Keeping Same-Sex Marriage in the Dark

When the U.S. Supreme Court Tried to Hide a Trial

A right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) made history — again. The justices overturned a ruling by a federal judge that would have permitted TV coverage of a trial that ultimately decided the future of California’s Proposition 8. The trial was one of the most significant civil rights cases ever heard.

It was a surprise to experts that SCOTUS decided to hear the case. Usually, the justices confine themselves to disagreements between state courts — or federal courts — or cases that raise significant concerns about the federal law.  SCOTUS, in this instance, turned to the “supervisory power” it has over the lower courts.

The problem they were asked to settle? Chief Judge Vaughn Walker wanted to broadcast the trial with just a short notice for public comment.

During the brief comment period Walker received over 138,570 comments; all but about 30 favored transmitting the proceedings.

SCOTUS figured that same-sex marriage opponents would suffer “irreparable harm” of the proceedings were broadcast around the country. All the witnesses who might be intimidated by the camera were experts or Prop 8 advocates. They had already appeared on television during the campaign; the “intimidated” argument by the Supreme Court was bogus.

The five justices who turned thumbs-down on coverage noted they would not decide on if federal trials should be broadcast. It was a faulty statement. The justices stated that since the trial judge intended to distribute witness testimony, the case would not be a good one for a “pilot program.”

It wasn’t an accident that the five justices who opposed televising the trial were all opposed to same-sex marriage. Why?

Maybe they remembered the sympathy created by televised images of the civil rights battles in the 50s and 60s. People were sitting in the living room, in front of their television and watched as orderly black kids behaved with dignity in the face of intimidation and assault by vicious mobs of poor whites.

In the end, the conservative majority found the witnesses were not cowed by the cameras. Modern technology allowed the telecast to happen without affecting the courtroom proceedings.

The subject of same-sex marriage has generated vast public interest. The modern-day civil rights movement will affect the lives of millions. The decision denying broadcast coverage would have eliminated any possibility that it would be permitted before the trial ended.

The United States Supreme Court attempted to use procedural excuses to push the issue of same-sex marriage back into the closet.