Courtroom privacy

I’m resisting against letting become a blog that features nothing but updates about the fight for/against same-sex marriage, and more recently, stories about airplanes… But damn it, this is what employees of my company call “top of mind” right now.

Today the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-to-4 opinion, that the court in California currently hearing Perry v. Schwarzenegger cannot record the trial and broadcast it online, as the presiding judge had ruled.

I have two warring responses to this… There’s the objective reaction, based on the statement by the court, and then there’s the personal and biased reaction.

Objectively, I’ll acknowledge that the majority of the justices ruled that, “It appears the courts below did not follow the appropriate procedures set forth in federal law before changing their rules to allow such broadcasting.” If that’s the case — and I haven’t done the slightest bit of research to validate it one way or the other — then I have to begrudgingly admit that the court probably made an appropriate (though disappointing, to me) decision.

My personal emotions on the subject are much different. As I posted last week, if opponents of same-sex marriage are too embarrassed to have their anti-gay and closed-minded opinions broadcast for the world to see online, they shouldn’t try to force their “behind closed doors” beliefs on other people in a court of law. If you believe so strongly that same-sex marriage is wrong that you’re willing to decide for other people whether or not they can have it, you should be strong enough in your convictions that you’re proud to publicly stand up for them.

And I have to say, to those that remark that the voters of California have clearly made their preferences known… Not too long ago, voters in several states clearly made it known that they wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage from interracial unions, as well. They felt strongly that a black person and a white person should never marry, and that doing so would betray the institution of marriage and undermine the fabric of society.

Those people were wrong then, and we look back now and shake our heads at how backwards their thinking was. We chalk it up to “just the way they were raised” and say that people “didn’t know better back then.”

I look forward to when our kids look back at “society” being up in arms about same-sex marriage, and wonder what all the fuss was about. I really do.

One Response to Courtroom privacy

  1. […] The Supreme Court’s decision not to allow the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial to be broadcast online was disappointing, but it’s not stopping the media from sharing details from time to time. […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: