Prop 8 Trial Videos To Remain Sealed, Judge Rules

A video recording of the 2010 trial that challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, will remain sealed, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday.

The 3-0 ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the trial judge who permitted the recording had promised it would not be made public. "The integrity of our judicial system depends in no small part on the ability of litigants and members of the public to rely on a judge's word," it read.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

...the ruling maintained a blanket of secrecy over recordings of a trial that was as public a proceeding as federal court rules allow: intense media coverage, live-blogging from the courtroom, a telecast to spectators in an overflow courtroom, and re-enactments on YouTube - and even on Broadway.

Prop. 8's sponsors, however, argued that any telecast beyond the courthouse would intimidate and endanger their witnesses. They persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to ban live broadcasts to other federal courthouses on the eve of trial in January 2010, and they prevailed again today in an effort to keep the recordings under seal, perhaps permanently.

The court provided no indication as to when or how it would rule on the larger question: whether Prop 8 represented an act of blatant discrimination and should therefore be deemed unconstitutional.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the court also ruled that Chief Judge U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over the original trial that declared the measure unconstitutional and is now retired, may not keep his own copy of the recordings.

Click here for The Huffington Post's complete coverage of Prop 8.

Comments

[AllegroTroppo]

08:46 AM on 02/05/2012

The institution of marriage is defined by the cultural values of any given society.
All human cultures have norms regarding who is considered suitable and unsuitable sexual and/or marriage partners.
Gay marriage is wrong in the same way polygamist or underage or intra-family marriage is wrong.
(Some states have additional prohibitions concerning marrying one's adoptive relatives).
It is wrong culturally first and foremost. An argument about genetic harm to the society can be also developed.
I support California partnership agreements. It is a sane and logical policy to resolve the issues related to homosexual people wanting to live as a cohesive unit.
Marriage is altogether a different issues. It should be reserved solely to people of opposite gender.

[JaneDoeNOLA]

10:57 PM on 02/07/2012

lol you dope, go read a book.

[WheelsOnFire]

12:05 PM on 02/04/2012

Well, we won't get to see the anti-gay attorney stuttering and stammering when asked by Judge Walker to provide evidence of how allowing gay couples to marry would somehow harm hetero marriage.

But we have the transcript.

All he could say that he didn't know how allowing gays to marry would harm hetero marriage.

"I don't know. Your honor, my answer is, I don't know."

That's the case brought against gay marriage -- right from the pro-Prop 8 attorney himself.

[EmmaDarian]

12:43 PM on 02/04/2012

Yep!

And I wanted to see the pro-Prop 8 expert testify that marriage is good for the children of same-sex couples. That would be a hoot. It amounts to "Yes, we know Prop 8 is bad for children, but and can't show that it's bad for anyone, but we want to keep it anyway."

Oh, and that's the same expert who had written that we would be more American the day we allow same-sex marriage than we are now. That's the best they could do (well, and George "Rent Boy" Rekers).

The only case the pro-Prop 8 side made was their opposition's. Those videos would be a hoot to watch, but we know they couldn't make their case from the transcripts.

[AllegroTroppo]

10:03 AM on 02/04/2012

Evidence is available to those who are interested in evidence,.
None of the intrepid defenders are interested in it. Demonstrably.
Even when confronted with evidence ( see below) you will deny it.
A typical religious fundamentalist approach to life.

Now from the gay website:”
“In an e-mail to the Bay Area Reporter, Sergeant Brian Findlen, a Modesto police spokesman, wrote that the suspect apparently took the signs and was followed by Nunez. When Nunez caught up with the suspect, the suspect allegedly punched Nunez once. "
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=3403

Let's the furious spinning commence. Note utter unwillingness to condemn violence... unless it's coming from the opponents, of course. Shame on you.

[Darr Sandberg]

11:56 PM on 02/04/2012

What part of the word 'allegedly' confused you?

Your citation describes an allegedly event, that's all. The Pro 8 side has a long history of lying.

You're going to need the police report and the trial transcripts for the person who allegedly committed this attack, to substantiate your claim.

[AllegroTroppo]

01:10 AM on 02/05/2012

OK, so you're not interested in facts.
Now that's gigantic surprise.

[matt gordon]

07:53 PM on 02/03/2012

Lawyer: Will you provide for the court some evidence that gay marriage causes harm?

Anti-gay witness: *crickets*

A courtroom is not a chat show and opinions are not evidence.

[AllegroTroppo]

04:58 PM on 02/03/2012

Jason N aka JSon challenged me to produce mainstream evidence of the beating of Mr. Nunez in Modesto, Ca. by "No on 8" supporters.
I hereby challenge hm to publicly condemn this act of violence if such MSM link is produced.
So far the only response I got is personal invective.
Well?

[xenas mom]

05:57 PM on 02/03/2012

Is that supposed to be some sort of sick joke? Definitely flagging you for abuse.

[Darr Sandberg]

06:44 PM on 02/03/2012

"Ah,... the silence speaks volumes."

Yes, your lack of substantiating evidence for your claim speaks volumes.

[Darr Sandberg]

05:34 PM on 02/03/2012

Why are you posting personal invective instead of mainstream evidence of the attack?

[xenas mom]

06:01 PM on 02/03/2012

Well, I had a few minutes and paid a little visit to the Modesto Bee. Oddly, there was no report of the incident. It is, however, on a few far right-wing religious blogs and news sites. If there's anything else, I didn't find it.

[Gayle Boesky]

04:00 PM on 02/03/2012

As long as DOMA is around, nothing the States do matter. The significant benefits of marriage that the government provides, tax breaks associated with joint filing, non-taxed health benefits as well as Social Security spousal benefits are barred by DOMA. So States which allow gay marriage basically allow gays to have the burdens of marriage, child support, alimony, spousal financial support in illness, without being able to grant the benefits.

[deanleto]

12:57 PM on 02/03/2012

the video will not and should not influence the correct decision, which is that ALL Americans have the right to enter into a legal contract with others... gay or straight...

now, personally, i say government out of marriage, but marriage for all almost as good....

take heart, it WILL happen

[Jason N]

12:28 PM on 02/03/2012

"urging, in ugly language, retributio­n against the author's business and its identified clients."

Economic reprisals are free speech, not intimidation. Try again.

[AllegroTroppo]

01:18 PM on 02/03/2012

"Economic reprisals are free speech, not intimidati­on."
Ah, free speech.
In the name of free speech I urge someone who reads these comment to publish a website listing manes and addresses of firemen, marines and private Christina school personnel who contributed to No on 8 campaign.
All in the spirit of free speech..

[xenas mom]

12:31 PM on 02/03/2012

The identity of the couple of expert witnesses that the pro-Prop 8 side presented has been public knowledge for years. A transcript has been available for years. And when, during oral arguments your ideas were floated, the lawyers for your side couldn't come up with examples of harassment against said witnesses. This isn't about "protecting" witnesses from the teeming hordes of people working for equality--although your scenario is much more exciting than boring old reality.

[AllegroTroppo]

01:14 PM on 02/03/2012

it is not the job of the judge to perpetuate the harassing behavior from some members of your community.

[MrOnePercent2012]

11:58 AM on 02/03/2012

Is this really news?

[AllegroTroppo]

11:53 AM on 02/03/2012

“"Prop. 8's sponsors, however, argued that any telecast beyond the courthouse would intimidate and endanger their witnesses.­"
I agree with the decision.

There's overwhelming evidence that gay opponents of Proposition 8 have engaged in nation-wide campaign of intimidation, oppression and violence against supporter of Pro8.

Regardless of the merits of Prop 8 these tactics are shameful and must condemned.
Some in the LGTBIQ community have tried to reason with the radicals in their community. But not enough, obviously. Just read the replies to my comment :-)

[Jason N]

12:31 PM on 02/03/2012

"There's overwhelmi­ng evidence that gay opponents of Propositio­n 8 have engaged in nation-wid­e campaign of intimidati­on, oppression and violence against supporter of Pro8."

Proof? What you posted above isn't intimidation, violence, or oppression, it's a call for boycotts, you know, like Christian groups do routinely against any company or person they perceive as gay-friendly.

[AllegroTroppo]

01:27 PM on 02/03/2012

Live reporting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD1AITHS2Wc

Shame on YOU.

[xenas mom]

12:35 PM on 02/03/2012

The trial has been over for nearly two years. The identities of the witnesses for both sides have been well known for two years. The transcript of the trial has been available for nearly two years. And despite your contention that "there's overwhelming evidence" the attorneys for your side couldn't produce any examples....why is that? Shouldn't you be sharing that knowledge with them so they know about it next time they go to court? BTW: Your attorney is Chuck Cooper. He's the one who, when asked about the damage marriage equality would cause answered succinctly: "I don't know." He found it such a compelling answer, that he repeated it.

[Mikeygr]

11:41 AM on 02/03/2012

IMHO, not having the videos out in the public is not crucial to the legal course of the case of Prop 8. That is set and pretty clearly argued in favor of striking it down. The case was so clear cut - and Judge Walker's summation of the case so thorough - that even the SCOTUS has to agree - at least the compassionate liberal side and swing Judge Kennedy will side with them. The conservative judges will be expected to find some sort of obtuse convoluted reason to support Prop 8 but they will not succeed. What the video on You Tube would mean is that a lot of the general public would be able to see and hear - not just read - the absolute ridiculousness of the argument and would begin to change the public attitude towards injustice and prejudice. That is happening now in a small way and will continue but to see the haters make fools of themselves and hear them and know that it is not the liberal MSM twisting the story would be invaluable for ending hatred and opposition to marriage equality. Progress right now is happening at breathtaking speed. As we all know, You Tube could make it happen even faster.

[Jason N]

12:03 PM on 02/03/2012

It'll be interesting to see how Scalia comes up with his rational to oppose gay marriage after what he said in his Lawrence dissent.

[Mikeygr]

03:33 PM on 02/05/2012

Agreed - be prepared to roll your eyes and get sick! LOL

[rockysparks]

11:29 AM on 02/03/2012

This still did not undo Judge Walker's ruling. That is still being reviewed. No one should lose heart over this bit of procedural business.

[WoodyCPM]

11:19 AM on 02/03/2012

Testimony from a collection of homophobic nuts? So what? We all know what they said anyway. They say it on TV, they say it in churches, they say it in State Houses across the country and they say it from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and the well of the U.S. Senate. An assortment of hillbilly, redneck Americans. Where's the news in that?

[pauliji]

07:30 AM on 02/06/2012

I suggest you read the transcripts. It's one thing when these fundamental cases lie in the public square. Nobody ever counters them. They get invited onto MSM show to give their opinions, but they never get the smackdown they deserve. But during the trial, every lie, every innuendo, every false, rigged, cherry picked, distorted publication or "study" was exposed for exactly what it was. The witness stand is a very lonely place to lie. For once, we got to see exactly how venal, biased, hate-filled and ignorant these so-called experts on marriage really are. It's not hard to imagine an opponent of marriage equality, identifying at first with the "expert" and then clearly seeing how vulnerable their position is to the clear light of day. It might make someone think twice about exposing their own ignorance when they see just how ignorant they really are. Because our opponents are, for the most part, at heart, not bad people. But they've been living forever in an echo chamber. They just repeat the lies and untruths, and half truths that their ministers and priests have been parroting at them for decades. It would be nice to see them get a little truth once in a while. It would be nice to see how they feel about those views then they see the real impact they have on society with that hatred and ignorance. That would be news, indeed.

[westcoastsc]

11:15 AM on 02/03/2012

The people need to know what is happening in their courts. Every trial, every single case needs to be video recorded and shared with the public.

[MemphisHopJack]

10:54 AM on 02/03/2012

I have to see this ruling as something very positive.

By keeping the tapes sealed, the NOM and their ilk can be proud and say they upheld the validity of the court system. They can not cry foul. At this time in the power play that is occurring, the NOM is satisfied for the time being that the judicial system is working properly (at least according to them).
Then, when the court does rule in favor of Judge Walker's decision and does not throw out the ruling based on his being gay, the NOM will have to begrudgingly accept the ruling. If they think the courts are fair now, they will have to continue to concede that even if they hate the court's decision.

Kind of like the prop 8 outcome. They won by 2%.. In the next referendum, the pendulum swings the other way 2%-- they will have to accept it.

The NOM will be unhappy either way, but for now they feel they have won a battle. The war is a different story.