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- Hide quoted text -
