Of course they work the mediaWorking the media and working public opinion is all a part of working the court. Especially Justice Kennedy, who seems to look at these trends.
Why don’t our opponents do it? They seem to me like the teabaggers…they don’t know how to control themselves (interesting choice of the word hysteria) so it’s probably better they they are not seen frequently in public for their cause too frequently.

I know he was speaking to the camerabut I did catch when he told Rachel that homosexuals are only looking for “what you and I take for granted, the right to marry the person we love.”
Somehow, I don’t think Rachel takes that for granted.
Other than that, amazing segment. Too bad so few of the people who really need to hear it won’t.
I think the reason you aren’t seeing much of this covered in the anti-gay media is that there isn’t anything in it for them. Their side is making no case that will stand up to logical review, and there aren’t any gotcha sound bites (yet).
They don’t care about gay marriage for an instant – they care what they can do with the issue. There aren’t any elections to whip up support for, there really isn’t a fundraising hook to use it for, and any of them that really care would be idiots not to see that whipping up anti-gay sentiment in the media during a case claiming that there isn’t any anti-gay sentiment in the country could be really harmful to their case.

It was interesting to watch Pugno get shut out on CNN …Apologies if everyone’s already seen this, but Andy certainly didn’t seem to have much to say after his opening statement:

It still amazes me that No on 8 got beat by a team that included the likes of Andrew Pugno and Ron Prentice.

Good clipThanks Chino.

When you can get the herd to stampede, it is easyThe only trick is to get them to stampede in the direction you want, and the supporters of h8 were able to do that.
Hopefully, the cattle voters won’t spook so easily next time.

“Youtube broadcasts would humanize issue”Interesting point on the SF Chronicle website, and some rather perceptive comments.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…

“Or is only reporting one side of the case now considered fair, unbiased reporting?”
Perhaps you should ask the Yes on 8 mafia. They craved the media spotlight during and after the election in both California and even Maine … but now they have done an about-face and have been avoiding the media since the trial started. They seem to have much to hide.
– comment, “deaddittoheads”

ahhh, “traditional mariage” in America through the years:
1691 – Whites only.
1724 – Blacks, with permission of the slave owner.
1769 – The wife is property.
1899 – no more Polygamous Monogamous Marriage.
1900 – The wife can now own property.
1965 – Contraception is legal.
1967 – Interracial couples are legal.
1975 – The wife can have credit in her name.
1993 – Marital rape becomes illegal
– comment, “donsf2004″