Sponsors of Prop. 8 the ballot measure that banned same-sex in California say that television coverage of the court trial in San Francisco in January would result in harassment and intimidation of witnesses and other participants. -DB
December 30, 2009
By Bob Egelko
SAN FRANCISCO — Sponsors of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, which faces a federal court trial in San Francisco next month, have told the trial judge that his suggestion to televise the proceedings is both unwise and illegal.
They also argued that a long-standing court rule prohibits cameras and cannot be changed until the court invites and considers public comment. The filing by attorney Charles Cooper hinted that the Yes-on-8 campaign would ask higher courts to intervene if Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker approved TV coverage.
Prop. 8, a November 2008 initiative, amended the state Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, overturning a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry.
The federal lawsuit by two same-sex couples, a gay-rights group and the city of San Francisco claims the ballot measure discriminates unconstitutionally on the basis of sexual orientation and gender. The trial is scheduled to start Jan. 11.
Walker first proposed television coverage in a discussion with lawyers in September. The idea picked up steam Dec. 17, when the Judicial Council of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco approved the nation’s first pilot program for televising nonjury civil trials.
The council said the chief judge of each district in the nine-state circuit, in consultation with the appeals court’s chief judge, Alex Kozinski, would choose cases for camera coverage and set the ground rules.
State courts in California and many other states allow cameras with the judge’s consent, but federal courts have historically prohibited them during trials.
A lawyer for the couples challenging Prop. 8 supported television coverage in a filing Tuesday, citing the “overwhelming national public interest in the issues.” Safety concerns voiced by defenders of the measure are “unsubstantiated and groundless speculation,” said attorney Theodore Boutrous.
Copyright 2009 Hearst Communications Inc.