In an unsigned opinion Wednesday, the court criticized [Judge] Walker for attempting to change the rules “at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials.”

While the court set no time limit in its ruling, any further proceedings at high court likely would come after the trial was over.

The four justices in dissent were Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and John Paul Stevens.

At this time it is still unclear if the trial proceedings will be posted on YouTube as that was not addressed in today’s decision.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights which is leading the challenge against Proposition 8 released the following statement:

“Proposition 8 attacks the core of what our nation stands for — that all of us are entitled to equal protection under the law and equal treatment from the government. A trial on constitutional rights should be accessible to as many people as possible,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “Given the powerful evidence against Prop. 8 presented in court today, we are not surprised the initiative’s defenders sought to keep this trial as private as possible.”

Not surprisingly the ruling broke cleanly along idealogical lines and fear it doesn’t bode well for when the case ultimately reaches the Supreme Court.

The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue. It said that Monday’s order will be in place at least until Wednesday.

Opponents of the broadcast say they fear witness testimony might be affected if cameras are present.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed cameras while the court considers the matter.

Acting less than two hours before the trial’s scheduled start, the justices said they also would not permit real-time streaming that would have allowed the trial to be seen in other federal courthouses.

Hopefully this is only a temporary setback, and ultimately the cameras are allowed to bear witness to who these people really are. Nothing like a little light to make the roaches scurry for the dark corners.

As Chad Griffin tells it, the idea for filing a federal challenge to Prop. 8 took shape ten days after it passed with 52 percent of the vote. Griffin and Kristina Schake, his business partner in the Los Angeles communications firm Griffin/Schake, had joined director Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, for lunch at the Polo Lounge in the Beverly Hills Hotel. Griffin had produced three television ads and raised money for the “No on 8″ campaign; the Reiners were contributors, as well as Griffin’s longtime clients. The four discussed the failed campaign and other election results.

After Griffin left, an acquaintance of the Reiners, Kate Moulene, stopped by and learned that they had discussed Prop. 8. Moulene later phoned Michele Reiner to suggest they talk to her former brother-in-law, Ted Olson, because, she said, he supported gay marriage. Though Olson has a long history as a prominent Republican lawyer—he served in both the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations—his leanings tend to be more libertarian than socially conservative.

The Reiners phoned Griffin about contacting Olson. “I would have been crazy not to talk to him if it were true that such a prominent conservative and legal scholar was on our side,” Griffin says.

Because Olson’s involvement would be major news, secrecy was imperative. On November 21, a week after the Polo Lounge lunch, Griffin met Olson at Gibson Dunn’s Washington, D.C., office. There, Olson declared his interest in taking a case challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8.

It was “terribly unfortunate” that Prop. 8 passed, Olson said, particularly because “Californians have always been in the forefront of liberty and individualism.” His own support for gay marriage, he said, dates back more than a decade.

The article goes on to detail much of the friction and the mending of fences between gay groups and those litigating the case.

Though spurned by the court, the LGBT legal groups chose to cooperate with the Perry team. They have provided background material that includes expert witnesses who had been used in other cases, and briefs from gay-rights litigation. “We are interested in doing whatever we can to make sure their case is as successful as possible,” says James Esseks, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBT Project. “And we wish the plaintiffs’ legal team the best. We know they’re doing everything they can to put together a great case.”

But does he support the litigation? “What I’d say is: We think they’ve got it right about the law,” Esseks replied. “We think that Prop. 8 violates the federal Constitution. We think that is crystal clear.”

The LGBT legal groups also agree that Olson’s involvement is a significant and positive development. Kendell says, “Seeing this person, who was a star of the conservative right, speaking out for the rights of LGBT couples to marry really did feel like, ‘Gosh, this really could help change people’s hearts and minds.’ ” In one of her early conference calls to discuss the complaint, Kendell jokingly named Olson an “honorary lesbian.”

It’s a long, but fascinating read. And definitely worth the time.

About 30 lawyers crowded into a San Francisco courtroom hearing the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban, a high-risk venture that will set court policy for years, if it reaches the U.S. Supreme court.

Ted Olson, the lawyer whose Supreme Court arguments put President George W. Bush in the White House, and David Boies, his opponent in the 2000 case, joined forces to overturn Prop. 8, arguing precedents showed they could win.

Gay rights groups had avoided federal court in favour of a state-by-state battle for fear conservative Supreme Court justices would deny their cause. A handful of U.S. states, mostly in the northeast, have allowed same-sex marriage, but the overwhelming majority forbid it.

In respectful tones, Olson told federal district Judge Vaughn Walker participation by gay groups and social conservatives would only slow the case.

Walker, clearly eager to focus and speed arguments, denied the groups’ motions but added the city and county of San Francisco to the case as a government representative. Calif. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signalled his administration will not actively join the case.

Advocacy groups against Prop 8 that were denied to the case include Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Campaign for California Families which supports Proposition 8 was also denied access to the case.

As expected, all 12 Democrats on the judiciary panel voted for Judge Sotomayor, after praising her intellect, character and inspiring personal history. But among the seven Republicans on the committee, only Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted in favor.

The committee action sends the nomination to the full Senate, where her confirmation by a comfortable margin seems to be assured. setting the stage for a full Senate vote next week.

…

Republican critics of the judge expressed displeasure with her rulings as a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as well as with some of her public comments. The rulings and comments show that she is a judge who is too “activist” and liberal and has too little commitment to the rights of gun owners, the critics complained.

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the committee’s leading Republican, said just before the vote that he was compelled to oppose the nomination because in some important cases the judge’s decisions were “unacceptably short” and showed a “liberal, pro-government ideology against the individuals asserting their constitutional rights.”

Pior to the vote, freshman Senator Al Franken (D-MN) pledged his support to Sotomayor, hoping her presence would counter the judicial activism of the Supreme Court.

“It is not a stretch to compare the San Francisco board’s actions to that of the Nazi Germany policy of Gleichschaltung, vilifying Jews as an auxiliary to and laying the groundwork for more repressive policies, including the final solution of extermination.”

Filed on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (CLRCR), the lawsuit accused a board of supervisors resolution of violating the constitutional requirement of government neutrality toward religion. The resolution which originally passed in 2006, denounced an order from the Vatican to Catholic Charities decreeing that adoptive children could not be placed with same-sex couples because it ”would actually mean doing violence to these children.” The resolution called the Vatican order “hateful and discriminatory rhetoric” and asked that local Catholic officials ignore it. They did not, and actually stopped placing adoptive children entirely.

CLRCR is headed by Bill Donohue, a rabidly anti-gay, anti-progressive Catholic apologist who regularly appears on cable news networks promulgating his views. Recently Donohue characterized an Irish report detailing abuse of children by Catholic priests and nuns as “hysterical,” even to one of its victims.

Sometimes hypocrisy is subtle, and sometimes it screams from the rooftops. Mr. Thompson, I’d suggest you and the Thomas Moore Law Center refrain from referencing Nazis and the final solution when defending the Catholic faith, particularly when considering the role the Catholic Church played in Nazi abuses during World War II. And Mr. Donohue, don’t you see the irony in defending your church against multiple cases of child abuse, while at the same time participating in a lawsuit which defends your church’s right to accuse same-sex parents of essentially the same thing? Astonishing.

This case unfortunately is far from over. The Thomas More Law Center has asked for a rehearing and will take their case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Without comment, the nation’s highest court denied a review of an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was in the Vermont National Guard when he was discharged in 2004.

“I think this decision is an absolute travesty of justice and I think every judge on this court should be ashamed of themselves,” said Pietrangelo, who served six years in the Army, seven years in the Vermont National Guard and fought in Iraq in 1991. “It’s nothing short of rubber stamping legalized discrimination.”

“The Supreme Court is not infallible, they get things wrong, and they got it wrong this time,” added Pietrangelo, who now lives in Ohio.

In court papers, the government said a Boston-based appeals court ruled correctly when it threw out Pietrangelo’s case because the policy is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council approved of the court’s actions, “Military service is a privilege, not a right, and anything that detracts from the ability of our service personnel to fulfill their mission should be prohibited.”

This is the first time a case asking to overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has ever reached the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has refused to take steps to repeal the ban despite promises made during the campaign, preferring to leave it in the hands of Congress to overturn.

Pro marriage equality groups are concerned that if the battle for same-sex marriage reaches the Supreme Court, a ruling in our favor is unlikely considering the conservative-leaning makeup of the court, possibly setting the movement back years. Others suspect that there is conspiracy at work on behalf of the Right to derail the same-sex marriage movement entirely by pushing same-sex marriage into the Supreme Court before gaining enough public support and before the Court is ready to rule favorably.

Here are few more pictures from today’s rally outside the California Supreme Court…

So tell me who… who is the divisive little @#!$ carrying the GAY = PERVERT sign in the first and last photo? While I certainly disagreed with all of the “pro” Prop 8 signs… at least they were civil and not disrespectful unlike THAT ONE.