Obscanity: You’ll know it when you see it

Op-Ed Columnist – Learning From the Sin of Sodom – NYTimes.com.

In all fairness, I think a lot of the liberal snobbishness toward faith-based organizations is precisely the result of evangelical sanctimony… but otherwise, the guy really has a point.

Meanwhile in Texas: “American Taliban” Isn’t Hyperbole Anymore | Slog | The Stranger, Seattle’s Only Newspaper.

Maybe somebody needs to build a website to identify members of this group by name, photo and workplace.

Kenyan Police Disperse Gay Wedding – NYTimes.com.

NAIROBI, Kenya — Kenyan police officers broke up a gay wedding on Friday and arrested several wedding guests, saying they had to intervene before an irate mob could stone the wedding party to death…

YouTube – Woman’s Last Stand: Dodge Charger Commercial Spoof.

‘Valentine’s Day’ promotion gets ‘de-gayed’ – CNN.com.

Sarah Palin Populism: Savvy Speech to Tea Party Movement – TIME.

Case Stokes Haiti’s Fear for Children, and Itself – NYTimes.com.

Srsly? Little kids are not stray animals – you can’t just pluck them off the street without regard to their status, assuming it’s all okay because they’ll be better off in good [white] Christian homes. They thought they didn’t need papers because of the earthquake? Really? I’ve heard of other people who think they can just help themselves to anything after a natural disaster… we call them “looters.”

I understand the desire to help the kids… but this approach crosses a line. A big one.

ProtectMarriage completely misses the point. I’m shocked. Or not.

Outside the courtroom, the plaintiffs’ attorneys sharply criticized the notion that redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships would contribute to the deinstitutionalization of marriage. That argument, they said, is like saying that extending the right to vote to women “deinstitutionalized” the voting process.

Nice sound bite, but the analogy fails. Securing women’s right to vote didn’t do a thing to change the meaning and importance of voting. By contrast there is no doubt that re-defining marriage to include homosexual relationships would ipso facto divorce the institution itself from its fundamental, biological foundation. Nice try.

I think that’s kind of the point. Before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed, politicians and pundits argued that extending voting rights to women would de-legitimize the political process, destroy homes and families, lead to double-voting, create crime, injure women, result in military ruin, and generally destroy the world. It didn’t. And neither will same-sex marriage.

ProtectMarriage is now furious at, um, well, let’s take a look:

Despite supposedly winning our appeal in the Ninth Circuit to protect the privacy of our internal Prop 8 campaign records, the trial judge has still forced us to hand over literally tens of thousands of pages of sensitive campaign memos, emails and other documents to the plaintiffs. After sifting through our internal documents for facts they think aid their case, they had them labeled as trial exhibits and added to the court record.

Yeah, we’ve all read the testimony. The Court was pretty good about keeping out the genuinely sensitive / private stuff, and much of what was admitted was redacted substantially. But as for the general process of the opposing side forcing you to hand over personal documents (also known as discovery), sifting through those documents, labeling them as trial exhibits, and adding them to the court record? I’m pretty sure that’s a hefty component of what experts esoterically refer to as LITIGATION.

How a Bad Expert Witness Can Ruin A Case « Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

At any moment of optimism, however, I go back to the basic lay of the land on this case. Due to the level of scrutiny in the case, Olson, Boies, et al. are playing on an uneven playing field. They have to roll the boulder up the hill. While Prof. Miller seems to be struggling to push it down the hill, they are still the ones pushing the easy way.

Ladies and gentlemen, if I could just call your attention to the final lines of the latest ProtectMarriage.com entry…

In fact, when the video cameras stop rolling and the sensationalism of this trial fades away, it will become clear that plaintiffs have essentially presented a political argument—not a legal claim. Such a case belongs in the public debate, not a courtroom.

Tags: Gregory Herek, prop8, protect marriage, traditional Marriage

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.

Raise your hand if you see something glaringly wrong with this?

Let’s break this down:

1) What video cameras? This guy would have you believe there’s some sort of media circus going on in the court room. Seriously? These people went to the SUPREME COURT to keep this thing from being televised. Yes, it’s being recorded for the judge, but those recordings are not being released to the public, and from the court transcripts they already appear to be biting their nails about what’s going to happen to them at the end of the trial. So… “When the video cameras stop rolling”? Really? Can we say, “HYPERBOLE”?

2) What sensationalism? There’s been virtually no media attention to this trial. If I wasn’t a gay law student taking an active interest in the trial, I’d have no reason to know it’s even happening. Network news hasn’t really touched it much. Stewart and Colbert are barely even acknowledging it, if they have at all. So again – what sensationalism would that be, exactly?

3) If the case belongs in the public debate, why have you turned off both pings AND comments?

Obama to Offer Aid for Families in State of the Union Address – NYTimes.com.

Dear President Obama,
If you want to “help families,” could you please get rid of the Gay Tax? I’m really not sure exactly where we’re supposed to come up with that kind of money – and I find it terribly ironic that you expect us to pay more for less.
Thanks,
Disenfranchised Taxpayer

slacktivist: I think maybe part of the reason you’re so angry is you keep demanding that you get screwed and then, not surprisingly, you keep getting screwed.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Twelve US Senators signed a letter urging Uganda’s president to block passage of Uganda’s proposed ban on homosexuality, legislation which includes punishments of either life imprisonment or death, and encourages a witch hunt by requiring people “in authority” to turn in suspected homosexuals.

Note that not a single one of the Senators who signed onto the letter is a Republican. That’s no surprise, really. I’m fairly certain the Repubs are just trying to figure out if that bill would fly in Congress.

My favorite “Gathering Storm” parody…

Protect Marriage avoids inconvenient truths.

Then Thursday, for the first time (we believe) ever in a court of law, a proponent of a voter initiative was put on the stand to be interrogated under oath about his own political, moral and religious views. Not only was the Prop 8 supporter forced to reveal his political and religious views under penalty of perjury, but he was further forced to defend and substantiate his views so the court can decide whether his views are “improper.”

They make it sound like Plaintiffs plucked a random guy off the street. This was an OFFICIAL PROPONENT of the amendment, and also the executive director of one of the campaign coalition organizations. This was a guy who JOINED as a Defendant Intervener (despite efforts to withdraw under pretense of fear once he realized he was making matters worse by being there)! That makes him a VOLUNTARY PARTY TO THIS CASE. Why shouldn’t he be put on the stand under oath and interrogated as to his actions and motives? Tam voluntarily stepped into the public eye in order to make outrageous claims about the “gay agenda.” He participated in public debates on behalf of the Yes on 8 campaign. And perhaps most importantly, Tam’s beliefs reflect those of a great number of Prop 8 supporters – and that is entirely relevant to this case, because the Plaintiffs need to show that animus was the driving factor. Tam SHOULD be held accountable for his public statements, especially because he not only inserted himself into the campaign, but also inserted himself into the very case in which he is being examined.

Protect Marriage’s summation of today’s testimony. Virtually NO mention of the fiasco that was the impeachment of William Tam, even though his testimony took up the entire second half of the day. Definitely a must-read (his testimony, not PM’s summary). Lawyering at its finest.

Actually, the really hilarious part is that the post is entitled “A Head Shaker of an Afternoon.” Segura testified in the morning. TAM testified in the afternoon. I’ll bet it WAS a real head-shaker.

From yesterday’s expert testimony based on analysis of hate crime statistics: “There is simply no other person in society who endures the likelihood of being harmed as a consequence of their identity than a gay man or lesbian.” I think the transgender community would disagree, but you get the point: If being queer is a “dangerous lifestyle,” it’s only because y’all keep killing us.

Our Work » Transcripts | American Foundation for Equal Rights.

REAL TRANSCRIPTS! I am so excited.

Protect Marriage – Yes on 8 » Blog » Blog Archive » Religion Put on the Stand.

This is the other side’s interpretation of Wednesday’s testimony. I’m awestruck by their willful ignorance. Note disabled comments.

FDL News Desk » Prop 8 Trial Livebog Week 2 Day 2 Pt. III 28.

This is mindblowing stuff. I mean, it’s not surprising; we all knew that the Yes on 8 campaign was just a front for the Catholic/LDS churches. But today’s evidence proves it, and that’s why the Yes on 8 people fought tooth and nail to prevent it from being read into the record.

Why Don’t You Proclaim Me Some Food, Moron? | Slog | The Stranger, Seattle’s Only Newspaper.

Wow. Just… wow. That is some opportunistic BS right there. “We could feed thousands of you for a lengthy chunk of time, but, um, here, have a useless techie gadget that spouts platitudes.” At the very least, couldn’t they send CHEAP bibles and use the rest of the money for food and medical aid?

ProtectMarriage.com issues Cease and Desist for Prop 8 Trial Tracker logo depicting family of two mothers with two kids « Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

Every lawyerly communication should include the word “sassy.”

The opposing side’s blog is here. While prop8trialtracker.com and this site have some very deliberate similarities in design, what strikes me most is the difference in content. The Prop 8 folks are basically spinning faulty summaries of the testimony that are meant to convey the notion that the Prop 8 lawyers are knocking it out of the ballpark, shooting down flimsy expert after flimsy expert. They have also turned off comments. The No on 8 folks, on the other hand, are including minimal commentary, but are mostly just trying to get as close as they can to providing a real-time transcript, to let people see the testimony for themselves, with commenting open to engage people in discussion (firedoglake.com has another excellent live trial blog).

Meanwhile, the Yes on 8 folks are trying to impeach the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses by pointing out that they all support same-sex marriage and many contributed to No on 8. Well gosh, I guess that makes their expert research inadmissible. Incidentally, were the Yes on 8 people planning to put up expert witnesses who believe strongly in same-sex marriage, but decided to testify against it, just for argument’s sake?

What Do They Have To Hide? « Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

My favorite was when the Prop 8 attorney suggested that the “backlash” against LGBT people was the result of alleged “violence” against those who supported Prop 8. Even if there had been violence, can anybody say that Auschwitz was just the Nazis’ backlash against the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? Or that slavery and public lynch…ing were just a backlash against the Black Panthers? I’m sorry, but you can’t have a backlash until something happens to elicit a backlash. Until then, it’s just a lash. In any event, violence against LGBT people increased after Prop 8. On the opposite side, most of the alleged “violent” acts actually involve LGBT people choosing to stop spending their money at establishments that donated to Yes on 8. There were maybe one or two isolated incidents involving people who got punched after calling somebody a faggot or physically trying to take signs from somebody. You can hardly compare these isolated incidents to a history of widespread violence.

Frankly, I think the *lack* of anti-homophobe violence shows a tremendous amount of self-restraint on the part of a people who have been insulted, assaulted, beaten, violated, and murdered for decades, if not centuries.