by George Bao
LOS ANGELES, Jan. 14 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to censor the broadcast of the federal trial challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 has met with strong opposition.
California State assembly member Ted Lieu said Thursday the goal of the American civil justice system is to seek justice. The Supreme Court's decision to censor the public broadcast of the historic trial to reverse California's Proposition 8 amounts to a fear of too much justice.
"Our courts are not star chambers, where testimony and rulings are made in secret and hidden from the public," said Lieu.
"We do not live in a Totalitarian State," Lieu stressed.
He said the Supreme Court majority's rationale that broadcasting this trial will result in "irreparable harm" has no basis in fact.
The Court states that witnesses may suffer harm because they are concerned about possible "harassment" if the public actually found out what they will say under oath. Under that rationale, the Court should seal the transcript of this entire proceeding, not allow any non-witness to attend the proceeding, and block newspapers from reporting on this trial.
To show the silliness of the Court's opinion, consider that witnesses who apparently would suffer "irreparable harm" are witnesses like William Tam who intervened in federal court to defend Proposition 8, said Lieu.
"I suppose I just caused 'irreparable harm' by announcing his name publicly, the same way that multiple newspapers have already reported his name publicly as a 'reluctant' witness allegedly afraid of potential harassment," said Lieu.
He said if the Court is actually that concerned about shielding witnesses, "we have the technology to put a blue dot or otherwise shield the witnesses' identity during the broadcast. The Court never even considered that far less restrictive option. They just decided to censor the entire proceeding and keep it away from the general public."
Even some judges and justices disagree with the Supreme Court ruling.
"The Court today issues an order that will prevent the transmission of proceedings in a non jury civil case of great public interest to five other federal courthouses," wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
"The majority's action today is unusual. It grants a stay in order ... to intervene in a matter of local court administration that it would not (and should not) consider. It cites no precedent for doing so. It identifies no real harm, let alone 'irreparable harm'... And the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts."
Advocates for equal marriage rights opposed the decision.
"The Supreme Court just struck a huge blow against transparency and accountability," said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign in Los Angeles.
"The five conservative justices are enabling Proposition 8 supporters to mask their radical views. This historic trial will remain largely hidden from public view," he said.
"Now, without video, it's even more critical that we continue to get the truth out about the Prop 8 trial. The Courage Campaign will continue our live coverage of the trial at Prop8TrialTracker.com. In just three days, the site has been viewed more than 250,000 times and has become one of the leading sources of information about what is going on inside Judge Walker's courtroom," Jacobs said in a statement.
The trial in San Francisco will decide whether California 's Proposition 8, the November 2008 ballot initiative that overturned the right of same-sex marriage in the state, is constitutional.
This current suit was filed in May 2009 by two prominent attorneys known for arguing against one another over the 2000 presidential election in Bush v. Gore and is on behalf of two same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses after the passage of Proposition 8.
It is the first case in the U.S. at the federal level to consider whether it is legal for states to ban same sex marriage through ballot initiatives.
In May last year, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 in a 6 to 1 ruling. The proposition, which passed 52percent to 48 percent, overturned a May 2008 ruling of California Supreme Court that resulted in, among other provisions, the legalization of same sex marriage in the state.
The Court's 2009 opinion preserved the marriages of the 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California during the period same-sex marriage was legal.
Same sex marriage is currently legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Washington D.C. approved same sex marriage legislation in December 2009 and is waiting for a mandatory 30 day congressional review period to expire before the legislation becomes law.
