Fear of Public Scrutiny

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_14174369

“The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide by midday whether to lift a stay on Walker’s earlier order allowing the delayed broadcast of the proceedings on the court’s Web site by using YouTube; the justices put the unprecedented plan on hold earlier this week at the request of Proposition 8 supporters, who oppose any broadcast of the trial. They say broadcasting the court proceedings would expose their witnesses to threats and intimidation, and would ‘negatively affect the fairness of the trial.’”

Let me see if I get this right.  People who voted for Prop 8, to deny gays and lesbians their right to marry, who are a part of the dominant paradigm, are concerned that they will be threatened and intimidated because their participation will be made public?

Let’s take a look at this.

Versus this.

Or, if you don’t like that wording, how about this.

Let’s see…. pages upon pages of people being murdered because they were gay or lesbian (or transgendered or transexual or any other alternative sexuality), but perhaps a single link (if that) regarding the reverse.  Yesterday in court, an Ivy League scholar was able to talk for virtually an entire day of court about the history of gays and lesbians undergoing persecution, discrimination, and degradation.  The same cannot be done for heterosexuals.

Pause for a moment.  There have certainly been ugly and hurtful things done by opponents of Prop 8 towards proponents.  That is inexcusable.  I understand that there is concern that people will lash out against witnesses for the defense and that is not wholly unjustified.  However, there is a key fundamental aspect of this that is going unmentioned by proponents.

The plaintiffs are even worse off due to the fact that their names are displayed everywhere with the case now, so they must undergo harsh treatment as well.  They are fighting for rights they do not have, while the defendants are fighting to keep rights they already (can) enjoy.  The plaintiffs are working against thousands of years of history and socialization while the defendants are trying to uphold an unjust status quo with significant national and international support (whether that’s implicit or explicit).

What I am frustrated by is that the plaintiffs (Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo; Kristin Perry & Sandy Stier) are putting themselves and their relationships out into public scrutiny because their love burns more fiercely than does the misplaced righteousness of those who would seek to strip them of their rights and yet, and yet, those who actively seek to deprive rights are concerned about the effects of appearing in court?  These lovers-seeking-equality are having to put themselves out into the public sphere for the utmost scrutiny and ridicule because of the public’s action, let alone the reaction they are receiving now or the future action they might receive.  The State of California did indeed vote, by majority, to deny gays their right to marry.  This court case is a reaction to that action and, in both cases, have placed the plaintiffs under far more stress and duress than the witnesses for the defense will have undergone or will undergo.

And, just as an afterthought, don’t think that these plaintiffs’ scrutiny will cease upon the completion of this trial.  While it may lessen should the courts decide to uphold Prop 8, it will intensify should the courts strike down the Proposition.  Consider what the media would do if Paul and Jeff or Kristin and Sandy eventually divorced?  Or one had an affair?  While these are almost commonplace events for heterosexual couples, they could very well become national news should either of these couples experience them.