Do Christianists Fear Losing Olsen/Boies Challenge to Proposition?

Karen Ocamb has a lengthy post on LGBT Pov that looks at the latest maneuvering of NOM and other anti-gay organizations in the face of the trial in Perry v. Schwarteneger which commences on Monday. Between a last minute appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court to block delayed broadcasting of the trial - the Ninth Circuit rejected their effort - to the latest fundraising letter sent out by NOM, the Christo-fascsist seem worried. If the issue is looked at devoid of religious based discrimination (something that should be a no brainer to recognize in light of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion and the promise of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment), the Prop 8 supporters should go down in flames. I personally suspect that the fear of the trial being televised has nothing to do with fears of retribution against Prop 8 supporters. Rather, it will become perfectly clear that Prop 8 is religious based discrimination plain and simple and the result of a conspiracy between the Mormon Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and other anti-gay denominations. God forbid that the real agenda be broadcast on television. Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher of NOM are near hysteria - a loss in this case could end their lucrative business of enriching themselves by "protecting marriage" all around the country. Heaven forbid they get real jobs and stop living high of the money of sheeple. Here are some highlights from Karen's post:
*
In his latest fundraising letter sent out Friday, Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage, crows about the defeat of the marriage equality bill in the New Jersey Senate Thursday, talks about how Stand for Marriage D.C. has filed a referendum seeking to “overturn gay marriage as the peple [sic] in California did in 2008, and thye [sic] people of Maine did in 2009.”
*
But the “third big piece of news this week,” he writes, is the “federal trial over the constitutionality of Prop 8 begins.” Brown complains that Judge Vaughn Walker, “in another display of his eagerness to cater to the pro-gay-marriage side,” announced that he will “televise this trial” – discounting the objections of lawyers for Protect Marriage who are worried that their witnesses will face “threats and harassment.”
*
Well, the trial will not exactly be televised – it will be recorded for uploading on YouTube, which requires someone to have and know how to use the Internet to find and watch the considerably small and delayed trial. Brown then delivers his scary message: We do not expect to win at the trial level, but with God’s help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.
*
Here’s part of what Maggie has to say about the case: On Monday, Jan. 11, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will put the people of California on trial for voting against gay marriage. The case will be a show trial in a kangaroo court. I don’t say that lightly of any federal judge, but Judge Walker’s extraordinary bias has already been flagrantly on display.
*
Karen fires back at the whining and gets to the essence of Perry v. Schwarenegger: Ultimately, the U. S. Constitution is on trial. Does it apply to all, or does it enshrine one religious belief system over all others. In my view, if Proposition 8 is not ultimately struck down under the U. S. Constitution, then the Constitution will have been shown to be a fraud. Here's more of what Karen has to say:
*
That’s right. The Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers DOES contain a right to gay marriage – or in my not-so-twisted POV, marriage EQUALITY. I have just as much right to pursue happiness with the person I love as the next American citizen, including all the rights, benefits and responsibilities that go with it.

Why, exactly, does Brian Brown and NOM think I do not deserve the right to be happy, just like him and Maggie, who are presumably straight? What’s fair about that? And in that sense, this actually puts the US Constitution on trial: does the 14th Amendment actually apply to everyone – and if not, who’s excluded and why? What would James Madison say here about the “tyranny of the majority” imposing its will on the minority?
*
What part of common sense says my same sex marriage will impact your straight marriage in any way Even yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert said as much in a Prop 8 case study after Prop 8 passed. “We knew from the very beginning that a campaign that was simply an affirmation of traditional marriage and did not develop a path that lead voters to consider consequences to legalized same sex marriage in California – that that formula would not be successful. We would not get to 50% of the vote. So we redefined the measure as not being about tolerance of gay relationships but about being about consequences of gay marriage.” This is an important point to grasp: they knew they couldn’t win their political campaign by upholding traditional marriage so they invented a new scary way of looking at the measure – as if it would create some terrible consequence, maybe, in the future.
*
Now this is all on tape, so there’s not wonder Brown might think they might have a problem at the trial level. Which is why Maggie Gallegher then tries to undermine the legitimacy of the trial and the trial judge.