Posted on 01/06/2010 9:26:04 PM PST by SmithL
SAN FRANCISCO -- Next week's trial in San Francisco of a lawsuit challenging the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California won't be televised live, but it will be videotaped for delayed Internet release on YouTube, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco ordered the video coverage, the first ever for a federal trial in California, over the objections of Proposition 8's sponsors. Their lawyer argued that allowing the proceedings to be viewed outside the courthouse would violate their right to a fair trial by intimidating their witnesses.
"The knowledge that you're testifying to untold thousands or millions ... can cause some witnesses to become more timid," and induce others to be overly dramatic, attorney Michael Kirk told Walker.
Prop. 8's campaign committee, Protect Marriage, has maintained that some of its supporters have been harassed, and that witnesses whose testimony was widely seen would face further danger.
Walker will have the power to order that individual witnesses' faces be concealed or their voices muted on the YouTube uploads.
Kirk said such actions would only draw attention to the witnesses. But Walker said this case seemed ideal for a pilot program, approved last month by the federal appeals court in San Francisco, to allow telecasting of selected nonjury civil trials.
He cited the wide interest in the case and said most of the witnesses would be campaign officials or academic experts accustomed to speaking in public.
"I've always thought that if the public could see how the judicial process works, they would take a somewhat different view of it," the judge said.
Prop. 8, approved by the voters in November 2008, amended the California Constitution to overturn a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The people already spoke.
Twice.
The matter is settled.
>”I’ve always thought that if the public could see how the judicial process works, they would take a somewhat different view of it,” the judge said.
We know how it works. It’s you that’s making a mockery of it...”judge”.
Twice.
The matter is settled.
Not quite ...
Prop 8 stands as far as the Calif. Supreme Court goes. In its original ruling, the Supreme Court allowed gay marriage since prohibiting it would violate the State Constitution [as it was THEN written].
HOWEVER, the Supreme Court stated that its original ruling COULD be overturned in accordance with the State Constitution via initiative. That is what Prop 8 did ...
NOW, it is in the hands of the Federal Courts ...
The ONLY way I see that Prop 8 could be overturned is IF they can convince the Federal Courts that it is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. BUT, I think that it is highly unlikely.
Absent a federal constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage, I think the Federal Courts will declare the current Defense of Marriage Act to be constitutional and that it nullifies any 14th Amendment claim. Also, I think that the state's right (California's) to put the question to initiative will be upheld under the 9th and/or 10th Amendments.
This ones goin' to SCOTUS - Baybee !!!
I hope sanity prevails!
Vaughn Walker is rumored to be a homosexual. He’s basically all but declared that he is going to rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2422264/posts
Apparently, he’s a homosexual.
shouldn’t that be grounds for recusal?
It should be, but it isn’t. This deviant is going to override the voices of 13,000,000 people who weighed in on this issue.
why is this still in the courts.
the voters have voted now twice on the issue and made a constitutional amendment saying only normal marriage will be legal so why is this judge doing this and surely even if a judge said right make it legal then it isn’t and should not be recognised.
other wise we’ll just have judges making laws based on their politics which is not what the fathers wanted.
Just WTH is going on
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2422264/posts
Thats why I say that this is going all the way to SCOTUS ...
Walker will rule it unconstitutional and the 9th Ciruit Court of Appeals will punt it to SCOTUS ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.