STICKY

PERHAPS WE LEARNED SOMETHING.....
…Perhaps we were only mildly entertained. Regardless, please enjoy these Reviews, Responses, Works of Fiction, and Retellings brought to you by one who hopes to someday join the ranks of those who have written something worth reading.
(Kaylia Metcalfe)

The California Compromise

Remember Prop 8?



Remember the anger, the sadness the frustration?

Remember how we vowed to not give up?

I know it has been a while and for many, the focus has shifted to other things.

Here’s a quick and dirty update to how things stand.

There is an impending trial scheduled to begin on Monday. The suit was filed by two same-sex couples, a gay-rights group and the city of San Francisco. It claims Prop. 8 violates the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

Of course before the trial can even happen, there is going to be bickering about anything and everything… including whether or not the trial can be televised.

Which begs the question of why you would or would not want the trial televised. What are the benefits of the 24 hour news cable channels having instant access to what’s going on? What are the drawbacks of things being daily filtered down to Jon Stewart and gang for the nightly “mock the insane people” segments?

Would it surprise you to know that the folks who are all for transparency and public awareness and such are the same ones who are lobbying for equality and fairness while their opponents who are more inclined to want us to fall back on archaic social norms regarding an antiquated practice of “straight only” politics are the same people who are complaining about the trial being on a public stage?

Right.

The Pro Prop 8 folks (the anti gay marriage folks) say that having the trial be available to the public would “intimidate their witnesses and violate their right to a fair trial.”

How it would do these things is anyone’s guess because there hasn’t been any real explanation.

Currently the compromise is that the trial won’t be publicized live but will be on shown (delayed and possibly edited) on YouTube.

Is that a fair compromise? Is it a compromise at all? In some ways the fact that it is on YouTube might actually reach more people because there are a lot of us who don’t watch the news on TV but rely on the internet and such, in which case, fine. That being said… I would wager that less of us “liberal” “lefty pro gay people” rely solely on the televised news.

Also, remember that when things are on YouTube, parts can be taken out of context and are open to being manipulated.

So the “compromise”… is it fair? No, not really. Should we fight the ruling? That I leave up to you.

If you are so inclined to let the judge know your feelings (either way)…. Here you go.

No comments: