My curmudgeon cup runneth over. This one is especially galling.
Last year, after a lengthy, well-conducted appeals trial, Federal District Judge Vaughan Walker ruled that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. His order was stayed pending appeal.
Proponents of Prop8, who have appealed the decision, have now filed two court challenges:
1. To have the decision thrown out, based on their claim that Judge Vaughan should have recused himself because he is gay.
Actually, they claim it's not that he's gay but that he's in a long-term relationship with a man. In view of the possibility that he might then want to get married, he was biased on the case.
Come on, we didn't just fall off the turnip truck. If you're straight, you wouldn't be biased about a marriage issue; but if you're gay, you necessarily are? In that case, no man should rule on a gender-discrimination case -- nor a woman either. We'd have to breed a genus of asexual beings to be judges.
2. They also demand to have the video-recording of the trial proceedings sealed and off limits to the public.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled out the live broadcast of the trial as it was in progress, but it was video-recorded and stored in the court archives. Judge Walker, now retired, recently played a small segment of the testimony in connection with a talk he gave that was broadcast on CSPAN. Now the other side wants to prevent any further release of the recording. Presumably the written transcript is available as a public record, as all are all trial records unless ordered sealed by the court.
You know why they don't want it shown? Because people would watch what was actually introduced as evidence in this public trial on an issue that was voted on by the people; and, if people watch it, they will get educated about the real evidence and the real issues.
And mostly (obviously) they want to suppress it, because the case against Prop8 was so brilliant and thorough, while the case for it was so pathetic that it would be a humiliating embarrassment, as it was in court.
Given their day in court to make the case for denying an equal right to marriage to same-sex couples, the only argument they had was "it's tradition and overturning it will harm the institution of marriage." That was it, essentially. No facts, nothing to back it up but religious beliefs and tradition.
Never mind. The tide has already turned. If this case is not the final death knell, it will come soon.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The audacity of this is stark. This was no a trial of some rape victim or celebrity kleptomaniac that would be humiliated to have to testify in public.
ReplyDeleteThis was a civil trial on the constitutionality of a law that affects the lives of a segment of our society -- a law that citizens have been asked to vote on, and may have to vote again.
Why can they not see the evidence and the explanatory testimony by expert witnesses? There is no rational reason.
Sure, some people may be embarrassed to have it revealed that they supported such discrimination or gave money to fund the campaign of disinformation and lies that got Prop8 passed in the first place.
Both of these challenges should be laughed out of court by the judge.