measure thanks to the media covering it on a national level. It is a brand name that voters all across the country can now compare to in light of its heightened visibility. In fact, the news media made several comparisons between Prop 8 and Question 1 in Maine. It would have a greater impact on Californian voters but that isn't to say it would not have any impact on the rest of the country.

Cool, cool. I wanted to make sure I was getting the right sense of where your argument was going.

A lot of it! The plaintiffs intend to highlight the more inflammatory points of the proposition 8 campaign as it is key to their case that they show that the measure was borne solely out of animus. And they have as detailed by the prop 8 trial tracker blog I linked to earlier.

And the blog is highly interesting; I stuck it in my (extremely long) Proposition 8 links folder. Do you know of any other major sources for information about how the trial is progressing?

No, they won't go out of their way to follow the trial but if they're watching the news at night and it featured a rather enlightening snippet that shows that nastiness of the prop 8 campaign, it may get them to casually think more about the measure and the campaign while they're sitting on their couches.

That is entirely true. I will admit to having blinders to a certain extent because I'm text-biased: I don't watch evening news shows or even Fox News because I hang around on Yahoo! News and other services that get the Associated Press wire.

If the defense really aren't concerned about their nastier sentiments getting aired, then what are they truly afraid of? If we assume that the public won't catch much notice of their nastier sentiments, then their objections to being harassed is even more absurd! Every witness is already on record on being on one side or the other. Any individuals who have the capacity to intimidate them will already have access to the identities and positions of those witnesses. You're arguing that the general public will not even notice the broadcast of this trial. But at the same time, you're going to accept the pro-prop-8's arguments that the broadcast of this trial is going to spur people (who otherwise would be ignorant of this matter) to actively harass the witnesses?

I actually don't take a position on their reasons because frankly, I haven't the slightest idea what those reasons are. I'm trying to get at why I think the "they're afraid they'll be exposed to the world" doesn't seem like a plausible supposition but I will freely admit that I do not personally understand what motivated them to do this. I also am unsure of why the Supreme Court bought into it; their written arguments about timing quibbles don't strike me as really strong reasons to block recording access to the trial. The only guess I'll venture is completely wild-ass: the Supreme Court is historically adverse to allowing cameras in their courtroom and are thus naturally sympathetic to anyone who argues against allowing cameras in a courtroom. It's not much of a reason but it's the best guess I have.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Quite honestly, the anti-gay side's unusually strong (and sometimes desperate) insistence on killing the cameras in the courtroom is what aroused suspicions of their fear of seeing the content of this trial be broadcast. Their arguments of potential intimidation and harassment doesn't make any sense since the identities and positions of the witnesses are already available to the public. At the end of last week, the anti-gay side also withdrew four witnesses stating concerns about the broadcast after the judge had already given up on the cameras. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, hypothesized that the true reason for the witnesses' withdrawal was that didn't think they could withstand the cross examination from David Boise. The suspicions of their motives is compounded by the fact that Tam, one of the official proponents of the ballot measure, had requested to be removed as an official proponent. And it just so happened that Tam's involvement in the prop 8 movement was highly inflammatory and bigoted as shown in the courtroom last week. The defense's response was that Tam did not represent the campaign in any capacity. Go figure.

As far as Prop 8 trial links go, the one I provided is my favorite since it contains explicit details as well as a rough transcript of the trial. This twitter page is a link to a compiled list of twitter feeds of individuals or organizations following the trial. Mercury News is also following the trial and is generally favored by LGBT activists who take offense to Courage Campaign's request for donations (It's a long story). If you're patient enough to follow the twitter feed, you will notice the contemptible display of dishonesty of the anti-gay side. But then again, the actions of the anti-gay side can be described as a continuous excreting of lies.

[Serafine666]

Quite honestly, the anti-gay side's unusually strong (and sometimes desperate) insistence on killing the cameras in the courtroom is what aroused suspicions of their fear of seeing the content of this trial be broadcast.

While probably true, it seems worth pointing out that bringing the cameras into the courtroom at all is a very recent trend and many courts still don't do it as a matter of general practice. Arguing against cameras isn't itself proof of anything without more detail (which you provided below, BTW).

Their arguments of potential intimidation and harassment doesn't make any sense since the identities and positions of the witnesses are already available to the public. At the end of last week, the anti-gay side also withdrew four witnesses stating concerns about the broadcast after the judge had already given up on the cameras. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, hypothesized that the true reason for the witnesses' withdrawal was that didn't think they could withstand the cross examination from David Boise.

Given his competence, I suspect that most witnesses would have trouble being cross examined by Bois. The plaintiffs won a big victory just by having Bois and Olsen on their side. What probably would have been even more cool is if they got Lawrence Tribe as well since I recall that he has argued numerous cases in front of the Supreme Court (where this is probably going).

As far as Prop 8 trial links go, the one I provided is my favorite since it contains explicit details as well as a rough transcript of the trial. This twitter page is a link to a compiled list of twitter feeds of individuals or organizations following the trial. Mercury News is also following the trial and is generally favored by LGBT activists who take offense to Courage Campaign's request for donations (It's a long story). If you're patient enough to follow the twitter feed, you will notice the contemptible display of dishonesty of the anti-gay side. But then again, the actions of the anti-gay side can be described as a continuous excreting of lies.

I'm unsure about whether I'll do anything with the Twitter feeds simply because the format can be a pain to follow... and it requires more patience than reading the take done by competent journalists like those that work for Mercury News. Are they, by chance, related to the newspaper of a similar name?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Yes, the Mercury News links belong to the San Jose Mercury Newspaper. The twitter feeds does take quite a bit of patience to follow but they're there if you want to know what's going on in the courtroom right this instant.

[Anguirus]

Considering the high media profile of this case, broadcasting the trial would mean greater exposure of such media to the public and a damning case for the connection of both the proposition 8 campaign and the more inflammatory anti-gay sentiments.

I second this, and note that I'm surprised that no one's bringing up how quickly Joe McCarthy's fortunes turned when he got just a little too mean, just a little too public.

[CaptJodan]

NPR's Fresh Air is doing a story on the trial today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13

Little late but I just found out.

[Dave]

And in related news...

McCain's wife, daughter back gay marriage movement
By JOAN LOWY
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 20, 2010; 9:57 PM

WASHINGTON -- Cindy McCain, the wife of 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, and their daughter Meghan have posed for photos endorsing pro-gay marriage forces in California.

Mrs. McCain appears with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" written on one cheek in a photo posted Wednesday to the Web site of NOH8, a gay rights group opposed to Proposition 8. The ballot measure passed by California voters in 2008 bans same-sex marriage.

The McCains' daughter Meghan, who has been outspoken in her support for gay rights, has also endorsed NOH8. She appears with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" on a cheek in a photo on her Twitter site.

Cindy McCain contacted NOH8 and offered to pose for the photo endorsement, the Web site said.

John McCain's office said in a statement that the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage.

"Sen. McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman," the statement said.

John McCain backed an Arizona ballot measure passed by voters in 2008 that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

The NOH8 Web site praised Cindy McCain's willingness to publicly endorse a cause that is unpopular within the Republican Party.

"The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot," the site says.

"Although we had worked with Meghan McCain before and were aware of her own position, we'd never really thought the cause might be something her mother would get behind. We have a huge amount of respect for both of these women for being brave enough to make it known they support equal marriage rights for all Americans."

Meghan McCain said Wednesday in a Twitter message linked to her blog: "I couldn't be more proud of my mother for posing for the NOH8 campaign. I think more Republicans need to start taking a stand for equality."

Meghan McCain was asked to be the keynote speaker at next month's National Equality Week at George Washington University in Washington for her advocacy, but her appearance has drawn criticism from Republicans on campus, the NOH8 site said.

McCain's Senate re-election campaign said Wednesday that his presidential running mate, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, will come to Arizona to campaign for him in March. Palin has been a vocal opponent of gay marriage.

Not what I was expecting to see in the news today, but it does give me a very small amount of hope.

[Darth Wong]

Considering the high media profile of this case, broadcasting the trial would mean greater exposure of such media to the public and a damning case for the connection of both the proposition 8 campaign and the more inflammatory anti-gay sentiments.

I second this, and note that I'm surprised that no one's bringing up how quickly Joe McCarthy's fortunes turned when he got just a little too mean, just a little too public.

Yeah, but today's bigots are better at masking their bullying as self-defense.