Attorneys for Proposition 8 backers said television coverage would expose their witnesses to further harassment and intimidation --- and expose those who attempt to bribe the lawmakers
On Jan 6, 1:40 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > Home <http://www.washingtontimes.com/> � News > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news> � *National* > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/national> > > Wednesday, January 6, 2010 > > Gay-marriage foes slam plans to televise Prop 8 trial > > Rate this story > > /critic/1/1/79/407075/vote/?r=/news/2010/jan/06/gay-marriage-foes-lash-out-at-plan-to-televise-pro/ > /critic/1/2/79/407075/vote/?r=/news/2010/jan/06/gay-marriage-foes-lash-out-at-plan-to-televise-pro/ > /critic/1/3/79/407075/vote/?r=/news/2010/jan/06/gay-marriage-foes-lash-out-at-plan-to-televise-pro/ > /critic/1/4/79/407075/vote/?r=/news/2010/jan/06/gay-marriage-foes-lash-out-at-plan-to-televise-pro/ > /critic/1/5/79/407075/vote/?r=/news/2010/jan/06/gay-marriage-foes-lash-out-at-plan-to-televise-pro/ > > Average 0.00 > after 0 votes > Login or register to rate this story <javascript:registration_callback();> > > Witnesses harassment feared > > * Font Size - > > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/06/gay-marriage-foes-las...>+ > > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/06/gay-marriage-foes-las...> > * Print > > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/06/gay-marriage-foes-las...> > * Email > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/mailfriend/79/407075/154889f326/> > * Comment > > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/06/gay-marriage-foes-las...> > * Tweet this! > > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/06/gay-marriage-foes-las...> > * Yahoo! Buzz > > <http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?publisherurn=washington_ti859&guid=http%3A...> > * > Share <http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=washingtontimes> > > * Article > * Comments (38) > > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/06/gay-marriage-foes-las...> > * Click-2-Listen > > <javascript:OpenC2LWindow('WashingtonTimes','news_2010_jan_06_gay-marriage-foes-lash-out-at-plan-to-televise-pro',m_nwamp3_file,'dfp_zone='+sitepage,'WashingtonTimes','','Production');void(0);> > > More National Stories > > * Obama: $250M in education initiatives > > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/06/obama-announce-250m-e...> > * Vegas gunman had past of crime > > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/06/vegas-gunman-had-past...> > * Massachusetts college bans face coverings > > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/06/massachusetts-college...> > * Facility opens to help military families with bereavement > > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/06/facility-opens-to-hel...> > > By Valerie Richardson > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/valerie-richardson/> > > Supporters of traditional marriage are outraged over a California > judge's efforts to bring television cameras into court next week to > cover a trial challenging Proposition 8, California's initiative against > gay marriage. > > Judge Vaughn R. Walker, chief judge of the Northern District of > California, proposed a last-minute revision of the court's rules that > would allow television coverage of the trial. Those who want to comment > have until Friday, and the trial begins Monday. > > Attorneys for Proposition 8 backers said television coverage would > expose their witnesses to further harassment and intimidation. Backers > of Proposition 8 were targeted for harassment in the months after the > initiative's passage in November 2008. Some donors received threatening > e-mails, letters and phone calls, while churches and businesses were > singled out for boycotts and protests. > > Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for > Marriage, which campaigned for Proposition 8 but isn't a party to the > case, said he is worried about the safety of witnesses, who could > include contributors, campaign staff and volunteers. > > "The question is really whether Judge Walker can put people on the stand > where they can be threatened," said Mr. Brown. "It's a question of > people's safety." > > A hearing on the matter is scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday in San > Francisco, said David Madden, a spokesman for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court > of Appeals. > > He said the rules and parameters for any televised coverage were under > discussion, including decisions on how many cameras to allow, where to > place the cameras, and whose cameras would be permitted in the courtroom. > > "We're trying to work this all out," said Mr. Madden. "We want to make > sure people know we're being very cautious about this." > > The court ordinarily bans television, radio and photography, but the > Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit announced Dec. 17 that it approved > on an experimental basis "the limited use of cameras in federal courts > within the system." > > "We hope that being able to see and hear what transpires in the > courtroom will lead to a better public understanding of our judicial > processes and enhanced confidence in the rule of law," said 9th Circuit > Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. "The experiment is designed to help us find > the right balance between the public's right to access to the courts and > the parties' right to a fair and dignified proceeding." > > Since 1991, the 9th Circuit has allowed some television and radio > broadcasting of oral arguments with the approval of the judges hearing > the case, according to a statement issued by the court. > > Those backing cameras in the courtroom include a consortium of media > outlets as well as gay rights groups. The Courage Campaign on Tuesday > sent an alert asking its members to sign a petition in favor of > television coverage. > > "The case presents issues that are very important to the public, and > will affect millions of people," said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the > Courage Campaign, a group that advocates gay marriage. "However, if the > case is not televised, only a tiny fraction will ever be able to watch > the trial in person. > > "By televising the trial, the public will be able to see for themselves > the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, and will therefore > have more confidence in the outcome of the trial," he said. > > Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriage point out that the > experimental use of cameras was intended initially for low-profile > cases, while the Proposition 8 trial has generated huge media interest. > > The lawsuit, filed in June by two same-sex couples, argues that > Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. Representing the > plaintiffs are high-profile lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies, who > argued on opposite sides of the U.S. Supreme Court case to decide the > 2000 presidential election. > > Critics have accused Judge Walker of judicial bias, pointing to an > earlier ruling against Proposition 8. Attorneys for the plaintiffs had > asked to see internal Proposition 8 campaign communications, arguing > that they might reveal attempts to create a "discriminatory animus" > against gays. > > Judge Walker ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but a federal appeals > court panel in December reversed his decision. > > "Judge Walker has not shown himself to be an impartial judge in this > case," said Mr. Brown. "He has attempted to make this entire process a > circus, and he wants to be the ringleader by putting it on television." > > The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing same-sex > marriage in May 2008, but the decision was overruled six months later by > Proposition 8, which California voters approved by a margin of 52 > percent to 48 percent. > > [Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions! > <http://license.icopyright.net/3.7280?icx_id=/news/2010/jan/06/gay-mar...> > Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
