|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A federal judge in San Francisco announced Wednesday that he will allow television broadcasting of a trial that begins next Monday on a lawsuit challenging California’s same-sex marriage ban.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said, “I think it’s worth attempting in a case of this nature and of this public interest.”
Broadcasting of federal trials has previously been prohibited, but last month a federal appeals court judicial council authorized a pilot program to broadcast some non-jury civil trials in western states.
The same-sex marriage trial, which is expected to last two to three weeks, will be the first to be broadcast under the new rule.
The recording would be done by court staff members and would be posted after a delay on YouTube, where it would be publicly available.
Walker turned down an offer by In Session, formerly known as Court TV, to do professional recording and broadcasting. The judge said, “I think it’s important for the process to be completely under the court’s control.”
The judge said he will halt the broadcasting if it turns out to be distracting or to cause problems.
Walker said the broadcasting plan will require the approval of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.
The trial, which will be heard by Walker without a jury, will be on a lawsuit in which two same-sex couples claim that California’s ban on gay and lesbian marriage violates their federal constitutional rights. The ban was enacted by state voters in 2008 as Proposition 8.
Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for the plaintiffs argued, that the trial was ideal for broadcasting because of its “extraordinary public interest.”
Michael Kirk, a lawyer for the sponsors of Proposition 8, said his clients opposed broadcasting because they believe some witnesses may be intimidated by cameras.
Julia Cheever, Bay City News, contributed to this report.
Julia Cheever, Bay City News, contributed to this report.
Why would they be intimidated by a little camera…hell they walk in the San Francisco parade and make bigger fools of themselves.
I think it a good idea…lets watch our system in action or lack of action.
Hey guy’s just don’t wear bright lipstick and for heaven sakes don’t wave your hands like you’re swatting away a bug.
Later…Julia
You are so sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGYEDzOVsxA This might help sort out a few things!
C’mon folks, this is going to be hilarious on BOTH sides. Yes you probably will have the requisite “gay community” stereotypes parading in their Sunday best (please leave the ass-less chaps at home…please?) But you’ll also get to see the hypocritical, uptight, bible thumping pseudo-christians spewing their hate & vitriol towards the gay community.
Methinks both sides are gonna expose themselves for what they truly are & WE the people will finally see all this in glorious high definition television. Oh yeah, this is gonna be good!
the velvet maffia verses the sanctified tradition that builds societies. let’s keep wasting all the time and money the state doesn’t have for such a non-issue like a few people’s arrogant demand that a perverse behavior be legitimized as opposed to allocating the resources for something else so trivial like education. hooray. and i’m sure it will be riveting television as well.
stay classy.
@ Julia…it’s actually the supporters of Prop 8 (the Mormons, Religious Right, etc.) who are objecting to cameras in the courtroom, *not* the gay supporters. I guess they fear recrimination, from the public, or perhaps…God! (I concur with the “sad” comment.)
@ Nosy…you may be right, but I tend to think (and hope) it will be facts laid out in courtroom etiquette, not a “Coutroom TV melodrama” scenario and not focusing on stereotypes. Can’t wait to see it.
@ woo-hoo…’stay classy’ ironically follows your very non-classy comment about a so-called ‘non-issue.’ Let’s see, how much of a non-issue would it be if you’d been together with your lifemate for your entire adult life, you were denied the right to marry because of gender, you were then granted the right to marry and you did, then your partner died, and the State denied giving you Social Security survivor’s benefits provided to others marreid couples. Somehow I think it would not be so much of a non-issue to you.
But hey, if it is a non-issue, please send your SS check to me when your spouse dies. I’ve been with my husband for 24 years, and we’re now legally married, and I expect to have the same Federal rights as you! Having dual standards is the true perverse behavior.
Loving another human being regardless of their gender is not a nonissue. It’s only a nonissue to people that are already afforded the basic right to marry the person of their choosing. To all the judgmental and hateful people out there saying rude comments I say this: may you be blessed to know and love a gay person and/or have a gay child, so your eyes will be opened to how unfairly gay people are treated.
Peace,
Lisa
It’s the religious fascists that don’t want the trial publicized, not the GLBT community. It’s the religious fascists that must conduct their hatred under the cover of anonymity.
If being gay were such a sin, then why are so many EVIL talkers against it? Things that make you go hmmm.
Your boarding pass for Islamabad is ready now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHLdt6qMcNY&feature=related It’s difficult to figure out who’s on what side of the issue?
To me (a straight parent) this has always been a legal issue, and in my view the courts have historically ignored the foundaion which make thgis country great. While it may not have been achievable in the 18th the 19th and the 20th century, the ideals of our US constitution and it’s bill of rights were that “all men were created equal” and that church and state should be separated. Pragmatically only over time have we been able to move a away as an aware society from the afronts to those ideals. (Slaver, Jim Crow laws, Womans’ suffarage etc..) Those rights are implicit in that great document, but were not challenged due to cultural norms until thier time had come. It seems likely that the right to enter marraige with the adult partner you choose is on the verge of reality too. Freedom is what my father and gradfather fought for and freedom is what makes us great.
From a legal standpoint a marraige (as recorded by the state) is merely a contract with no religeous context. Any two adults should be capable in joining in such contract. If a woman can marry a man, it would be a discrimination against a man to say he was not entitled to do the same.
Those of you espousing the Adam and Steve remarks are free to abstain from entering a homosexual marraige. You are free to beleive it is wrong under your religion and your church should be free from participating in such cermonies. I support your freedom and would appose the state imposing those marraiges on your churches.
For many of you I know you beleive that your fight is just, and in my opinion that makes it OK for to oppose the legal standards. Although I hope our courts are wise enough and brave enough to intelligently interpret the constitution in favor of freedom.
For those of you how use the bible (primarily the same old testament used by the Taleban) as a justifcation for condemnation, if you are cristian should consider adding the context of new testament to your thinking. Condemnation is not intended to be an act of godly men.
@ Me – Thank you for your intelligent, well written contribution to the discussion. It is a very welcome change from the normal vitriol that pervades this forum.
When the oral arguments are heard, the tone of the commentary will shift.
Until then, certain posters will continue to mouth off.
Prepare yourselves it’s gonna be a bumpy ride!
guaranteed…
To ‘Me’….it’s CHRISTIAN. I see where you lack in faith. I’m sorry.
As for gay marriages, you don’t have to go to the Old Testament to find readings regarding homosexuality; the New Testament has it too.
My priest once put it simple and very clear: “love the sinner, hate the sin”.
Marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman. That’s what the Bible states. Any person who recognizes God would be nothing less than a hypocrite if they acknowleged gay marriages.
Most “religious fascists”, as we are often but wrongfully called, have no problem with same sex UNIONS done and recognized by the state so they can have similar rights as hetero marriages. But to force ‘marriage’ into the gay community would lessen a holy sacrament down to nothing less than a sacrilege.
For me, I have a gay cousin that I love, have visited their commune, shared meals with him and his partner, etc. They deserve to be together and should have the rights that go with anyone in America. But do not take a holy sacrament and make it a sacrilege.
Let’s call it by any other name; but not marriage. Keep the church and state separate and respect those of us who are being misunderstood.
Marcia wrote: “That’s what the Bible states. Any person who recognizes God would be nothing less than a hypocrite if they acknowleged gay marriages.”
So you question the piety of those Christian churches who have embraced homosexuals and same-sex marriage?
But what does the Bible _really_ say about marriage? http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl0.htm and http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl2.htm
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10348 Legal arguments that will be used to defeat Prop. 8. Charley Rose interviews attorney!
This is what makes America GREAT GREAT GREAT!
Did your priest include “judge they sinner”? You seemed to miss out on that one. My poor spelling does not account for my faith or spirituality. To argue it does is just plain stupid.
Marraige in your church is in fact a holy sacrement. In the justice of the peace it is a contract. We separate Church from State for reasons. The State government is agnostic, to use your argument against such marraige as a basis for banning it would be hypocritcal of any judge who is sworn to be loyal to the ideals of the constitution.
Qualifying your language is like saying “but the have a nice drinking fountain too, or the back of the bus has the same seats as the front, or thier husbands can represent the family at the polls”
It is ineqaulity which is a true evil.
P.S. I was married as a sacrement, my marraige is not threatened by someone’ elses use of the language. Pleezee!
Marcia,
You are writing a lot about religion and god and it has no bearing on this situation. It is a civil rights issue. Why should same sex couples have only almost the same rights as hetero couples. Why not full rights? Do you not see them as full people? Back in the days of slavery, some people were only seen as 2/3 of a person. Is that how we should see these people? Why should we all live under the umbrella of your religion. What makes you think you’re right?
These same people who didn’t want it televised are the same people who wanted the donor lists blocked so we couldn’t see which of our neighbors donated. At least the yes people who stood on the corners with signs put themselves our there. The others are just cowards.
Chris and Proud mom, people like woo-hoo are attempting to hide behind their own self-loathing by the comments they write. They have such a deep fear that some spooky-man they harbor internally will be found out so they throw out a distraction, such as pointing out their perceived faults of others, so no one will see them for who they really are… phonies.
I have neighbors, along with their friends, and co-workers that have partners of the same sex, and they are honorable hard working tax payers that are decent humans.
Woo-hoo—great post!
Chris-if you’re mentally incompetent, should you have all the legal benefits of a sane person? If you were truly sane, would you be engaging in perverse acts and pretending it should be mainstream and accepted?
The permissive, immoral thought processes being displayed here can only be attributed to mental dysfunction possibly brought on by environmental factors or bad breeding. Luckily, the lesbos/gays will not be breeding anytime soon.
Marcia, I don’t understand why any religion as a monopoly on marriage. Couples are issued a “marriage license” then they have the option to have a ceramony or not. There in lies the problem, the term of “marriage” is used in conjuntion with a license.
The best solution, in my mind, is that everyone is issued a civil union license. Then the lucky couple decides how to celebrate. If they wish to hold a ceremony in place of worship or in someone’s backyard, on none at all.
Regarding “My priest once put it simple and very clear: “love the sinner, hate the sin”.” He’s a human being, not God.