...Seems to be the newest trend of the current political ideology these days. It's all about accountability, I suppose; the American public "deserves" to be aware of its government's proceedings and procedures. After all, we're a democracy, no?

Well, sort of. We're actually a bureaucracy, and democracy has very little to do with it. However, I agree that most issues of importance to the American public should acquire the public availability that they deserve. It keeps our attention focused where it should be (as opposed to the hideous debasement of culture that is trash television and prime-time programming), it allows for an informed body of American citizens, and it keeps our lawmakers, executives, and judiciary accountable.

Why do I bring this up, you ask? Well, the answer is probably glaringly apparent if you know anything about me (or this blog). The battle over the broadcasting and publicity of the Proposition 8 trial is the hottest current issue this last week--excluding the clusterfuck in Haiti-- and on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court (divided along its usual conservative-liberal lines) banned the broadcast of the Proposition 8 trial now unfolding in the federal courthouse in San Fransisco, CA, putting a swift end to Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's planned experiment to post the proceedings on his court's Web site through YouTube.

I am still not sure where I stand on the the issue. Howard Mintz of has a nice snippet concerning the decision (want to read the article? Click here!):

While the ruling stressed that it was not "expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast," it signaled the Supreme Court is not quite ready to embrace cameras in the federal courts, which traditionally have forbid them. The majority concluded that Walker did not follow proper procedures that would have allowed a change in federal court rules to permit cameras in the trial and that the broadcast threatened toharm the fair trial rights of Prop. 8's defenders.

So, whether or not such publicity could be "harmful" to the participants in the trial, it is a fact that one must follow proper court procedure--even when one is a District Court judge.

Concerning the issue that is on trial, however, I most certainly have taken a side. For example, let's examine this gem of a statement in the latest fund-raising letter by Brian Brown,
Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage (that same organization who put out those sad, yet laughable, ads in April):
[...] There's a topline message here about this trial even many informed voters don't yet realized: It's not about California, it's about the whole country. Gay-marriage advocates are in federal court arguing for a federal constitutional right to gay marriage that would trump not only Prop 8, but the laws of 45 other states, including the 30 other states where the people have passed state constitutional marriage amendments.

That's right, the Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers contains a right to gay marriage--in their twisted view. This is judicial activism on steroids, and a flagrant disrespect for civility, common sense, and democracy.

Gay-marriage advocates believe they have a right to win. They think you and I don't count.
Well, he is right about 4 things:

1. It's not about California. It IS about the whole country.
2. This decision would, in fact, trump the laws of 45 other states, including 30 other states where the people have passed state constitutional marriage amendments (which, unfortunately, includes my own Missouri). Thankfully.
3. The Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers contains a right to gay marriage. Just as it contains a right for blacks, Latinos, Muslims, Mormons, morons, disabled people, and just about anyone else to marriage to whomever they so choose.
If you, dear Reader, would like to know exactly where this is written and why such equality is implicit to every American tax-paying citizen, please feel free to email me at
4. Gay marriage advocates believe we have a right to win. YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT WE DO.

Listen. We (I am speaking here on behalf of the entire GLBT and same-sex marriage advocate community) don't think you and your heinous, dogmatic, discriminatory, prejudiced beliefs don't count. We just think that you're ridiculous and tyrannical.

Alright, bleeding liberals. Let's buckle down and win this thing: it's been dragging out for too damn long already.


1 comment:

  1. Oddly enough, just before reading this, I came across this:

    I'm not sure why people are still convinced that religious beliefs count as a means to determine public law. It makes me feel a sickening sense of nausea.