**SEE ALSO: Liveblog from the Courage CampaignLiveblog from Mercury News
I can't even watch the proceedings at the regional Federal Courthouse, that was pre-designated to carry the trial televised. Just twitter feeds will have to do.
Posted by: Jeff Chang | Jan 11, 2010 11:55:59 AM
I guess I'm fortunate we had a vet appointment this morning, I didn't schlep down to the Seattle federal building for nothing. . .
Interesting tweet: Broadcast comment stats come from Judge Walker
138,574 public comments on broadcasting trial, overwhelmingly in favor (only 32 opposed to broadcast).
What the opposition doesn't seem to grasp, is that this is still a public trial and regardless . .there will be transcripts.
Posted by: Jon | Jan 11, 2010 12:29:27 PM
Cooper is a moron...harping on the "marriage is not for the personal enjoyment of two adults" concept? Is he CRAZY?!
Most people don't get married to HAVE children. Most people get married, then make the decision MUTUALLY to have children or not.
My aunt and uncle chose not to have children, and instead got three Shitzu's. They are quite happy and have been married for 34 years.
Marriage is about love between two people. It is not a sign on as a BABY MAKING FACTORY.
Posted by: Stef | Jan 11, 2010 1:48:24 PM
I want to see transcripts and I'm PISSED that the public can't watch this proceeding over something this obviously important.
This is a process of law that is a MUST for most Americans who have a stake in this law.
1. There are the precedents of Canada, to say nothing of Iowa and MA to show that marriage equality has no negative affect on children or anyone else worthy of this discrimination.
2. The majority is tyrannizing the gay minority, something the Constitution is supposed to protect from.
3. The judge is interrupting the flow of our lawyers so much it's evident he's throwing out rhetorical ones and not listening.
4. I'm DAMN tired of the 'marriage is for procreation' meme thrown into this. There IS no marriage discrimination based on the ability or intent to marry.
And this attitude ALSO disallows security for all the CHILDREN with gay parents!
Children are children, whether their parents are gay, hetero, disabled or single. By supporting their parents in their nurturing, we support the whole point of adults taking responsibility in the first place.
Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Jan 11, 2010 1:58:37 PM
They seem to be banking on the procreative union of opposite sex couples, and the arguments of David Blackenhorn who seems to believe that Civil Unions are the way to go. The first is obviously unsupportable, the later is "separate-but-equal". And, this is why they fully expect to lose at trial. They further hope that the Roberts / Thomas / Scalia court will overturn the ruling.
The fact of the matter is that it is easy to convince an ignorant populace that bigotry is acceptable, but there is a much higher threshold to cross when attempting to convince a court of law. IMHO, we will win all the way up to the USSC, and there, while we probably have every legal precedent on our side, I would put our chances at no more than 55:45 in favor. Ultimately though, I think that equal protection will win out over deeply ingrained prejudice.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 11, 2010 3:11:30 PM
I would like Walker to pose the same question to the lying liars that he posed to Olsen which was something like, "What is the distinction between marriage and the granting of a marriage license?" I mean, we all know what it is, it is the rights, responsibilities and legal protections afforded by the state to married couples. My inquisitive mind wants to know how the hatemongers would attempt to answer that fundamental question.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 11, 2010 9:15:27 PMcomments powered by Disqus