BREAKING: 9th Circuit Prop 8 hearing will be televised LIVE on C-SPAN

November 17, 2010 at 5:22 pm 167 comments

By Eden James

By way of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was entered on 11/17/2010 at 3:54:16 PM PST and
filed on 11/17/2010
Case Name: Kristin Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al
Case Number: 10-16696

C-SPAN applied to televise live the case captioned above, scheduled to be heard in San Francisco, on December 6, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. C-SPAN’s request to televise live is GRANTED. A maximum of two (2) video cameras will be permitted in the courtroom. C-SPAN will serve as the pool-feed for all media organizations that submit an application.

According to another court notice, there will be two hearings, back-to-back. The first about the standing issue and the second covering the constitutionality of Prop 8:

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:KKW): The Court orders that oral argument in these appeals be conducted in the following manner: The argument shall be divided into two hour-long sessions, with a brief recess in between. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant’s standing and any other procedural matters that may properly be raised. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

During the first hour, the Hollingsworth defendants-intervenors-appellants (“Proponents”) shall first have 15 minutes, and the Imperial County movants-appellants shall next have 15 minutes in which to present their opening arguments regarding standing and other procedural issues. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 30 minutes in which to respond. Any time reserved by either appellant may be used for rebuttal, but only one rebuttal argument may be made and that by either appellant.

During the second hour, the Proponents shall first have 30 minutes to present their opening argument on the merits of the constitutional question. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 15 minutes, and the plaintiff-intervenor-appellee City and County of San Francisco shall have the next 15 minutes, in which to respond. Any time reserved by the Proponents may be used for rebuttal.

No later than November 24, 2010, the parties shall advise the Court of any objection they have to the allocation of time within each hour or of any reallocation of time within each hour that they wish to propose, by electronically filing letters with the Clerk of the Court. If any party wishes to give its full allotted time within either hour to an amicus curiae, it may request that the Court reallocate that time accordingly. Otherwise, no motions for leave to participate in oral argument by amici curiae will be entertained.. [7545517]

More to come, as news develops.

UPDATE: KGO-TV, a San Francisco ABC affiliate, also applied to televise the hearing. The good news from the court:

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:PA):KGO-TV applied to televise live and videotape for later broadcast the case captioned above, scheduled to be heard in San Francisco, on December 6, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. KGO- TV’s request to televise live and videotape for later broadcast is GRANTED.[7549438] (PA)

UPDATE: Just in from AFER:

Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights made the following statement today regarding the televising of the Dec. 6, 2010 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing on Proposition 8. The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m.

“For too long the truth about marriage equality has been obscured by misleading political rhetoric. Our case is rooted in the principles of equality upon which our nation was founded and the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law for every American, without exception. That case has already been proven conclusively in federal court, and now millions of Americans will be able to hear the truth about this issue first-hand.”

The American Foundation for Equal Rights is the sole sponsor of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case against Prop. 8. Its legal team is headed by Theodore Olson and David Boies, who notably faced-off in the Bush v. Gore case that decided the presidency. Since launching the Perry case just 18 months ago, the Foundation has endeavored to expand equality for all Americans by linking marriage equality to the nation’s founding constitutional principles, including the right of all Americans to equal protection under the law. Its coalition of support has grown to include a diverse and unprecedented array of leaders including Julian Bond (past Chairman of the NAACP), Dolores Huerta (co-founder with Cesar Chavez of the UFW), the California NAACP, MALDEF, Ken Mehlman (former Chairman of the Republican National Committee and top adviser to President George W. Bush), major LGBT civil rights and legal organizations, and thousands of grassroots supporters across the nation. Its advisory board is co-chaired by John Podesta (White House Chief of Staff in the Clinton Administration and head of the Center for American Progress) and Robert Levy (head of the Cato Institute).

“Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution,” attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote in their brief to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man,” Olson and Boies wrote in their original filing in the Perry case, referring to the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage.

Read the Court’s Order Here:

UPDATE: Here is the Scribd of C-SPAN’s request being granted: (thanks Kathleen).

View this document on Scribd

Also, KGO-TV’s approved request:

View this document on Scribd

Entry filed under: Prop 8 trial, Televising.

Jon vs. John: The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart takes John McCain’s #DADT hypocrisy to task VIDEO: Uncovering NOM’s shock and awe (It’s unreal, really.) #NOMExposed

167 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:25 pm

    whoot! They can’t hide now!

    • 2. Ann S.  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:26 pm


      • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:28 pm

        My whole day just perked up 10-fold. This is fantastic news. I feel like jumping up and down and screaming in joy.

    • 4. Ed Cortes  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:29 pm

      Checkin’ da box!!

    • 5. Wine Country Lurker Grrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:29 pm

      I sure hope that it gets recorded and archived for later viewing by those of us who don’t have CSPAN and/or cannot watch 2 hours of streaming video from work!!

      (And that P8TT will be posting text-based play-by-play updates, too!)

      • 6. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:31 pm

        2nd that motion!

      • 7. Sagesse  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:51 pm

        I will also have to catch up later. Can’t wait to hear the questions…. and the answers, but the questions will shed light on where the justices are coming from.

        I’ve forgotten. Do we know who the three judges on the panel will be?

        • 8. grod  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:16 pm

          Not to be known until Nov 29th.

      • 9. Rhie  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:28 pm

        CSPAN online keeps an extensive video library. I am positive it will be available there.

        • 10. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 18, 2010 at 6:51 am

          I sure hope so. My wife and I don’t even have cable. :)

    • 11. JonT  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:46 pm

      Excellent news!

    • 12. Alan E.  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:56 pm

      So exciting!! Will be even more exciting to be there in person =)

      • 13. Tomato  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:27 pm

        There will be a vigil outside. Anyone interested, please show up!

    • 14. RebeccaRGB  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:54 pm

      You can’t turn the lights off now. The world is much too small. When anybody’s rights get wronged it’s everybody’s wake-up call. Corruption thrives on secrecy, transparency is good for you and me, and we really want to see the truth set free for all!

      They can’t turn the lights off now. The world is much too small. ‘Cause everybody’s plugging in and passing on the wake-up call. Corruption thrives on secrecy, transparency is up to you and me, and we really want to see the truth set free for all!

      • 15. Straight Ally #3008  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:54 pm

  • 16. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    Great News!

  • 17. mattymatt  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    Well that’s very big news. Are the arguments on Dec 6th the entire extent of the oral argument arguments in the case? Or will there be additional hearings and testimony at some point?

    • 18. mattymatt  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:30 pm

      Er … that should have read, “Are the arguments on Dec 6th the entire extent of the oral arguments in the case?”

      • 19. Ann S.  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:32 pm

        No more testimony. That’s just at trial level. Just oral arguments now.

        This is it for the 9th circuit, unless at a future date a party requests (and is granted) an en banc hearing by a larger panel of judges.

      • 20. Trish  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:33 pm

        Mattymatt, there will only be one day of oral arguments. Ordinarily, the judges have already made up their minds and have often even already drafted the order/opinion by the time the oral argument comes around. If you pay careful attention to the types of questions that the judges ask in oral argument, you might be able to tell how they’re going to come out on the opinion. Of course, with how unique this particular case is, they may not have drafted their order/opinion yet.

        • 21. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 18, 2010 at 6:56 am

          So, in the case that DIs are granted standing, the likelihood is of this trial going to SCOTUS, correct? Can anybody explain how Perry will be treated there? Along the lines of my not having had any idea going into the 9th Circuit trial that there would be no new evidence, witnesses, nor even the oral arguments.

          Thanks for all the legal savvy, everyone! :)

          • 22. Kathleen  |  November 18, 2010 at 10:48 am

            First, there is no right to an appeal to the Supreme Court. So even if this case goes forward (someone with standing is willing to appeal), it is up to the Supreme Court whether or not they’re willing to hear the case.

            That said, the procedure in front of the Supreme Court is very similar to that at the Court of Appeals. Generally no new evidence and there are no witnesses – just briefs from the parties, the evidentiary record from the courts below and then oral arguments.

          • 23. RainbowWarrior  |  November 18, 2010 at 2:14 pm

            Am I the only one who’s a little nervous at the idea of it reaching SCOTUS? I want this to get done as soon as possible, but the reality of the matter is 1) SCOTUS has been notoriously right-leaning for a disturbingly long time now, and 2) many of the justices have made it clear that they don’t want to deal with this right now, so the odds are great that it will be refused a hearing and we’ll be back at square 1 when somebody in another state decides to sue again…

          • 24. Ann S.  |  November 18, 2010 at 3:01 pm

            Rainbow, if we win at the 9th Circuit and the SCOTUS doesn’t take it, then (depending on how the 9th writes its opinion) either we’ll have marriage equality in California or else we’ll have it throughout the 9th circuit states. If we lose at the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS doesn’t take the case, then we’ll have lost, and there will be no marriage equality in the 9th circuit unless a state chooses to create marriage equality.

            You’re not alone in fearing what the SCOTUS might do to this case. That’s why I for one would be quite happy if the proponents lose on the standing issue. Then Judge Walker’s ruling will stand and there will be marriage equality in California. Unfortunately, this doesn’t help other states — except by setting a precedent that might be helpful in future cases.

    • 25. Ed Cortes  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:34 pm

      That’s it, along with all of the documents they submitted, and the trial record from the original hearing. 1 hour to show that the DIs have standing, a recess, and another hour for the legal arguments. And remember that the DIs don’t need any evidence! My DVR will be set!!

      • 26. Carpool Cookie  |  November 18, 2010 at 1:37 pm

        Yes. And that’s one reason why hearings like this are scheduled months in advance, because the judges and their clerks and research attorneys have to review and research all the material from the trial, to help break it down for the judges, and help form recommendations and preliminary opinions.

    • 27. Steve  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:41 pm

      No new arguments. It’s more about the clarification and interpretation of the existing arguments.

      What’s interesting is that they allocated a lot of time to the standing issue.

  • 28. mattymatt  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    Ah, got it. So, just some quick oral arguments, then some deliberation, and then the justices issue a ruling sometime in the next few … weeks? Months?

    • 29. Trish  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:11 pm

      There is an deadline that the 9th Circuit gives itself for issuing a final opinion. You can see it in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. They mention that if you haven’t seen a decision on the merits within 9 months, you should write a letter to the court clerk.

      That said, when I was working on the 9th circuit, there were some opinions that were published (or memorandum dispositions that were issued) that came out right after the oral arguments. In other cases, the opinion took over a year.

    • 30. Kathleen  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:38 pm

      I’d say as a general practice, we see most decision within a few months. This case is on a fast track, so I’m guessing a decision within a month, maybe sooner.

  • 31. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    Woot Woot!!!!….<3…Ronnie

    • 32. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:38 pm

      Ronnie, we need a song! Something to dance to!

      • 33. Carpool Cookie  |  November 18, 2010 at 1:42 pm

        (has one touch of animated nudity)

        • 34. Carpool Cookie  |  November 18, 2010 at 1:46 pm


          Well…..go to and cut and paste into the search bar:

          Safety Dance, Because We CAN Dance If We Want To. Who’s Gonna Stop Us?

      • 35. Rhie  |  November 25, 2010 at 10:52 pm


  • 36. Maggie4NoH8  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    This is WAY COOL! Anyone care to comment on how long it will take for a ruling?

    What are the odds Imperial County will be found to have standing? IF they do, how does that track to the SCOTUS? Help us? Hurt us?

    AND, any new news on Kamala Harris’ election results?

    • 37. Judy  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:56 pm

      Kamala Harris is barely leading by 0.4%. They are still counting.

      • 38. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:06 pm

        Go Kamala! I read Alaska was finally decided…Rep over Tea Party…but still interesting as a write-in candidate won…and defeated a “Tea-bagger”

        Breaking News Alert: Murkowski wins Alaska Senate race, AP reports
        November 17, 2010 3:14:13 PM
        Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has become the first Senate candidate in more than 50 years to win a write-in campaign, the Associated Press reports.

        Murkowski emerged victorious after a painstaking, two-week count of write-in ballots showed she has overtaken tea party rival Joe Miller.

        • 39. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:07 pm

          Poor Palin…the one person she endorsed…lost!

        • 43. John S  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:27 pm

          OMG What a delicious slap in the face for Sarah Barracuda
          Teabagger. I love it.

      • 44. grod  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:30 pm

        Yes but as a few hours ago the AG vote difference is now 30,704. She has remained ahead and the spread has been growing. Not receding.What is interesting in your link is the Map. Withoout knowing the population distribution by counties, you would think her lead would be all but impossible. One prediction of the outcome had it about a 10,000 vote spread in her favour. Can there being that many outstanding votes in small precincts.

        • 45. grod  |  November 18, 2010 at 2:24 pm

          At 11.00 am on the 18th with five counties updating, Harris’ lead decreased by 500 votes bringing it down to 30,200.
          This is the first decrease in days. Again I suggest that you visit the SoS website, situate AG and when that page comes up go to the Map. Click on any of the counties to see the margins between the 2 candidates. Harris’ lead has got to shrink. Revisit this afternoon around 4:00 for the next update.

      • 46. Kathleen  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:40 pm

        I’m doing vote count monitoring for the Dems in Los Angeles County. Yes, counting is still going on.

  • 50. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    Can the proponents pop my happy bubble now and ask the supreme court to stop the televised ruling?

    • 51. Trish  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:12 pm

      LLB, any decision of a court could be appealed. I would expect that the proponents of 8 will appeal because they don’t want the public to know the truth.

      • 52. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:15 pm

        I wonder what they would appeal with since there is no testimony. People are lining up to board this bus…so they can’t claim they might be victims of harassment, since it’s their choice…or can they?

  • 53. Jeff Tabaco  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    Another clerk order filed today, which may be of interest to us locals: “KGO-TV applied to televise live and videotape for later broadcast the case captioned above, scheduled to be heard in San Francisco, on December 6, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. KGO-TV’s request to televise live and videotape for later broadcast is GRANTED.”

    KGO is San Francisco ABC-affiliate channel 7.

    • 54. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  November 18, 2010 at 6:18 am


  • 55. Alan E.  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    Hey Rick Jacobs. I know you’ll be there on Dec. 6. Do you think you can figure out a way to save us P8TTers some seats? I can’t wait!

  • 56. Ann S.  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    My brother and BIL will be at the rally/vigil. They suggested lining up for seats by around 8 a.m. This could interfere with the rally, alas.

    • 57. Tomato  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:34 pm

      My wife and I will be at the vigil. We are working on the Unitarian church contingent. Not sure at the moment how many clergy will be able to come, nor how many will wear their clerical robes. There will be members from more than one church, we do know that.

      Anyone belonging to a church, please encourage the congregation to be present, and ask your minister/pastor/rabbi/imam/spiritual leader to come in full regalia!

      Email or call them NOW. Do not wait for Sunday service!

  • 58. Lovin It  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    This is a beautiful thing!

  • 59. blademaiden  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    Poking my head out of the woodwork to note that I think this will be streamed live online? According to Wiki:

    “All of C-SPAN’s live feeds are streamed free of charge on its World Wide Web site in both Real Media, Windows Media and Flash Video formats”

    I don’t have even basic cable tv, so hopefully this is true!

    • 60. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:12 pm

      Yes it is streamed live on their website. That’s where most of us watched the DADT votes in the senate.

    • 61. Michael Herman  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:39 pm

      You’re not the only one without TV. I don’t even OWN a television set!

      • 62. DK  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:22 pm

        I have an HD-TV but it has no tuner. So it’s only good for DVDs…and I have finally got to “8” in my netflix queue! Guess I’ll be glued to CSPAN’s webcast.

        (who gets to go to Richard’s and BZ’s wedding tomorrow!)

    • 63. B&E  |  November 18, 2010 at 8:24 am

      Would the tech savy folks at be able to provide an embed link to the live feed from C-Span on this site? Much easier to make this the gateway for the community than have to dig around the C-Span site for the feed.

  • 64. Kathlene  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    The revolution will be televised.

  • 66. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    Only 19 sleeps…it’s gonna go by so slow!

    • 67. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:16 pm


  • 68. Carol  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    Yeah! The courts are for the people!

    I think C-Span also has YouTube channels, so one way or another, we’ll get to hear and see it. The court has already announced that the audio of the argument will be available online the following day on the court’s website.

  • 69. Tyler  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    I’m thinking the 9th Circuit will issue its decision on the standing issue first, and let appeals be exhausted on that before they release the decision on the constitutional merits, that is, IF the proponents are found to have standing at ALL.

  • 70. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    Has anyone SCRIBD the Plaintiffs-Appellees’ objection to the allocation of time yet? Just wondering what is says.

    • 71. Anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:49 pm

      The ever punctual and lovely Kathleen has done that very thing, some few posts below this one.

    • 72. Kathleen  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:41 pm

      Sorry to be late on the draw, folks. Was doing a shift of monitoring vote count today.

      • 73. anonygrl  |  November 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

        Not at all! You did good! And continue to do good! And we love you! And you ROCK on that vote counting!!!

  • 74. James A Tuttle  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    This is excellent news. I notice span has a stream on their website… Is that available live… Like without cable I can watch the trial live on the Internet?? Is that a dumb question?

    • 75. Jeff Tabaco  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:42 pm

      Yes to your first question, and no to your second. :)

  • 76. Russell  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    KRAP, now thanksgiving next will be an anti-climax next to this good news. :-)

    • 77. Russell  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:02 pm

      mean to say, thanksgiving next week will be an anti-climax.

  • 78. Kathleen  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    Been away (vote count monitoring), so don’t know if the orders have been posted yet. Here they are.

    C-Span granted permission to televise

    KGO-TV granted permission to televise and record for later broadcast:

  • 79. Kathleen  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:11 pm

    Also in, a letter from Plaintiffs, objecting to the allocation of time for oral arguments. Haven’t read it yet (have to write a report first, then will get back to this)

    • 80. Anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:42 pm

      Very reasonable letter explaining that the proposed schedule gives Imperial County a full 1/4 of the total allotted time on the schedule, when they are not even currently part of the case, and requests that they be either cut back substantially or addressed separately. It also says that San Francisco does not need nor want a full 15 minutes to present their info, they only want 5, and the Proponents, who are the ones who brought this important Constitutional case before the courts, should really be given more time to speak.

      • 81. Tomato  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:41 pm

        I love San Francisco. “Here, take 10 of our minutes, you need to be heard.”

        (ok, I’m anthropomorphizing…)

        BTW – I get weak at the knees when anyone uses “nor” properly. Thank you, thank you!

      • 82. Kathleen  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:46 pm

        Anonygrl means “Plaintiffs” (not Proponents) , in the that last sentence. :)

        • 83. anonygrl  |  November 18, 2010 at 9:38 am

          Darn it! After getting “nor” compliments too.


  • 84. DaveP  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    Wheeee!! This is AWESOME!! I’m gonna take the day off for this. If I can find a public place that is airing it like a nice big coffee house in the Castro I’ll be there, and if not, I’ll be at home with the TV cranked up to maximum volume as I dance around the apartment grinning and pointing at the TV while shouting “Yeah!! This!! THIS!! Yeah, What HE said!!”

    And of course, even better than the fact that we all get to enjoy the event, is the fact that huge numbers of people in the general public will finally get to hear the breath-of-fresh-air logic of Boise and Olsen decimating the senseless rhetoric and shameful bigotry of NOM and the Prop H8 supporters. Finally !!!

    Oh yeah BTW Argentina and Uruguay were great! I got to march in the Buenos Aires Gay Pride Parade, which ended in front of the Congress building. This is the same spot where they announced that Argentina had legalized SSM a few months ago. At the end of the Pride march, they showed videos of that night again on some giant projections screens and the crowd went crazy all over again, just like the night when it was first announced.

    I’ve been to a lot of Pride parades in SF and L.A. but I gotta say that Buenos Aires is waaaay better. There’s no real distinction between the parade participants and the onlookers – EVERYONE was dancing down the street like a huge moving Mardi Gras party. Highly recommended.

    • 85. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:27 pm

      Wow DaveP! Your trip report gave me goosebumps! FABULOUS!

    • 86. Tomato  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:52 pm

      DaveP – instead of being at home watching the TV, would you consider joining us at a rally/vigil in front of the courthouse? We’ll likely be starting around 8:00 a.m.

      If you can get to a coffee shop showing it in the Castro, please do (and post a report for us all!)

      • 87. DaveP  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:57 pm

        Oh! I had not heard about this. Sounds great! But do you know if we will be able to watch the proceedings from there?

        • 88. Tomato  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:09 pm

          Not that I know of. Someone else might know better than I. I do expect that anyone with a mobile device capable of getting the broadcast will bring it!

          • 89. DaveP  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:24 pm

            That would be perfect! If anyone can make that happen, please post here, OK? I hope we don’t have to choose between being there at the courthouse and being somewhere else so we can watch it. I want both!

          • 90. MJFargo  |  November 18, 2010 at 9:27 am

            Civic Center is about a block away and they’ve had large TV screens for various events. Maybe some organization could offer that (I don’t live in SF anymore, so I don’t know who to contact).

    • 91. Jeff Tabaco  |  November 18, 2010 at 3:39 pm

      My partner and I may go to the courthouse to rally outside with others that morning, but here’s a short blurb on the SF Weekly blog about Prop 8 viewing parties:

      Rebecca Rolfe, the executive director of the LGBT Center on Market Street, says that if several hundred people want to walk in at 10 a.m. on a Monday, they could be accommodated.

      “If folks are interested, I’m happy to look at opening the center for a viewing party,” she says.

      Those hoping to take in the hearing in a bar may be less welcome. Bartender Derek Phillips at Harvey’s on Castro notes that 10 a.m. may be a prime hour for jurisprudence, but not for commerce. His bar opens at 11. “If people come in here, we’ll have it on,” he says. “But I wouldn’t expect a crowd specifically for that.”

      Meanwhile, The Mix is open for business at 6 a.m. — and early morning tipplers may demand their dose of Court TV.

      “I’m sure as the day gets closer after Thanksgiving, there’ll be more buzz,” said bartender Sloane Sandy. “We open at 6 and people will be here anyway. There’s going to be some competition between the Food Network and C-SPAN.”

    • 92. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  November 19, 2010 at 3:37 pm

      Welcome back, DaveP. Looking forward to hearing more about your trip. Glad you had such a great time.

      Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 93. Bill  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    I think Pugno just pooped in his pants a little bit.

  • 94. Jenny  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    Awesome! Best part is, I’ll probably have that day off work so I can watch it live. So glad to hear this!

    • 95. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:28 pm

      thinking I need to take the day off……

    • 96. Lora  |  November 17, 2010 at 10:22 pm

      It’s my day off too! Perfect!

      • 97. Tomato  |  November 17, 2010 at 11:05 pm

        My boss has been deeply educated about the whole marriage equality thang, courtesy of yours truly. I had no problem getting the day off. My boss is great!

  • 98. Anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    I have a question. Is it two hours and goodbye get out of here, or can the judges keep them longer for questioning if they choose?

    • 99. DaveP  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:00 pm

      I just had a mental image of Montgomery Burns as the judge: “Thank you all for coming. Now, goodbye. Smithers, release the hounds.”

      • 100. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 18, 2010 at 7:02 am

        Poor, trod-upon Smithers!

  • 101. JennyLovesMarlene  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! hoot hoot! (doin’ a dance all over the house now!) :) and telling everybody!

  • 102. Tomato  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    Anyone available Dec 6, please consider joining us outside the courthouse!

    There are several people organizing within their various spheres of influence, intending to converge around 8:00 a.m. as folks begin lining up to get into the hearing.

    Invite your clergy, your neighbors, your friends! Don’t be shy! Come alone, come in groups, just BE THERE.

  • 103. John S  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    I never cease to be amazed how important this is to us.
    Something that others with this rite were borne with and take so lightly.

    I am so sad for those who wished for this day to validate their love for their life partner all their lives, but just didn’t live long enough to see it happen.

    When you watch the show Border Wars and see the people who travel by any means and risk life walking through hot deserts, and choose to die trying to get here rather then living under their present conditions.
    Again, those of us that were borne here haven’t a clue how lucky we are.

    We have waited and fought so long and hard I hope when final victory comes for Calif (my home state) then eventually for all Americans, our Gay brothers and sisters.will never allow this rite to be tarnished with the shameful devoice rates realized by our hetero counter parts.

    I know we are better than that, and that’s what “they” are afraid of.

  • 104. Aaron  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    what is the likelihood the Sup Ct will tell them they can’t televise? how is this court’s order different from Walker’s???

    • 105. Steven  |  November 17, 2010 at 11:19 pm

      i think its unlikely because 9th Circuit of Appeals have been broadcasting some of their cases over 15 years.. they always have an audio recording of the oral arguments..

  • 106. Daily Outline: November 17, 2010  |  November 17, 2010 at 11:35 pm

    […] was announced this evening that the Prop. 8 hearings in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will be televised live on C-SPAN […]

  • […] C-SPAN will serve as the pool-feed for all media organizations that submit an application. BREAKING: 9th Circuit Prop 8 hearing will be televised LIVE on C-SPAN [Prop 8 Trial […]

  • 108. Danny  |  November 18, 2010 at 12:12 am

    I just moved to the SF Bay area and I think it would be awesome to watch the hearings in person. Does anyone know if that’s possible and how to do it? Do I need a reservation or an application to be in the audience?


    • 109. mattymatt  |  November 18, 2010 at 1:27 am

      It would be awesome if there was a venue in the Castro that aired the proceedings live. Harvey’s, maybe? Or Twin Peaks?

      • 110. MJFargo  |  November 18, 2010 at 9:34 am

        I suspect both would be too small. They’d need to close down the street and put up giant screens.

    • 111. Alan E.  |  November 18, 2010 at 5:17 pm

      Danny, just show up! You will probably have to wait in a line, and hopefully they open up extra space if they have it. starting at 7:30am, there will be a gathering at the 9th Circuit courthouse in SF. Look for the redhead in white (if Molly decides to wear white, which I highly doubt she won’t)

      • 112. Ann S.  |  November 18, 2010 at 5:29 pm

        Here is a link to a news story with a picture of Molly McKay. My BIL is in the lavender shirt looking at her phone over her left shoulder, and my brother is to BIL’s left, with the dark hair.


        • 113. Jeff Tabaco  |  November 18, 2010 at 5:36 pm

          John and Stuart? We love them! They’re such an inspiration. I first got to know them when they encouraged my partner and me to tell our story (i.e., wanting to get married) to the media last August during the stay decisions. We ended up on the news several times. ;-)

          • 114. Ann S.  |  November 18, 2010 at 6:08 pm

            Yes! Stuart is my brother, and John is his husband of course. Good for you for telling your story to the media!

  • 115. Ray in MA  |  November 18, 2010 at 5:19 am

    Anyone consider that the decision open up to the public was impacted by the Iowa judge retention?

    Was it actually a wake up call for the Judiciary Branch to be more transparent?

    • 116. Kathleen  |  November 18, 2010 at 5:25 am

      I don’t think that had any impact here. First of all, these are federal judges, not subject to retention votes. Secondly, the 9th Circuit has been in the forefront of televising proceedings and has been doing so for a while. Also, if you recall, it was this Court that approved the televising of the trial in Walker’s court (a decision which was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court).

      • 117. Justin  |  November 18, 2010 at 7:38 am

        Kathleen, your last statement is why I’m hesitant to celebrate just yet. Can’t the bigots just petition to the Supreme Court like they did before?

        • 118. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 18, 2010 at 7:57 am

          I am not sure. But, I think we know how Justice Kagan would vote:

          During her confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan says in response to a question from Sen. Kohl: “I have said that I think it would be a terrific thing to have cameras in the courtroom … I think it would be a great thing for the institution, and more important, I think it would be a great thing for the American people.

          The above can be read in the link below. 6/29/10.

          • 119. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 18, 2010 at 7:58 am

            Part of what I was writing didn’t show. The link is C-SPANs efforts to get the Supreme Court’s oral arguments televised.

          • 120. MJFargo  |  November 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

            (Would she also have to recuse herself for making that statement….)

          • 121. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 18, 2010 at 9:40 am

            lol You know that the proponents would make that argument, but then ALL Justices would have to recuse themselves.


          • 122. anonygrl  |  November 18, 2010 at 9:44 am

            No, she would not have to recuse herself for making a statement. She only recused herself from a case where she was an active participant prior to her move to the Supreme Court, which makes sense. But in the case where she was asked how she would rule, that is merely expressing an opinion, not having any vested interest in the case.

          • 123. anonygrl  |  November 18, 2010 at 9:45 am

            LOL OK.. you were being silly and I was giving real answers. Work tends to fry my sense of humor… sorry.

          • 124. Kathleen  |  November 18, 2010 at 11:17 am

            C-SPAN doesn’t get nearly enough recognition for what it has done, and continues to do, to make the workings of all branches of government accessible to the public.

        • 125. MJFargo  |  November 18, 2010 at 11:38 am

          (Yes, I was being silly…I’m positively giddy about the telecast!)

        • 126. Carol  |  November 18, 2010 at 1:49 pm

          My understanding of the rationale for the SCt’s reversing Judge Walker’s order to televise the trial was to protect witnesses from harassment. (And then proponents didn’t call them anyway, for which the Supremes might rightly feel they were had.) Since there will be no witnesses at the oral argument and any recordings made by Judge Walker will have no role, I don’t see the Supremes concerning themselves with the court-ordered broadcast, particularly since the 9th Circuit announced months ago without objection that it will make the audio available on its own website.

          • 127. MJFargo  |  November 18, 2010 at 3:28 pm

            I think it will be interesting to see how any objection by the Proponents on televising the hearing will play out. And if the SCOTUS gets involved what rationale they’d put forth for interferring with the telecast. Either way, it’ll be revealing.

          • 128. Chris B  |  November 21, 2010 at 4:09 pm

            In retrospect, I wonder if SCOTUS’s decision actually helped the original trial appear more fair, so that the proponent’s couldn’t claim intimidation/fear-of-harrassment at a later date.

            If it had been televised, the proponents might have been able to argue that their witnesses were intimidated from testifying and there should be a new trial. There would also be that cloud hanging over it because the supporters could say “our best witnesses were frightened away by the gays…”. But the fact that the witnesses had nothing to fear gave the proponents the opportunity to present their best case, but they still failed miserably.

          • 129. Ann S.  |  November 21, 2010 at 6:27 pm

            Chris, they still claim this, although the trial was not televised — but it was taped.

  • 130. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 18, 2010 at 7:29 am


    Nuns blast bishops over gay teen suicide

    An organization of American Catholic nuns has denounced the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for reiterating its opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage at its annual meeting in Baltimore this week while remaining silent on anti-gay bullying and gay teen suicide.

    …“The National Coalition of Catholic Nuns calls on all U.S. Catholics to rise up and say, ‘Enough, enough!” says the nuns’ statement. “No more discriminatory rhetoric and repressive measures from men who lay heavy burdens on the shoulders of others and do not lift one finger of human kindness and compassion,” it says “We all need to work for a holy and just society and church.”

    Full Article:

    • 131. Tomato  |  November 18, 2010 at 7:52 am


      Rockin’ nuns!

    • 132. rocketeer500  |  November 18, 2010 at 8:45 am

      Way to go Nuns!! I never thought I’d see the day that I would be rooting for Nuns.

      • 133. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 18, 2010 at 8:47 am

        I think they have more interaction with everyday people than the Bishops.

    • 134. MJFargo  |  November 18, 2010 at 9:37 am

      I’m speechless…

    • 135. CaliGirl  |  November 18, 2010 at 5:17 pm

      :DDD Nice

    • 136. Josh  |  November 19, 2010 at 6:55 pm

      Yay to the nuns!!

      What they say is directly from the words of Jesus as spoken in Matthew 23. Here are some choice quotes from that chapter.
      …do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach
      …they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues

      This one seems especially fitting for the NOM-types:
      verse 15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.”

      …But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.

      Luke 11:52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

      This is exactly what the cino people/churches are doing and have been doing. People, like me, who were raised in the church are driven away, but some of us will find new faith outside the tainted church.

  • 137. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 18, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Here is a list of public statements through the years from the SC Justices on their views of cameras in the court. Very telling.

  • 138. Justin  |  November 18, 2010 at 8:54 am

    OT, but I just found this very interesting article on Yahoo! News.

    When asked what constitutes a family, the vast majority of Americans agree that a married couple, with or without children, fits that description. But four of five surveyed pointed also to an unmarried, opposite-sex couple with children or a single parent. Three of 5 people said a same-sex couple with children was a family.
    “Marriage is still very important in this country, but it doesn’t dominate family life like it used to,” said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. “Now there are several ways to have a successful family life, and more people accept them.”

    Maggie and Brian would p!ss themselves if they read that.

  • 139. Don in Texas  |  November 18, 2010 at 9:29 am

    A story this morning on CNN indicated that “traditional” marriage may be on the way out. Only 50% of people today are married. There is a substantial number of survey respondents who do not consider marriage to be essential to long-term relationships or parenthood.

    Something to think about.

    • 140. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  November 19, 2010 at 3:45 pm

      Ah, this is why they keep using the children. Even unmarried, heterosexual couples with children and single parents buy into the “protect the children” rhetoric. NOM knows how to make that emotional appeal which has nothing to do with logic and reality.

      Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 141. Wren  |  November 18, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Ironic that we’re fighting to be part of a dying institution. Of course I understand the underlying rationale: equal rights and equal access to every legal protection and institution is our right. But why anyone would want to buy in to the antiquated ritual of marriage, be they straight, or LGBT, is beyond me.

    • 142. elliom  |  November 18, 2010 at 10:09 am

      One word…benefits.

  • 143. Chris From CO  |  November 18, 2010 at 10:16 am

    Yay. I dont know much about how fast the decision will happen but my partner and I want to be there when it does we live 12 hours away. Can someone help me with a time line. We want to be in town when the 9th circuit agrees with judge Walker. : )

    • 144. Kathleen  |  November 18, 2010 at 11:55 am

      There’s no assurance that the 9th Circuit will announce ahead of time when to expect its decision. We may see media outlets requesting advance warning, as they did in the trial, but we’ll have to wait and see.

      As an aside to Elizabeth Oakes, if you’re reading. At least now I know exactly where to go to celebrate weddings in Norwalk, as I’ve been there many days for vote monitoring!

      • 145. Ann S.  |  November 18, 2010 at 11:59 am

        My guess is that we’ll have 24-48 hours’ notice. They are likely to give the City of SF advance notice as a courtesy, due to possible security issues. But this is only a guess.

        • 146. Kathleen  |  November 18, 2010 at 6:26 pm

          Good point. Hadn’t really thought about that.

          • 147. Ann S.  |  November 18, 2010 at 6:32 pm

            I seem to remember it worked this way with Judge Walker’s decision.

          • 148. Kathleen  |  November 18, 2010 at 6:35 pm

            There were official requests – from media and even the parties – for advance notice. I remember the letters going on the docket.

          • 149. Ann S.  |  November 18, 2010 at 6:37 pm

            That’s another good point.

  • 150. Alyson  |  November 18, 2010 at 10:45 am

    Any trackers as obsessed as I am that would like to watch this together in northern cal (near Oroville)? I can’t subscribe to comments from here so I’ll have to check back here to even see who is local to me.

  • 151. edwords  |  November 18, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    a vigil? a “prayer” vigil? with clergymen? Oh,please!

  • 154. Carpool Cookie  |  November 18, 2010 at 1:14 pm


    This will definitely make the holiday season cheerier this year!

    Sorry I haven’t been checking in much…busy with work as the year rolls to a close : )

    • 155. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  November 22, 2010 at 6:27 am

      always appreciate your posts CC : )

  • 156. Erik  |  November 18, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    In what I consider an appropriate bit of irony, I will be taking my Constitutional Law final at that time. Hopefully it’ll appear on the Internet so I can watch it later.

    • 157. Ann S.  |  November 18, 2010 at 1:32 pm

      Good luck on the final!

    • 158. Kathleen  |  November 18, 2010 at 5:26 pm

      Best of luck on the final!

  • 159. Chris From CO  |  November 18, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Thank you ladies. Im very excited I truley believe that the 9th circuit has made up their minds they knew it was coming and so does the supreme court. They have had years to think about the issue, and when it is properly argued in the court it is going to be another good day for us. Im very optimistic. Two times now the courts agreed to televise this and it was turned down once but I think the courts know it is necessary for the public to see this so when their rule on it, their opinion would be understood better. Still happy :)

  • 160. Alex  |  November 19, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    Current California Attorney General count!:

    Kamala D. Harris (Dem) 4,291,854
    Steve Cooley (Rep) 4,248,804

  • 161. Tomato  |  November 19, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    Marriage Equality USA’s vigil starts at 7:30 a.m. In one of their email blasts, they say they’ll be providing coffee….

    • 162. Kathleen  |  November 19, 2010 at 8:20 pm

      Their arguments schedule is off – they haven’t allowed for the fact that there will be a “brief recess” between the first and second hours. Also, Plaintiffs have objected to the time allotment, so I suspect there will be some tweaking still.

  • 163. Richard A. Jernigan  |  November 20, 2010 at 10:33 am

    Rabbi and Rebbitizen Jernigan will be watching, and if I can do it, I will download it to my computer as it is streaming live, and will then burn myself a DVD of it for posterity. Now to get back to work on our wedding DVD from Thursday evening. Thanks everybody for all of the lovely heartfelt comments. And thanks to DK for representing our P8TT family at the wedding.

    • 164. Rhie  |  November 25, 2010 at 11:32 pm


      Oh and C-Span keeps video records of just about everything so you can just burn their copy – no streaming download needed :)

      And – Congrats again!

  • 165. Tomato  |  November 21, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    Yay! Vigil participants can walk over to the Center to watch the proceedings, then walk back to the courthouse for the media-fest afterwards!

    Cut-n-Paste from


    Center to Host Prop 8 Appeals Viewing
    The San Francisco LGBT Community Center will be hosting a viewing of the oral arguments in Perry v Schwarzenegger, the appellate review of Judge Walker’s federal trial court ruling that found Prop 8 unconstitutional. The two-hour hearing before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will be carried in real-time on C-SPAN and other broadcast outlets starting at 10 am. The Center will be opening its first floor lobby at 9:45 am on Monday, December 6, 2010. Coffee and morning pastries provided. RSVP on Facebook.

    • 166. Kathleen  |  November 21, 2010 at 9:12 pm


  • 167. Dave in ME  |  November 23, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    I just received this in an email: Docket Text:
    Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:PA): KRON TV- Channel 4 News applied to televise live the case captioned above, scheduld to be heard in San Francisco, on December 6, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. KRON TV-Channel 4 News’ request to televise live is GRANTED. [7555471] [10-16696, 10-16751] (PA)

    Dave in Maine


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.


TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,319 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...