Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

As the Supreme Court attempts to pull the wool over our eyes, the reasons fool no one.

We all understand fully. As a matter of law a trial is public. "Public" means what "public" says. In America we do not conduct our trials in secret. In determining the credibility of any witness, the fact-finder (whether that be a judge or a jury) is required to take into consideration the "demeanor of the witness." In this case, the ultimate fact-finder for Prop 8 was We the People, who were, quite frankly, duped, bamboozled and defrauded under false pretenses (mainly by religious organizations), to vote to deny civil rights the courts had protected. (This by the way is the classic substance and purpose Jim Crow laws.)

As we all know, mere words to not tell the entire story. Words aside, you can tell when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes or just plain lying and you can tell by their demeanor, their body language, the expression on their face--the "demeanor of the witness." This is precisely why witnesses are called to testify in person. If denied that ability, you are denied the ability to test the truth and veracity of the testimony.

Of course, we all understand why these cowards want to publicly defame others and then go hide under a rock. No one should be proud to do what they have done. Here, the purpose of the cameras in the courtroom was patently clear. Attorneys Boies and Olsen wanted everyone to see, and want to prove through credible evidence (the "demeanor of the witness"), that the real rationale for this law was not to protect "traditional marriage" but for reasons of pure animus (to foment hatred and prejudice) and, of course, to establish one faction's religious beliefs and prejudices into law. Either proof would serve to strike down this invidious law. This is not about "traditional marriage" and everyone who is not too stupid or too full of themselves to notice what is going on knows that what they are doing is morally indefensible.

These people claim our purpose is to undermine their marriages. We are legally entitled to confront our accusers in just as public a manner as they have perpetuated their invidious frauds. Their demeanor will tell is a lot about their penchant for "truth and veracity." If these witness are so proud of having done their civic duty by trashing others' civil rights, then why should they be afraid or ashamed to stand and testify publicly in the light (as the law requires)? Legally, it is axiomatic that when you inject yourself into a controversy, on a matter of public interest, in order to effect its outcome, you can't plead privacy when you are called out to explain yourself.

They, of course, want it both ways: they want to publically defraud the People as to their motives and they want to perpetuate their nefarious acts in private. They don't want to look the world in the eye and be scrutinized. That is not democracy but fascism.

The truth is that when you shine a light on cockroaches, they always scurry away to hide in the darkness.

John Mortimer

San Francisco, CA

Jan 15 2010 - 5:28pm