Prop. 8 hearing on gay marriage will be televised by C-SPAN

A federal appeals court Wednesday authorized the televising of a Dec. 6 hearing on whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage, should be struck down.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by C-SPAN to broadcast the two-hour hearing, which is scheduled to start at 10 a.m. The court said C-SPAN would provide its tape to other broadcast media that receive court permission to televise the hearing.

The 9th Circuit is hearing an appeal of an August ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over a trial that examined such questions as whether homosexuality could be changed and whether same-sex parenting harmed children. Walker wanted to broadcast the trial on the Internet, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 to ban cameras on the grounds that witnesses could be intimidated during testimony.

The December hearing will involve legal arguments by lawyers, not testimony by witnesses. The 9th Circuit has said the first hour of the hearing will examine whether the sponsors of Proposition 8 and Imperial County have legal authority, or standing, to appeal Walker's ruling.

Standing generally requires an appellant to have been directly affected by a court decision. The state has standing because it enforces Proposition 8, but Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declined to appeal. The second hour will be spent discussing whether the gay marriage ban violates equal protection rights.

ALSO:

Fresno State student body president acknowledges he is an illegal immigrant

Huntington Beach may try to shame suspected drunk drivers on Facebook

--Maura Dolan in San Francisco

 

Comments

[Mike S]

You forgot to mention that the judge broke the courts rules in trying to televise the initial hearing:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-14/bay-area/17828223_1_same-sex-marriage-trial-justices-antonin-scalia-court-s-more-liberal-members

"Walker approved the telecast after only a week of public comment, rather than the 30 days that the San Francisco federal court normally requires when it changes its rules. Walker cited his authority to shorten the comment period when immediate needs arise, and said Monday he had received more than 138,000 comments from the public, all but 32 of them favorable.

But the Supreme Court said there was no immediate need to suspend the 30-day requirement because shutting off the cameras would harm neither side in the case. "

[Ironman Carmichael]

People are actually going to be televised making those silly hypocritical arguments about procreation being the basis for marriage and how same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality and how we mustn't redefine dictionary definitions (at a time when Sarah Palin can make up a word and have it honored with inclusion in the dictionary)? Talk about America's Funniest Home Videos.

[erik Self]

...okay okay ...so what I am gay get over it people the world is going to hell in a handbasket and your all stuck on this issue you cant change what you are, who you are, or who, or what your children will end up being, ...time to think about yourself and your own collapsing lives and environment people, we are not responsible for your downfall and we refuse to be your scapegoats time to let us be us...Erik self

[imarko]

Bravo!

[Tony ( aka Brains)]

Well we shall see if this is truly the land of the free and the home of the brave. Freedom comes for ALL not just the ones who 'think' that their particular lifestyle SHOULD be the one that ALL americans follow. Straight, gay everyone should have the SAME rights or then there is an 'inequality' of rights. The Brave are those who 'stand up' to those who scream religion or morality or funny as it sounds 'unnatural' . How someone chooses to live their life is NOT based on how someone else THINKS they should ! Religion should NEVER be a 'deciding' factor in how rights are determined. Moralities have changed thru out time and also should NOT be a deciding factor. Rights should be the same for ALL . Those who 'claim' that something of this magnitude will 'change' the way we live will always raise there voices, such as the ones who said 'women' have NO vote. Such as the ones who said ' Black and white shall NOT marry'. How does how someone 'else' lives there life EVER affected someone's own ? If what someone down the street is doing would EVER affect me then there WOULD be a problem ALL over the world. BUT that is NOT the case, millions of people live there lives and there neighbors do as well and NO ONE knows what goes on in each others homes. To attempt to 'say' a certain group CAN or CANNOT do as the rest of the world does is to say that they are 'subject' to the whim of the general people and that has always changed mostly for the better of the sub group. Women now can vote, black and white CAN marry. Imagine a world where the majority RULED how we lived our lives, where no one had 'uniqueness', where no one could be different. How would that change the world, the art, the sciences ? To subvert someone 'other' than that which is like what YOU think is the 'right' way to live a life is to say ' I hold your leash and you will DO as I say'. Well I will NOT let that happen, not now, NOT ever. I will fight those who THINK that just because they say so it should be. Think about what if YOU were the one who was in 'violation' of what 'others' think is right. What would you say or do about that ?

[Tara]

This issue has been put to the voters of California twice now...Marriage is between 1 Man and 1 Woman..Homosexuals can marry just like everyone else, they have no right to re-define Marraige based on a *Behaviour of Choice* Thier is not 1 shred of scientific evidence that a person is born a homosexual. We are a world of 2 Specific genders female and male, it is the only union that can continueto re-produce the human race. Every person has a right to a loving Mother and Father....Children do best with parents of both sexes.
We have already seen the disaster of Children brought up into fatherless homes...

[Herson Romero]

When I was growing up I was Raped by a men it mess me up for a long time but I read my Bible and realized that God created MEN $ WOMEN also if you all read what he did in the past he will do again and I do "FEAR GOD"

[PadrePete]

WE'LL BE WATCHING YOU... this time!

[Vance]

The fact that they want to televise this.... i.e. televise history, means this has already been decided by the justices.

[Troy]

Oh, Tara. You need to crawl back under your rock, girl. Your grammar, spelling and command of English are almost as distubing as your ignorant point of view. Almost...

[ApolloGenX]

Well it will be interesting to see if lawyers can make the arguments without laughing. I mean the Prop 8 supporter arguments are laughable.

Gay sex isn't going anywhere, divorce isn't going anywhere... single parent homes aren't going anywhere.... it is going to be amusing watching these homophobes try to pin all of the problems in society on gays. (Especially considering divorce, abandoned children, and out of wedlock children are all caused by straight people!).

How fun. They are going to go down in flames, and this trial will be a humorous entry in future history books. Whether or not anyone gets married really doesn't matter to me. It's completely unnecessary and more of a financial arrangement than anything. What does matter, and what is just so darn funny is that people are trying to defend irrational discrimination by screaming that "the sky is falling", and think anyone with a brain actually believes them!

lulz

[Pondering_It_All]

Keep in mind that Judge Walker already has found Prop. 8 unconstitutional and ordered it overturned. This is just the first appeal of that decision. The appeals court has very limited possible grounds for reversing Judge Walker's decision. Most appeals that are successful are because of a technical error in the original trial process, not because the appeals court disagrees with the facts that were presented in the case. I suspect Judge Walker was very careful not to make any such mistakes, and to write a summary of the facts presented (which are the only facts that the appeals court can consider) in such a way that they can't support any other decision.

[Erin]

I don't understand why this was even put on the ballot. I'm a white woman married to a black man, and though, now, that's not a big deal, there was a time when it wasn't legal, there are still people out there who are against it, and in some states the majority of the population are against it and had it been put on the ballot to make it illegal for black people and white people to marry each other in those states it would probably be against the law in those states. Does it make those people right? Should racists have the right to tell me who I should and shouldn't be able to marry? What's the difference between telling an inter-racial couple weather they can or can't marry and telling a same sex couple weather or not they can or can't marry? We're not talking about polygamy or beastiality. We're talking about 2 consenting adults who should be able to commit to each other if they so choose, weather the majority likes it or not.

[Jerry Johnson]

Interesting that people who are not homosexual can state that being homosexual is a choice. Do straight people remember making a choice to be straight? Of course not. Trust me...GLBT people didn't make a choice either....just like you. Believe me....if it were a choice then don't you think that those young men taking their own lives when the discover that they are gay...would...simply make the choice to be straight and not kill themselves? It is simply stupid for a non gay to advise you on how you became gay. One other point....it doesn't really matter if it truly were a choice or not....marriage should be granted simply as a right for any U.S. Citizen.

[el ting]

remember the fall of the roman empire???? long live America?! i hope....