Prop 8: Trial's Next Round To Be Televised

The last time a California court heard arguments on the validity of Proposition 8, the controversial measure banning gay marriage that state voters passed in 2008, the only insight most onlookers had into the trial was through the recounts of court reporters.

When the California Supreme Court hears arguments on September 6 to determine if the bill's sponsors have grounds to appeal the decision Judge Vaughn Walker issued last year -- deeming the measure unconstitutional -- the action will be broadcast for all the world to see.

SF Appeal reports:

Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said that because of public interest in the case, the court has approved a live statewide television broadcast of the arguments on the California Channel, a public affairs network.

Judge Walker issued his forceful ruling against Prop 8 in late 2010, handing a major victory to gay marriage supporters. Walker had wanted to televise the proceedings of the initial Prop 8 trial; however, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened and prohibited Walker from allowing a public broadcast.

The Washington Post reports:

The court issued an unsigned opinion that said lower courts had not followed proper procedure in approving plans for the broadcast. The trial is to consider the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, and the Supreme Court cited arguments from proponents of the ban that releasing video of witnesses could subject them to harassment and even physical danger.

After Judge Walker's ruling, both former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to appeal--leaving that decision up to the bill's backers. Even so, because of the specifics of Judge Walker's ruling, it's not clear that Prop 8's proponents will have the legal standing to appeal. Answering this question is precisely what the state Supreme Court will look into come September.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case but, since they appeared unsure about the supporters' legal standing, they sent the question to state's highest court for clarification. If the state Supreme Court rules that Prop 8's backers, led by the group Protect Marriage, have the ability to appeal the case, the issue will be sent back to the appeals court.

The high court is expected to make its ruling within 90 days of the early September hearing.

Comments

[Reed Boyer]

06:15 AM on 08/10/2011

this article has a few things wrong.

To quote from "Prop 8 Trial Tracker" (which entitity has been monitoringt these cases from day one):

" . . . the last time this case was argued we DID get to see it televised. That was Dec 6 in front of the 9th Circuit. And these won't be "arguments on the validity of Proposition 8" nor will the Court be "determin[ing] if the bill's sponsors have grounds to appeal." These arguments will be strictly on issues of California law that impact Proponents' standing to appeal the decision in federal court. And the uncertainty about Proponents' standing is NOT "because of the specifics of Judge Walker's ruling," as claimed in the article."

[troyrobertdavid]

01:04 PM on 08/03/2011

When NY approved gay marriage I saw this one woman who just got married and said, “People put locks on their doors to protect what is important to them, what people need to understand is that gay people want to put locks on their relationships to protect what is important to us.” I think that was a great statement. When heterosexual couples get married they are awarded a LOT of protections under the law. Why is it so hard to believe and imagine that homosexual couples that have devoted their lives to one another would want anything less than that exact same thing?

[troyrobertdavid]

12:49 PM on 08/03/2011

The fact that this came up for a vote in the first place is unconstitutional. The will of the majority cannot infringe upon the rights of the minority. People cannot vote on what rights who gets and who doesn’t.

[TBJ]

11:14 AM on 08/03/2011

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/08/02/286037/top-five-homophobic-statements-from-boehners-doma-briefs/

It's frustrating that DOMA has to be fought this hard, but it's good to know they've got nothing but lies and animus to defend it.

[chibikawaiistarr]

11:44 PM on 08/02/2011

It's refreshing to see so much support!
Civil rights, human rights; they cannot be denied.
How can they say homosexuals can fight and die for a country in which they cannot be married! Gays can join the military, but not obtain a marriage license. Lame.

[Michael Lemley]

03:30 PM on 08/02/2011

He legal argument presented by the opponents of Prop 8 is quite sound. In 11th grade, I wrote a research paper using the same argument (three years before the prop 8 fiasco). Loving v Virginia, the supreme court case that gave interracial couples the right to marry formally declared "marriage" to be a basic human right under US law. The 14th Ammendment (I think that's the one) has an equal protection clause that guarantees all basic human rights to all citizens on US soil.

Prop 8 proponents ended up helping the other side immensely when they called witnesses to the stand. Their testimony only further backed the position that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. It is difficult to find credible expert witnesses to back the prejudicial notion that homosexuality is abnormal or wrong. All major psychological, psychiatric, and medical organizations have issued statements that homosexuality is a normal part of the human condition, and some have even drawn conclusions that the higher rate of mental illness in gays and lesbians is a result of legislation such as Prop 8. In fact, there was a surge of depression diagnoses in the LGBT populations of California and Florida (where Ammendment 2, our version of prop 8) when these laws were voted into action.

[DocEagle]

02:07 PM on 08/02/2011

Televising this is not the same as what televising the original trial would have meant. This will just be a technical argument about standing. Had the actual trial been televised, the whole world would have seen the pro Prop 8 side getting embarrassed as the weakness of their argument was exposed.

[dhartson]

12:24 PM on 08/02/2011

The courts must do as the law is written! The voters said NO! If this is over turned, why vote on anything............

[democratbob]

03:26 PM on 08/02/2011

Because the voters voted to deprive people of their civil rights.

[TXanimal]

03:48 PM on 08/02/2011

If CA voted to approve segregation, would you be OK with that too?

[talkstocoyotes]

12:37 AM on 08/31/2011

Of course, we have to remember that support for racial segregation is no longer socially acceptable in most places; and anti-Semitism, once acceptable enough to be trendy, has become a third rail due to the Holocaust. Many religious groups in particular take great pride in being racially inclusive -- now that it's safe -- but use the same arguments against civil rights for gays.

Same goes for anti-Semitism, though the claim that "God does not hear the prayers of a Jew" would still get applause in some quarters.

[db025]

11:09 AM on 08/02/2011

Doesn't matter much what the courts finally say.

We all answer to the same God, whether we believe or not.

[Bill J4321]

11:57 AM on 08/02/2011

I think you think you're at 'Christian Mingle.com.'

[Angel1999]

06:17 PM on 08/02/2011

Then that is our choice, isn't it? At what point do we get to exercise our free will? You will always be able to believe that we're going to Hell, but why do you feel the need to force the government to require us to live by the rules of your particular sect?

[Marisa Stein]

10:35 AM on 08/02/2011

good for them

[Aj Armstrong]

02:03 AM on 08/02/2011

I'd like to remind those of you who are against marriage equality that someday your rights may be called into question. You have no idea what the future may bring. Being a Christian, white, upper-class, and/or male, is not guaranteed to *always* be the best position to be in. Maybe you guys should stop burning your bridges at every opportunity.

[josephRoehl]

02:39 AM on 08/02/2011

Exactly ) That's why human rights and basic liberties are guaranteed and NOT SUBJECT to votes. Rights cannot be voted away WOOHOO F&F'd ) thanks for reminding us of the fragility of universality

[virescentgirl]

12:32 PM on 08/02/2011

That brings to mind a quote by Thomas Payne (paraphrased here) Be careful the precedent you set now, because it will be used against you in the future.

[Cooperman]

01:58 AM on 08/02/2011

The historical context for why marriage exists in the first place is frivolously being over looked. It not only about being in love with someone.

[josephRoehl]

02:37 AM on 08/02/2011

Gay and lesbian families are raising millions of children and have raised millions of children, and that means those children also deserve the same exact rights as everyone else's children, inside a married family. George Washington married Martha Washington, and never had a child with her, but they raised her daughter by a previous marriage, and that's good enough for me.

[Contact1972]

02:51 AM on 08/02/2011

Is this where you say marriage is for producing children only?

[William Brock]

01:42 AM on 08/02/2011

This is a constitutional matter and we all know how it is going to end....Prop 8 is going to go down in flames. Where shall we get married?

[TheOuroborus]

12:33 AM on 08/02/2011

Well, if you throw the thing back to the voters when Obama isn't on the ballot, it will be destroyed.

[Eileenla]

01:22 AM on 08/02/2011

Doubtful. National opinion toward gay marriage has been shifting rapidly, and the odds are good that California, a fairly progressive state, will catch up. The prop barely passed to begin with, and the ruling against it won't help that cause. As a Californian, I'd relish the chance to vote against Prop 8...again.

[thewinningleft]

12:28 AM on 08/02/2011

How long will this go on? Will this still be an issue in November 2012?

What a mess.

[sf1000000]

12:11 AM on 08/03/2011

Well its an old chestnut, used to whip up the hate and base and fill the coffers..do you know that some guy actually emailed me about that Obama was not a citizen that whold birther thing again..someone said he was a muslim...sigh...well, like Eienstein said, "the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has it's limits"...

[David N Taiwan]

07:14 PM on 08/03/2011

It will go on until the younger generation coming on board now completely replaces the older generation marching off the end of the gangplank.