RECENT  POSTS:  » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs » The religious anti-gay crowd: They never understood the marriage fight; now they don't understand their loss  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

03/05/2009

Audio: An ear to the courtroom floor

by Jeremy Hooper

Prop-8-legal-challengeIt's now over. But if you missed any of today's Prop 8 hearing, you can listen to the complete set of arguments right here:


9AM-9:36AM (minter, marshall):




9:36AM-9:59AM (maroko):




9:59AM -10:18AM (stewart):




10:18AM -10:51AM (krueger):




10:51AM -11:45AM (ken starr):




11:45AM -12:12PM (rebuttals):




The court has 90 days to either do the right thing or keep Prop 8.

**SEE ALSO: Want to compare today's hearing to last year's winning arguments? Well, we have the '08 hearing archived here

**UPDATE: Andy Towle has a roundup of local media coverage.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

It's great that Kenneth Starr is before the court in defense of prop 8. He like the GOP extremists of our day is terribly abrasive and extremist. I think that the Justices are troubled by this extremism. His view seems terribly extreme in his view that the majority of the people have almost unchecked right to amend the constitution.

Posted by: Benjamin | Mar 5, 2009 2:10:16 PM

When Starr was speaking, my video feed crashed several times... I wonder if that is ominous? Talk about the dark side!

Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 5, 2009 3:40:32 PM

So, since they already have their opionions written, and none of this mattered. I think they will uphold the marriages to November 5. ... and validate Prop 8.

So, how a minority can get rights back that are taken away I have no clue. Stewart was great and should have had all our sides time. JBrown sent substitute, who was not very good. Starr was the only one 'comfortable' in front of the court, but he was not persuasive.

Chief Justice George wants the whole Amendment process in CA changed. Yesterday preferably.

Posted by: LOrion | Mar 5, 2009 3:42:04 PM

Any news on when we can expect to actually hear the decision?

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Mar 5, 2009 4:44:25 PM

The punditocracy seems to have heard the court saying that they will uphold H8, but not divorce the same-sex couples who were legally married. I wonder how much of the questioning from the justices is a process of "playing devil's advocate" rather than a tell of the "true" intent.

On one day you hear George suggest that the primary benefit that we gained from last year's decision was the fact that we have been classified as a suspect class. Then, today we hear him asking questions which seem to suggest that that suspect classification is immaterial to the discussion of Prop H8.

Which makes me wonder how much of his (and other's) questions were more leading... but I may just be over-analyzing hoping to find the missing pearls in the dog poop.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 5, 2009 7:03:50 PM

No, Dick, I think you're right on the money. I think it's dangerous to read into the justices every word as if they are speaking their heart and mind. It is their job to put the arguments through the ringer.

And yes, much of what George had to say does go against some of the wonderful things we have hear dhim say while not in a court setting.

Me, I'm going to have a glass of wine and breathe.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 5, 2009 7:07:43 PM

Hey not only that you guys but these justices have to be "prudent" in how they analyze this whole thing being extremely careful to respect precedence, looking at all sides of the issues and striving to be as unbiased as possible as well. They look at all possible consequences of their decisions over the long run.

Posted by: Benjamin | Mar 5, 2009 11:51:08 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails