Proposition 8 trial

Why They Don’t Want Us To See The Prop 8 Trial Jan 12 2010

In the absence of video coverage, many have been doing a tremendous job of documenting the Proposition 8 trial so far. As I mentioned yesterday, a lot is at stake in this trial, and having folks like Rick Jacobs to keep us informed is incredibly valuable. Check out the coverage to see his detailed almost-transcripts of the trial. Also, if you just want brief summaries, I highly recommend the professional and articulate summations of Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights over at Pam’s House Blend (here’s his day 1 roundup).

What you might have missed yesterday is the blog entry courtesy of Protect Marriage’s chief counsel Andy Pugno. If the actual courtroom discussions aren’t painful enough, wait until you see how eager the defendants are to twist knives.

It’s clear from his post that the real reason opponents of marriage equality don’t want coverage is so they can spin the case. His post mocks the plaintiffs and makes a laughingstock of the serious discrimination gays and lesbians experience. Worse, he suggests that any concerns for the well-being of gays and lesbians are preposterous. As I wrote yesterday, the defendants have to paint gays and lesbians as being powerful and making much ado about nothing; if court proceedings weren’t widely available, it’d make it much easier for them to twist things to their liking. They’re certainly trying, regardless.

Take a look:

We’re off. The first day of trial is concluded and we are beginning to see the outlines of the plaintiffs’ case emerge. Emotion was the order of the day as our opponents took the stand to describe examples of “awkward” situations and social discomfort in their everyday life experiences. They also testified about how they experienced “hurt feelings” whenever they saw a Yes on Prop 8 campaign ad, bumper sticker, or sign.

Apparently, the oppression of having to constantly explain your relationship (“awkward”) and the emotions experienced as others demonize you (“hurt feelings”) are not legitimate experiences, hence the mocking quotes.

One witness took particular offense by the campaign’s advertisements that encouraged voters to vote yes to “protect our children.” You’ll remember that the campaign had informed voters that legally recognizing same-sex marriage would interfere with the rights of parents to raise their own children according to their own beliefs. The witness actually admitted that he believes parents should have the primary responsibility for instilling moral values in children, but still couldn’t see that reasonable voters would feel the need to “protect our children” from laws that infringe on those parental rights.

Yes, because the plaintiffs didn’t see a problem with children learning about same-sex couples. Children don’t need to be protected from that.

What were conspicuously missing from the plaintiffs’ testimony were any examples of complaints that could be legally remedied by striking down Prop 8. It was quite apparent that striking down Prop 8 would not likely put an end to uncomfortable social experiences such as “puzzled looks” from people they meet.

Gay people are awkward and different and we’re going to keep making fun of them regardless of what happens.