Supreme Court Says “No” to Public Access

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 5-4 that the trial of Proposition 8 in California cannot be broadcast on the internet.

The presiding Judge Vaughn Walker had originally ruled that taping and delayed broadcast via YouTube of the trial would be allowed, but the anti-gay proponents of Proposition 8 filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court asking them to block taping. The Supreme Court Justices had originally placed a temporary three-day ban on allowing public viewing of the trial stating they needed more time to consider the issue.

Supporters of the Proposition which banned same-sex marriage said they could be targeted if the case was broadcast and cited claims of death threats.

In the ruling, justices agreed that they could be subject to intimidation and “irreparable harm”.

The decision to ban taping was split down the liberal and conservative line of the court justices, as the four liberal justices voted in favor of broadcasting and the 5 conservative justices voted in favor of the ban.

Justice Stephen G Breyer, called the decision “unusual” and said there was no precedent for blocking public access to proceedings. In a statement Breyer wrote:

“It identifies no real harm, let alone ‘irreparable harm’. . . . And the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts.”

Breyer also noted that those who would be testifying in favor of the gay marriage ban had made extensive public and television appearances in the last year.

Although the decision has been made, and although Supreme Court Justices do not have to worry about being removed from office by public vote, if you are unhappy with the court’s decision, I would urge you to send a letter to the members of the Supreme Court voicing your opinion about their decision to not allow taping of this historic trial against discrimination.  They are still public servants.

Please write a letter and mail it via USPS to:

Public Information Officer
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, DC 20543.

A sample letter has been posted below:

[Date]

Public Information Officer
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, DC 20543

Justices of the Supreme Court,

I am writing as a tax-paying citizen of the United States and a concerned citizen thereof.

I find your decision to block taping of the Proposition 8 trial to be a gross misuse of your ultimate power.

This is a trial of epic proportions for Civil Rights.  This is a trial that affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of tax-paying American citizens who deserve the right to be able to witness the arguments against equality.

The people who are arguing against equality are no more at risk of danger than those arguing in favor of equality.

I am a hard-working tax-paying American citizen who has been continually reminded that I am not equal in the country of my citizenship.  I deserve the right to know the arguments against my equality and I deserve the right to access the proceedings that are deciding my fate as an American.

With all due respect, your decision panders to those who have spent millions tax-exempt dollars to maintain discrimination.  Your decision speaks poorly of the U.S. Supreme Court and your decision does not support that notion of transparency in government, which is one of the great elements of a democracy.

I am strongly disappointed, and know your tenure makes my disappointment irrelevant, which greatly discounts my pride as an American citizen.

Sincerely,

[Your name and address here]

California: Marijuana, Not Gay Marriage?

As the legality of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, continues to be debated in a San Francisco federal courtroom this week, one so-called culture issue that may be faring better in the Golden State is the legalization of marijuana.

A bill seeking to legalize the drug won initial approval from a legislative committee in the state’s Assembly Tuesday.

But the vote may be purely symbolic because a second committee likely won’t take it up in time to permit passage.

The state Assembly’s public safety committee voted 4-3 on the measure that would tax and regulate marijuana in the same way alcohol is controlled. But the health committee also must approve the measure by Friday before the full Assembly can consider it – an unlikely scenario.

More at: CBS News Blog!

GLBT’s Have Been a “Despised Category”

During the second day of a high-profile trial on same-sex marriage, a historian told a federal court that laws and police practices throughout U.S. history show gays and lesbians have been a “despised category,” a minority that have been arrested, fired, harassed and censored because of sexual orientation.

“Gay life really was pushed underground,” New York University history professor George Chauncey testified this afternoon.

Chauncey was the second expert witness to be called by lawyers for two same-sex couples who are challenging the federal constitutionality of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that resurrected a California ban on same-sex marriage.

Because laws and police practices forced gays and lesbians to hide their sexuality and because the entertainment industry until recent years shied away from stories about homosexuality, “many young people growing up had no idea that there [were] other people like themselves,” he said.

Similarly, many heterosexuals assumed they knew no gays or lesbians, which fostered dangerous and negative stereotypes, he said.

More at: LA Times Blog!

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

According to a post on Bioethics Forum:

Using the power of one’s wallet to effect social change: that’s got to be one of the best-loved steps in the beautiful dance we call American democracy. And so leaders in the LBGT activist community have called for a boycott of businesses owned by individuals who contributed to California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that rolled back the right to marriage for same-sex couples in California.

The Manchester Hyatt Hotel, in San Diego, is one of those businesses. Its owner, Doug Manchester, contributed $125,000 in an effort to stop gay and lesbian Californians from being allowed to marry. Nevertheless, executives of the American Psychological Association (APA) have opted to go ahead and use the Manchester Hyatt as a headquarter hotel for the APA’s 2010 meeting, against the vocal objections of many of the APA’s own members.

What’s especially striking is that the APA seems to be violating its own policies in this matter. As Psychologists for Social Responsibility noted on its blog, “the APA’s 2004 policy statement on sexual orientation and marriage includes a specific resolution that the association ‘shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination in legal benefits, rights, and privileges against same-sex couples.’” Meanwhile, the APA’s own ethics code specifically states as a principle that “psychologists respect and protect civil and human rights.” So what gives?

More here!

Gay is not the New Black

Written by Irene Monroe and posted on Huffington Post:

If you are African American and gay, and fighting alongside your white brothers and sisters for queer civil rights, the notion that “Gay is the new black” is not only absurdly arrogant, it is also dangerously divisive.

In a presumably “post-racial” era with the country’s first African American president-elect, it’s easy for some to assume that race doesn’t matter.

But when critiquing the dominant white gay community’s ongoing efforts to gain marriage equality and its treatment of blacks as their second-class allies in the struggle a reality check happens — both straight and queer African American communities bond together against their strategy for marriage equality.

Why?

Because race does matter!

Read the rest here.

Next Page »