Same-Sex Marriage Update

Soon · 01-12-2010, 04:08 PM

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH8B7s1MKPE&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Rachel Maddow-Gay marriage opponents win right to hide[/ame]

Cyclopea · 01-13-2010, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

YouTube- Rachel Maddow-Gay marriage opponents win right to hide

Love when she asked "Whatever happened to Anti-Gay Pride?"
lol.

Jess · 01-13-2010, 08:22 AM

Thanks for the links!

I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about Olsen and Boies stepping in and "taking over our fight". Part of me is very happy to see two conservative white men behind a human rights issue. Part of me sees it as yet another "saved by the white men" moment.

The bottom line is that if we win our rights in a federal court, in at least one state, it may open up and set up victories on a broader level. Perhaps we don't need to "choose" our champions, just be thankful that we have them. Who better, afterall, to fight the "white male system" than a couple of their own?

Will keep tracking the trial and hoping more folks do as well.

MsTinkerbelly · 01-13-2010, 04:06 PM

US Supreme court just ruled no cameras

1:57 PM: The US Supreme Court just ruled — no cameras. It was a 5-4 decision. www.scotusblog.com

SuperFemme · 01-13-2010, 04:55 PM

With a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to keep the Prop 8 trial dark on the Web, rejecting Judge Vaughn Walker's attempt to broadcast the proceedings on the federal court's Web site by using YouTube., as well as allowing it to be circulating for viewing at various federal courthouses around the West. The majority opinion said that Walker and officials with the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference, including Chief 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, did not follow proper procedures in changing federal court rules that would allow the broadast. The majority stressed that it was not "expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast." Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, decried the decision, saying there was no reason to interfere with the broadcast and that there would not be any harm in allowing the webcast.

Meanwhile, UCLA prof Letitia Peplau, a plaintiffs expert, is testifying on research she says shows that same-sex couples enjoy the same benefits from marriage as heterosexual couples. She also said he will offer an opinion that allowing gay marriage will have no impact on heterosexual marriage

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_14179875

Corkey · 01-13-2010, 06:11 PM

G-D these federal cowards are starting to piss me the hella off!

SuperFemme · 01-13-2010, 06:41 PM

A closer look at the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling indefinitely barring any broadcast of the Prop 8 trial shows the difference between the majority and dissenters boiled down to two things. The majority (Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia) concluded that Chief Judge Vaughn Walker did not follow federal law in changing rules to allow cameras in his courtroom for the trial, in large part because they believe he didn't allow enough time for public comment on changes to local federal court rules. And the justices also determined that Prop 8 supporters demonstrated there could be harm to their fair trial rights because certain witnesses could be intimidated by broadcast exposure, reason to keep the stay in place.

The dissenters (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Stevens) couldn't have disagreed more. They said Walker easily followed the rules, and rejected the idea Prop 8's defense would suffer any harm. They called the decision an unprecedented attempt to "micromanage" a district court's administration.

Same-sex marriage advocates can only hope the justices don't break down along the same party lines if the main issue reaches the high court.

iamkeri1 · 01-18-2010, 04:49 PM

I know that this is a loss for our side, but there is a certain ironic humor to it. The ones who have put so much energy into keeping us in hiding, now want to have their privacy protected.

Doesn't this tell you that somewhere in the back of their minds or in their heart of hearts (whatever cliche you want to use), they know that what they are doing is wrong? Or maybe they are afraid? OMG we are making headway. The far right is afraid of us dykes and sissies!!! Get in the closet and hide yourselves you hate mongers! There's lots of room in there because the queers have left the building. Oh yah... we bad!
Smooches,
Keri

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blushingfemme

US Supreme court just ruled no cameras

1:57 PM: The US Supreme Court just ruled — no cameras. It was a 5-4 decision. www.scotusblog.com

SuperFemme · 01-18-2010, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

I know that this is a loss for our side, but there is a certain ironic humor to it. The ones who have put so much energy into keeping us in hiding, now want to have their privacy protected.

Doesn't this tell you that somewhere in the back of their minds or in their heart of hearts (whatever cliche you want to use), they know that what they are doing is wrong? Or maybe they are afraid? OMG we are making headway. The far right is afraid of us dykes and sissies!!! Get in the closet and hide yourselves you hate mongers! There's lots of room in there because the queers have left the building. Oh yah... we bad!
Smooches,
Keri

all it tells me is that they don't want to live a life in the day of a gay person being discriminated against. god forbid.

Cyclopea · 01-20-2010, 05:41 PM

Prop 8 backers have now withdrawn all but two witnesses.

Watch below excerpts from the cross testimony of two of the Prop 8 witnesses. Keep in mind these are the primary (now withdrawn) witnesses AGAINST gay marriage.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuCAuI0JGsM"]YouTube- Katherine Young Deposition[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZeCWCSP79E"]YouTube- Paul Nathanson Deposition Video[/ame]

Strangely, when I searched YouTube for "Paul Nathanson Deposition Video" nothing came up. I tried various search configurations=nothing, even though the video is TITLED "Paul Nathanson Deposition Video". I had to go back to google to get the direct link. Weird. They may be in the process of being removed? So, enjoy them while you can! They were posted by the American Foundation For Equal Rights, the group which launched and is funding the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case.

ETA: questioning is by Boies.

01-13-2010, 06:11 PM	#6
Corkey Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Human Preferred Pronoun?: He Relationship Status: Very Married Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Where I want to be Posts: 8,155 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 47,491 Thanked 29,268 Times in 6,637 Posts Rep Power: 21474859	G-D these federal cowards are starting to piss me the hella off! __________________ "Many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners and your customs. We would be better pleased with beholding the good effects of these doctrines in your own practices, than with hearing you talk about them". ~Old Tassel, Chief of the Tsalagi (Cherokee)

01-13-2010, 06:41 PM	#7
SuperFemme Timed Out How Do You Identify?: Permanently Banned 10/24/2010 Preferred Pronoun?: She. Relationship Status: Married (one of 18,000) Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Atascadero, CA Posts: 4,933 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 2,309 Thanked 7,108 Times in 2,327 Posts Rep Power: 0	Yay Sotomayor. A closer look at the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling indefinitely barring any broadcast of the Prop 8 trial shows the difference between the majority and dissenters boiled down to two things. The majority (Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia) concluded that Chief Judge Vaughn Walker did not follow federal law in changing rules to allow cameras in his courtroom for the trial, in large part because they believe he didn't allow enough time for public comment on changes to local federal court rules. And the justices also determined that Prop 8 supporters demonstrated there could be harm to their fair trial rights because certain witnesses could be intimidated by broadcast exposure, reason to keep the stay in place. The dissenters (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Stevens) couldn't have disagreed more. They said Walker easily followed the rules, and rejected the idea Prop 8's defense would suffer any harm. They called the decision an unprecedented attempt to "micromanage" a district court's administration. Same-sex marriage advocates can only hope the justices don't break down along the same party lines if the main issue reaches the high court.

01-20-2010, 05:41 PM	#10
Cyclopea Member How Do You Identify?: Butch Lesbian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Exit Zero Posts: 1,267 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 1,694 Thanked 1,615 Times in 632 Posts Rep Power: 226200	stranger than fiction Prop 8 backers have now withdrawn all but two witnesses. Watch below excerpts from the cross testimony of two of the Prop 8 witnesses. Keep in mind these are the primary (now withdrawn) witnesses AGAINST gay marriage. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuCAuI0JGsM"]YouTube- Katherine Young Deposition[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZeCWCSP79E"]YouTube- Paul Nathanson Deposition Video[/ame] Strangely, when I searched YouTube for "Paul Nathanson Deposition Video" nothing came up. I tried various search configurations=nothing, even though the video is TITLED "Paul Nathanson Deposition Video". I had to go back to google to get the direct link. Weird. They may be in the process of being removed? So, enjoy them while you can! They were posted by the American Foundation For Equal Rights, the group which launched and is funding the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case. ETA: questioning is by Boies. __________________ http://forum.axishistory.com/images/...arious/eye.jpg

01-12-2010, 04:08 PM	#1
Soon Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: femme Relationship Status: attached Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: . Posts: 6,896 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 29,046 Thanked 13,094 Times in 3,386 Posts Rep Power: 21474858	[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH8B7s1MKPE&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Rachel Maddow-Gay marriage opponents win right to hide[/ame]

01-13-2010, 08:22 AM	#3
Jess Timed Out - Permanent How Do You Identify?: decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?: other Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Patrick Springs, VA Posts: 2,812 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,247 Thanked 5,700 Times in 1,682 Posts Rep Power: 0	Thanks for the links! I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about Olsen and Boies stepping in and "taking over our fight". Part of me is very happy to see two conservative white men behind a human rights issue. Part of me sees it as yet another "saved by the white men" moment. The bottom line is that if we win our rights in a federal court, in at least one state, it may open up and set up victories on a broader level. Perhaps we don't need to "choose" our champions, just be thankful that we have them. Who better, afterall, to fight the "white male system" than a couple of their own? Will keep tracking the trial and hoping more folks do as well.

01-13-2010, 04:06 PM	#4
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,906 Times in 5,017 Posts Rep Power: 0	US Supreme court just ruled no cameras 1:57 PM: The US Supreme Court just ruled — no cameras. It was a 5-4 decision. www.scotusblog.com

01-13-2010, 04:55 PM	#5
SuperFemme Timed Out How Do You Identify?: Permanently Banned 10/24/2010 Preferred Pronoun?: She. Relationship Status: Married (one of 18,000) Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Atascadero, CA Posts: 4,933 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 2,309 Thanked 7,108 Times in 2,327 Posts Rep Power: 0	With a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to keep the Prop 8 trial dark on the Web, rejecting Judge Vaughn Walker's attempt to broadcast the proceedings on the federal court's Web site by using YouTube., as well as allowing it to be circulating for viewing at various federal courthouses around the West. The majority opinion said that Walker and officials with the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference, including Chief 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, did not follow proper procedures in changing federal court rules that would allow the broadast. The majority stressed that it was not "expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast." Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, decried the decision, saying there was no reason to interfere with the broadcast and that there would not be any harm in allowing the webcast. Meanwhile, UCLA prof Letitia Peplau, a plaintiffs expert, is testifying on research she says shows that same-sex couples enjoy the same benefits from marriage as heterosexual couples. She also said he will offer an opinion that allowing gay marriage will have no impact on heterosexual marriage http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_14179875