U.S. Supreme Court blocks YouTube broadcast of same-sex marriage trial State, National, International, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Jan 11, 2010 at 9:17 am
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning blocked the planned YouTube broadcast of a federal trial in San Francisco on the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, January 11, 2010, 7:40 AM
Posted by Dominic, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 9:17 am
Once again special interest groups (leftist gays) and liberal lawyers and judges think they know what's best for the people who have already voted against the redefinition of marriage in our state and 38 other times around the country. This is a farce and CA supreme court should have decided not hear this case. This has nothing to do with equality...It has to do with extreme left gay values being forced on society, it is wrong and the majority of Calfornians have already voted and the law supports the majority until liberal judges push their opinions and change exisiting laws...
I am outraged at this waste of tax payer expenses and you should be too!
Posted by SteveP, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 9:22 am SteveP is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Excellent job, Supremes! Justice prevails and the media circus has been mitigated. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin, on Jan 11, 2010 at 9:57 am dublinmike is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Due to the highly-charged nature of this trial, along with the concept that testimonies may be changed as a result of cameras in the courtroom, I believe that cameras should not be allowed. Also, I can conceived of the idea of a mistrial filed by the loosing side due to the distraction of cameras.
Dominic, this isn't about some leftist gays, et al, this is about denying citizens of this country a fundamental right. How about not allowing Catholics to marry outside their faith? Or, allowing anyone named Hatfield from marrying a McCoy?
With regards to "special interests," your definition is inherently biased. Any groups that bring a ballot before the people are special interests.
Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 12:08 pm PToWN94566 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Once again I'm shocked to read some persons posts about people thinking "they know what's best for the people who have already voted against the redefinition of marriage." This isn't about doing what's best for heterosexuals or extremely religious people- it's about doing what's best for gay people and letting them be recognized in society.
Dominic- I have no interest in forcing my values on society. If some person doesn't like me just because I'm attracted to the same sex, that is their problem not mine. I'm comfortable with myself. And again (this is probably the millionth time I've asked this on here) but who gave you the authority to judge what is right and what is wrong? And how does it directly effect you if a gay couple wed? For the short time that gay marriage was legal, did you have some epiphany or some higher being(s) spoke to you? Or did your quality of life change when gay marriage was legal, and if so, it's "gay peoples'" fault?
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 12:26 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Posted by Kathleen, a resident of the Vineyard Hills neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 12:57 pm
This is a federal case, Dominic, in which it is claimed that the CA constitution, as amended by the vote of the people, is unconstitutional. That is the ultimate purpose of the federal court system, and as long as you have the resources to pursue a complaint, you have the right to do so. It has nothing to do with the CA supreme court which, when a separate case was heard, could not block implementation of Prop. 8 because of the ballot proposition process in this state which has made California almost ungovernable.
This is your tax dollars spent in the most fundamental way -- securing the rights of its citizens.
Stacey's web link is well worth reading. Thank you for that.
Posted by LOL, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Stacey,
Newsweek? That's your comment? I suppose you must be using irony and really stand with conservatives, those that know Newsweek isn't the bastion of truth it thinks it is. Thanks for the chuckle.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 2:04 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
LOL,
I guess you missed that the author is one of the lawyers in the case who had served under both Bush and Reagan and not a regular Newsweek journalist.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 2:10 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
You see, the Constitution is a bedrock document. It isn't open to selective "cafeteria" interpretation where support for a position can be picked and chosen. It has to be taken whole. One can't say they support the principles in the Constitution like the First Amendment and then ignore the Fourteenth Amendment.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 2:49 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 2:59 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
It is unfortunate that the above post was removed. It was a great display of how poorly the direct experiences of the founders of this country is understood by those who claim to inherit their legacy.
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Jan 11, 2010 at 8:17 pm
What you have is a self-proclaimed Conservative that understands the intent of the founding fathers. EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS for ALL CITIZENS under the 14th Amendment!
OLSON & BOIES ARE LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR JUDGE VAUGHN SO THAT PROP 8 IS OVERTURNED!
FOR THOSE STRUGGLING, CHOLO WILL PROVIDE EXPLANATIONS OF THE LAW FROM TIME TO TIME...tee hee hee, tee hee hee...
Hopefully, the US Supreme Court will say that it is OK with uTube on Wednesday!
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 8:49 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Legal marriages are civil arrangements. Government cannot declare them as otherwise because it has no power to respect an establishment of religion.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 8:54 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
The founders had the direct experience with government-sanctioned religion and wanted to keep government the h*ll out of their religion. Americans these days have no experience with it so think somehow it is ok to use the power of government to dictate to everyone else whatever the religion flavor of the day is.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 9:11 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
When the power of government is used to impose a religion's tenant on the populace, that undermines that religion's own protection from having tenants from someone else's religion imposed on it.
Don't want Sharia law here? Don't use government to impose church law.
Posted by interesting in ptown, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 9:17 pm
The very very conservative lawyer Ted Olson, arguing against Prop 8 addresses the necessity of this case belonging in the courts.
"That’s why we have courts, to protect those who are discriminated against, when their children can’t go to school because of their skin color. We would not need a constitution if we left everything to the political process. We’d just let the majority prevail and that’s a good thing about democracy, but it’s not so good if you are different, new. It causes gays and lesbians unrelenting pain. We have the courts to take our worthy, upstanding citizens who are being hurt to be protected by the courts. That’s why we are here today.”
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 11, 2010 at 9:38 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
"Fine, let’s take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain’t so fun when it (Word removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)you, huh?” - SMDS
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Jan 12, 2010 at 10:44 am
Web Link ...bible full of characters who practice polygamy...Dr. Nancy Cott, Harvard Professor of History testifies in SF today!
Tip of the Day: Try not to think of this trial as having anything to do with G_d. This trial puts the 14th Amendment center stage. Fans of Equal Protection & Due Process will have an opportunity to see the US Constitution in action and the American system of justice live. Yup, you will have the chance to understand why people fight wars to defend liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
For the disgruntled types, have a tea party while AMERICAN JUSTICE does its job!
ps I'll continue to do my best to provide explanations as needed on the finer points of US Constitutional Law!
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
