Why the Gay Marriage Trial Should be Public

[drbat]

There are many ways to frame the gay-marriage trial taking place this week in San Francisco: it's either a piece of Vegas-style showboating by former Bush v. Gore adversaries David Boies and Theodore Olson, or a noble quest for marital equality in America. But perhaps the most potent framing casts it as a grand battle between elitist,

Comments

[erunamiryene]

Opponents of gay rights (*and womens' rights, African-Americans' rights, childrens' rights especially IRT labor laws, etc*) have argued against allowing unelected judges to substitute their values for those of the American people.

Well, isn't that interesting, since those people want to subsitute their values for those of other people. What's good for the good ISN'T good for the gander in this case? Or values only count if they're just like yours?

Opponents of gay marriage cannot have it both ways. If they want to say that unelected federal judges cannot subvert the will of John Q. Voter, it's absurd to insist that John Q. Voter should be banned from witnessing the proceedings. If they believe that elitist jurists shouldn't be allowed to substitute their values for those of ordinary citizens, they cannot holler that ordinary citizens are thuggish bullies who scare witnesses.YEEEEEAHHH! :D

[peacetrains]

Opponents of gay marriage cannot have it both ways. If they want to say that unelected federal judges cannot subvert the will of John Q. Voter, it's absurd to insist that John Q. Voter should be banned from witnessing the proceedings.

this is what i said when i was arguing with my friend about this the other day (who is all for gay marriage but doesn't think the trial should be made public). he said it doesn't matter that they're being hypocritical because they're still entitled to their right to a fair trial and blah blah blah. i guess from a legal standpoint, i can see where they are coming from... but it's difficult for me to care about the rights of these people when they work so hard to deny others their rights.

[ook]

I think the decision to not allow cameras in the Supreme Court should be changed. It's important for people to be allowed to watch the court cases that affect everyone in their country.

[bnmc2005]

Does this story even mention all the liveblogs available?

[hllangel]

There's also a wider-reaching issue with the blackout on broadcasting:

The public is very critical of, but generally clueless about, the justice system. If we start opening up the process, allowing people to see what's going on in these landmark cases then maybe there will be at least a bit more understanding of how the system works.

Transparency in the judiciary, especially since judges are appointed without term limits, can only be a good thing.