In a brief order, the justices said they were halting the move by U.S. District Judge
streaming to other rooms within the confines of the courthouse in which
the trial is to be held.”
“Any additional order permitting broadcast of the
proceedings is also stayed pending further order of this court,” the
justices said. They added that the temporary order “will remain in
effect until
The high court did not explain its reasoning.
Only Justice
native, dissented. “In my view, the court’s standard for granting a
stay is not met” in this case, he wrote. “In particular, the papers
filed, in my view, do not show a likelihood of ‘irreparable harm.'”
Under the court’s rules, lawyers can seek an
emergency order only if they can show their clients will suffer
“irreparable harm” if the justices fail to act. In this case, the
defenders of Proposition 8 said their witnesses could be subjected to
harassment and intimidation if they testified in favor of the ban on
marriage for gay and lesbian couples.
On Sunday, the attorneys challenging Proposition 8
urged the court to turn down the appeal and to allow video coverage.
They said millions of Californians and others are interested in the
proceedings and the public had a right to know what was taking place in
its courtrooms.
Recently, the
This is the second time in recent months in which
the high court has intervened on behalf of the defenders of
“traditional marriage” and granted an emergency appeal.
In October, the justices blocked officials in the state of
from releasing the names of 138,000 people who signed ballot petitions
seeking to overturn a state law giving equal benefits to gay and
lesbian couples. Under
But attorney
high court that the signers of these petitions could be subjected to
harassment if their names were revealed. And the court granted an order
blocking the release.
—
(c) 2010, Tribune Co.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
