They wanna forcibly cast us on "Divorce Court', yet we're the ones misusing cameras?!
You really have to wonder about a lawyer who claims that the "majority always rules," without making any note of the courts' role in protecting minority rights:
You also have to wonder why Brian Brown and Co. are so hellbent of the cameras issue. Never mind what's coming out of his mouth, as we know that's all noise. What's curious is the truth behind the talking points: The reasons why these professional discriminators are so hellbent on selling the script that a camera automatically turns a courtroom into a circus. After all, Brown is a man who seems to have never met a camera on which he'll restrain his anti-gay testimony. Hell, NOM proudly posted Brian's Washington D.C. testimony to their own YouTube channel, ostensibly because they too see power in full disclosure. So why is his side now so frightened of what should be as much of an opportunity for them to clarify the record as it is for us?
Easy: Because in a setting where they are bound by oath and subject to questioning, they know that their arguments will wither faster than a wedding bouquet that was intended to be thrown by a lesbian bride, in a Sacramento banquet hall, on November 6, 2008. Whereas our side thrives in open forums, echo chambers are the "pro-family" team's fields of choice. It's why virtually no anti-gay website allows an open comments forum. It's also why their movement never goes off script in televised debates, subjecting themselves to the risks of talking like a human rather than a press release. They know where their strengths lie (and we do mean lie), and transparency is not their strong suit. Hell, it's not even their semi-tough sports coat!
So for the next few days, until this camera issue is sorted out, you're going to hear them fibbing up and down the media dial, claiming that the mean, angry gays want to get them on camera so that we can spend the rest of our days and nights harassing them (even though these "threats" will most always be anonymous and vague). But those of us on the side of peace know the truth. We just need to keep highlighting their side's reality show for what it is: Faker than "The Hills" and with far more spousal casualties than all of the seasons of "The Bachelor" combined! The more we do, the more others will catch on.
*Since cameras ARE currently on hold, be sure to check out Rick Jacobs' extensive transcript of today's proceedings.
**UPDATE: Maddow takes on the camera drama:
"In a democracy the majority alwasy rules" True... Are they referring to ancient Greece? But if they are referring to the United States, then I should remind them that we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a direct democracy. That includes a judiciary, whose purpose is to determine the constitutionality of the laws.
Posted by: Jeff Chang | Jan 11, 2010 9:53:09 PM
It's odd that the pro-gay side is constantly being accused of having a sinister, secret agenda being imposed on the public in a sneaky, underhanded manner, when in fact this is the side that most supports openness and clarity.
Posted by: Dan T. | Jan 11, 2010 9:57:54 PM
Isn't it maddening, boys?
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 11, 2010 10:01:13 PM
It just reveals the depths of their myopic misunderstanding that they consider themselves potential victims of harassment and violence, when they and their ilk have been harassing and assaulting (or promoting such, however implicitly or explicitly) any gay or lesbian who dares live their lives.
Posted by: JT | Jan 11, 2010 10:21:42 PM
Of course majority rules!
Like the time Americans voted to end slavery, or
like the time we voted to let women vote, or
like the time we voted to give corporate bailouts, or
like the time we voted to allow Clarence Thomas to be on the Supreme Court!
Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Jan 11, 2010 11:12:04 PM
The examples they have given of anti-anti gay violence are either ludicrous (a styrofoam cross broken), legal (boycotts of businesses), or could not be linked to homosexuals (white powder sent to a church or graffiti, either of which could have been sent by disgruntled congregants or by people trying to stir up trouble).
In contrast, I know numerous people who have been physically attacked for being gay. A friend of mine had his car vandalized in California for having a "No on 8" bumper sticker.
Posted by: homer | Jan 12, 2010 1:05:57 AM
ONE death threat, ladies and gentleman, ONE! Meanwhile how many gay people have been MURDERED in the last decade? Yet these bigots get ONE death threat and act like it is the end of the world.
Posted by: Tony P | Jan 12, 2010 1:37:40 AM
"In a democracy the majority always rules"
That quote clearly demonstrates why all Americans should be concerned about the outcome of this case. If we start setting the precedent that the majority can vote away the rights of others, none of our rights are safe. As a conservative, that idea is repugnant to it's core. That's not democracy, it's mob rule and anarchy.
Posted by: Ryn | Jan 12, 2010 1:45:46 AM
Mr. Brown doesn't want cameras because Mr. Brown realizes that if the bulk of American citizens saw and heard what kind of arguments were being used by those opposed to legalized same-sex marriage (faith-based, bigotry-based, faulty-logic-based), Mr. Brown's side would lose funding and support.
Posted by: Brian | Jan 12, 2010 8:27:21 AMcomments powered by Disqus