Same-sex, whole-milk marriage: 50 Shades of Gay

Post by **Cerin** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:27 pm

I just heard that the Supreme Court has blocked the trial from being shown on video, at least while they consider the matter. I don't know the details, though. Who would want the trial available, and who would not?

Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:47 pm

The opponents of Prop 8 wanted the trial shown, while the supporters of Prop 8 did not.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and- ... 1011.story

I'm disappointed -- but not surprised -- by the ruling.

Post by **Inanna** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:56 pm

Yes, I'm disappointed too.

Post by **Cerin** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:08 pm

Is what happens in a courtroom a matter of public record? Or is it the case that identities are kept secret? But with the number of people watching this trial, surely there is nothing that won't be known about what people said and who said it.

Post by **Inanna** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:28 pm

Cerin wrote:Is what happens in a courtroom a matter of public record? Or is it the case that identities are kept secret? But with the number of people watching this trial, surely there is nothing that won't be known about what people said and who said it.

In which case, youtube would be the best. No distortions of who said what.

Post by **halplm** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:13 am

Yes, and the people testifying for those in favor of prop 8 would have their faces plastered everywhere with genuine fear for their own safety.

In case you were unaware or have forgotten, the shall we say passionate opposition to prop 8 has resulted in the ruin of many people's lives and businesses due to the spread of public donar lists to target donars.

Post by **Ellienor** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:19 am

If people didn't care that these folks supported Prop. 8, then their lives and businesses wouldn't be "ruined." I expect that any cause or person that I donate to is public record. If they didn't want the repercussions, perhaps they should have thought twice about donating.

Post by **halplm** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:22 am

Ellienor wrote:If people didn't care that these folks supported Prop. 8, then their lives and businesses wouldn't be "ruined." I expect that any cause or person that I donate to is public record. If they didn't want the repercussions, perhaps they should have thought twice about donating.

Yes, that's the theory behind harrassing them to the point they won't donate. Do you think that's right? Do you think someone lose their business because they don't support same sex marriage?

Do you think people should fear for their safety for not supporting same sex marriage? Do you think people should make their vote based on what level of physical, and financial INTIMIDATION can be thrust upon them? Because that's where we are with the gay marriage lobby.

Post by **yovargas** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:24 am

Threatening people who support this bill is sickening and appalling. I do not want my opposition to Prop 8 to be associated with such things.

Post by **halplm** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:26 am

yovargas wrote:Threatening people who support this bill is sickening and appalling. I do not want my opposition to Prop 8 to be associated with such things.

I don't think anyone here would condone that, which is why I thought it should be pointed out in case people were unaware that this was the reasoning behind not wanting cameras.

sorry if I got a little heated about it.

Post by **Ellienor** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:39 am

No, I do not want people in favor of Prop. 8 harassed.

Hal, have you stood up against and/or been appalled at the harassment of women trying to go in and obtain legal abortions?

Post by **Hachimitsu** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:26 am

Uh maybe we shouldn't go in that direction.

About this trial, I am realizing in the California I guess things are that contentious. I would not wan to see anyone harrassed or lose their business. Can there at least be transcripts. Alo about this trial who is going to be saying/testifying. (I sort of do not get how all of this work. Canada has had gay marriage for a while, and I do not remember this many processes and contentions.)

Post by **River** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:44 am

I think there have to be transcripts, Wilma.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:00 am

There will be transcripts, plus liveblogs, even if the Supreme Court rules against YouTube coverage.

Post by **Frelga** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:14 am

Surely someone will Twit this trial.

Post by **halplm** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:42 am

Ellienor wrote:No, I do not want people in favor of Prop. 8 harassed.

Hal, have you stood up against and/or been appalled at the harassment of women trying to go in and obtain legal abortions?

no, I have not, nor do I think the two are the same thing.

destroying people's livelihood because they oppose gay people appropriating the term marriage is not the same as opposing the killing of an innocent child.

Post by **Ellienor** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:54 am

Wilma: good point on the inappropriate comment.

*back to thread topic*

Post by **JewelSong** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:49 am

halplm wrote:Do you think someone lose their business because they don't support same sex marriage?

Do you think people should fear for their safety for not supporting same sex marriage?.

I do not think people should be harassed or threatened, period.

However, I would not willingly support someone's business if I knew that person was in favor of, say, racial segregation. I would use my power as a consumer to show my point of view and choose a different business when at all possible. A one-person boycott, as it were.

I have several issues which I feel strongly enough about to do this and to encourage others to do the same.

Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:14 pm

Frelga wrote:Surely someone will Twit this trial.

Yes, it is being twitted (Twitted?) live by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (the organization that brought the suit).

American Foundation for Equal Rights

Post by **Lidless** » Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:06 pm

in camera

Possibly the most confusing of (Latin) legal terms.