The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

[azbadpuppy]

Well written article by Ted Olson, who was the Asst. Atty general under Reagan, and Solicitor General under George W. and is now one of the attorneys who are representing the couples challenging the legality of Prop 8 in California.

This promises to be a landmark case, and most expect it to wind up in the US Supreme Court.

It is amazing to me how, with such an historic court case underway in California, with such potentially broad-reaching implications for the entire country, there is not much coverage of this.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/page/1

[Red Arrow]

Be careful what you wish for.  You may get coverage and not like it.

[FOTD]

Well written article by Ted Olson, who was the Asst. Atty general under Reagan, and Solicitor General under George W. and is now one of the attorneys who are representing the couples challenging the legality of Prop 8 in California.

This promises to be a landmark case, and most expect it to wind up in the US Supreme Court.

It is amazing to me how, with such an historic court case underway in California, with such potentially broad-reaching implications for the entire country, there is not much coverage of this.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/page/1

There will be plenty of coverage once these two attorneys win this case....

[azbadpuppy]

There will be plenty of coverage once these two attorneys win this case....

Yup- even many right wing groups are predicting this will get overturned in CA. After that its on to the 9th circuit court of appeals, then the US Supreme Court.

It's too bad the supreme court ruled no cameras or audio in the courtroom. I think the public has a right to hear the defense back-pedal on all of the ridiculous lies and fabrications that were told to get Prop 8 passed in the first place- now that they are under oath.

[guido911]

It's too bad the supreme court ruled no cameras or audio in the courtroom. I think the public has a right to hear the defense back-pedal on all of the ridiculous lies and fabrications that were told to get Prop 8 passed in the first place- now that they are under oath.

Televising the trial live had nothing to do with getting the public informed about anything. It was about witness intimidation. Period. We all saw after prop 8 passed and the supporters' donor list became public, prop 8 losers began harassing businesses and persons that use their services.

I love the anti-prop 8 folks whining about equal protection and civil rights, yet seem to forget that those against gay marriage folks have civil and free speech rights. I guess their rights don't matter.

[FOTD]

Televising the trial live had nothing to do with getting the public informed about anything. It was about witness intimidation. Period. We all saw after prop 8 passed and the supporters' donor list became public, prop 8 losers began harassing businesses and persons that use their services.

I love the anti-prop 8 folks whining about equal protection and civil rights, yet seem to forget that those against gay marriage folks have civil and free speech rights. I guess their rights don't matter.

WOW! Is that what the wingnut netwerk is espousing? Flimsy defense.

[azbadpuppy]

Televising the trial live had nothing to do with getting the public informed about anything. It was about witness intimidation. Period. We all saw after prop 8 passed and the supporters' donor list became public, prop 8 losers began harassing businesses and persons that use their services.

I love the anti-prop 8 folks whining about equal protection and civil rights, yet seem to forget that those against gay marriage folks have civil and free speech rights. I guess their rights don't matter.

That is such a ridiculous excuse it hardly merits a response, but I will anyway.

First of all, court documents are public record, and all witness names are in the transcripts, so if anyone wants to find out who testified on either side its a fairly simple process.

Secondly, most trial participants are people who have chosen to have a high public profile on same-sex marriage. They expect to be recognized and identified with this issue. They have, or should have, thick skins. I actually find it very suspect (and cowardly) that now, all of a sudden, Prop 8 supporters do NOT want the spotlight.

Now for some reality. What most prop 8 supporters are bitching about is their businesses being targets of highly organized, and effective boycotts, like this:

http://www.boycottmanchesterhotels.com/

The organizers of these boycotts are completely within their rights to do so, and I say more power to them. This is the same tactic used by the Southern Baptists when they boycotted Disney for allowing 'gay theme nights', among other atrocities.

Nope. It's transparency that prop 8 supporters truly fear. Unfortunately, the decision to not allow cameras in the courtroom is a huge blow for accountability in transparency. In addition, viewing the trial had the potential to change the hearts and minds of countless Americans- and the prop 8 supporters know that.

[rwarn17588]

Televising the trial live had nothing to do with getting the public informed about anything. It was about witness intimidation. Period. We all saw after prop 8 passed and the supporters' donor list became public, prop 8 losers began harassing businesses and persons that use their services.

I love the anti-prop 8 folks whining about equal protection and civil rights, yet seem to forget that those against gay marriage folks have civil and free speech rights. I guess their rights don't matter.

Which begs a question ... do you fall on Ted Olson's side on the issue, or against?