New York Times Editorial: Discrimination on Trial, but Not on TV

New York Times Editorial: Discrimination on Trial, but Not on TV
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: January 14, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/opinion/14thu3.html?th&emc=th


The trial that started on Monday in San Francisco over the constitutionality of California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage could have been a moment for the entire nation to witness a calm, deliberative debate on a vitally important issue in the era of instant communications. Instead, the United States Supreme Court made it a sad example of the quashing of public discourse by blocking the televising of the nonjury trial.

The court blocked the public broadcasting of the proceedings by its familiar 5-to-4 split. In a vigorous dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer correctly objected to the court’s highly unusual intervention. He concluded, “The public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts.”

The antipathy of some justices to televising Supreme Court arguments is as well known as it is wrongheaded. But the court’s stance against allowing unobtrusive C-Spanlike coverage of its own proceedings should not foreclose public viewing of this case.

There have been claims that televising the courtroom proceeding would somehow be unfair to defenders of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage. They are hazy and unsubstantiated and vastly outweighed by the strong public interest in the airing of a major civil-rights issue. But the Supreme Court’s majority bought the false argument.

Over the next three weeks or so, the trial will test whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. The trial already has featured emotionally charged testimony about the marriage ban. It is a chance for close cross-examination of opponents’ bogus claims that permitting same-sex couples to wed would harm heterosexual marriage.

No matter how the trial turns out, the verdict is unlikely to be the final word. There are destined to be appeals, and the Supreme Court may well have the final say. There is considerable anxiety among supporters of same-sex marriage that the case may reach the Supreme Court too soon, while public opinion on same-sex marriage is evolving.

Those fears are understandable. But there is a strong legal case that California voters trespassed on the Constitution when they approved Proposition 8. The courtroom battle now unfolding bears close watching, and the Supreme Court should not stand in the way of Americans viewing it and reaching educated judgments.