Show trials

Pro-discrimination forces rarely have logical arguments on their side, so it is not unusual for them to resort to dis-coherence:

Opponents of same-sex marriage have long said the issue does not belong in the courts. Lately they have gone a step further.

They say Judge Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, made a serious mistake by calling for a trial in a challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage rather than deciding the case based on paper submissions.

“To think that somehow the rules of evidence can lead you to the right answer is just not right,” said Jordan W. Lorence, a lawyer with Alliance Defense Fund and a member of the trial team for the people and groups who intervened to defend the ban after state officials would not. “There should not have been a trial.”

The trial took place in January, but Judge Walker has not yet scheduled closing arguments. In the meantime, the defendants and their allies are calling the legitimacy of the proceedings into question.

Lorence is right, of course. The rules of evidence will never lead one to an answer pro-discrimination forces would consider "right."

Typical that they would call the legitimacy of the trial into question just before closing arguments -- you might suspect they think they're going to lose.

But that would be cynical.