When it was our legal team’s turn to cross-examine her, Ms. Cott made some key admissions in our favor that, I think, greatly damaged the plaintiffs’ case. For example, undercutting our opponents demands that we the people must prove a harmful consequence will happen with certainty if marriage is redefined, in order to justify preserving traditional marriage, the witness admitted that “the consequences of same sex marriage is an impossible question to answer.” She also conceded that the public interest in promoting the raising of children by both a mother and father is served by promoting traditional marriage among opposite-sex couples. And contrary to our opponents’ claim that marriage is purely a private, personal relationship, Ms. Cott admitted on the witness stand that marriage is in fact a very public institution that serves society as a whole."Impartial experts". Well, "expert" or not, and on what, one thing's for certain: They are NOT "impartial" witnesses. I wonder about the Judge, too, who fails when it comes to adhering to proper legal procedure:
The notion that Ms. Cott was called to the stand to provide neutral and impartial “expert” testimony was blown wide open when she admitted under cross examination by our defense team that she has long been an active advocate for gay marriage. We exposed the facts that she has lobbied in favor of legislation to legalize same-sex marriage; joined in lawsuits seeking to strike down traditional marriage; and is a key supporter and contributor to a group that actively pushes to “de-construct” marriage in America. In fact, one of the groups that she has financially supported has openly encouraged polyamory, which is a relationship of three or more people in a sexual “group marriage.”
Next, the plaintiffs called to the stand Professor George Chauncey of Yale University to testify as an “expert” about the history of discrimination that homosexuals have felt in America. His testimony included examples of gays and lesbians being arrested and jailed, losing their jobs, being denied access to public accommodations, and suffering as the targets of “hate crimes.” While the history lesson was actually quite interesting, to be sure, it completely lacked any relevance whatsoever to the central question whether the voters of California could reasonably and constitutionally decide to continue traditional marriage.
The day closed with another striking admission by Chauncey elicited by our attorney David Thompson. Chauncey, like Cott, is a gay marriage supporter who has contributed to and assisted several groups advocating for the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Supreme Court strikes down (notoriously Hard-Left Ninth Circuit Court) Judge's attempt to cheat in changing rules to allow television of proceedings. (No surprise: Obama appointee Sotomayor dissents).
PER CURIAM:Clearly, the notoriously wrong, Hard-Left Ninth Circuit Court Judge wasn't following proper procedure, something shocking for a "judge". How dare judges condemn others for not following proper legal procedures, but not give a damn to do so themselves?! Such hypocrisy and corruption! Cheating for one side over another is clearly a sign of corruption on the part of the judge. After all, televising the proceedings would be dangerous for the Defence witnesses, exposing them to Hard-Left hatred, contempt and violence, basically terrifying them, possibly forcing them to turn into politically correct zombies or refuse to testify altogether!
“We are asked to stay the broadcast of a federal trial. We resolve that question without expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast. We instead determine that the broadcast in this case should be stayed because it appears the courts below did not follow the appropriate procedures set forth in federal law before changing their rules to allow such broadcasting. Courts enforce the requirement of procedural regularity on others, and must follow those requirements themselves.”
____________________ JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE GINSBURG and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting.Such sophistic gobbleddygook attempting to B.S. us lay people. No logic, no reason. Just nonsense. And Obama's appointee is on that side, no surprise. "Wise Latina woman", y'know... Hard-Leftwing social revolutionary, suspected sexist and racist. Apparently, like her fellow dissenters, she doesn't give a crap that the Ninth Circuit judge is cheating, and not doing his job and is now suspect in his own impartiality. One cannot help but now suspect the impartiality and integrity of these SCOTUS dissenters. One would think that infamous, Hard-Left cunning linguist Noam Chomsky wrote their dissenting message. Besides, the Ninth Circuit Judge also doesn't satisfy the more important standard: Properly, scrupulously following legal procedure! SCOC Dissenters: FAIL!
The Court today issues an order that will prevent the transmission of proceedings in a nonjury civil case of great public interest to five other federal courthouses located in Seattle, Pasadena, Portland, San Francisco, and Brooklyn. The Court agrees that it can issue this extraordinary legal relief only if (1) there is a fair chance the District Court was wrong about the underlying legal question, (2) that legal question meets this Court’s certiorari standards, (3) refusal of the relief would work “irreparable harm,” (4) the balance of the equities (including, the Court should say,possible harm to the public interest) favors issuance, (5) the party’s right to the relief is “clear and undisputable,” and (6) the “question is of public importance” (or otherwise “peculiarly appropriate” for such action). See ante, at 6–7; Rostker v. Goldberg, 448 U. S., 1306, 1308 (1980) (Bren-nan, J., in chambers) (stay standard); Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U. S. 367, 380 (2004) (noting that mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes” (internal quotation marks omitted)). This case, in my view, does not satisfy a single one of these standards, let alone all of them. Consequently, I must dissent.
No wonder the anti-Prop-8 side prefers to enlist the assistance of Hard-Left legislative bodies and the Big Old Media in its dishonest war to destroy traditional marriage and recklessly place the health of society and human civilization at risk. As we've seen, under cross-examination, things just don't go well for the social-revolutionary extremists who depend on big lies, intimidation, violence, racial slurs and demonizing opponents and cheating for their successes. All with the dogged assistance of the Big Old Media, who will engage in cover up when they're caught commiting criminal acts, including violence.
The pro-SSM side is cheating and is disingenous. If they win, then reasonable people will not have any respect for them at all, and the gay community as a whole will take a massive public-relations beating, thanks to the militantly revolutionary extremists who claim, unopposed by the Community, to speak for and represent their views and values. Who can respect proven-unfair-and-dishonest folks, some of whom would go so far as violence and racial slurs, not that the Big Old Media mentioned those things?
(All emphasis mine)