The high court’s majority decision is troubling in its accommodation of Prop 8’s proponents’ supposed fears of harm. As the dissent points out, the standard for Supreme Court interference with trial court management of such things is high and the evidence of threat submitted was paltry at best. In other words, despite the many excited claims, when the details are parsed out, there’s just not much there, there.Original post 1/13/10:
The antigay defamers’ apparent success (still) at casting themselves as victims who need defending (like their marriages?), while running campaign after powerful campaign to eliminate gay people’s rights, is an Orwellian problem calling for a reality check. But the absurd victimhood claims of right-wing political operatives and religious leaders are not the heart of the Supreme Court ruling. Instead, the court simply concluded that proper procedures were not followed for changing the court rules about broadcasting.
Most importantly, this isn’t a ruling on the merits of the Olson-Boies marriage case. The issues are entirely unrelated.
As reporter Rex Wockner said, "Not a good omen." That is, if this case gets to the Supreme Court. From the SCOTUS blog:
Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked any television broadcast to the general public of the San Francisco federal court challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage. The stay will remain in effect until the Court rules on a coming appeal challenging the TV order. The Court, chastizing the trial court for attempting “to change its rules at the eleventh hour,” issued an unsigned 17-page opinion. The ruling came out nearly 40 minutes after an earlier temporary order blocking TV had technically expired.That's a real shame. More Americans need to hear the evidence. They need to see whose responsible for the stripping of citizens' rights away and why. They need to know how they've been deceived and manipulated.
It's up to us to broadcast the trial far and wide. Keep telling everyone to stay posted to blogs and news.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights, the group behind the challenge to Prop 8, issued the following response:
“Proposition 8 attacks the core of what our nation stands for -- that all of us are entitled to equal protection under the law and equal treatment from the government. A trial on constitutional rights should be accessible to as many people as possible," said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. "Given the powerful evidence against Prop. 8 presented in court today, we are not surprised the initiative's defenders sought to keep this trial as private as possible.”Karen Ocamb of LGBT POV has a response for the LA Gay and Lesbian Center.
Supreme Court's ruling including the dissent (a must-read):
SCOTUS Opinion on Cameras in Prop 8 Trial