About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Media blackout of Proposition 8 federal trial discussed on In The Life

April 01, 2010 11:05 am ET by Karl Frisch

In January, just as the federal trial over the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 was set to begin, I wrote at length about the conservative media's likely response to such a legal challenge given their past coverage of gay and lesbian equality issues:

Regardless of which side prevails, experts agree the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the highest court in the land.

Cue right-wing media hysteria and homophobia.

Few other issues whip the conservative media chattering class into a frenzy like the equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans. This unprecedented federal legal challenge is unlikely to be any different.

The Prop. 8 trial was to be videotaped and provided to the public via YouTube. In a very real sense, the notion of what it means to be an LGBT American would be on trial and the whole world would be watching.

It was unclear at the time whether those who supported the dismantling of marriage equality in California would be successful in their legal effort to keep cameras out of the courtroom -- a move the traditional media opposed. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative, activist majority banned the cameras.

I recently sat down with the folks at In The Life -- the longest running television show documenting the gay experience -- to discuss the High Court imposed media blackout. Be sure to check out the video below:

Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by MagCynic (April 01, 2010 11:43 am ET)
      2 2
      You know, if conservatives were consistent in their beliefs of government they'd be on the side of the gay community in this case - at least concerning the power of the federal government. Nowhere in the Constitution does Congress have the power to make a decision either way on marriage, gay or straight.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (April 01, 2010 11:49 am ET)
        3  
        "Nowhere in the Constitution does Congress have the power to make a decision either way on marriage, gay or straight."
        Maybe that's why conservatives want to amend the Constitution.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cst (April 01, 2010 11:49 am ET)
        1  
        When you're right, you're right.(And you even acknowledged conservative hypocracy, too!)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by all your eyes (April 01, 2010 1:28 pm ET)
          1  
          Well, he's not entirely right. Congress (and state legislatures) do have power to pass laws regarding marriage. Civil marriage wouldn't exist without laws to make it exist. Necessary and proper. However, what the government cannot do, is to provide certain rights to certain groups of people, and deny them to others. This is covered under the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MagCynic (April 01, 2010 2:02 pm ET)
              1
            What specific power of Congress gives them the right to pass laws regarding marriage?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by all your eyes (April 01, 2010 2:23 pm ET)
              1  
              The same specific power that gives them the right to pass any law that is necessary and proper. Article 1 section 8. It is very broad. This was done intentionally. If you want to make the case that civil marriage should be abolished, that's fine. But there is nothing unconstitutional about congress passing laws regarding civil marriage. It is their right under the broad legislative powers outlined in the constitution.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by all your eyes (April 01, 2010 2:31 pm ET)
                1  
                And, for your reading pleasure, oh ignorant one:

                "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

                To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carying into Execution the forgoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

                Between this and the commerce clause, Congress is granted virtually unlimited power to legislate as it deems fit, to be negated only by specific rights reserved for states and individuals, and by the periodic elections of its members. If you don't like the laws they've passed regarding a certain subject, vote them out. But unless they act in ways directly contravening the constitution (i.e. DOMA's violations of equal protection, and of full faith and credit), Congress can pretty much do whatever it wants.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MagCynic (April 01, 2010 2:43 pm ET)
                    1
                  Between this and the commerce clause, Congress is granted virtually unlimited power to legislate as it deems fit
                  Congress can pretty much do whatever it wants.
                  Uh... there are a bunch of old, dead, white guys that would disagree with you.

                  The Founders set up a specific, limited central government. I challenge you to find one, single Founder who argued for a Congress that holds unlimited power.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by all your eyes (April 01, 2010 3:00 pm ET)
                    1  
                    See below for a short list off the top of my head, but it's a list of founders who believed in a strong central government, not an unlimited federal government. There are negations on the power of the government found in the constitution, and like I said, if you don't like it, vote them out. That is the ultimate check on the power of congress: they must answer to the voters. Of course, imperfect as the constitution was (and remains), the voters in those days were white male property owners exclusively...
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by MagCynic (April 01, 2010 2:38 pm ET)
                  1
                The same specific power that gives them the right to pass any law that is necessary and proper. Article 1 section 8. It is very broad.
                Except that the Necessary and Proper Clause must be tied back to one of the previously listed powers of Congress. Which of these previously listed powers of Congress would marriage fall under?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by all your eyes (April 01, 2010 2:47 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Didn't I italicize "general Welfare" for you? You're not as dense as you pretnd to be. And I would point to Mr. Adams and Mr. Hamilton, as well as Mr. Jay, Mr. Madison, and many others, who believed in a strong Federal government with broad powers. And clearly, their view prevailed, as shown by these clauses and the deference given them by the courts over the centuries.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MagCynic (April 01, 2010 3:13 pm ET)
                      1
                    Didn't I italicize "general Welfare" for you?
                    The power to provide for the General Welfare is tied to collecting taxes. In other words, an appropriation must be made to provide something to the general citizenry. How does this apply to marriage? Regulating marriage is neither taxing people not providing anything to the general citizenry.
                    And I would point to Mr. Adams and Mr. Hamilton, as well as Mr. Jay, Mr. Madison, and many others, who believed in a strong Federal government with broad powers.
                    Madison - "To take [the General Welfare] in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
                    Madison - "[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
                    Madison - "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
                    Do I need to go on? They believe in a strong federal government with specific, limited powers, not broad, unlimited powers.
                    And clearly, their view prevailed, as shown by these clauses and the deference given them by the courts over the centuries.
                    Would you not agree that SCOTUS decisions in the past have increase Congressional power? This is in of itself unconstitutional as the only way to increase governmental power is through the amendment process.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by all your eyes (April 01, 2010 3:42 pm ET)
                      1  
                      The power to provide for the general welfare is no more linked to taxation than the right to keep and bear arms is linked to membership in a militia. Just as with all the other reasons Congress may raise taxes, the necessary and proper clause gives them the power to legislate as they see fit to implement any of these powers. And forgive me, but Madison's rantings about how we shouldn't interpret the words of the constitution literally fall on deaf ears here. Congress can do what it wants, the courts have ruled thusly, the case is closed, only false "strict constructionists" would deny the words on parchment to serve their own partisan ends.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by MagCynic (April 01, 2010 3:54 pm ET)
                          1
                        And forgive me, but Madison's rantings about how we shouldn't interpret the words of the constitution literally fall on deaf ears here.
                        How so? I am reading the literal words of the Constitution. Pertaining to the General Welfare it reads:
                        Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ... to... provide for the... general welfare
                        That's all tied together. There's no interpretation there, is there?
                        Report Abuse
            • Author by John Paradox (April 01, 2010 9:34 pm ET)
              1  
              The same power that allows Congress (and state and local legislatures) to enforce contracts. Essentially, a 'marriage license' is a contract, defining the rights and duties for those who are entering into it, and the courts have the 'right' to make the contractees live up to what they have agreed to in that contract. This is why I support 'gay' marriage, with the requirement only that the person performing the 'wedding' be licensed to perform the ritual, be it a 'minister', justice of the peace, or someone with a 'mail-order ministry' that is recognized as a legitimate organization.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (April 01, 2010 11:59 am ET)
           
        They'd also stop meddling in Abortion law, and wouldn't have allowed the Christian Funny-Mentalists to take over the party. But the Right is fueled by nothing but greed: The Libertarians sold out their social agenda, to buy the vote of the funny-mentalists... who sold out their social agenda, at least as it pertained to charity, helping the poor etc...

        Libertarians got the pay-off with the resultant de-regulatory agenda - one that protects the freedom of CORPORATIONS...

        ...While the funny-mentalists not only got free-reign to interfere in the lives of INDIVIDUALS, but they actually got MATERIALLY REWARDED for it. From this, grew the prosperity gospel. (The worst piece of theology to come along since we stoipped burning witches.)

        Both groups sold out for money: Libertarians stopped protecting individual liberty, while Christians stopped caring about the poor. And thus the Republican party was able to form a coalistion of two groups that should have had diametrically opposed agendas, both socially and economically.

        --------------------------------------------------
        In God we trust... all others must pay cash!
        Report Abuse