- No mas: Principal bans Spanish language in intercom announcement
- Hacking software could put ‘zombie drone army’ in user’s hands
- Support for stricter gun laws drops: poll
- 10 whales dead, 41 others stranded in Everglades
- John Boehner faces bipartisan pressure to allow gay-rights vote
- Martin Bashir resigns from MSNBC over ‘ill-judged’ comments about Sarah Palin
- Rep. Duncan Hunter: While Obama prays for Iranian change, U.S. should ready its nukes
- Best company ever? Veteran Beer Co. exists to employ vets, provide quality beer
- Iran official: Sanctions ‘utterly failed’ to stop nuclear program
- ‘Black Santa’ display at IU sparks student outrage
Cameras blocked at Prop 8 trial
The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked a federal judge's decision to allow cameras in the courtroom during the trial on the constitutionality of California's same-sex-marriage ban.
The court's order will remain in effect until 4 p.m. on Wednesday to allow the justices more time to consider the issue. That means the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, which began Monday, will have proceeded for three days without being broadcast or videostreamed to news outlets and Web sites such as YouTube.
Attorneys for Proposition 8, the 2008 California ballot measure affirming traditional marriage, had filed for an emergency stay of the order with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, arguing that televising the proceedings would interfere with the court's ability to conduct a fair trial.
"The temporary stay of [U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn] Walkers ruling to allow broadcast of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial is a good sign that the full United States Supreme Court will give this immediate attention and hopefully protect our right to a fair and impartial trial," said Andy Pugno, attorney for ProtectMarriage.com, which is helping defend the measure.
The defense argued that televising the trial would have a chilling effect on its witnesses. Supporters of Proposition 8 reported threats, vandalism, loss of jobs, economic boycotts and religious bigotry in the aftermath of the initiative's passage in November 2008.
"[G]iven the highly contentious and politicized nature of Proposition 8 and the issue of same-sex marriage in general, the possibility of compromised safety, witness intimidation, and/or harassment of trial participants is very real," Charles Cooper, lead attorney for Proposition 8, said in court documents.
The Supreme Court's order was unsigned, with the only objection coming from Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
"I agree with the court that further consideration is warranted, and I am pleased that the stay is time-limited," Justice Breyer wrote. "In particular, the papers filed, in my view, do not show a likelihood of 'irreparable harm.'"
The Media Coalition and gay-rights activists had argued in favor of the cameras, saying the trial was a historic event and the subject of widespread public interest.
"While we are disappointed that the Supreme Court is postponing public access to the most important civil-rights trial in a generation, the opportunity still remains for the nation's highest court to open up this trial so the American people can witness history," said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign, a California-based gay-rights group.
Judge Walker ruled in favor of cameras at the trial last week despite the long-standing ban on televising federal trials. The trial would have been the first to allow videotaping under a pilot program approved in December by the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, which governs federal courts in western states.
In the Perry case, two gay California couples are challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Representing them are Theodore Olson and David Boies, the attorneys who argued on opposing sides of Bush v. Gore, the case deciding the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.
The defense is led by Mr. Cooper, a former assistant attorney general under President Reagan. He agreed to take the case after California Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to defend the law based on his support for gay marriage.
In Monday's opening statements, Mr. Olson argued that the ban on same-sex marriage discriminates against gay couples. Mr. Cooper urged the court to take a wait-and-see approach, arguing that gay marriage is still too new to know its impact on traditional marriage, according to the Associated Press.
About the Author
Valerie Richardson covers politics and the West from Denver. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- 'Harry Potter' and 'Hunger Games' fans debate over political messages in films
- Gay couple's complaint against Colo. baker gets hearing
- Fracking supporters fire back at 'woefully misinformed' celebrities
- Colorado campus considers Indian names for dorms
- Wolves no longer endangered but friends fight their delisting
Latest Blog Entries
- Apple wins facial recognition patent for iPhone 6
- Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.
- U.S. drops 2,000 mice on Guam by parachute to kill snakes
- Xbox One, Playstation 4 games penalize users for cursing in their own homes
- Kill team: Obama war chiefs widen drone death zones
- Hola: Boehner prepares to push amnesty bill through House
- Young and healthy millennials create risky imbalance by shunning Obamacare
- Obama: Growing income inequality 'defining challenge' of this generation
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- CURL: 'Mission Accomplished' for Obamacare
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
The Constitution: Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses. And how to get from here to there.
A libertarian look at breaking news and political trends by author Tom Mullen.
A stat-head’s outlook, direct from his worn in couch cushion.
Playing Through covers the world of PGA golf, as well as tips your the average golfer to play better.