And it’s taken very little time for the anti-marriage bigots in favour of discriminating against gays to revive their ironic determination to have courts protect their identities:
The U.S. Supreme Court, acting on an appeal from conservative defenders of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, overruled a federal judge in San Francisco today and blocked video coverage of the trial on YouTube…
Under the court’s rules, lawyers can seek an emergency order only if they can show their clients will suffer “irreparable harm” if the justices fail to act. In this case, the defenders of Prop. 8 said their witnesses could be subjected to harassment and intimidation if they testified in favor of the ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples.
I say “revive”, because it isn’t the first time they’ve done it:
In October, the justices blocked officials in the state of Washington from releasing the names of 138,000 people who signed ballot petitions seeking to overturn a state law giving equal benefits to gay and lesbian couples. Under Washington law, the names were considered public record.
But attorney James Bopp told the high court that the signers of these petitions could be subjected to harassment if their names were revealed. And the court granted an order blocking the release.
I can’t understand why someone declaring that other human beings are unworthy of the rights they enjoy, and should be denied them by government, might prefer that those other human beings didn’t know about it. It might well be embarrassing. (It SHOULD be embarrassing.) But this is a political issue, and they’re the ones trying to oppress others. Why should a court let them do that behind closed doors? Come on, bigots, come out of the closet.
The other amusing thing was the anti-marriage side objecting to their own advertisements being put into evidence.
I don’t think the anti-marriage side expects to win this one. I think they expect to lose badly and then blame it on “activist San Francisco judges” and hope that the conservative US Supreme Court upholds their appeal.
ELSEWHERE: Prominent US conservative Ted Olsen’s conservative case for gay marriage.
*It’s US “democracy”, so a “majority” doesn’t actually mean a majority of voting-age citizens.