Judge Walker Astounding Result of Public Comment Support and And Live Report from Court
- Image by lez get real via Flickr
Posted by Melanie Nathan NOTE: You can folow the trial Verbatim and it is a great service. Read this letter sent to me by Rick Jacobs and then follow the Live reporting.
In just three days, an astounding 140,671 Americans signed our letter asking Judge Vaughn Walker to “televise the trial” — and we hand-delivered 138,248 of your signatures to the court Friday morning.
The good news: Judge Walker just announced the amazing final results on public comments: 138,542 in favor, 32 opposed. Congrats to the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action communities!
The bad news: Opponents of marriage equality filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday, begging to hide the trial from the American public. And a few hours ago, the Supreme Court delayed their decision until Wednesday.
Prop 8 supporters and anti-equality organizations like the National Organization for Marriage have spent tens of millions of dollars on 30-second ads scaring the American people into thinking that same-sex marriage will destroy our country. And now, when federal judges want to open the courtrooms to America, Prop 8 supporters want to unplug the TV.
What are they hiding? And what are organizations like NOM and Focus on the Family willing to do and say to keep the American people from finding out the truth?
http://www.couragecampaign.org/GetTheTruthOut
On the defensive, Prop 8 supporters are scared they will lose. Maggie Gallagher, President of NOM, has made Judge Vaughn Walker the immediate target of NOM’s misinformation strategy, launching a baseless attack on the judge a few days ago:
“The case will be a show trial in a kangaroo court. I don’t say that lightly of any federal judge, but Judge Walker’s extraordinary bias has already been flagrantly on display.”
As the trial unfolds, we can expect NOM and their allies to continue to try and convince the public the court is biased. And our Prop 8 Trial Tracker will continue to monitor these misleading right-wing claims, in and outside the courtroom, and report the truth.
We’re launching the Prop 8 Trial Tracker as a public service to get the truth out. But we can’t do it without your support. Please contribute $25, $50, $100 or more right now to support our work during the Prop 8 trial to hold the right-wing accountable:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/GetTheTruthOut
Thank you for helping us get the truth out ASAP.
Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign InstituteExample of Reporting now:10 Comments
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
Leave a Reply
Loading ...
I don’t believe the plaintiffs will be successful. As much as they want to make it a civil rights issue, I don’t see that they have the evidence to support it. Basically, it sounds like their argument is that that if two people love each other that they should be able to get married. However, in the eyes of the state, they already stop people under certain conditions from getting married no matter how much they love each other. For example, some old man can’t marry a 13 year old girl even if she loves him. The state also doesn’t allow polygamy no matter how much they love each other. They don’t allow brothers and sisters to get married to each other. In addition, the defendants are going to argue that gays and lesbians have the same right to marry that straight people do and it’s true. They can marry one person of legal age of the opposite gender. I imagine it’s going to be heartbreaking for many gay and lesbian couples who deeply love each other but I just don’t see that the argument of the plaintiffs is strong enough to overturn the existing law.
An Old man shouldn’t be able to marry a thirteen year old girl because of consent and sexual understanding issues. There’s scientific evidence that suggest that 13 yr olds may not be mature enough to engage in romantic relationships and or sexual relationships, but even more so when it comes to engaging in this behavior with adults. If pedophilia is illegal based on evidence that it is abusive, then why would pedophiliac marriage be legal?
As far as polygamy goes, I’m not really against it. I understand that the state would be against, not for religious reasons like people think, but because of the difficulties defining benefits for each partner and so forth.
So basically marriage is an institution b/w 2 unrelated consenting adults, or teens who have parental consent. If heterosexuals are allowed to engage in this, then what are the logical reasons for not allowing 2 unrelated consenting adults or teens of the same sex (with parental consent for the latter) to engage in it? That is what I hope the plaintiff’s are asking in court. So far the defense is doing nothing more then gasping at straws. So we just might win this time, if this judge has a real sense of justice. We can only hope.