Why Are Perry Defendants Against Broadcasting The Trial?

It appears that the Prop 8 trial won’t be broadcast after all. The Supreme Court ruled against live broadcast yesterday, and Judge Walker pulled the plug on youtube broadcast this morning.

In the context of Perry v Schwarzenegger, this is something of a molehill. The case against Prop 8 certainly isn’t harmed by the non-broadcast. If anything, it’s improved because it removes the defendants’ idiotic fear-of-reprisals excuse.

But in the greater context of the ongoing battle with civil rights opponents, their sudden fear of publicity is curious. For years, they’ve practically begged for publicity. They paid tens of millions of dollars for TV ads in the Prop 8 campaign. Now they’re trying to suppress the airing of exactly the same arguments they wanted to make.

So what are they hiding?

To find out, let’s look at some of the civil rights opponents’ arguments so far, taken from some live blogging that’s been done through twitter:

• FedCourtJunkie: Prop 8 ballot statement “focuses on children, not calling [gays] child molesters” but “warning” we shouldn’t teach kids gay marriage is ok
• NCLRights: 1961 educational film in ca called “boys beware” warning children abt alleged dangers posed by gay men [link to video of film]
• AmerEqualRights: [Defense Attorney Cooper]: Marriage equality, through which more people would be allowed to marry, will lead to fewer marriages
• AmerEqualRights: Cooper: Marriage discrimination is OK as purpose of marriage is “procreative activity”
• AmerEqualRights: Defenders of Prop 8. object to the showing of one of their TV ads from the campaign
• NCLRights: [Defense Attorney David Thompson] trying to get chauncey to say that the prohibition against sodomy was not “antigay” bc gay identity did not yet exist
• NCLRights: Thompson now positing increased fed funding to address hiv aids as evidence of increased political support for gay people
• NCLRights: Thompson citing will & grace as example of shift in tv representation, also movie philadelphia & brokeback mountain
• ellemenohpe: They’re basically trying to establish that there isn’t really any legal or religious discrimination against gays and lesbians.
• Chris_Stoll: Thompson playing Rick Warren video clip. He didn’t play the one where Warren compares same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia.
• NCLR: Thompson is outrageously claiming that discrimination against gay people is caused by “backlash” against being harassed by gay people.
• ellemenohpe: [Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart]: “But straight marriage isn’t an ‘adult topic.’ Isn’t it true that children are even allowed to participate in heterosexual marriages?”
• AmerEqualRights: [Defendant Bill Tam]‘s answer: “Right,” agreeing that part of ‘gay agenda’ is legalizing underage sex [Statements from previously taped deposition]
• Chris_Stoll: Tam deposition: Tam understands “gay adenda” to go back to a (secret?) meeting of gay leaders in 1972.
• FedCourtJunkie: Tam: sf city government is “under the rule” of homosexuals
• AmerEqualRights: Tam: “We hope to convince Asian-Americans that gay marriage will encourage more children to experiment w/ the gay lifestyle”
• NCLRights: [Defense Attorney Peter Patterson] trying to get [Dr. Edmund Egan] to say that bc sf is generally a gay friendly city, gay people do not experience discrimination here

Even though there have been no live defense witnesses yet, the reason they don’t want this trial broadcast is clear: The anti-gay arguments are wholly without merit and cannot stand up to the simplest examination. And the anti-gay side can’t handle that. Anti-equality campaigns have all been about making outrageous fear-mongering statements without allowing meaningful questions.

In court, that’s not possible. The simplest question renders civil rights opponents defenseless. While audio or transcription might convey the words, nothing is more dangerous than people seeing your idiocy for themselves.

Honestly, I’d fight against broadcast too if I were them.

(Thanks to the live-bloggers and whoever eventually leaks the video of these proceedings.)