Watching Walker

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker wants to distribute, on the Internet, video of the trial challenging the California Marriage Amendment. The trial is expected to start Monday. Here's Maura Dolan's latest article in the Los Angeles Times.

If Walker's view is endorsed, as expected, by the chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the legal battle over same-sex marriage will become the first federal trial within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit -- which includes nine Western states -- to be videotaped in its entirety for public viewing, said media attorney Thomas Burke.

Everything has to change for the sake of esteeming same-sex relationships and pretending they are no different than uniting a bridge and groom in marriage. That is more important than just about anything else, it seems.

Supporters of [the California Marriage Amendment] opposed public dissemination of the trial video and argued that witnesses would be intimidated by having their testimony watched by millions of people. The [CMA] campaign also objected to live feeds at other courthouses.

Anyone appearing to defend marriage – including whose written statements are entered into the record - is going to be a target. We know this from history.

Opponents of [the amendment that was added to the state constitution by voters] favored courtroom cameras.

[Continued after the jump.]

Of course they did. We have the advantage when it comes to reason and history. They have the advantage when it comes to appeals to emotion, which thrive on video. The videos will not only place marriage defenders at risk, but it will be more bring-out-the-sad-violin-music fodder. Defending marriage is largely about standing up for future generations - and those generations can't appear in court, unlike two tearful women, who, despite their ability to form a domestic partnership that will have the state treat them as though they are in a marriage, will still plead that they will only be happy and whole with a state-licensed marriage. Telling someone they have failed at the requirements to obtain a diploma is likely to elecit a stronger reaction from them then you'd get from a grad of the same institution who earned their diploma by meeting the requirements if you simply handed the diploma out subsequently like it was candy.

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer for two same-sex couples who have challenged the measure, told Walker that the videos should be released to the public "as close to simultaneously as possible."

"What happens in the courtroom is public property," Boutrous said.

If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Boutrous being against airing some courtroom sessions in some other cases.

The judge said he could stop the video at any time.

That will be convenient if he perceives the marriage defenders are connecting with the public.

Walker's decision on Proposition 8's constitutionality is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Of course it will be.

The story also appeared on the paper's blog, and there are comments, of course.

"Dan O" wrote January 06, 2010 at 02:58 PM:

The real fear is Americans will see the arguments used to discriminate against gays and lesbians soundly dismantled.

I have yet to see my arguments soundly dismantled.

I'm not in favor of discriminating against anyone based on which adults they find attractive. I do want the state to continue to discriminate (justly) by treating bride+groom relationships differently than other kinds of relationships. The only legal distinction left in California is the word "marriage", but that still matters.

They're out pushing for secrecy at the same time they're accusing the judge of being biased. What a better way to ensure an unbiased judge by making the proceedings truly public?

The judge could sit on his bias through the whole trial and still use it to determine the ruling.

"Realist" wrote January 06, 2010 at 03:30 PM:

This is still suppose to be a free country. Stay out of other people's lives and get a hobbie other then meddling.

Yes, we are supposed to be a free country – which includes the freedom to say "no" when someone asks us to give them something.

"An Interested Observer" wrote January 06, 2010 at 05:06 PM:

A majority of citizens voting in favor of a law does not mean it is constitutional.

Well, actually, when it comes to the state constitution, it does - if it is written as an amendment. And since it doesn't violate the federal Constitution (I notice nobody has explained how it does), it is now a valid part of the state constitution.

"WTF" wrote January 06, 2010 at 05:19 PM:

Let this form of prejudice get banned.

It doesn't involve any prejudging. We have examined the situation and noted that a brideless or groomless coupling is not marriage. We have not heard why neutering marriage licensing would be of net benefit to our society.

"Constitutional" wrote January 06, 2010 at 06:29 PM:

The US Constitution also guarantees equal protection under the law. There are over 1000 laws regarding marriage. It is Unconstituional for a majority to deny a minority group equal protection under those laws.

The group is not denied. Every single one of those individuals has the same protection as anyone else.

I am sorry for all the people who just keep repeating...(in a whiny voice) but we voted! Whaaa.

Silly, whiny us. We think the state ought to function according to its constitution, which includes some direct democracy. We don't think the state should be run by "But... but I want it!"

"Sean" wrote January 06, 2010 at 07:11 PM:

And what is at question here is if a majority can tell a group of people how they can marry.

A majority of voters can adopt laws that all residents must follow.

"John" wrote January 06, 2010 at 09:06 PM:

I use this example.... if there had been a item on the ballot on Nov. 4th, 2001 to ban Islam in the US, I guarantee it would have passed with a majority vote. But would have immediately been struck down by our judicial system as unconstitutional. Same if legislators tried to ban it.

Yes, notice the First Amendment. There is no amendment compelling the neutering of state marriage licensing, as the bride+groom requirement provides equal access to people regardless of their sex or sexual orientation - whether or not they want to exercise that access.

Previously discussed HERE, HERE, and HERE.