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


Wait, now NOM *LIKES* cameras in the courtroom?!?

by Jeremy Hooper

We all heard NOM and its heads go nutso over Judge Vaughn Walker's ultimately failed attempt to televise the Prop 8 trial. Back in February, Brian Brown said this:

But the most egregious, and damaging, of all of Judge Walker's rulings was his determination to violate federal rules to broadcast his show trial worldwide. The US Supreme Court eventually blocked Walker's efforts (and rapped his biased knuckles sharply!) finding that he improperly changed the rules "at the eleventh hour" in violation of federal law. (Unfortunately, however, but by the time the Supreme Court issued a permanent stay two days into trial, the supporters of Prop 8 had already lost two-thirds of their expert witnesses who feared retaliation from the publicity).

Judge Walker's bias has been so extreme, he's earned a rare judicial "twofer." Key elements of his "fishing expedition" rulings were already reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (notably one of the most liberal in the nation) and the Supreme Court had to step in to block his illegal attempt to broadcast the trial.

Got Bias? [NOM]

And Maggie Gallagher even wrote a letter to the Chair of the Rules Committee, pleading to keep the cameras out:

The purpose of a trial is not to educate the public. It is to do justice to the parties the court has permitted in the court room. Where there is a conflict, or a potential conflict, courts must adhere to their primary purpose and eschew any innovations that threaten that purpose.

If television is ever to be permitted, it should only be when all parties to the litigation agree. Anything else is a travesty of justice, a subordination of the purpose of a court system to some other goal.

Here's the bottom line: If the Supreme Court should overturn Proposition 8 and find a constitutional right to gay marriage I will never know whether or not that would be a result of the haste to televise the trial.

And it is to no-one's interest that such a reasonable doubt should be thrown on the deliberations of the Supreme Court.


Maggie Gallagher
President, National Organization for Marriage

Letter to Court Regarding Televised Trials [NOM]

So clearly NOM hates the idea, right? The simply detest it. Cameras = gross. Patooey, patooey.

Well, not so fast. Check out the most recent "like" from NOM's official YouTube page:

Screen Shot 2010-08-06 At 3.14.20 Pm

NOM's YouTube Channel

Yes, that's right: NOM, via its organizational YouTube home, has lent credence to a video all about getting cams into halls of justice. This video:

So wait, what was all that winter hand-wringing about?!? Was NOM being disingenuous in their staunch camera opposition? Have they evolved on this position and will fully support cameras when the Prop 8 case gets to SCOTUS? Or is there a rogue progressive handling their YT channel for the purposes of giving gay bloggers easy posts on Friday afternoons?

You decide. We (if not cameras) will document it.

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

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails