Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

You Can’t Turn the Lights Off

Community/Meta

By Julia Rosen

A lot of people have been moved by the Prop 8 Trial and this little website. Count the actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt (3rd Rock from the Sun and 500 Days of Summer) and his production company HitRECord among them. They were so inspired that they created this Schoolhouse Rock’ish animated video nearly overnight and premiered it at Sundance.

We just aired it here at Camp Courage Central Coast in Santa Barbara to nearly 200 people who are all here for an intensive two-day training designed to teach the principles and skills of community organizing to activists working on marriage equality. People were tapping their feet and singing along to it.

Hopefully you will enjoy it as much as they did.

117 Comments

  • 1. Dieter M.  |  January 31, 2010 at 6:24 am

    here is a link that works:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1sxXVcQzHA

  • 2. Dieter M.  |  January 31, 2010 at 6:24 am

    ooops maybe not…lol

  • 3. Fred  |  January 31, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Is it accurate to say that the State moved to block the broadcast as opposed to the defense legal team? Or is the language accurate because the State is named as a defendant?

  • 4. Ronnie  |  January 31, 2010 at 6:32 am

    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! Julia you owe me a bluetooth keyboard, a bluetooth mouse, and a monitor

    GEEZE…There is soup all over the place…..LMAO!!!!!

  • 5. David Crane  |  January 31, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Just posted it to facebook, with Walker's clarification from the first day of trial: the proceedings were not intended to be posted to youtube, but rather the government was going to contract with youtube to post them to the Northern District of California's website. And I noted that the Supreme Court's ruling was based on a procedural misstep and not the ethics/constitutionality of the matter.

    In the coverage of this trial, I've noticed a tendency on both sides to dwell on the politics and not the details. This troubles me a little, since it seems to me that the details may be what set the terms for later arguments.

  • 6. Alan E.  |  January 31, 2010 at 6:52 am

    I like that they used the people from the protect marriage logo in the video. A giant finger to their attempt to sue CC.

  • 7. Yeoh  |  January 31, 2010 at 6:56 am

    I love the Protect Marriage dweebs singing joyfully in the background!!

  • 8. Ronnie  |  January 31, 2010 at 6:56 am

    They'll probably sue for defamation of character….LOL

  • 9. Marko Markov  |  January 31, 2010 at 7:03 am

    I looooove it!!! And I love Joseph Gordon-Levitt :-))))))

    Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

    Love,
    Marko

  • 10. rpx  |  January 31, 2010 at 7:42 am

    LOVE the video I hope it gets a lot of play all over and having it launch at Sundance is awsome! I do beleive ti is accurate because it says the State, and the courts are part of "the state"
    Clapping and snapping to the vid from France.

  • 11. Heather Freeman  |  January 31, 2010 at 7:42 am

    Us deaf/HOH queers would really love subtitles and/or a transcript for the first 2:40!

  • 12. GraciesDaddy  |  January 31, 2010 at 7:47 am

    I've shared it on FaceBook… C'mon, Folks… It's easy for this to go viral!!

  • 13. Phil L  |  January 31, 2010 at 8:02 am

    It's very very strange, but there were very few points in the trial (transcripts) that made me even remotely tear up (I admittedly came close to tearing up a few times) but for some reason this video did it.

    I guess a big part of it is seeing just how many people really DO care about equality despite those who would trample on it.

  • 14. Sean  |  January 31, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Love it, love it, LOVE IT!!

  • 15. Richard W. Fitch  |  January 31, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Posted to FB, also. Keep it moving! Make it viral!

  • 16. Ronnie  |  January 31, 2010 at 8:20 am

    I posted it the second it was placed on here…FLOOD THE WORLD WITH THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!

  • 17. Clifton Joullian  |  January 31, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Very cute!! Clif

  • 18. Lance Lanier  |  January 31, 2010 at 8:41 am

    I LOVE THE VIDEO and I've posted it to Facebook as well. I don't know about anyone else, but the video means sooo much more than those that discriminate us can imagine. I CRIED. Everytime I watch it my eyes tear up.

    Thank You for Sharing with us.

  • 19. Phil L  |  January 31, 2010 at 9:00 am

    I just sent a link to the video, this website, and Firedoglake to a friend on Deviantart.com and asked him to spread the word as well.

  • 20. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 31, 2010 at 9:09 am

    OK, I'll start:

    Kid: Huh? Where is it? Ahhh! Ungh, this sucks!

    Computer guy: What's the matter, kid? You can't get your video game to load?

    Kid: Screw you, freaky computer spirit! There's a trial going on right now to decide whether my moms can get married or not, and I can't find video of it anywhere!

    Computer guy: Well that's because the state doesn't want people to see video clips that makes them look like bad guys in a civil rights case!

    Kid: But the judge said they could totally tape it and put it up on YouTube. What went wrong?

  • 21. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 31, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Oops…typo. /perfectionist

    Kid: Huh? Where is it? Ahhh! Ungh, this sucks!
    Computer guy: What’s the matter, kid? You can’t get your video game to load?
    Kid: Screw you, freaky computer spirit! There’s a trial going on right now to decide whether my moms can get married or not, and I can’t find video of it anywhere!
    Computer guy: Well that’s because the state doesn’t want people to see video clips that make them look like bad guys in a civil rights case!
    Kid: But the judge said they could totally tape it and put it up on YouTube. What went wrong?

  • 22. Sarah  |  January 31, 2010 at 9:30 am

    I've done my best to transcribe it for you:
    Boy:Huh? Where is it? Agh….ugh this sucks!
    "Computer Spirit": What's the matter kid? Can't get your video games to load?
    B:Screw you freaky computer spirit! There's a trial going on RIGHT NOW to decide whether my moms can get married or not and I can't find video of it anywhere!
    CS:Well that's because the state doesn't want people to see video clips that make them look like the bad guys in a civil rights case.
    B: But the judge said they could totally tape it and put it up on youtube, what went wrong?
    CS (sings): Well the court in California was decidin' if we all should be free, you know to marry who we want and they planned to put the trial on tv but then the state put up a big ole fight, didn't want us to watch 'em blockin' civil rights and the judge asked the people for advice on the way it should be and the people said
    (group sings); You can't turn the lights off now, the world is much to small, when anybody's rights get wronged its everybody's wake up call, corruption thrives on secrecy, transparency is good for you and me, and we really want to see the truth set free for all
    CS(talking): When the public was asked for comments on whether the trial challenging the constitutionality of California's gay marriage ban should be broadcast on youtube the response was overwhelmingly in favor: 138,542 in favor and 32 against.
    B: Statistically that's like 100% so why can't I find any video of the trial?

  • 23. Sarah  |  January 31, 2010 at 9:32 am

    oh geez lol, guess I'll leave the rest to you.

  • 24. David Crane  |  January 31, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Picking up where Straight Ally #3008 left off.

    Computer guy: Well, the court in California was deciding if we all should be free. You know, to marry who we want and they planned to put the trial on TV. But then the state put up a big old fight – didn’t want us to watch 'em blockin’ civil rights – and the judge asked the People for advice on the way it should be. And the People said:

    Chorus of the People: You can’t turn the lights off now; the world is much too small. When anybody’s rights get wronged, it’s everybody’s wake-up call. Corruption thrives on secrecy; transparency is good for you and me; and we really want to see the truth set free for all

    Computer Guy: When the public was asked for comments on whether the trial challenging the constitutionality of California’s gay marriage ban should be broadcast on youtube, the response was overwhelmingly positive – 138452 in favor and 32 against –

    Kid: Statistically, that’s like 100%. So why can’t I find any video of the trial?

    Computer guy: Two days before the trial, Supreme Court intervened. The State said, “This is an emergency; our intolerance must not be seen.” So the Supreme Court voted – 5 to 4 – to pull the plug and shut that door, and the wheels kept spinning on the business-as-usual machine.

  • 25. David Crane  |  January 31, 2010 at 9:39 am

    woops, lot of overlap with Sarah there!

  • 26. Ronnie  |  January 31, 2010 at 9:44 am

    "Screw you, freaky computer spirit!"………..OMG!!!!!……. I can't……I can't…..it's too funny!

  • 27. David Crane  |  January 31, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Here's the rest, following on my post above:

    Kid: But that’s not fair! The trial is going to affect my whole family and a lot of people’s families! We should have a right to see what’s going on.

    Computer guy: That’s right! It’s not fair. Those guys tried to block your access to information. Fortunately, information is very slippery stuff.

    Kid: It is?

    Computer guy: You bet! See? Soon folks in the courtroom started typing on their phones. Do you know, they were texting out each word they heard, and they were not alone. Because the remix culture climbed aboard, they wrote a script, and they hit record, and all around the world the trial at last was shown!

    Kid: Wow! I love living in the future!

    Chorus of the People: They can’t turn the lights off now; the world is much too small. 'Cause everybody’s pluggin’ in and passin’ on the wake-up call. Corruption thrives on secrecy; transparency is up to you and me; and we really want to see the truth set free for all.

    Computer guy: Everybody!

    Chorus of the People.

    (I can’t quite make out what is said at the very end of the video. Sounds like – Male: I’m gay! Female: I’m gay! Someone else: Woo-hoo!”)

  • 28. Misken  |  January 31, 2010 at 9:55 am

    The state is doing nothing in this case, except in name.

  • 29. David Crane  |  January 31, 2010 at 9:56 am

    and 138,452 should read 138,542.

  • 30. Richard  |  January 31, 2010 at 10:02 am

    This is fantastic! Thanks to everybody involved in this video and in posting it here where I could see it. There's our fight song everybody! You Can't turn the LIghts Out Now! This just totally rocks!!!

  • 31. Richard  |  January 31, 2010 at 10:04 am

    This is fantastic! Thanks to everybody involved in making this video, and thanks to everybody involved in getting it posted here where I could see it! EVerybody, here is our new fight song–"You Can't Turn the Lights Out Now!!! This just totally rocks!!!!

  • 32. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 31, 2010 at 10:05 am

    High fives all around to Sarah and David!

  • 33. truthspew  |  January 31, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Yeah, they may have stopped video but I thank all that wrote out the transcripts and I'm almost certain that at least one person did audio recording. Cant' wait until that hits the net.

  • 34. Ronnie  |  January 31, 2010 at 10:22 am

    I sent this video, the press conference, and the list fiona64 posted on the did PUG-NO break the law thread to a friend of mine who still posts stuff on nj.com I haven't been able too because those people are way off base…..His name is Embry24u if you want to check it out…..It's quite amusing…. curious George is spring flowers compared to them.

  • 35. Ronnie  |  January 31, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Just don't let them find their way here, because I don't think I could take that…..I actually hit myself in the head with my keyboard and put my fist though a wall (no joking). But you can most def. repost the stuff from here.

  • 36. Sarah  |  January 31, 2010 at 10:28 am

    Hooray you finished it!

    That gives me a lot more respect for the people who worked so hard to transcribe the case for us. I can't imagine trying that for days and days without a pause button!

  • 37. Casey  |  January 31, 2010 at 11:34 am

    Posting to FB! And telling everybody to check it out! Hopefully they won't be drinking Superfood when they hit play – like I was – which by the way causes a rather large mess when spit out in mirth.

  • 38. GAYGUY  |  January 31, 2010 at 11:41 am

    THIS NEEDS TO BE PLAYED ON SUPERBOWL SUNDAY!

  • 39. Richard  |  January 31, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Oh, I wish we could get that done! Any ideas, folks? Or is it too late to buy airtime?

  • 40. Dieter M.  |  January 31, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    lol..sure..let me get out my checkbook..I am pretty sure I have somwhere between $60.00 and 2.8 MILLION in there…lol

  • 41. Lynn Elwood  |  January 31, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    The video is great! Anyone know the email addresses for the SCOTUS judges? LOL

  • 42. Sunday Late Night: You Ca&hellip  |  January 31, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    […] {Video from Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s company HitRECord, via Towleroad and Julia Rosen at the Courage Campaign’s Prop 8 Trial Tracker} […]

  • 43. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:20 am

    Don't forget to watch the season 2 premiere of Ru paul's Drag Race tonight on LOGO!

  • 44. Bill  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:50 am

    Hi Everyone,

    I am such a dork.

    It's Monday morning, and I am missing you all and even missing the trial…

    Hope everyone's doing well!!!!

  • 45. Casey  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:58 am

    It's okay, Bill. I am a dork too. I am one of the few who are working this snowy day in Virginia – and I keep taking breaks from paperwork to check for new posts on the TT!

    Got a couple of people talking about the video on my FB! Wooo!

  • 46. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 1:30 am

    Hi, Bill. I don't think it's "dorky." I think we have built a wonderful and supportive "family of choice" here, and I for one am delighted.

    Much love from your straight ally,
    Fiona

  • 47. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 2:08 am

    I have to admit this song reminds of the Equality Movement:

    "Glitter In The Air" by Pink….Amazing Grammy performance!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOzzygbKsiw

    She truly is a Goddess who supports Same Sex Marriage.

  • 48. Bill  |  February 1, 2010 at 2:10 am

    I got so used to checking in here every day! I can't believe we are going to have to wait MONTHS for this to be over. Only for it to begin again after appeal…

  • 49. Bill  |  February 1, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Also, here's the latest article by Maggie Gallagher. Proving yet again what a slug she truly is…
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjQ2Y2M1

  • 50. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 2:16 am

    Hmm. If she asserts in her last sentence, they "aren't doing it for the kids," then WTF was up with all of the "protect the children" whining in her campaign?

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 51. Richard  |  February 1, 2010 at 2:25 am

    Because that is how the h8ers work, sis. anytime there is something that is morally right, but that they don't agree with, they trot out "the children!" They did this during Brown v. Board of Education, thy did this during Loving v. Virginia, and they will do this everytime they have the chance to do it, all in the name of hiding the truth from their sheep, and from the rest of the world. And as for her "mounds of evidence?" How could she even produce one shred? And that comment of hers asking why all of a sudden it is "self-evident" that same-sex marriage benefits the children of same-sex couples! She claims we did not have to submit evidence. If we did not have to submit evidnce, then WTH were all of the experts doing under oath testifying to the benefits for the children of legalizing same-sex marriage? I remember in an earlier post you told Mags that whatever she was on she needed to bring enough for the whole class, and I agree. Either that or she needs to get her head out of her rear end and join the real world for a change.

  • 52. Bill  |  February 1, 2010 at 2:27 am

    E-X-A-C-T-L-Y!!!!'

    Maggie is always the one screaming about 'the children' and about how marriage is really all about 'the children.'

    What she must have meant all of this time is that it is all about 'the straight children' of 'straight parents.'

    Is it me, or is Maggie's panic showing??? She doesn't even appear to be TRYING to keep her schtick straight these days.

    And if marriage is SOOOOOOO great for the children of heterosexual parents, why wouldn't it be SOOOOOO great for the kids of LGTB parents???

    Maggie seems like she's literally grasping at straws at this point.

  • 53. Richard  |  February 1, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Bill, if Mags sems to be grasping at straws, it is because that is exactly what she, Andy, and the other Prop h8ers are doing. They thought they would shut us down by having the tape delay of the trial stopped, but they did not count on the fine people who put this trial tracker site together. NOr did they count on the re-enactment team. They did not count on all their lies being brought into the light of day and expposed for what they really are. They forgot about the social networking sites. they did not count on a P8TT group being formed on Facebook. They did not count on the truth being twittered and blogged all around the world. They did not count on the LDS hierarchy being exposed as virtually the same as the hierarchy of Protect Marriage. In short, they did not count on the truth being exposed, time and timeagain during the progression of this trial. They di not count on Judge Walker being so impartial and they did not count on their "lawyers" and "expert witnesses" being so inept and actually turning out tobe better advocates for the truth than for the h8ers. So now, just like the rats fleeing the sinking ship, they are grasping at straws. Perhaps they should have thought about this before they began their latest hate campaign. They are finding out that "Karma is a bigger b***h than I choose to be."

  • 54. Ozymandias ('ca  |  February 1, 2010 at 2:47 am

    Hi Fiona,

    I agree with Richard – it also sounds like she's starting to do a bit of 'revisionist' spin, saying that it wasn't 'really about the kids' because the evidence at the trial was so OVERWHELMINGLY positive for G/L parents.

    Yep, it was 'all about the kids' before – but I think she's counting on the old maxim – 'repeat idiocy enough time and people will believe it'… i like the idea that we will be standing by with all the quotes she and others like her spewed onto the internet proving her, once again, a LIAR!

  • 55. Ozymandias ('ca  |  February 1, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Bill, I know exactly how you feel! I'm oh so glad to have this community where I can put my virtual feet up and sip a hot cup o'joe with everyone (of course the IT dept is wondering what the hell I'm doing over here 'cause I keep coming to them with coffee all over my keyboard!!)

    Love,

    Ozy

  • 56. Bill  |  February 1, 2010 at 2:54 am

    I wonder just how rich Maggie is getting from all of this?

  • 57. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:02 am

    The thing that I find funny in this day of the Techy/Cyber age that people really do not carefully choose their words and actions, because now there is always proof.

    If you lie YOU WILL get caught.

    And I wonder, if you have multiple personality disorder like Maggie, Curious George, and Me. PUG-NO, can each of your personalities vote for something?

    Gasp!…I figured it out…that's how they got so many votes!……….LMAO!!!!!!!

  • 58. G Rod  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:03 am

    Yours are very significant observations.

  • 59. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:06 am

    I hope she is getting rich enough to keep her inmate canteen account full until she gets out of prison. Otherwise, she will have to learn how to live on 40 cents a day.

  • 60. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:08 am

    Yes, it's still the same Richard. I just wanted to make it easier for honest P8TTers to find me elsewhere.

  • 61. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Ronnie, that is scary. Why is that so scary? Because that is exactly what it sounds like they are doing. I have met some MPD folks before, and when one personality takes over from a previously upfront personality, even their appearance changes. Sometimes very subtly, but enough that the various personalities can get by with presenting as different people entirely. So what you are saying may not be as far-fetched as it sounds.

  • 62. Watch: ‘Schoolhouse&hellip  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:15 am

    […] (via courage campaign) […]

  • 63. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:24 am

    So True Richard.

    I mean think about it, if they really want to use the majority vote angle, then we should go based on the fact that the biggest majority was those who are of age but chose not to vote or didn't even know that a vote was going on(not sure how that happened, because I live in NJ and knew about it)…yup MPD forces are at work here…..hehehe

  • 64. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:40 am

    So, do you think we can get all the drag queens and drag kings out there to get the proper paperwork to register their drag personae to vote? that would be one way to balance things out, especially for those drag queens and drag kins who have more than one drag persona.
    Also, Ronnie, with regard to Pink–she supports equality for ALL people, which is why she supports same sex marriage. And Dolly Parton supports same sex marriage also. And then look at the fact that Reba McEntire and Martina McBride have both given interviews to Out! There are more straight allies than even we know about! Oppression, meet thy downfall! WooHoo!!!

  • 65. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:42 am

    The other thing is that the separation is so very complete that one personality has no recollection of something done while the other personality was at the fore. (See Albert deSalvo for reference …)

  • 66. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Very true, sis. And another good reference for that is the book "When Rabbit Howls" written by the Troops for Truddi Chase. Yes, this is the book that formed the basis of the TV miniseries starring Shelley Long (Diane from "Cheers"). And the case you are referring to–wasn't he the Boston Strangler?

  • 67. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:56 am

    The funniest thing is that I'm not even sure if they have any notable, creditable celebrities to help them in their fight like Anita Bryant.

  • 68. G Rod  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:59 am

    In the 2006 Stat for Canada 53.7% of same-sex married spouses were men. Among same-sex married spouses, 16.2% had children vs 7.5% of partners in same-sex common-law unions (not formalized by the state). Women in same-sex married couples were more likely to have children (24.5%) than women in same-sex common-law unions (14.6%). Similarly, 9.0% of men in same-sex married couples had children, compared with only 1.7% of men in same-sex common-law couples.
    I commend an excellent comparative report on the adjustment of children in a variety of family types done for our federal government. It puts short shrift to the arguements that Maggie Gallagher advances.
    Do consider sending it to her.

  • 69. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 4:01 am

    Wow….I mean you guys are good….. my only MPD references are Victoria Davidson and her daughter, Jessica Buchanan from One Life to Live…..hehehe

    And totally Richard, lets register all drag personas…. I don't do drag on the regular, but mine is Bonnie Breathless… LOL.

  • 70. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 4:02 am

    They don't. All of their celebrity endorsers have long ago been discredited, even Rush Windbag! I mean, you know you are up the creek when your self-proclaimed idol goes on Meet the Press and says you don't know what you are talking about, and then praises the current officeholder for his quick actions in Haiti. (Yes, I realize that mentioning Haiti is off-topic, but I used this as an example that only bolsters Ronnie's point.

  • 71. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Hi, Richard. Yes, Albert deSalvo was the Boston Strangler. (Weird coincidence … a friend of a former boss lived next door to deSalvo; said boss lived in Boston while all of this was happening.) Even though deSalvo basically wound up re-enacting a strangling when one of his personalities took over during an interview, he was never formally charged with the crimes because he was determined to be mentally incompetent to stand trial. He escaped from the mental hospital in which he was incarcerated, which led to him being incarcerated in a state prison (Walpole) where he was murdered by other inmates.

    Another famous case of MPD was "Sybil," who had 16 separate and distinct personalities.

    The human brain is an amazing thing; it will figure out all kinds of coping strategies that will allow a person to survive the most horrific ordeals. :-( Those coping strategies may or may not be genuinely useful, but they keep the person alive regardless.

  • 72. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 4:09 am

    I would, G rod, but she wouldn't be able to read it. Remember, the ability to read and comprehend what you rad requires first that you have a usable mind, not a vacuum tube, between your ears.

  • 73. Celia  |  February 1, 2010 at 4:13 am

    At the end, they are saying, "That was good!" in reference to the sing-a-long.

  • 74. becca  |  February 1, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Maggy sez:

    Same-sex marriage is primarily an attempt to serve the dignity interests of gay people. It represents the government's good housekeeping seal of approval on the idea that their relationships are the same as anyone else

    to which I say: exactly the point!

  • 75. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Ronnie wrote: Haiti va s’elever. Tu vas te relever. Nous nous e’leverons, ensemble, ensemble, ensemble.

    This translates to:

    Haiti will be lifted up. You will be lifted up. We, we will lift you up together, together, together.

    :-)

  • 76. Callie  |  February 1, 2010 at 4:39 am

    I love this video! Have it up on my FB too. I didn't allude to what it is really about except that the 3rd rock guy did it hoping that'll make people who normally wouldn't watch/read things I post do so. I have a whole bunch of people I went to high school with back south and they're VERY bigoted.

  • 77. The Reverend Susan R  |  February 1, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Brilliant!

  • 78. Dave in Maine  |  February 1, 2010 at 5:21 am

    I am not sure about this video. It reminds me of the prop 8 response video from Hollywood that did more to polarize than to help people understand the significance of what the passage of 8 really meant.

    This is portraying the State of California as evil meanies-but IS it the state that is really doing this? Did the STATE want it not to be broadcasted or was it the defendants? Was anyone really trying to block the public from knowing what happened in the trial or just the images? (Transcripts are public record, aren't they?) The public response to showing the video of the trial was 100% positive, but was the reason for the SC decision given in this cartoon?

    The more I think about this, the more I think it was below our side to portray this decision so simplistically. In any case, the decision was made and we moved on.

  • 79. Bill  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:08 am

    While the cartoon is simplistic in it's view, it still makes the point it is trying to make.

    You can't go around in the dark punching people, then get mad when those people you are punching turn the lights on to expose the puncher.

    I think that is its basic point.

    As far as "portraying the State of California as evil meanies," I would have to say that the State of California, where I live, IS being a big meanie to its LGTB citizens. Prop 8 should never have even been allowed on the ballot, due to its discriminatory face. The State should have stepped in BEFORE all of this happened. Jerry Brown, our attorney general, has said as much. HE should have stepped in BEFORE to assert the Unconstitutionality of this Proposition.

  • 80. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:11 am

    Hi, Bill. I recall the reason he didn't intervene, which was that Prop 8 may well have been defeated — which, frankly, I think it would have been if it were not for the lies promulgated by the Church of LDS and its non-thinking minions (those who stood up against the Church have had a whole lot of heartache for their efforts, although they do stand strong).

    This is why I think that the whole initiative process needs to be revamped, if not scrapped altogether. When some yutz with a clipboard and a grudge can get a ballot measure together that enshrines discrimination into a state's constitution, there is something woefully wrong.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 81. Bill  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:32 am

    I know. Very few expected Prop 8 to pass.

    But it did.

    And I touched on this is a previous post: Many of our 'allies' who SAID they were going to vote NO actually voted YES. Not because of confusion over ballot language, but rather, in the privacy of the voting booth, people's prejudice and bigotry came out.

    However, there were many of us who were old enough to have been through this a time or two (or 27) who knew that it WOULD pass. Who have seen this happen to LGTB citizens time after time after time.

    I contact the attorney general's office regarding Prop 8 before the vote in November 2008, asking how the Supreme Court could declare that if marriage is a 'fundamental right' than it is so for EVERYONE, then have fellow citizens months later take away a fundamental right.

    Point is, a fundamental right is just that. Something that CAN NOT be taken away, hence the 'fundamental' part.

    This is why a child molester can have marriage after marriage. This is why convicted felons can marry while servicing their sentence. Because a fundamental right CAN NOT be taken away.

    Unless you are gay.

    Then, the only 'fundamental right' you have is the right to have your fundamental rights taken away by the Right!

    (Wow. Lots of 'rights' for such a big 'wrong.')

  • 82. rpx  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:32 am

    Very good data mining GRod. Could you kindly provide a link to the source? I would be interested in rading more.

  • 83. JC  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:47 am

    I'm thinking that they mean "the State" as in the nation, not CA. That's how I interpreted it, since all visual references were to the SCOTUS.

  • 84. JC  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:48 am

    Me, too.

  • 85. BradK  |  February 1, 2010 at 7:27 am

    The United States of Maggie?

  • 86. Felyx  |  February 1, 2010 at 7:30 am

    Semantically Dave, I would agree with your arguement.

    The Supreme Court decision and the opinions however were very telling. Those who favored broadcast had a similar arguement as the video. The majority that ruled based the overturn on court procedure trivialities (that none the less are important in their theoretical basis) and a need for protection of the State D-I's and their witnesses…because the Inervenors and their support base felt that if the truth of their beliefs and actions were made public they might receive retribution.

    The video indirectly is commenting that the exposure would alter public opinion and cause the movement to fall apart and the H8ers to scatter like a bunch of roaches.

    While it would be nicer to have the video be semantically within context to preclude dissention and negative commentary, it none the less spoke to me and made cry like a born again Fag!!

  • 87. BradK  |  February 1, 2010 at 7:34 am

    And don't forget Joseph Gordon-Levitt's riveting performance in "Mysterious Skin", as well as his portrayal of a Mormon missionary in "Latter Days."

  • 88. Teafaerie  |  February 1, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Teafaerie here. I directed this thing. We had about seven days from a standing start to work on this… I was given the assignment to do "something about the prop 8 trial" to show in a week at Sundance, and we were under an enormous amount of time pressure.

    In retrospect – we recognize that it was not exactly the State as an entity that moved to block the proceedings, and acknowledge the point. It was shorthand, and maybe not entirely appropriate. My sincere apologies for any part that I might have played in muddying the issue. I'll make sure to annotate it on the Youtube video as soon as I get home tonight.

    Also I get that its an oversimplification. Any 3 minute treatment of this material is bound to be so. Still – of course I had no intent to demean the struggle.

    To me it's really about media, transparency and our newfound power to over-ride traditional moves to block censorship.

    Yay to all who enjoyed! To the rest of you, my apologies, and best intentions, and commitment to annotate appropriately.

  • 89. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Dude…. You Rock…..don't worry about it…you left something out…That is nothing compared to the complete lies that Prop Ha8te spreads…..Keep up the good work.

  • 90. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:03 am

    Offered without comment, because I don't think I can elaborate any further, LOL:
    http://www.examiner.com/x-19428-San-Jose-Museum-E

    (This seemed to be the most appropriate thread in which to share the article.)

  • 91. Felyx  |  February 1, 2010 at 8:22 am

    The message was clear and not truely incorrect (the State has to accept the criticism if it is going to accept the ones who defend them.)

    The message was great. Truely great. It is what the founding fathers would have wanted!

    Thank you for the video. Felyx

  • 92. Ryan Blazer  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Found this article that says perhaps the trial tapes could be released to the public.

    With witnesses done in the federal trial over Proposition 8, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker will now retire to his chambers and sort through the evidence — aided by a complete video recording of the proceedings. Might those tapes get a public airing?

    Cameras emerged as a volatile issue at the beginning of the trial, until the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to bar broadcast because the Northern District of California bungled a change in its rules. But if the district court properly amends its guidelines to allow for the release of previously recorded videos, David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner said the plaintiff same-sex couples would "absolutely" make a motion to release the Prop 8 tapes.

  • 93. Ryan Blazer  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Forgot the cite http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=12024395693

  • 94. w11USA  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:08 am

    I just realized there is no David Boies fan page on facebook, so I took the liberty of creating one.

    Please become a fan!
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/David-Boies-Fan-Pag

  • 95. G Rod  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:10 am

    rpx – thanks for the request: URl link can be found by clicking my ID. Check out pg 12 and 13.

    The report on family types [same deal via my ID] done by a research team lead by a PhD in Developmental Psychology. It is the kind of material one hopes is now in front of Judge Walker. For a year, our current federal government resisted its release. It was only via an Access to Information request that in 2007 it was.

  • 96. fiona64  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:15 am

    PS — I should explain that this an article on museums that deal with prejudice in culture. Sad that such things must exist.

  • 97. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Sweet

  • 98. robiedo  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:20 am

    My sentiments (and layperson legal opinion) exactly, Bill. Thanks.
    R.

  • 99. robiedo  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:29 am

    Teafaerie, what you created is delightful and effective, and given that you created it in a blink is astounding. Thank you, thank you, thank you–to you and everyone else who burned the proverbial midnight oil to shine this brilliant light on the cowardice and overall ickiness of the bigots and our current travesty of a SCOTUS. So very cool of you to post to the blog, too. More–big–thanks!

  • 100. David Crane  |  February 1, 2010 at 10:56 am

    I made a group a couple of days ago – Boies is the real McCoy – for Law and Order fans who are also fans of attorney David Boies.

  • 101. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 11:19 am

    hehehehe….Rush Windbag!

    To my Haitian brothers and sisters: (I don’t speak much french but I copied this from the Jay-Z, Bono, The Edge and Rihanna song)

    Can’t wait until tomorrow, Haiti, Mon Amour, Haiti, Mon Amour. Not gonna leave you stranded, alone, alone.

    Haiti va s’elever. Tu vas te relever. Nous nous e’le’verons, ensemble, ensemble, ensemble.

    not gonna leave you stranded

  • 102. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    TeaFaerie, all I can say is THANK YOU! I think all of you who worked on ths did a marvelous job on this, especially considering the severity of the time constraints under which you were working. And yes, as you said, any 3-minute treatment of this trial is going to be an over-simplification of it, but at least you got something out there that can hopefully change hearts and minds. And by including a young man who was interested in this because it affects his moms really helped. It showed people just how important this issue is, and how it affects more than those of us who are of legal age and deserve the right to be able to marry the peron we love, rather than enter into a sham marriage merely for the protection of ourselves and our children. Kudos to all of you.

  • 103. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    I loved the anime-meets-Schoolhouse Rock feel to the whole thing, very impressive! And you know what, the state reaped what it had sown by 1) allowing popular vote to change the state constitution and 2) allowing Prop 8 to be put on the ballot in the first place.

  • 104. Teafaerie  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    I added annotations to the youtube video as follows:

    Clarification: The U.S. Supreme Court, representing Government ("The State"), sided with the Pro-Prop 8rs and blocked the video. We don't mean the State of California as such…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1sxXVcQzHA

    Thanks for keeping it real, all!

  • 105. G Rod  |  February 1, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    David you stated an insightful observation, as does Bill below. Is there not more licence to over simplify using the cartoon gendre? Yet to simplify is not to distort or mislead.

    If the aim is to be more inclusie, antagonizing the opposition does not appear to advance that goal. Rather does it not provide ammunition to reinforce their current views and perceptions?

  • 106. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    Ok Ok…I just came up with a joke..you are gonna like this.

    There are Five people left on Earth:
    A Gay Man, A Lesbian, A Straight Man, A Straight Woman, and a Fertility Doctor who is A-sexual.

    The Gay Man is a Fashion Designer and The Lesbian is an Architect.

    The Straight Man is a good cook and the Straight Woman is a farmer.

    10 years go by and nobody reproduces so they ask the fertility doctor to help.

    The Fertility Doctor Tells the Straight man he sterile and has an undescended testicle and then he tells the straight women that she is barren and cannot produce a child.

    All is loss the heterosexuals cry!

    But wait the Gay Man is super fertile and the Lesbian is actually a baby maker.

    The Gay man says that's no man's land and the Lesbian says Fairy couldn't find a G-spot if he had a GPS and a flash light….

    But you don't need to have sex to reproduce, We can do it in-vitro and implant the embryo.

    Ok cool….5 years later they have 4 kids 2 girls and 2 boys (twins)

    The human race is saved, but what happened to the heterosexuals?,,,They are still there, not happy, but not sad…content and have excepted their future and live for the now.

    However, The Fertility Doctor realizes that he suddenly finds the Gay Father attractive…The hook up, Get married….Can you guess there names?

    Adam & Steve

  • 107. J-dV.  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    I love living in the future!

  • 108. Chris  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Speaking of videos. I just found this one. http://www.buzzfeed.com/joyengel/sineads-head-t7?…

  • 109. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2010 at 4:45 am

    sweet vid….I want do something like that here…I will go up to every person in this country and ask:

    Do I have permission to ask for Kelly's hand in marriage?

    but I would end the commercial with me at some big Live televised event asking everybody that question and then I get down on one knee and ask a man for his hand in marriage…(They did say yes after all..hehehe)

  • 110. robiedo  |  February 2, 2010 at 5:13 am

    LOL–thanks for that.

  • 111. Dave in Maine  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Hi, Teafaerie-

    Thank YOU for making it in the first place! And thanks for responding and addressing the concerns that some of us had.

    Dave in Maine

  • 112. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 3, 2010 at 10:46 am

    Ronnie, you could not have created a better joke if you were my son! Way to go!

  • 113. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 10:54 am

    DADDY!!!!!!!!!…..hehehe

  • 114. You Can’t Turn the &hellip  |  December 25, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    […] From January 31st, 2010. Original here. […]

  • 115. Colonic&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 11:37 am

    Colon Cleanse Review Site…

    […]while the sites we link to below are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look[…]…

  • 116. auto repair estimates&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    Blogging Internet…

    […]we like to honor other sites on the web, even if they aren’t related to us, by linking to them. Below are some sites worth checking out[…]…

  • 117. Laughing » Doorbell&hellip  |  November 11, 2011 at 8:06 am

    […] From Prop8TrialTracker […]

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!