You are here: Home » Editorials Opinions

Editorial: Prop. 8 trial should be on YouTube

By Gaveliers, The Gavel Media Team, on January 12, 2010 9:47 PM

Before the trial challenging California’s Proposition 8 began, the Supreme Court issued a temporary ban on broadcasting the proceedings on YouTube. According to the Court, the temporary ban would afford them more time to weigh the merits of allowing a full, online display of the trial. We believe that the Court should allow the trial to stream online.

Since the plaintiffs in the case seek to overturn the law that bans same-sex marriages in California, a law that was enacted through a popular referendum, it is of paramount importance to allow those constituents to see the trial. The federal circuit of the judicial branch is an unelected group that could well subvert the majority opinion of voters, something that all believers in democratic participation find tenuous. Furthermore, the campaign for and against Proposition 8 was passionate, and the trial has the same potential to shake the hearts and minds of the American people. The divisive issue will only become more caustic if shrouded in secrecy, leading to discord, disharmony, and disunity. And think of the potential ammunition proponents of a ban on same-sex marriage would have – the image of an unelected, elitist group secretly undoing a democratically chosen law.

Though a small measure, streaming the trial on YouTube would erase any doubts of the court’s intent and allow those voters who chose the measure to feel like they are still participants in democracy. Transparency goes a long way towards having a reasonable, intellectual conversation. Many opponents of having online video of the case are also opponents of marriage equality, and they see a ban on video as a way to protect witnesses testifying against same-sex marriage from harassment or discrimination. The irony is overwhelming – protecting those who discriminate against marriage rights based on sexual orientation but failing to protect the right of every person to have the law recognize their love.

The issue of transparency comes at a key time for government, especially when President Barack Obama has reneged on many of his campaign promises of openness. Most saliently, Obama said Americans would be able to watch the House and Senate negotiate differences in the healthcare overhaul bills on CSPAN, but Congressmen are conducting them in secret. He also said that there would be a five-day period before he signed any bill into law to allow for public comment on the White House Web site. This too has largely gone ignored, with some bills getting two or three days, and most getting none at all.

Discussions of the definition of marriage and how best to provide health care are two of the most provocative subjects in American politics because they are so central to the lives of citizens. To have a debate be civil, instead of incendiary, each side must explain their reasoning to the other and justify their beliefs. This is what political philosopher John Rawls called the duty of civility, which is a prerequisite to public reason. If democracy is to function, it must have dialogue, but dialogue in a vacuum of secrecy falls on deaf ears. Thus, the Supreme Court should show the Proposition 8 trial on YouTube, and we hope Obama will follow through on his pledges of openness.