Prop 8 Supporters Seek to Have Trial Tapes Destroyed

I find it amazing that a group of homophobes who did not hesitate to put out anti-gay ads implying the gays are child molesters and a threat to society are now wetting their pants and whining that all video tapes of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial be destroyed. They claim that a release of the tapes at some future date might endanger their safety. It's too bad they cared nothing about the safety of gays who might be subjected to violence - not to mention legalized religious discrimination - when they were disseminating their poisonous anti-gay messaging. Obviously, the other real reason these scumbags do not want the videos to survive is because it document for posterity their bigotry and hate. The fact that they don't want the public to see their handiwork ought to send them a strong message that they are on the wrong side of history and decency. Personally, I hope the tapes are maintained and will help make the Prop 8 supporters look like monsters to future generations. Here are highlights from a Huffington Post column:

*
The lead defense attorney in the Prop 8 case, Charles Cooper, the lawyer that should actually know that this violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution yet still defends inequality, has asked the judge in the case to destroy the video tapes of the proceedings so far.
*
Cooper's rationale is an extension of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that if the tapes get out the witnesses defending Prop 8, defending inequality in contract law based on gender, will be unduly harassed and less apt to testify in future proceedings. In other words, the rights of those who would amend the Constitution of the State of California and of the United States, their right to not be harassed must supersede the First Amendment of the Constitution. So, exactly how much trampling on the Constitution is going to go on? The First Amendment has been disregarded, the XIV has been completely broken and ignored and the ones that must be protected are those that would oppress tax paying Americans based on religious dogma, thus violating the Church/State separation as well.
*
Their fear over their bigotry, hatred, their uneducated, non-factual arguments based in religion and not law being one day exposed speaks volumes. It means even they know how wrong, how beyond-the-pale their arguments are; they don't want the world to see them for what they really are, hear them how they really sound under oath, watch their condemnation of people whose only crime is they want to enter a legal contract that others in their state enjoy and not be discriminated against based on gender. Because if people were to actually see it, hear it, watch it in depth, they would be able to see it for what it really, truly is. And those that defend Prop 8 have spent millions to make sure people don't understand what it really, truly is: Religious ideology codified as civil law.
*
The U.S. Supreme Court's charter is to make sure that all laws pass Constitutional muster. That's it. Period. The XIV Amendment is very clear, and a fourth grader could see that Prop 8 clearly violates it. It would be a breach of ethics to uphold it, and ethic breaches can, in fact, be punished.
*
A Supreme Court Justice can be removed for failing to do their job or for following some other code than the Constitution, like the Bible, or Partisan politics. How? This should excite those that love the Constitution.

It* takes a supermajority, really, like the one voters gave the Democrats in 2008. First the House draws up the articles of impeachment. Then a majority passes them (Democrats, who claim to be for equal rights, have a majority). Then, the Senate, by 2/3 vote, which progressives allegedly have, confirms the impeachment and votes to remove the Justice.
*
And as for Charles Cooper, shame on you. Shame. As an educated man you should know in the depths of your intellect that this is an equal protection contract law issue, and has nothing to do with marriage. The right afforded by the contract of marriage is not the issue, the exclusion from that contract is. And what else but shame could lead you, Mr. Cooper, or anyone on such a quest to destroy tapes of such a historical trial?
*
Perhaps Antonin Scalia needs to contemplate whether he intends to put his religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution should Perry come before the Supreme Court. From my perspective, Ted Olson and David Boies intend to create a trial record that will when all is said and done help underscore the impermissible religious basis behind Prop 8.