Should the Prop. 8 Court Case Be Broadcast?

District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has been swamped by letters concerning the impending hearing on Proposition 8 (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), especially with regards to the possibility of allowing the proceedings to be broadcast via the television or the internet.

On Wednesday there will be a hearing so that the legal teams involved can make their cases for televising or not televising the event. Judge Walker may decide the outcome then. The case itself will begin on January 11.

But why broadcast the trial at all? Well, Judge Walker has proposed this unusual course of action given that Proposition 8 has wider interest to the public than the average state court case.

Among other things, the case will examine the legality of banning gay marriage as per California’s constitution, as well as trying to ascertain whether a constitutional right to same-sex marriage does in fact exist. Judge Walker has also challenged supporters of Proposition 8 to provide proof that same-sex civil marriage actually harms the institution of marriage for heterosexuals.

The pro Prop. 8 team don’t want the trial to be broadcast. They say that they are concerned that it could expose witnesses testifying for the gay marriage ban and put them at risk of intimidation and harassment. They have released a statement, a part of which says:

Ron Prentice, executive director of Protectmarriage.com, is concerned Walker’s decision could cause problems for proponents of Prop. 8 who have already come under attack.

“Intimidation and harassment will continue,” Prentice said. “And, those who are put on the stand or are seen in the courtroom may very well be recognized and further intimidation or harassment may continue.”

Ted Olsen and David Boies, the legal team that are arguing that the gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, are in favor of having court proceedings broadcast, while lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights groups have encouraged people to write to Walker in support of broadcasting the trial. They contend that it is important to hear the arguments for and against gay marriage that are set out in the case live and unfiltered.

Judge Walker will review all the comments regarding the Proposition 8 case that the public have sent to him on Friday, with a deadline set at 9 AM.

The group Courage Campaign has drawn up a letter addressed to Judge Walker that you can also sign if you support the broadcast of the Proposition 8 court case proceedings.

This is a rare opportunity to get involved in what could be a very important legal case. Click here to sign the Courage Campaign letter and ask Judge Vaughn Walker to allow the Proposition 8 trial to be broadcast. Got something specific that you want to say? You can also add your personal thoughts in a specially dedicated section after the letter if you so choose.

If you would like to send a letter yourself, comments can be addressed to the following:

Hon. Phyllis Hamilton
Chair of the Rules Committee
United States Courthouse
1301 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612

Hon. Vaughn Walker
Chief Judge
United States Courthouse
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

Update: Judge Vaughn Walker has said that he would allow a limited broadcast of the Proposition 8 court case that begins next week. Delayed court room camera feeds will be placed onto media clip site YouTube. At this time, it is unclear how long the delay will be. Court proceedings will not be broadcast on television however. This isn’t quite the live feed that many had hoped for, but it will allow greater access than would have otherwise been available.

On the decision, Judge Walker said: “This is a case which merits a very serious consideration for widespread distribution,”

However, Judge Walker is still taking public comment until the Friday deadline on both this and the entire Proposition 8 case, so if you have something to say, please do let him know.

Photo used under the Creative Commons Attribution License, with thanks to jayhay2336.
This post has been updated. Please see the bottom of this post for further information.

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

8:54PM PST on Jan 27, 2010

To respond to those who questioned my meaning, in the original post, when gays "marry" all well and good, but when they divorce and he/she gets the kids, are they going to be faced with the same penalties, as ex married couples, where the woman no longer works, and has an income decided on the status of an ex for social security or does the hetero couple get treated as they ( the gays ) now, and stop seeing one of them as a dependant, and as such gain the full social rights they should have, for payment and income, inside marriage as the singletons do outside, as well as the tax allowances of individuals, outside of wedlock, ot is a two way street, and married people are less favourably treated by the tax regime and social security/unemployment benefit, when do we get to point this out to all, who think that there are only benefits to nmarriage, when divorce may mean that the couple actually benefit from being treated and taxed, and receive social security and unemployment in full, as individuals, rather than as a person plus a lower valued dependant, I repeat where do we sign up to say "NO", until the gay estate actually want and say that we will do all that the lower treated married do, as well as define one of us as dependant, and eschew all claims to taxation allowances, social benefits and unemployment claims, as married people who lose out do, right now, siren voices are absent in the fairness of this site there should be a "balance ballot" that allows us to vote NO !

send a green star

Past Member .

5:59AM PST on Jan 10, 2010

I'm asking myself if I would want my personal life broadcast on tv.... my answer is No- I wouldn't want my life on tv for everyone to see & judge me.

Mervi R.

1:54PM PST on Jan 9, 2010

It should be televised, definately.

Tom W.

2:03PM PST on Jan 8, 2010

For those one sided religious brain operatives just explain - - this

How can straight couples who violate their marriage vows call gay marriage an issue that destroys the sanctity of marriage?

gerlinde p.

7:16AM PST on Jan 8, 2010

it should be televised, it`s an important issue, not just for CA,for a whole lot of people in the usofa

Jose M. C.

9:49AM PST on Jan 7, 2010

There are some excellent suggestions here. Though I doubt lawyers would permit any outright ban, divorce should at least carry some heavy penalties. Marriage as a whole has been demeaned as long as it has existed - deeming spouses and children the same as property, favoring a patriarchal order that oppresses women, and on the other extreme being treated as a casual agreement with insufficient consequences for dissolving it. If "straight" couples had more respect for what it means to be married, there would be a much stronger moral standing for limiting same-sex unions. Too bad for us, though. If it were up to me, I'd be about ready to say, "you win," and hand over the trampled carcass we've been trying to defend.

Zoi I.

8:18AM PST on Jan 7, 2010

Ken's right-- Prop 8 should be partnered with a bill that makes divorce illegal. See how well that goes over with the "marriage-to-god" crowd. I think we'd see pretty quickly just how committed they are-- or see how many excuses they make why it doesn't apply to them.

Richard N.

5:10AM PST on Jan 7, 2010

Thanks for sharing!

Ken B.

1:07AM PST on Jan 7, 2010

If the "sancity" of heterosexual marriage is at stake then Divorce should be made illegal!!! That would REALLY "sancify" it! Many of the same people (including most of our Congress people) have been married SEVERAL TIMES! And those that haven't seem to always be running off to Artentina to visit a mistress,payng off a friend for an affair with his wife! Or sneaking around with a staff member or secretary! And then they spout "sanctity" of marriage! As the saying goes, he who live in tin can house shouldn't throw a can opener! What a bunch of collosal hypocrites! All this crap about marrying your parrot is just that - crap! Stupid arguments from stupid people! 50%o f straigh marriages end in divorce! Sanctity indeed!!!!
Bigots!!!!