No one will miss actually seeing the public trial of Prop. 8 more than me. As someone with a day job, I have to rely on the liveblogs and posts and tweets of others to try and determine what has gone on in the courtroom. (As I write this, I find myself affecting a Southern accent and whispering, "I have always depended on the liveblogs of strangers.") As I've said before, there's nothing like going to the original source if you're trying to judge the truth of something.
But while the Supreme Court's decision was disappointing, I think people may have been unrealistic in thinking that the ability of the public to see these proceedings would be a boon for our side. I just don't believe that viewing the trial has "the potential to change the hearts and minds of countless Americans." With the exception of us gay geeks and law dorks, did anyone seriously think this would have been a ratings bonanza, a gay equivalent of the Clarence Thomas hearings?
YouTube or no, it is the fact of having the trial that is important. You can see that in the cross-examination of our witnesses, such as George Chauncey. As in the Prop. 8 commercials, our opponents take many things out of context in order to try and mischaracterize the record. But in a court of law, the witness has the ability to put those words right back into context, and shame the questioner. That seems to have happened a number of times . . . though of course I am only reporting hearsay here, since for some reason the testimony is not being made available directly.
Eventually, the result of the trial will be made public, including the judge's assessment of all the evidence, pro and con, and his conclusions about both the law and the facts. And, for the reviewing court (and hopefully the rest of us), the entire transcript, including the exhibits, will also be available as a public record.
In that sort of context, it is harder to get away with slanders and lies than it is in a 30-second TV spot - though I fully expect slanders and lies to be released about the trial and its result. That includes the lie and slander that witnesses for the opposition will be subjected to the tortures of the damned if they are required to be seen by the very public which, up until now, they have so assiduously courted.
As Dale Carpenter suggests, the Supreme Court's decision today may be an indication that we will ultimately lose there. But requiring our opponents to tell the truth under oath and in public - that is an enormous advance for us. Asking them to justify a discriminatory law based not on little formless fears but on actual, verifiable facts, whose truth has been tested by examination and cross-examination in public - that, as they say, is priceless.
7 Comments for “Truth Will Out”
posted by Jorge on
Yes, I was distressed by the nature of the split in the decision, too.
So, the counter argument to “gays get threatened more” is “nobody has proved people will get hurt if it’s not broadcast.” This is more fun than watching paint dry. I agree more with the majority, but not by much.
posted by Gary on
I know hope is a toxic and contagious thing, but I’m not naive enough to think, were this appealed and heard by SCOTUS, they would rule in favor of gay marriage…however much people wish Kennedy to be a spontaneous pendulum.
I’m content enough to hear the arguments put to air, confident they’ll be weak and more compelling a blunder on our nation’s history when we look back in years to come.
I presume we need our Plessy v. Ferguson at some point.
posted by BobN on
With the exception of us gay geeks and law dorks, did anyone seriously think this would have been a ratings bonanza, a gay equivalent of the Clarence Thomas hearings?
I doubt it would have risen to that level, but it would have been on every newscast and cable would have covered it pretty extensively. Culture War Goes to Court!
posted by Amicus on
This, yet to come, hopefully:
“Evidence about Yes on 8 campaign mechanics will probably receive wide airing. Last week Walker granted a motion to compel the deposition of Douglas Swardstrom, a top Yes on 8 official who had fought for months to keep his name from the plaintiffs.
According to campaign finance documents, Swardstrom is affiliated with Fieldstead & Co., which doles out money on behalf of Howard Ahmanson Jr. An extremely wealthy benefactor of conservative causes, Ahmanson’s views have been controversial, especially regarding the influence biblical law should have on the civil code. Ahmanson was reportedly a major contributor to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Swardstrom’s attorneys, led by James Bopp Jr. of Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, did not respond to requests for comment.”
posted by DragonScorpion on
No, nor did it have to be to still be very important. Perhaps more now than ever, little snippets and soundbites can resonate with average folks in ways that can and does alter not only their perceptions of things but also changes hearts and minds.
Let me provide you an example that I found compelling, what effect do you think this sort of exchange would have had to those watching?
âIn the courtroom, Mr. Cooperâs arguments seemed to fall of their own weight. The government should be allowed to favor opposite-sex marriages, Mr. Cooper said, in order âto channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions.â
Judge Walker appeared puzzled. âThe last marriage that I performed,â the judge said, âinvolved a groom who was 95, and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?â
Mr. Cooper said no.
âAnd I might say it was a very happy relationship,â Judge Walker said.
âI rejoice to hear that,â Mr. Cooper responded, returning to his theme that only procreation matters.”
Puts things in perspective. And even more so, I should think, if you were actually watching it, seeing the reactions, the awkward responses, the attempts to evade…
Would televising this trial have been a great boon for our cause? No, I don’t think so. Would it have motivated some folks on the fence to learn more our way? I think so, yes. Would it have given the same-sex marriage advocacy movement some reasoned arguments and emotional connotations to rally behind? Without question.
With all due respect, Mr. Link, I think if the Supreme Court would have decided differently and this were put up for public display, you’d likely be proclaiming how important it is going to be for our cause.
But I most certainly agree with you that regardless how this trial turns out, there is no question that same-sex marriage opponents and certainly right-wing political opportunists will be propagating slanders and lies about the trial and its result.
posted by DragonScorpion on
forgot something.
posted by Chairm on
DragonScorpion, I don’t think that re-creation accurately portrays the highly competent performance of Mr. Cooper. Nor the odd behavior of Judge Walker.
If that bit had been broadcast, the Judge would have been the focus — for entertainment value if nothing more. And that odd behavior discredits the court.