Supreme Court Blocks YouTube From California’s Prop 8 Trial

source: the liberal

A small victory today for the Pro Prop 8 side.

The Supreme Court has blocked youtube streaming of the trial,

at least for now.

The U. S. Supreme Court has put a halt, at least temporarily, on plans to let Google’s (GOOG) video site stream coverage of the “Proposition 8″ trial, which kicked off today in a San Francisco courtroom.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker was going to allow the trial to be covered, on a tape-delayed basis, on the world’s biggest video site.

The Supreme Court has granted a temporary order overturning Walker’s ruling to allow tape-delayed youtube videos to be uploaded to the site by Court staff.

The court didn’t explain its reasoning, according to the Los Angeles Times, but perhaps we’ll hear more down the road–the ruling is only supposed to remain in effect until Wednesday.

Prop. 8 trial Day 1: Live coverage from the courtroom

If you want up-to-date trial info, the San Jose Mercury News is covering the trial from the Court room, and you can read their updates here.

Sources: TorrentBomb News All Things Digital

Share this blog or post with your friends.  Click the button below:

Federal Prop 8 trial set to begin Monday//

Proposition 8 goes to trial – Federal lawsuit begins on Monday

The lawsuit claims that the state ban violates the United States Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses and creates a category of “second-class citizens” for gays and lesbians.

The LGBT legal teams is set to try and convince the Federal court that the voting rights of Californians should be ignored and that what they (we) have passed into law for our state shouldn’t matter.

What about a child’s equal protection under the law and their right to grow up in a traditional family? The original arguments of Prop 8 proponents are still valid.

. . .the federal lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of California’s voter-approved ban against same-sex marriage, set to begin Monday, January 11, could have sweeping impacts on whether gays and lesbians can legally marry in the Golden State..

I guess that’s a no for In Session, formerly known as CourtTV, when U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker rejected their offer to broadcast the trial. However he announced Wednesday that he will give the public access to the trial via tapped sessions that will be uploaded to daily, via court staff, as he wants the process to be completely under the Court’s control.

The decision not to allow the media to broadcast the court proceedings live is somewhat of a setback for LGBT activists who had urged Walker to televise the proceedings. The judge issued his ruling after hearing arguments from both sides in the case Wednesday morning.

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, must sign off on the video plan. The court only recently decided to allow judges to have discretion over whether to televise proceedings in the courtrooms or not.

Walker’s decision is a partial win for the attorneys for the groups backing Prop 8, who warned the court that opening up the procedures to television cameras could result in their witnesses being harassed. The judge said he would turn off one of three cameras set to be used during testimony if witnesses ask not to be videotaped.

The lawsuit, known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger , has drawn wide media coverage since it was first filed in late May 2009, particularly for the odd legal pairing of lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies. The two notably argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore U.S. Supreme Court case of 2000, which was won by Olson and handed the presidency to George W. Bush.

The attorneys agreed to argue the Prop 8 case on behalf of two couples – Berkeley residents Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Burbank residents Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo – who were denied the right to marry by the passage of Prop 8 and the California Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling upholding the constitutional amendment. The lawsuit claims that the state ban violates the United States Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses and creates a category of “second-class citizens” for gays and lesbians.

The parties involved are expecting this case to be rather lengthy and complex. The No on Prop 8-ers and the couples who brought the suit are hoping that by the time this case gets to the Supreme Court (which apparently they are planning on happening) that the Court will be very different from what it is today, more liberal and apt to rule in their favor.  They are also hoping that the country will be more accepting and sympathetic to their plight.

{Click here to continue reading. . .}

{ $$$$ Get Your Money Back $$$$ }

California Teachers Empowerment Network is a great resource for teachers to get info about the CTA and where their money is going. California teachers make up this non-partisian, non-political group who are “dedicated to providing teachers with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.” President of the CTEN, Larry Sand, gives his opinion on the CTA and their extravagant expenditures in the name of political advocacy. He points out that, “It seems that the public has awakened to the fact that teachers unions donate millions of dollars of their members’ dues to issues that have nothing to with education on a regular basis.”

“According to teachers union watchdog Mike Antonucci, the CTA spent up to $5 million on five of this year’s 12 state ballot measures, none of which had anything to do with education.” We are all well aware of the $1million the CTA donated to the No on Prop 8 campaign, but this $5 million was news to me. And this was news to me…while CTA workers are deciding how to spend the teachers’ money, they are getting paid about twice as much as the salary of a starting teacher to do it.

Sand continues by saying, “What makes all this even more egregious is that these monies come from members’ dues. The CTA does not poll its members on how it spends its political money; nor does it care that many of its members are outraged by its spending habits, which run consistently to the left.”

If you are a CA teacher and this describes you, there are some pitiful excuses for redress, allowed by the State and the union. The CTEN website explains here, how teachers, although forced to join a union that barely focuses on teachers’ actual issues, have options. One is to apply for agency fee status. Under which, teachers can reclaim 30% of their annual dues, in the form of a rebate, or in other words, about $300 of the almost $1000 they are forced to pay in order to teach in CA. The filing deadline for this year was Nov. 15 (sorry for the late reporting) however, by filing now, teachers are still eligible for a prorated refund. CTEN does a great job of explaining union membership options on the page linked above. Another option is to opt out all together and direct your union dues to the charity organization of your choice, rather than giving the money to the CTA.

It is frustrating to many, that despite the measly refund, they still have to pay about $700 a year. Sand offers a little consolation to those who opt out of regular union membership, “they at least have the peace of mind that comes with knowing that their dues are not going to support causes they are against. And there are other organizations they can join if they are concerned about any loss of protections typically offered by the union. Those of us who have differences with our union can reclaim a part of the money taken from us and spend it as we choose, perhaps in ways that are in line with our moral, ethical and political beliefs.”

Think about it teachers….how many times has the CTA, or your local union rep actually gone to bat for you or anyone you know? How many times have you been irritated at the CTA for some reason or another? In my Mom’s 15+ years of teaching, I’ve heard many times how the union never actually does anything productive for the teachers. There have been several “talks” about the union rep at the school, or some rep sitting in on a meeting or supposed to be helping with something, but seriously… many times do they actually do something that serves the best interests of the teachers…you know, the members of the union who pay their salaries? We’re definitely anti-union in my family and the CTA is usually at the top of our discussion list. I encourage the CA teachers to do some research and see what other info CTEN can provide you with.

Sand also submitted an opinion to the LA Times wherein he describes how for many, “union dues are simply taxation without representation.” I thought we got past that taxation thing a long time ago, but he makes a great point.

“All of us who object to what amounts to taxation without representation must speak up. Teachers who are happy with their union should have the right to continue that affiliation. However, the rest of us — especially those who live in states where we are forced to join a union — would be well served to take a hard look at the organization that claims to represent our best interests and start demanding change.”

Let us know your thoughts on the CTA in the comment section below!

Sources: California Teachers Empowerment Network (CTEN)

Los Angeles Times: Unions Shortchange Teachers

Daily News: Union Doesn’t Speak For All State’s Teachers

{ Reader Poll… We ask, you answer….}

Do we still have to support individuals and businesses who contributed to the No on 8 campaign? It’s obvious that there is a great divide in our society where morality is concerned. Would we as supporters of traditional marriage be out of line to boycott, per se, what doesn’t fall in line with our values? Is silent, peaceful boycotting ok? I want to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment below and tell us why or why not!

In my opinion, it IS definitely ok to not-do-business with, not-buy-products-from, not-care-what-they-say, not-watch-movies-of, etc. the No on 8 Supporters and contributors, individuals and/or companies. I don’t necessarily think of it as boycotting, but more of a personal choice not to associate with destructive people. Dr. Laura says we aren’t obligated to associate with destructive people. Wouldn’t the No on 8 companies and individuals qualify? They have definitely been destructive, and continue to be so. Destructive to our society, morality, families, schools, marriages, politics, legal processes, voting procedures, parental rights…and the list could go on and on. We think it’s hateful that the No camp protested in front of an ice cream parlor, parked a suburban with nasty messages written in the window, in front of the home of a family who supported Prop 8, and barged into a church service shouting and throwing fliers, but is it fair if we do the same thing? Not that we would, but in theory of course, because I’m not going to march in front of the home of some no on 8 supporter, but who knows, perhaps the time will come for us to march if we need to….but I guess I’m talking about us, supporters of traditional marriage, in more of a peaceful way. The slogan describing U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, “Speak softly and carry a big stick” came to mind as I was writing this post. 

Of course we don’t have the actual US military to fight this battle for traditional marriage for us, but we do have each other, and the DNA and every one else who is concerned and involved. The term comes from a West African proverb, which Roosevelt used to described his style of foreign policy as “the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis.” That kind of describes the Yes on 8 team as we rallied together as soon as word broke that the Supreme Court had granted homosexuals the right to marry. We were kind, and polite, but used the law and the political process to accomplish our agenda. If you ask me, this quote states the exact opposite of what the gay-rights activists and same-sex marriage proponents who have recently surfaced in opposition to the passage of Proposition 8 did. We don’t scream, intimidate, belittle, harass, march, stalk, vandalize, and make the news with our protests like they do, but we still have a voice, we still have an army, and will go about our business trying to accomplish our agenda to protect traditional marriage. We don’t make a big nasty spectacle of ourselves, but we were ready when it came time for people to vote! The opposition didn’t have a clue about the campaign we ran and everything that we accomplished, until after the fact.

So, I don’t have to make a big deal out of my non-support for certain people and companies…I can just silently choose not to purchase, watch, endorse or support people who are trying to damage our society by helping to further the gay agenda’s indoctrination process. That will mean, no to the MAC computer I kept telling my husband I wanted. Apple, Google, Yahoo, Levis Straus & Co., PG&E, many many celebrities and some Silicon Valley Leaders were all opposed to Proposition 8, just to name a few. I don’t wear Levi’s I don’t have PG&E as my electric company, but there are a lot of future movies that I won’t be seeing………

As a little disclaimer, on account of the fact that Google sold hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising space to the YES on 8 campaign to advertise the day before the election, I will for now keep my gmail and picasa accounts!!! I don’t mind using google and their little nifty gadgets to further the fight for traditional marriage.

Let us know what you think about the boycott issue!

Source: Wikipedia-Big Stick Ideology

{ The Supreme Court Has Spoken…..aren’t we lucky… }

CA Supreme Court

CA Supreme Court

It looks like the saga continues, and how upstanding of the court to not let gays marry until after their ruling on the three law suite. I mean, the people did vote and majority has already ruled on the issue. Give me a break, these law suits are rediculous….

Nov 19, 5:07 PM (ET)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – California’s highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision.

All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change. says:

BREAKING: Six of seven CA Supreme Court agreed today to review the legal challenges to Prop 8 brought by married same-sex couples. Until they rule, all further same-sex marriages are suspended, and the status of those already wed remains to be determined. What are the chances they’ll overturn the challenge? Slim, but they have done so in the past: “In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin.” Hang in there, D.L. Hughley—we realize how confusing all of this can be!