No TV on Prop8

The Supreme Court has spoken. I found this comment instructive:

"Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue."

Gods forbid that the American public should be able to witness first-hand the testimony about a contentious issue. Why, the world would come to an end by Thursday afternoon at the very latest. We certainly need to be protected from such things. (By, according to best guesses, the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. No surprises there.)

(Aside: Anthony Kennedy has been making great capital out of being the swing vote. Has anyone told him that's just another term for a weak reed?)

That, of course, is the very reason this trial should be broadcast. The New York Times has the same attitude about this decision that I do:

The trial that started on Monday in San Francisco over the constitutionality of California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage could have been a moment for the entire nation to witness a calm, deliberative debate on a vitally important issue in the era of instant communications. Instead, the United States Supreme Court made it a sad example of the quashing of public discourse by blocking the televising of the nonjury trial.

The court blocked the public broadcasting of the proceedings by its familiar 5-to-4 split. In a vigorous dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer correctly objected to the court’s highly unusual intervention. He concluded, “The public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts.”

I think the American public should be entitled to witness testimony like this:

After the cross-exam, Therese Stewart, attorney for the City of San Francisco, asked Professor Chauncey to analyze some of the messages used in the Yes on 8 campaign. Stewart focused on statements made by one of the official proponents of Prop 8, Dr. Hak-Shing William ("Bill") Tam. Stewart played excerpts of Dr. Tam's deposition, featuring some extraordinarily inflammatory messages in campaign documents authored by Tam.

One of Dr. Tam's publications claimed that if Prop 8 did not pass, other states would "fall into Satan's hands." The document also claimed that "more children would become homosexuals," and that the next item on the "gay agenda" would be to "legalize having sex with children." Prof. Chauncey connected these messages, delivered by one of Prop 8's official sponsors, with the long history of fear-mongering and demonization of lesbians and gay men that he eloquently described yesterday.

This is from Shannon Minter's summary of Day 3 testimony.

And also be sure to check out the Prop8TrialTracker live blog. It's fascinating (at least, for a law geek like me).