The closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (the trial to decide whether to overturn Prop 8) have been tentatively scheduled for June 16.
The latest kerfuffle over the case involves whether to allow those arguments to be televised.
The supporters of Prop 8 (the defendants in the case) are arguing—apparently with a straight face, because obviously they wouldn't approve of a non-straight face, not that they're prejudiced—that the closing arguments should not be televised, on these grounds:
In a letter to Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, a lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign committee said federal court officials have found that “public broadcast has negative effects on some judges and attorneys, including distraction, grandstanding and avoidance of unpopular decisions or positions.”
So, let me get this (um) straight: the Prop 8 people want to ensure that the judge does not avoid making an unpopular decision. That is, they want him to make an unpopular decision. So they're saying that supporting Prop 8 would be an unpopular decision?
I thought their whole case revolved around the idea that, since Prop 8 received a majority of the popular vote, it's the popular choice.
They've been pulling this kind of thing all along, mind you. They built their case around stuff like saying that queer people are widely accepted and supported in society, not discriminated against (and therefore that it's okay to discriminate against them); and they previously requested that the trial not be broadcast on the web because their witnesses would feel persecuted by the vast queer-positive majority.
I don't really see how they can reconcile the two sides of this argument. Either the people of California support the Prop 8 folks in opposing same-sex marriage, or the Prop 8 folks are taking a principled stand in opposition to widespread societal support for gay rights; they can't have it both ways.