HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked video coverage of the Proposition 8 trial saying that streaming it live on YouTube could jeopardize the fairness of the proceedings.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Supreme Court Blocks Video Coverage of Prop. 8 Trial
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Jakalwarrior
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 3,189
Of course. The public has no place in lawmaking. We should stick to our 9 - 5s and stay out of the governments business...
Federal Court rules ban broadcasting of trials, specifically for reasons that it can sway the outcomes, intimidate witnesses etc. But of course, someone is going to tear up and cry foul about how its government oppression, and its just the government trying to keep us in the dark. Oh wait...
Exactly. This is why recording devices are not allowed in court houses and if you have a cellphone with a camera phone it will be held for you at the security desk at most court houses.
Zerikin Loukbel
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 294
The point on the no broadcast is to keep the court from turning into a circus. Also the court is not where law is supposed to be made... Now if you want to talk about a certain congress not allowing broadcasting about a law they want to pass I'll agree with you.
Unfortunately sometimes this is indeed true, especially when it comes to issues that people get emotional about. This happens to be one of those said issues where the people still stuck in the 14th century think their rights trump everyone elses.
zoobaby
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,179
The SCOTUS has only once allowed real time audio (video maybe..think just audio). By allowing a camera, it would be a significant change.
I think the court proceedings should be recorded, but not streamed live.
I think the court proceedings should be recorded, but not streamed live.
that would be the point of the lawsuit - prop 8, the argument goes, is a law which violates the rights of the few. It's not to make law it is to repeal a law they feel is unconstitutional. I for one, think they are going about it all wrong. If they are so hell bent on protecting the institution of marriage, it should be illegal to get a divorce, and infidelity should be a punishable crime carrying at least a 3 year jail term.
But that would make too much sense. Peoples against gays have perfect marriages. Everyone know gays can rear children, they will turn them gay and evil. Oh noes. Won't someone think of the children!
Edit: ^ can > CAN'T
I see you get emotional about this issue as you resort to name calling.
Explain why it is not OK for those opposed to homosexual marraige to speak out about it, but it is OK for those that favor it to speak about it?
But that would make too much sense. Peoples against gays have perfect marriages. Everyone know gays can rear children, they will turn them gay and evil. Oh noes. Won't someone think of the children!
You and many of the pro gays have no concept of what marraige is. It's a religious covenant. All the major religions specifically say that homosexuality is wrong. The homosexuals wanted to take the issue to a public vote and lost, but still refuse to accept that the majority of people don't condone their actions.
I find it laughable, that people will condemn Christians for their views on homosexuality but those same people will say we need to be tolerant of other religions and beliefs. They only feel this way when it is not their belief that is under fire.
ProfessorKaos64
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,256
I sure hope this thread doesn't turn into a pro/anit gay war As far as the streaming goes, It's understandable, given current laws banning showing a live trial. It's not as good, but you always have Judge Joe Brown
As far as the streaming goes, It's understandable, given current laws banning showing a live trial. It's not as good, but you always have Judge Joe Brown ProfessorKaos64
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,256
^anti*
That may be, but there are some legal benefits from being married I'm sure gays want to participate in.
As for the topic, it depends on the case whether streaming should be allowed or not. Some sensational cases should be closed to avoid riots and circuses. But most should always be kept open to the public.
zoobaby
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,179
There are too many civil/legal matters that disagree with you.
If you want to make it a religious matter, then there should be civil unions allowed by the state that cover hetero and homo contracts. Then if a religious couple wants to be married under god (not recognized by the state) then they can go to their pastor/priest/rabii/ or whatever religious figure to get married.
And the majority thought discrimination, segregation, and slavery was acceptable for a very long time.
I find all religions to be useless. When you discriminate based on someones belief, that is where I have an issue.
Marriage in the eyes of the church /= marriage in the eyes of the law. They are completely separate things.
The constitutional amendment is a reminder that democracy isn't perfect. You can't vote to restrict the rights and privilages of others, and say its okay just because the "majority" ruled.
That being said, I think the fight to have the trial broadcast live is in efforts to sway things toward the pro same sex marriage side, and even though I think the same sex marriage ban is bogus, broadcasting the trial completely undermines the sterile environment that a court room is supposed to be.
The constitutional amendment is a reminder that democracy isn't perfect. You can't vote to restrict the rights and privilages of others, and say its okay just because the "majority" ruled.
That being said, I think the fight to have the trial broadcast live is in efforts to sway things toward the pro same sex marriage side, and even though I think the same sex marriage ban is bogus, broadcasting the trial completely undermines the sterile environment that a court room is supposed to be.
So if I'm an atheist, does that make my marriage null and void?
What if my religion is Jedi? I think they believe in gay marriages. So does that now make gay marriages "good" since a religion accepts it? Your point makes no point since it pits religion against marriage where as religion has no place in U.S.A government. This could go on and on and as some others have already said: Marriage in the eyes of the church /= marriage in the eyes of the law.
Wrong. Marriage existed as a secular institution LONG before Abraham religions even existed. To this day, there are more Atheists who are married than religious.
Only your arrogant Christian ass believes that you actually "own" marriage. Can't really blame you, since someone probably drilled that thought into your head during development.
You need to learn a bit of reading comprehension then, because there was no name calling in my post. I never said you couldn't speak about it if you are in favor of or not in favor of. I said people get emotional about issues like this and emotion needs to be left at the door for decisions like this. Beyond that you are more then free to express your opinion of it, that does not mean you need to be involved in the law making process for it though.
That would make you wrong, as marriage is not a religious covenant. I could go into the hows and whys, but I will just leave that for the others who are already jumping down your throat for this idiotic post.
Some of them probably experienced Marriage beforehand... and that's why they are gay now!
ZING!
Exactly, why should only straight people get to experience the fun of getting divorced. I bet divorce lawyers are pro gay-marriage and the instant increase in potential clients.
AMEN brotha!
If I didn't like boobies sooo much, I might rethink about the whole straight......... ......wait....boobies.....mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,542
The issue is moot. It is absolutely unconstitutional for the state to allow two consenting adult heterosexuals to marry and disallow two consenting adult homosexuals to marry.
It's not even up for debate, it is utterly unconstitutional and will be settle shortly in district court.
The idiots will then appeal, the appeals court will concur, the idiots will appeal to SCOTUS and SCOTUS will refuse to hear the appeal (cowards way out, but fine) and gay marriage will become the law of the land by default.
At least the whole process will have been alot quicker than settling slavery, women voting, and seggregation were.
All the religious blathering is just alot of wasted electrons. Word to the wise, stick to rendering unto Caeser what is Caeser's.
It's not even up for debate, it is utterly unconstitutional and will be settle shortly in district court.
The idiots will then appeal, the appeals court will concur, the idiots will appeal to SCOTUS and SCOTUS will refuse to hear the appeal (cowards way out, but fine) and gay marriage will become the law of the land by default.
At least the whole process will have been alot quicker than settling slavery, women voting, and seggregation were.
All the religious blathering is just alot of wasted electrons. Word to the wise, stick to rendering unto Caeser what is Caeser's.
Wrong on many levels, marriage is a financial institution to provide a stable platform for a family, and has been for many thousands of years before the idea of Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, etc.
Most gays want marriage for the associations of things such as insurances and familial ties that come with the package such as the right to visit a sick/dying spouse in the hospital when it is deemed "family" only.
I hold that last statement personal, I was not permitted to visit my "aunt" the woman who my aunt has been with for about 35 years when she was dying in the hospital because I was not family.
actually...the homosexuals did not want it taken to a vote, the legalization of gay marriage in Cal was by a court decision. Prop 8 was put on the ballet by those against the legalization of gay marriage. You can contend that marriage is a religous covenant but it has legal ramifications. Married people get better tax deductions, have legal rights and protection under the laws of the united states. I don't condem any Christian for their view on homosexuality but it is based on an interpretation from the bible. If you're going to deny rights to a certain group of the population because of an interpretation then we need to make shellfish illegal to eat.
This is not a religious argument, it's a matter of rights and protection of those right under the laws of the united states. You can be morally opposed to it, but still be in support of protection of the rights of the few from the voice of the many. Homosexuals just want the same rights as heterosexuals in regards to commited couples. Being able to file jointly on tax returns and the benefts associated with being married, legal rights and protection under the law that heterosexual people take for granted (not being forced to testity against your spouse, access to a sick or infermed spouse, decision making ability in case of medical crisis, acess to partner benefits). Do you realize if a gay couple has a medical issue where one person is unable to speak, the partner has no say in the medical treatment or approval. Suppose the person in a coma or unconscious had no relatives, it would be up to the state to make decision on how to handle his or her medical care. Is that something as a Christian you can stand by and watch?
Is all discrimination is inherently bad? I'm all for gay marriage as long as they also allow polygamous marriage and teen marriage (though they might have to get emancipated or something first.)
While we're at it...... what about sex in public, public urination, lewd behavior, bestiality etc? It's like the government and the people it represents are trying to force their morals on me. If it's consensual cannibalism, I say go for it.
ps. There might be some sarcasm mixed in there, but they are valid questions when you're tying to look at the whole picture.
While we're at it...... what about sex in public, public urination, lewd behavior, bestiality etc? It's like the government and the people it represents are trying to force their morals on me. If it's consensual cannibalism, I say go for it.
ps. There might be some sarcasm mixed in there, but they are valid questions when you're tying to look at the whole picture.
zoobaby
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,179
One size does not fit all. Each subject is different and needs to be debated and discussed individually. By you bringing up random and unrelated topics, you are distorting the subject at hand and creating side arguments that are useless and have no relevance.
I bet you can't come up with reasons for your homophobia other than your religious belief tells you it is wrong, so you can discriminate against them.
And along comes the slippery slope argument...
Though you are somewhat valid, the American Right takes their opinion on homosexuality from the Bible, but not their opinion on polygamy.
*
Ah, the Religious Right: Living with the fear that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time, since 1620.
wait what? did you mean to quote the guy I quoted? because you are agreeing with me..
No it won't, it will pass and fairly soon simply for the reasons mentioned. Moral belief != Lawful rights. The moment someone attempts to take someone's rights away from them because of religion or moral stance, is the moment they become a complete hypocrite.
My personal belief on the Gay/Lesbian lifestyle has nothing to do with the fact that they are entitled under the constitution of the US to the same rights as every single other person who is a US citizen. That is indisputable fact and the religious right needs to get that through their heads.
Sure you can. Just hit the "+" on everyone you want to quote up to the last person. For the last person just hit "quote".
BillR
Born Again Cynic
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2002
- Messages
- 18,535
The Christians, obviously.
Has the population of this forum suddenly forgotten the constitution? Something about the freedom to practice your religion? Let alone, much of this is outright name calling, outright discrimination due to religious belief (again, a constitutional guarantee).
No one has the right to name call either here (forum rules) or anywhere else, again, a constitutional guarantee. You have to love people who call Christians names in one breath and claim discrimination in the next breath.
This is all besides, what happened to the original topic?
bawahahahahahah I'm agnostic. Why do you assume I'm a homophobe? How is polygamy not related? We're talking about marriage rights I thought? My personal opinion about gay people are "whatever floats your boat." It's the same way I feel about just about all victimless acts. I bring up those other topics because it always make sense to step back (wider view) and look at why you think something.