• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Prop. 8 Not A Show Trial Yet

    The U.S. Supreme Court, with one justice writing in dissent, agreed today with attorneys who argued against the broadcasting and posting of the trial proceedings in Perry v. Schwarzenegger – the case challenging the constitutionality of California’s popularly approved Proposition 8 preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court granted a temporary stay prohibiting any streaming video broadcast outside the courthouse.

    Presiding Judge Vaughn Walker had ruled last week that the proceedings in the case could be filmed and posted on YouTube after each day’s testimony. Attorneys defending Prop 8 had argued against the delayed broadcasting via the Internet on the grounds that to do so could both influence the content of the testimony and foster subsequent intimidation of, or reprisals against, experts testifying on behalf of traditional marriage.

    The grounds for that concern were articulated in a guest editorial in the New York Times this morning by former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, chairman of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Incidents of vandalism, harassment, employment retaliation, and even physical violence were common against proponents of Prop 8 in the wake of balloting on the issue in November 2008.

    The Supreme Court’s stay extends to 4:00 pm this Wednesday to allow the Justices time to review the briefs on the issue filed with the court by both sides in the litigation. If the Supreme Court allows the video posting, Perry will become the first trial in the U.S. 9th Circuit to be broadcast in such a manner, an unlikely candidate for such a pilot program according to legal observers.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to Prop. 8 Not A Show Trial Yet

    1. infinitewisdom4u says:

      this is a good ruling. does everyone forget how just a short time ago fanatics went on rampages and fostered hate campaigns against those who supported prop 8? we heard about some of the shenannigans the LGBT thugs pulled to intimidate regular people who just believed that marriage should be between and man and women. and we probably only heard about 10% of the problems.

      let the proceddings play out….with interference or instigating factions that, amazingly, preach tolerance while hating and attacking anyone who doesn't share their view.

    2. Jeffery Thompson, Ca says:

      The irony is the Supreme Court's temporary decision to block video broadcasts recognizes protection for the defendants who are the same individuals who don't believe gay or lesbians need laws protecting them from opposing, retaliatory reactions.

    3. Chris, MT says:

      Isn't it grand that once the people have spoken, in other words Democracy has worked, it's time to take it to the courts. When will "gay rights activists" realize that marriage isn't a human right, it is a religious rite. Sounds the same but different spelling and different meaning. I don't see why anyone has to be licensed to marry by the government. If the government uses the excuse to protect us, remind them of the Fundamentalist Mormon "compound" in Texas that was marrying teenage girls to retiree aged men. Good job protecting us. Maybe they should worry more about keeping us free and liberated than safe. I think that is what George Washington would do. WWGWD.

    4. stirling, Pennsylvan says:

      How many times does Prop 8 have to win before these "Activists" go away. Its sad to see the country "morally" being bankrupt from these Non-Traditional fringe groups, that "think" everyone should just accept their ways as the norm. The courts might give some rights to mariage in some states, but "God" does not and has never accepted this in his eyes.

    5. L B says:

      WHY DO THE LIBERALS REFUSE TO ACCEPT WHAT THE ENTIRE STATE HAS VOTED ON? WHY DOES THE COURT SYSTEM KEEP ACCEPTING THESE REQUESTS, WHY ARE THEY NOT JUST THROWN OUT AFTER THE VOTING HAS BEEN DONE? THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. DO YOU REALIZE THE WASTED MONEY AND TIME THIS ISSUE HAS COST. WHEN IN FACT THE STATE SHOULD BE WATCHING OUT FOR OUR CONSTITUTION NOT ONLY IN CALIFORNIA BUT IN WASHINGTON D.C. TOO. WHY ARE GAYS STILL PUSHING AND ISSUE VOTED DOWN. PERHAPS BECAUSE OUR GOVERNMENT IS PUSHING IT?

    6. Lynn Bryant DeSpain says:

      In a Republic, such as ours, the Court room is the proper place to try all cases. If we were a Democracy, all trials would be held in the streets by lynch mobs and witch trials. A Republic is a Nation ruled by Law, and that Law is to contain the Power of the Government,(men). A Democracy is a Nation ruled by Men where the majority ruled,(or the loudest). The Law is without emotion. Man is all emotion. I'd rather place my life and my future in the hands of the Law, unless of course, the Law is an ass.

    7. philip hilliker says:

      THE COURT NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF IT. THE VOTERS VOTE SHOULD RULE OVER THE COURT. WHEN I GO TO THE POLLS TO VOTE MY VOTE SHOULD COUNT NOT OVER TURNED BY SOME JUDGE

    8. Drew Page, IL says:

      With what's going on in this country today I find it dificult to understand how the Supreme Court has the time to take on the issue of same sex marriage.

      I believe this country and the security of its people would be better served if the Court were to take on the question of whether or not an enemy combatant or alien carrying out, or attempting to carry out an act of terror, has protected rights under the U.S. Constitution, and if so, what would those rights include (Miranda rights, the right to a court appointed attorney(s), the right to a jury trial, etc)? I would like the Court to decide in these cases whether a criminal trial by jury or by military tribunal is the most appropriate.

      I believe it important for the Court to decide whether or not the Legislative Branch has the authority under the Constitution to tell Americans what they must purchase, such as insurance, under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment.

      I believe it is time for the Court to consider the Constitutionality of Congress exempting itself from the laws, rules and regulations it legislates for the rest of the American public, including Medicare and Social Security disability and pension benefits.

    9. Laurel, Chicago says:

      It isn't the right of the majority to vote on what rights the government will protect for the minority. The last time we did that was with racial minorities and Jim Crowe segregation laws. I think that it is safe to say that all reasonable Americans agree THAT was a mistake in our nation's history. And you can't vote us away. We will always fight for our RIGHTS. If this was a religious issue, I wouldn't be fighting since the Episcopalian church already recognizes my rights as a human being. This is an issue of taxes, benefits after death, medical benefits and other LEGAL protections. We have a separation of church and state for a reason. Atheists are allowed to marry in America. Why? So that they can be afforded the same legal rights and protections as Christian couples.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×