Help Ensure Prop 8 Trial is Televised

UPDATE 1.6.10: Per the San Jose Mercury News, “Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker approved court-operated cameras in his courtroom for delayed release on YouTube, but rejected a bid by media organizations to televise the proceedings themselves for live broadcast.” Attempts for live broadcast  are on-going.

Later this month the long-awaited trial of Proposition 8 will commence in a federal courtroom in San Francisco. Proponents will argue 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 Prop 8 supporters have asked the judge to close the courtroom to cameras.

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, and because such a large number of citizens are interested in the outcome of the case, doesn’t it make sense to allow cameras in the courtroom?

Prop 8 forces have organized to persuade Judge Vaughn Walker, who was previously planning to allow cameras, to close the courtroom to cameras. He has agreed to hold a hearing on the matter next week and is asking for public comments by this Friday.

You can sign your name here to request that Judge Walker allow the trial to be televised. Or if you are on Twitter please tweet the following:

RT @CourageCampaign Urgent: sign the letter to Judge Walker. Tell him to televise the Prop 8 trial

H/T Credo Action, Courage Campaign, and Calitics

  8 comments for “Help Ensure Prop 8 Trial is Televised

  1. Lurk
    January 5, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    Why don’t you boys support C-Span carrying the health care debates as well?

  2. Howard be my name
    January 6, 2010 at 9:16 am

    “Why don’t you boys support C-Span carrying the health care debates as well?”

    Is there a petition one can sign to support this? Or are you just asking to be nasty?

  3. junior
    January 7, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    I will sign the petition to televise the Prop 8 hearing if you will sign the petition to televise the what remains of the Healthcare conference/debate.

    Let me know.

  4. Jo
    January 8, 2010 at 6:46 am

    junior-great point! Based on America’s history of being founded on Judeo-Christian values the majority of Americans believe marriage is between a man and a woman and has a connotation of only being sanctioned by religion. The term civil union bestows government approved unions. Now for all you liberals who believe in separation of church and state why are you proposing Proposition 8? Now if you pass Prop 8, wouldn’t you be violating the rights of polygamists? Maybe you should forget about passing such propositions and instead negotiate with worker unions for the benefits you desire, perhaps Mr Trumpka could help.

    • January 8, 2010 at 8:25 am

      Jo, if everyone were to have their unions sanctioned under the stat laws as Civil Unions instead of Marriage that would be fine. But your premise that Marriage is an institution solely based upon Judeo-Christian values is false. Specifically, there are a number of Christian based faiths that sanction same gender marriage. Does not our constitution prohibit placing any one religious faith, or sect, above another. If marriage were sloely a religious institution, then so long as someone is married under a faith that sanctions same gender marriages that would need to be equal to an opposite gender marriage.

      Further,what exactly do you call the relationship of a man and a woumn who’s union is sanctioned by the state ans conducted by an officer of the state? It is called a marriage.

      If you want to have marriages perfprmed by only religioue institutions, then change the title of all marriages sanctioned by the state to Civil Union.

      • Jo
        January 8, 2010 at 9:44 am

        As I said before the country and constitution was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. It is only the last several decades that certain “Christian” faiths accept gay marriage, these are rogue factions within the faith community. As I said before, do not fight to rename marriage, use other viable means such as union contract negotiations, creating businesses that will support your endeavors. Do not trample on religion, it violates my right when a group wants to eventually require established religions to perform these “marriages”.

        • January 8, 2010 at 11:09 am


          I find it interesting that you have reached the conclusion that the US Constitution is based upon Judeo-Christian beliefs. Excatly where in the constitution does it say that? Who were the Jews who helped frame the constitution? How do you reconcile your belief that it is okay for the rights of people who have different beliefs than your or those of your faith to be trampled on, with the First Amendment provisions that prohibit the establishment of a national religion by the congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion?

          Specifically the First amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise there of…”

          The job of the state is to establish uniform standards to govern contracts between individuals. The state has no legally justifiable interest with regard to religion.

          There has never been a proposal by any marriage equality advocate to require religious institutions to marry-same gender couples. That belief on your part, is simply misguided. There has never been such a lawan nor has there ever been such a law proposed. It one were I would be one of the first people to stand up and oppose it as a violation of the US Constitution.

          • Jo
            January 8, 2010 at 2:16 pm

            When the “transgender nuns” in full glamour dress entered a San Francisco Catholic Church and defiled and blasphemed communion that was evidence enough of the true agenda. This is an assault on religion, pure and simple.

            I think you need to read history books published prior to the 1960s and you may find out what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Comments are closed.