California | David Boies | Gay Marriage | News | Proposition 8 | Ted Olson

BigGayDeal.com

Prop 8 Backers Don't Want Evil Deeds Exposed in Televised Courtroom

The federal trial against Proposition 8 is scheduled to begin on January 11 and Judge Vaughn Walker has suggested that the proceedings could be the first to be televised under new authorization from the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit.

Walker The bigots who backed Proposition 8 and will have to defend it in court are not happy:

"Television coverage could expose witnesses and other trial participants to harassment and intimidation, backers of Proposition 8 said in a court filing Monday. They said some of their witnesses 'have indicated that they would not be willing to testify' if the trial was televised. 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 challengers want the cameras on:

"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."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. The Proposition 8 trial isn't the O.J. Simpson trial or a trial of a Mafia kingpin. Don't let the Proposition 8 backers' horseshit about alleged intimidation fool you. What these homophobic cowards are really afraid of is publicly trying to justify acting like bigots before the eyes of the world.

    Posted by: Peter | Dec 30, 2009 11:25:39 AM


  2. You know, if nothing else, it's encouraging to think that it's the bigots who are ashamed to show their faces for a change. Had this trial taken place fifty years ago, we'd be the social outcasts being intimidated into silence. Kind of feeds the feeling that change is inevitable, no?

    Posted by: Dave | Dec 30, 2009 11:43:35 AM


  3. If they are so convinced of the righteousness of their bigoted beliefs, why hide their ignorant views and opinions from public scrutiny?

    It is not like we are going to go and deprive them of their rights, as they have done to us...although...there is a thought...

    Posted by: Arturo Beeche | Dec 30, 2009 11:46:38 AM


  4. Pathetic. And they call us "sissies"?

    Let the sun shine in, I say, and clear that fœtid air.

    Posted by: David R. | Dec 30, 2009 11:52:53 AM


  5. I can understand with the Prop8 folks not having to release their political strategy documents, but I don't see how their argument of damage if a public trial is televised holds up to scrutiny. Then again, this is a "pilot" program, so I wouldn't be surprised if they found some higher court to issue an injunction - and the delay would effectively block it for this case. That would be very unfortunate as this case is about the taking away of minority rights. If there ever was a case that should be televised this is it!

    And of course they are cowards. They know they are wrong, they know this is about hatred toward gays and has nothing to do with "protecting" marriage. What they are afraid of is everyone seeing just how ridiculous their arguments are - which would be a big boost for marriage equality.

    Posted by: Mike | Dec 30, 2009 12:16:42 PM


  6. You're too right Mike. And not only is this about taking away people's rights, but in the context a "let the people [i.e., public] vote!" campaign.

    Posted by: David R. | Dec 30, 2009 12:34:13 PM


  7. Afraid to tell the world who you really are because of potential harassment and intimidation?

    Cry more, noobs. We've been there for centuries. How does it feel?

    Posted by: Dusty | Dec 30, 2009 1:39:28 PM


  8. This is funny. You mean there won’t be people outside to take your pics when you leave the courtroom to plaster them all over the news and the internets? Sounds a little like 21st century electronic white sheet and hood wearing to protect the identities.

    Posted by: Gus | Dec 30, 2009 1:41:19 PM


  9. I don't believe judicial proceedings should be filmed for broadcast, never have, never will. BUT if a decision is made to do so, the wishes of either side in a dispute really carry no weight and should have no bearing on the issue.

    Posted by: BobN | Dec 30, 2009 9:20:57 PM


  10. I love how christians go "God is love", and yet, they tell people who they can and cannot love. If two males or two females want to love each other, what the hell is the problem?

    Plus, I know why some states have made gay marriage legal. It's all about: $$$$$ being spent.

    You see, you sell a marriage license, theres the wedding, and etc...etc...etc...

    Posted by: Jeff | Jan 1, 2010 3:21:09 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Billy Elliot Gets Buff, Plays Slave to Channing Tatum« «