Update to the post below: The emergency injunction to the SCOTUS by marriage equality opponents was successful, and there will be no video of the trial. This will force us to rely on updates from actual people inside the courtroom.
Update to the update: The injunction against televising the trial is a 3-day temporary injunction. Justice Kennedy was responsible for dealing with the initial appeal; he decided to refer the matter to the full SCOTUS. The full SCOTUS enjoined the broadcast until Wednesday to give them time to hold a hearing on the matter. So we may get TV coverage and liveblogging on this yet.
Something exciting in the marriage equality movement is happening today, as the challenge filed last May in Federal Court to California's Proposition 8 begins its trial. Note that this is different from the challenge to Proposition 8 that went to the California Supreme Court last year--that challenge failed, but allowed the 18,000 extant same-sex unions to keep their marriage licenses. This current case, dubbed Perry v. Schwarzenegger after one partner of a lesbian couple on whose behalf the challenge is brought, argues that California's constitutional prohibition against same-sex marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
It's not exactly news that the marriage equality movement hasn't scored a lot of victories lately (in this country, anyway). In the past year, we've seen Proposition 8 pass in California and Question 1 pass in Maine, thus overturning gay marriage legalizations passed by their respective legislatures, while the State Senates of New York and New Jersey have each rejected marriage equality bills moving through their chambers. So we’re overdue for a victory here, and this would be an important one: the case will be heard by Judge Vaughn Walker of the 9th circuit court of appeals Northern California District Court. If the plaintiffs are successful, the ruling will be binding (pending appeals and a SCOTUS challenge if there is one) on all the states within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, which covers the entire Western United States, and render the banning of gay marriage unconstitutional in all the states in the Circuit.
If you want to keep up with the blow-by-blow of the trial, there are a lot of ways to do it, including some excellent online resources. Here are some good bets for news and commentary:
Also, unless a last-minute emergency Supreme Court challenge by marriage equality opponents is successful (more on this below), the trial will be televised, and you can watch it live at select courts throughout the 9th circuit as well as a location in NYC--or on YouTube, where the video of the trial will be uploaded at the end of every trial day.
The Youtube channel is USDCCAND. And if you have a hankering to watch it live, here's a list of where it's being shown, as provided by the Equal Rights Foundation:
REMOTE VIEWING LOCATIONS
(Additional sites may be announced)
Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Case No. 3:09-cv-02292
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
James R. Browning United States Courthouse
95 7th St.
San Francisco, California
Library Conference Room, First Floor
United States Court of Appeals
Pioneer Courthouse
700 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, Oregon
Courtroom, Second Floor
William K. Nakamura United States Courthouse
1010 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, Washington
Courtroom One, Eighth Floor
Theodore Roosevelt United States Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York
Courtroom 8A South, Eighth Floor
Richard H. Chambers United States Courthouse
125 South Grand Avenue
Pasadena, California
Courtroom Three, First Floor
The stakes are very high—but that’s not the only reason this case is out of the ordinary. To make things more interesting, the counsel arguing for the marriage equality side--backed substantially by the Equal Rights Foundation--is an alliance between Theodore Olson and David Boies--whom you might remember as the attorneys who argued against each other in Bush v. Gore, but who are now on the same side in this court fight.
In an interesting twist noted by Scout Finch yesterday, however, the opponents of same-sex marriage who are opposing the suit recently petitioned the presiding judge to bar television coverage of the trial, on the grounds that witnesses for their side would be intimidated and harassed, thus resulting in an unfair trial (it's amusing that these people who are so concerned about harassment of their witnesses don't think that harassment of the LGBT community is in any way a problem).
Thankfully, the judge allowed public comment, and the alliance of the Courage Campaign and Credo Action delivered a petition to Judge Walker in support of TV access that was signed by over 140,000 people.
The end result? The trial will be televised, and the people of California and the rest of the country will have the right to know firsthand the arguments that are being made on their supposed behalf.
Here's hoping for a long-overdue victory. As a final thought: if the plaintiffs are successful, the anti-equality forces will undoubtedly start screaming about "activist judges" and about how voters don't want gay marriage. No problem there: interracial marriage was only legalized across the country by the 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling. Anyone want to take bets on what would have happened if the subject had been put to a vote in Virginia 43 years ago?