Help us ensure the Prop 8 trial is televised
Bad? Brilliant?
You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.
Later this month the long-awaited trial of Proposition 8 will commence in a federal courtroom in San Francisco. Judge Vaughn Walker will preside over the case brought by a legal dream team of Ted Olson (former Solicitor General under President Bush) and David Boies (who represented Al Gore in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000). Olson and Boies argue - correctly, in my view - that Proposition 8 is a straightforward violation of the 14th Amendment and should be struck down.

People across California and across the country are eagerly awaiting the trial, and fully expect to be able to follow it on television. But Judge Walker may close the courtroom to cameras, following on an outrageous demand from Prop 8 supporters.

One of the *fundamental* legal principles this country was built on is the openness and transparency of the judiciary. For the system to work, people must believe the process is fair, the outcomes just. And for that to occur, the public needs to be able to see what is going on in the courtroom.

On a case this important, the public's right to know should be protected and upheld in the broadest possible form. That means televising the proceedings. Since this isn't a criminal trial, there's no defendant who could be harmed by having this made public, no jury that could be swayed by the cameras. Since only a tiny handful of people will ever be able to be in the courtroom itself, that would seem like an open and shut case for allowing cameras in the courtroom. Right?

Well, not if you're the forces who put Prop 8 on the ballot and helped it pass. They are afraid of public scrutiny. Afraid of the camera. Afraid to let the people of this country hear the bigoted truth behind their defense of Proposition 8.

They have decided to organize the far-right to pressure Judge Walker to close the courtroom to cameras. Focus on the Family is circulating a petition to prevent the trial from being televised, and have generated tens of thousands of signatures.

Their argument is:

Following a short public-comment period – only five business days – the battle could bring a circus-like atmosphere. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker is considering allowing video cameras in the courtroom.

Ron Prentice, executive director of Protectmarriage.com, is concerned Walker’s decision could cause problems for proponents of Prop. 8 who have already come under attack.

"Intimidation and harassment will continue," Prentice said. "And, those who are put on the stand or are seen in the courtroom may very well be recognized and further intimidation or harassment may continue."


Not only is this ridiculous on its face - the people who have faced genuine "intimidation and harassment" as a result of Prop 8 are the LGBT couples who lost their rights when it passed - but it is a pretty weak reason to deny the public their right to know what is going on in that courtroom. If the Prop 8 supporters want to defend the law, they should have no hesitation to do so in a public manner, on television.

Judge Walker was planning to allow cameras in, but as a result of the Prop 8 supporters' protestations, has agreed to hold a hearing on the matter next week. He is asking for public comments *by this Friday*. So *you have a chance to determine the outcome* - will Prop 8 supporters be able to hide their true arguments, or will the public interest and democratic transparency win out?

The Courage Campaign Institute, where I work as Public Policy Director, isn't going to wait to find out. We're going to organize to deliver petitions of our own to Judge Walker, as he has solicited, in order to uphold the public interest and demand that this trial be televised.

You can sign your name here - along with CREDO Mobile, we will hand deliver the signatures to the court in San Francisco on Friday. Your signature matters - the more signatures we deliver to the court, the more likely it is that he will do the right thing in the name of equality, accountability, and transparency.

Here's the letter I wrote that the Courage Campaign Institute and CREDO are using for our petition:

To the Honorable Judge Vaughn Walker:

We are writing to insist that the trial of Proposition 8 be televised to the public. In any democracy, openness and transparency are necessary to the proper functioning of our courts. Americans have the right to know what is being said and argued in their courts, and allowing cameras in the courtroom to broadcast the trial is the best, most efficient way to provide the transparency to which we are entitled.

This case presents issues that are very important to the public, and will affect millions of people. However, 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.

Justice is blind, but the public is not, and should not be blind in this case. We urge you to uphold the public's right to view this important trial on television.


Please sign it by clicking here. The right-wing, led by James Dobson and Focus on the Family, are already organizing their members to write to the court. Are you going to let them beat us?

This whole episode raises the question of what the Prop 8 supporters have to hide. They haven't been shy about their vocal support for denying equality in the past. Few have faced intimidation and harassment for it.

It's more likely that their true motivation is to prevent the American people from hearing the powerful and compelling case that Boies and Olson are going to make in that courtroom. Both lawyers are expert litigants, and are pursuing a sensible Supreme Court strategy designed to swing Anthony Kennedy to join Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor to uphold the 14th Amendment and overturn Prop 8. Kennedy has made rulings favorable to LGBT rights in the past, including /Lawrence v. Texas/ in 2003 which decriminalized sodomy.

Dobson, Prentice and the backers of Prop 8 want to hide that compelling argument from the public. They also want to hide their own anti-equality arguments from public view. In March 2009 they had Kenneth Starr argue in the California Supreme Court that voters can pass whatever they like at the ballot box, a view I label the Starr Doctrine. Such a radical idea won the day in the California Supreme Court, disappointingly enough. But in federal court, the Prop 8 backers seem to want to hide that argument from the American people.

Ironically, that trial in California Supreme Court last March WAS televised. And nobody was intimidated or harassed because of it - well, except for those who lost the right to marry the person they love when the court upheld Prop 8.

There is simply no reasonable justification for keeping cameras out of the courtroom. Thankfully, Judge Walker wants to hear your thoughts on the matter. Take him up on his offer by signing our petition right now.

Below is the urgent email we sent to our members today.

Dear friend --

This is extremely urgent and extremely important.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker -- who will be overseeing a federal court challenge to Prop 8 starting this Monday (January 11) -- is considering whether or not to open the court room to TV cameras.

The court just announced that it is seeking public comment on the proposal to televise the trial -- and that all comments must be submitted to the court by a Friday deadline.

The interest in this case is unprecedented. And not surprisingly, supporters of Prop 8 -- who eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry -- do NOT want the trial to be televised.

Opponents of Prop 8 -- led by attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson -- are seeking to televise the case in the interests of full transparency. They want this historic trial to be watched by as many Americans as possible. And, of course, we agree.

We have just this one chance to make our voices heard -- thousands of Americans calling for equality, transparency and accountability. That's why we're teaming up with CREDO Action to collect as many signatures as possible asking Judge Walker to televise the case. We need your signature now:

SIGNATURE DEADLINE: FRIDAY 9 a.m.:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/TeleviseTheTrial

Together, along with our friends at CREDO, we will hand-deliver your signatures to Judge Vaughn Walker on Friday before the deadline.

This case presents issues that are very important to the public, and will affect millions of people. 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.

That's why we think the Prop 8 court case should be televised and we're collecting as many signatures as possible to submit to Judge Vaughn Walker. Click here to sign now and say "YES -- the Prop 8 trial should be televised." SIGNATURE DEADLINE: FRIDAY 9 a.m.:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/TeleviseTheTrial

If you know other people who believe the Prop 8 trial should be televised as well, please forward this message to them ASAP.

Thank you so much for making your voice heard at this critical time. We will update you as soon as further news develops.

Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign Institute

Reader Comments

Comments are closed for this post.

  
Hoping you cut the blind metaphor right away!
By Lee A., Jan 5, 2010 at 12:42:29 PM PT (Updated: Jan 5, 2010 at 12:42:29 PM PT )
I really respect the work you do and how you stand for equality in many realms, however I was taken aback and quite unhappy to see this (negative) blind metaphor in the letter I was about to sign--
"Justice is blind, but the public is not, and should not be blind in this case."

No, some of us ARE blind (literally) AND GLBTIQ or allies of GLBTQI people. I assume nothing was meant by this comment towards actual blind people, but the use of blind in this case to mean ignorant is out of line, however unintentional.
I hope you will remove/change this line asap. There are many people with disabilities who are part of our community and sensitive to our community. I hope the gay community (I am a part of) can continue to find ways of being sensitive and appropriate to other communities, as well as their resistance to negative stereotypes and metaphors.
Much Thanks,
Lee A.
  
sorry lee
By Unknown user, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:13:22 PM PT (Updated: Jan 7, 2010 at 2:13:22 PM PT )
sorry lee a, but maybe now you will understand that fascist pigs like cruicrank don't mind insulting everyone but their own kind. it is scary how he is so cavalier about not caring for the safety of the people and the family's of those who would DARE testify against his cause! i don't know if televising the proceedings is a good or bad idea and am not sure if it has anything to do with which side of the isle. one is on. but i do know that someone who salivates at the thought of "exposing" the other side to hopefully "harm" them, sends chills down my spine. hitlerian at best. trust him lee, he doesn't care about the blind or deaf. don't align with those who HATE and are intolerant, like cruicrank! he hates heterosexuals, bisexuals, polygamists, homosexuals 4 prop 8, religious people, atheists 4 prop 8, the old, the young, yes...the blind, and anyone else who doesn't side with his cause. you now know who this man is lee...never, ever forget!
  
COMMENT
By Brian, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:26:47 PM PT (Updated: Jan 7, 2010 at 4:26:47 PM PT )
I was just reading the comments by the last person. The only people who have been harmed here are the gay couples who want to get married. What have you lost by my marriage? Nothing. It shouldn't have any effect on you.
Re: COMMENT
By Unknown user, Jan 13, 2010 at 5:06:52 AM PT (Updated: Jan 13, 2010 at 5:06:52 AM PT )
the problem is that marriage has NOTHING to do w/sexuality & NEVER has! gays have ALWAYS had the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex and have often chosen, for whatever their personal reasons are, to do so. why make a persons sexuality a part of marriage now? to suit you? do you really think it's a right anyone should be able to exercise? if so, then you MUST believe bisexual couples who are in loving mmf or ffm relationship should be allowed the same right. and shouldn't polygamists have the same rights as others? and you MUST also believe relatives who wish to marry should have equal rights as you! but i don't think you believe this. if you DO believe it, THEN you have a valid point that should truely be pondered by our society. if you don't, then you are just another one of the fascist hypocites so prevalant to the no on 8 side.
Re: COMMENT
By Brian, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:41:30 PM PT (Updated: Jan 14, 2010 at 3:41:30 PM PT )
I guess I must be a 'live and let live' fascist by your definition. I'm not about taking away rights or stigmatizing people. Good luck in Newport Beach, sounds like a place I'll avoid.
  

Community Posts

1St Grade Reading
Posted Dec 01, 2011 8:44pm
by Unknown user
Comments (0)

Salon Computer Software
Posted Nov 22, 2011 8:59pm
by Unknown user
Comments (0)

Business_Link
Posted Nov 17, 2011 4:24am
by Unknown user
Comments (0)

Read More >

Recent Comments

Re: Voting Guide for Judicial?
Frustrating that the Courage Campaign did not prov...

Re: Voting Guide for Judicial?
Frustrating that the Courage Campaign did not prov...

Re: Voting Guide for Judicial?
Unfortunately there is almost no discussion about ...

Voting Guide for Judicial?
Can't seem to find any guide for judicial? Can you...

Proposition 8 is about Equality!
Proposition 8 is all about equality! The Founding ...


Blog Roll


Calitics
The Bayne of Blog
California Progress Report
California Majority Report
D-Day
DailyKos Down With Tyranny
Fog City Journal
High Speed Rail Blog
Left in SF
The Liberal OC
Living in the O
Michigan Liberal
MyDD
OB Rag
San Diego Politico
Square State
Surf Putah
Sweet Melissa
Unite the Fight