Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Prop 8 trial: Proponents file reply brief in support of stay on releasing the tapes; plan to appeal to SCOTUS

Prop 8 trial Televising

By Adam Bink

A rather impressive brief filed by the proponents of Prop 8, if only for the length of documentation that went into it. There are 42 — forty-two — exhibits to underscore their argument that releasing the tape recordings from the trial phase of Perry v. Brown would lead to turmoil, just absolute mayhem. Exhibits like pieces from the Los Angeles Times from December 2008 about “A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation to Prop 8” and how Los Angeles City College was sued by the Alliance Defense Fund over a classroom dispute on a student against same-sex marriage. The arguments would have you believe that these isolated incidents represent all of the supporters of equality and all of this will happen if you let the tapes be released, oh noes. In reality, the trial was 100% live-blogged (right here) and covered extensively by the media in the 21 months or so since it occurred. The people who testified are nearly all public figures, and if they’re weren’t public or extremely well-known, they wouldn’t be hard to find. Yet we haven’t seen angry mobs outside their house or radio announcers giving out their phone numbers. The proponents fear democracy and transparency of their weak case because it shows the public, well, how bad their arguments are. In short, the spotlight has been on this for well over a year. Now let the sunshine in further.

Aside from that, an interesting money line at the end of the brief:

CONCLUSION

This Court should stay the district court’s order pending appeal. Should the Court disagree, Proponents request a seven-day stay to permit us to seek a stay from the Supreme Court.

Which tells us how far they’ll take this.

Brief:

[scribd id=68711574 key=key-y2niw8v9x8l5omh62cd mode=list]

h/t Kathleen

27 Comments

  • 1. Sheryl_Carver  |  October 14, 2011 at 7:48 am

    For those of us who remember the film "Ghostbusters," apparently releasing the tapes would be equivalent to "crossing the beams." :-)

  • 2. DaveP  |  October 14, 2011 at 8:07 am

    It seems to me that, after stripping away their sky-is-gonna-fall histrionics, the only argument they provide for why this PUBLIC trial should be withheld from the public is that in the general public there is opposition to the views held by the proponents and their witnesses.

    Well, duh. There wouldn't have been a trial if that were not the case. How is THIS public trial any different from any other?

  • 3. Alan_Eckert  |  October 14, 2011 at 8:41 am

    More to read over the weekend.

  • 4. mark  |  October 14, 2011 at 9:00 am

    For those who of who aren't aware of what they are talking about.. the life thrown in turmoil by a $100.00 donation let me explain..The donation was made by a woman named Margery who's family owned a mexican restaurant in L A who had a rather large gay clientel. It was one of the few restaurants in L A that can handle large groups so it was a great place to celebrate birthdays. Margey is a Mormon. Mormons cant drink but they can sell liquorr.. When you would enter the restaurant she would great you with a hug and a smile and then ask you to go to the bar to have a drink while you are waiting for your table…After everything blew up about Margerys $100.00 donation she said she did it because her church told her to do it… Needless to say the gay community was very upset with her.. She smiles in you face ,takes your money then stabs you in the back…So they staged a boycott at her restaurant.. these are the facts that the proponents don't want anyone to know about….

  • 5. jpmassar  |  October 14, 2011 at 10:21 am

    SenGillibrand Kirsten Gillibrand
    V plsd @SenatorLeahy has anncd the Senate Judiciary cmtee will begin markup of #DOMA repeal in November. #marriageequality

    So what happened to Senator Reed?

  • 6. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Subscribing & sharing…..

    "Chaz Bono, Naya Rivera and Vinny Guadagnino amplify their voice against anti-LGBT bullying"….. <3…Ronnie:
    [youtube REKWR3_B–4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REKWR3_B–4 youtube]

  • 7. Carol  |  October 14, 2011 at 10:47 am

    They're panicked! And on page 17 they admit it's because selections from the videos could make their side look bad.

    :Crocodile tears for them:

  • 8. Adam Bink  |  October 14, 2011 at 11:21 am

    I ran out of Ghostbusters 2 in tears. It was very scary.

  • 9. Adam Bink  |  October 14, 2011 at 11:21 am

    We're paying him a visit next week.

  • 10. Carpool Cookie  |  October 14, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    One thing is, though, Margery's restaurant El Cayote isn't much of a gay hangout. (It's very far east of what's traditionally considered "Boys Town"). So I don't see how a "gay boycott" could have effected their business that much. Didn't this happen in the middle of the current recession? If business went down, I'd think it was more attributable to that.

  • 11. TomTallis  |  October 14, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    "This Court should stay the district court’s order pending appeal. Should the Court disagree, Proponents request a seven-day stay to permit us to seek a stay from the Supreme Court."

    And this is a surprise? These people have unlimited funding and are going to take every possible avenue to delay things on all fronts, because delay is all they have. They will be filing briefs for years and years and years.

  • 12. Jim  |  October 14, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    I'm not a legal expert but I thought on appeal the appealing side got to just say why they disagree with the lower courts decision, not present any new "evidence". So despite the, what was it 85 pages, if they are presenting something that was not previously presented, shouldn't that "new" info be discarded by the higher court?
    Isn't the reason for appeal that the judge made an error and explain why the error?

  • 13. californiaesque  |  October 14, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    There was a pretty length thread about the boycott on Democratic Underground. It received many responses.
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/dubo

  • 14. Sheryl, Mormon Mom  |  October 14, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    Just wanted to say welcome back. Looking forward to hearing about your vacation.

  • 15. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  October 14, 2011 at 10:43 pm

    "Streams," Sheryl…."crossing the streams." Don't make me go all Gozer on your behind. :)

  • 16. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  October 14, 2011 at 10:50 pm

    You think if the Michael Jackson civil trial can be broadcast–and its seems that, though there are a good number of Jackson fans who are emotional enough about his death to wreak havoc with a witness, no one actually has–you'd think the Prop8 trial could be broadcast without major impact on the Proponents. Seems to me the Plaintiffs are in far more danger of being threatened or harassed, but I have a bad feeling the SCOTUS might give credence to the Proponents "we're the real victims!" ploy. Still…we shall see.

  • 17. Sheryl_Carver  |  October 14, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    My bad (memory), Elizabeth! In my defense, it's been over 25 years since I watched the movie. At least "beams" rhymes with "streams." Does that count in my favor? :-)

    PLEASE don't go all Gozer on my behind!!!

  • 18. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  October 14, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    I'm a big believer in the economic vote: if you don't like how a business comports itself, don't give it your money. If you support businesses that support you, you not only create more revenue for your community but send a political message about the economic hazards of infringing on other people's civil rights.

    Yes, Margery had the right to contribute to Prop 8 (though IMHO she should take responsibility for her decision to do so instead of blaming her church, she is an adult after all–excuses are totes weak, Margery!) But *we* have the right not to patronize her business, to prevent our dollars from funding her anti-LGBT political activity.

    I'm quite sure there are other places beside El Coyote to buy Margaritas; spend your money where they love you and contribute to your causes (my house is so much less cluttered since I stopped shopping at Target, I'll never go back!!!)

  • 19. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  October 14, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    Do they mention being a-feared their donors will ask for their money back?

  • 20. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  October 14, 2011 at 11:18 pm

    Well, all right….as long as you don't think about the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man and doom us all to sweet fluffy destruction (whoops! ack. sorry world, my bad.)

  • 21. _BK_  |  October 15, 2011 at 3:15 am

    Good point.

  • 22. Sheryl_Carver  |  October 15, 2011 at 7:45 am

    I promise! Besides, I haven't eaten marshmallows since I discovered that even mice won't eat them. (We used to have marshmallow fights at an R&D place I worked. We always picked up afterwards, but apparently missed one & an engineer found it a couple weeks later. People kept food in their desk drawers, so we'd been having an ongoing mouse problem, but their were NO toothmarks on that marshmallow. Don't think any of us ever wanted to eat a marshmallow again.)

  • 23. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  October 15, 2011 at 9:02 am

    There's no actual food in a marshmallow, so that makes sense. Mice are smart.

  • 24. Carpool Cookie  |  October 15, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Oh, I absolutely agree, Elizabeth. I just think the owners turned this all into a "victim" thing when it all got in the press, and NOM etc. tried to whip it into a huge economic setback for the restaurant. I only go there about once a year (it's a good place to bring out of towners, because it's sort of a merry, themed atmosphere, with the servers in traditional Mexican garb, etc.), but personally, I don't know anyone who has that place on their list of regular hangouts.

  • 25. David  |  October 15, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    2 developments that Boies and Olson should bring to the attention of the Court:

    1. Maggie Gallagher goes to a reading of the trial transcript on Broadway, and sits in the middle of hundreds of anti-Prop 8 activists without incident. If the most notorious anti-gay marriage activist can do this, how serious is the "threat" of harassment of 2 expert witnesses whose testified over a year ago?

    2. On Monday, there will be a ruling in the Doe v. Reed case involving the Referendum 71 petitions in Washington. A win in that case, which seems likely, could further damage proponents claims about the "harassment" threat.

  • 26. DaveP  |  October 15, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    hi Sheryl! I'm still slowly unpacking and getting back to work etc. I'm hoping to get the photos from the trip into the computer this weekend & I'll see if I can master the art of opening a Flickr account so I can share them.

  • 27. DaveP  |  October 15, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Ooh, nice! Both of these are very good points.

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