3594
(0 votes, average 0 out of 5)
Written by Lisa Neff, Staff writer
Sep 10, 2011
Attorneys in California’s Proposition 8 dispute returned to a courtroom Aug. 29 to argue over the release of a videotape of the federal district court trial that resulted in a judge overturning the anti-gay amendment to California’s constitution.
At the hearing, American Foundation for Equal Rights attorneys, who represent the same-sex couples in the federal case against Prop. 8, argued that videotapes of the 12-day trial must be released.
A coalition of media outlets, including The New York Times, the Associated Press, Fox News, Dow Jones and Co., and NBC, also presented a First Amendment argument for unsealing the tapes.
“Prop. 8 proponents are trying to hide what happened during the public trial,” said AFER senior project director Adam Umhoefer.
The U.S. Supreme Court had blocked the broadcast of the trial at the request of Prop. 8 supporters, who argued that their witnesses might be intimidated and harassed by gay rights activists.
A year after the district court overturned Prop. 8, and with transcripts of the trial available on the Internet, AFER returned to court to seek the tapes’ release.
AFER attorney Ted Boutrous said, “We have a strong tradition of openness in this country and the First Amendment and common law make judicial records and proceedings presumptively open to the public.”
Supporting AFER, a NYT editorial on Aug. 27 stated, “The demand to keep the videotapes secret is as flimsy as the arguments for denying gay people the fundamental right to marry. The proposition’s backers will not be hurt in any way if the footage is released. The American public, on the other hand, stands to lose something very valuable if it is denied the chance to see and hear what happened in a critically important case on marriage equality.”
The judge was expected to soon issue a ruling.
Meanwhile, attorneys in the Prop 8 case appeared in another legal venue this week, presenting arguments before the California Supreme Court on whether Protect Marriage, the chief proponent of the anti-gay measure, can stand in as its defenders in the appeal process. California’s governor and attorney general, past and present, have declined to defend Prop. 8 because they say it is unconstitutional.
