Town Square

Post a New Topic

U.S. Supreme Court blocks YouTube broadcast of same-sex marriage trial

Original post made on Jan 11, 2010

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

Comments (26)

Posted by Dominic, a resident of Del Prado
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 Parkside
on Jan 11, 2010 at 9:22 am

SteveP is a registered user.

Excellent job, Supremes! Justice prevails and the media circus has been mitigated. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
--yet another loss for the perverse agenda.


Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin
on Jan 11, 2010 at 9:57 am

dublinmike is a registered user.

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 letsgo, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 11, 2010 at 10:39 am

"Any groups that bring a ballot before the people are special interests."

That's why the whole ballot iniative sturcture is completely flawed and had destroyed California,


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jan 11, 2010 at 11:40 am

A reported record of the proceedings: Web Link

Such a trial is what makes AMERICA GREAT!

Hopefully, the US Supreme Court will allow a camera in the courtroom for the benefit of Americans.


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 11, 2010 at 12:08 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

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?

I think not.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2010 at 12:26 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Web Link


Posted by Kathleen, a resident of Vineyard Hills
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 Another Pleasanton 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 Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2010 at 2:04 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

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 Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2010 at 2:10 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

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 Convictions vs politics, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 11, 2010 at 2:14 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2010 at 2:49 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"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 Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2010 at 2:59 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

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 3:56 pm

Web Link THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE by TED OLSON, ATTORNEY

A very powerful and convincing PATRIOT SPEAKS!

Now you know why American is GREAT!


Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin
on Jan 11, 2010 at 6:54 pm

dublinmike is a registered user.

Cholo, the other thing about Ted Olson was it was him and his partners that wanted the Prop 8 to be shown on YouTube. That's the odd thing.


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!

hahahahahahahahahaa...

as for ruth, i'll get back to her later!






Posted by Rat Turd, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 11, 2010 at 8:31 pm

They cannot marry as it is a convenent with god not some law. Civil arrangement yes, marriage no.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2010 at 8:49 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

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 Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2010 at 8:54 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

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 Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2010 at 9:11 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

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 Del Prado
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 Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2010 at 9:38 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"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!

signed,

Cholo


Posted by Me, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 12, 2010 at 3:05 pm

Wow, Stacey and Cholo and myself all in agreement on this one! It is kind of uncomfortable!


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jan 12, 2010 at 4:09 pm

Dick Cheney supports same-sex marriage in the US. How does that grab you?

i think that the supporters of Prop 8 are all on the verge of a nervous breakdown...


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

‘Much Ado’ or is it Adios for ObamaCare?
By Tom Cushing | 41 comments | 1,258 views

What about the annual housing cap?
By Tim Hunt | 5 comments | 886 views

DSRSD's Kohnen Scholarship on Hold
By Roz Rogoff | 0 comments | 564 views

Be a sport: Send us your youth sports news, scores and photos
By Gina Channell-Allen | 0 comments | 118 views