window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"jbrooks": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "80",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "80",
"found": true
},
"name": "Jon Brooks",
"firstName": "Jon",
"lastName": "Brooks",
"slug": "jbrooks",
"email": "jbrooks@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"science"
],
"title": "Digital Editor",
"bio": "Jon Brooks is a former Digital Editor for KQED Science. He is the former editor of KQED’s daily news blog, News Fix. In 2014, he won a California Journalism Award for his coverage of ride services like Uber and Lyft and the taxi industry. A veteran blogger, he previously worked for Yahoo! in various news writing and editing roles. Jon is also a playwright whose work has been produced in San Francisco, New York, Italy, and around the U.S. He has written about film for his own blog and studied film at Boston University.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "jbrooksfoy",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"Contributor",
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "mindshift",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Jon Brooks | KQED",
"description": "Digital Editor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/jbrooks"
},
"kqednewsstaffandwires": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "237",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "237",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqednewsstaffandwires",
"email": "onlinenewsstaff@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "lowdown",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "food",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff and Wires | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqednewsstaffandwires"
},
"scottshafer": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "255",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "255",
"found": true
},
"name": "Scott Shafer",
"firstName": "Scott",
"lastName": "Shafer",
"slug": "scottshafer",
"email": "sshafer@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Scott Shafer is a senior editor with the KQED Politics and Government desk. He is co-host of Political Breakdown, the award-winning radio show and podcast with a personal take on the world of politics. Scott came to KQED in 1998 to host the statewide\u003cem> California Report\u003c/em>. Prior to that he had extended stints in politics and government\u003cem>.\u003c/em> He uses that inside experience at KQED in his, reporting, hosting and analysis for the politics desk. Scott collaborated \u003cem>Political Breakdown a\u003c/em>nd on \u003cem>The Political Mind of Jerry Brown, \u003c/em>an eight-part series about the life and extraordinary political career of the former governor. For fun, he plays water polo with the San Francisco Tsunami.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "scottshafer",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Scott Shafer | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/scottshafer"
},
"belvadavis": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "1074",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "1074",
"found": true
},
"name": "Belva Davis",
"firstName": "Belva",
"lastName": "Davis",
"slug": "belvadavis",
"email": "bdavis@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cffd338540f9aaa15ecef43faf1d8e88?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Belva Davis | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cffd338540f9aaa15ecef43faf1d8e88?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cffd338540f9aaa15ecef43faf1d8e88?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/belvadavis"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_tag_proposition-8": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_126",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "126",
"score": 9.302406
},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Proposition 8",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Proposition 8 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 130,
"slug": "proposition-8",
"isLoading": false,
"title": "Proposition 8",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 8
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?tag=proposition-8",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 8
}
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad"
}
]
}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://streams.kqed.org/kqedradio",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"news_55491": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_55491",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "55491",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1328583720000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1328583720,
"format": "aside",
"title": "Ninth Circuit Decision on Prop 8 Constitutionality is Imminent",
"headTitle": "Ninth Circuit Decision on Prop 8 Constitutionality is Imminent | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/02/06/Prop8_Announce_2.pdf\">Notice from the court here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The Court anticipates filing an opinion tomorrow (Tuesday, February 7) by 10:00 a.m. in\u003cbr>\nPerry v. Brown, case numbers 10-16696 and 11-16577, regarding the constitutionality of\u003cbr>\nProposition 8 and the denial of a motion to vacate the lower court judgement in the case. A\u003cbr>\nsummary of the opinion prepared by court staff will be posted along with the opinion.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55522\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM11.jpg\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-55522\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM1\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM11-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Prop 8 plaintiffs pose before the Appeals Court hearing in Dec, 2010. (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The court is ruling on an appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s now-famous August, 2010 decision to overturn California’s same-sex marriage ban because it violated the \u003ca href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection\">Equal Protection Clause\u003c/a> of the U.S. Constitution. (\u003ca href=\"http://www.scribd.com/goodasyou/d/35374462-California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010\">Read that decision here\u003c/a>.) It will also rule on a motion by Prop 8 proponents to have the Walker decision vacated on the grounds that he should have recused himself from the case because of his own long-term, same-sex relationship. That \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/06/14/judge-denies-motion-to-vacate-walker-prop-8-ruling/\">motion failed in a lower court\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop 8 was challenged by two same-sex couples, who sued to have it overturned. That led to Judge Walker’s decision. (You can \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2010/12/03/scott-shafer-interviews-perry-of-perry-v-schwarzenegger-prop-8-case/\">listen to Scott Shafer’s interview with one of those plaintiffs, Kris Perry, here\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Should the court uphold Walker’s nullification of Prop 8, does that mean same-sex couples will now be able to get married? Highly unlikely. As the \u003ca href=\"http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_19903900\">Mercury News’ Howard Mintz reports\u003c/a>: “Legal experts predict that even if the appeals court upholds Walker and strikes down Proposition 8, the judges are likely to put their ruling on hold to give Proposition 8 defenders an opportunity to appeal further. As a result, same-sex couples are likely to have to wait still longer for the right to wed in California.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(\u003cem>Update 7:02 p.m.\u003c/em> Also from \u003ca href=\"http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_19905426?source=rss&cid=dlvr.it\">Howard Mintz\u003c/a>: “The losing side can ask the 9th Circuit to rehear the case with an 11-judge panel, a process known as en banc review. A majority of the 9th Circuit’s two dozen full-time judges must vote to rehear a case en banc, but this often occurs in high-profile cases where there is disagreement within the court. The losing side has 14 days to ask for such a rehearing. If the 9th Circuit refuses to grant the request, the next step is the U.S. Supreme Court.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/06/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\">Timeline: Same-Sex Marriage in California\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> \u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>To look at just one aspect of the constitutional merits or lack of same addressed at the Ninth Circuit hearing, check out the \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/12/06/prop-8-appeal-now-its-up-to-the-judges/\">report on KQED’s Prop 8 blog\u003c/a> by Dan Brekke, written after the December, 2010 hearing. He pulled the following \u003ca href=\"http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/12/06/flash-analysis-standing-romer-word/\">analysis\u003c/a> about the constitutional question from Brian Leubitz, publisher of the Calitics blog, who wrote for the \u003ca href=\"http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/12/06/flash-analysis-standing-romer-word/\">Prop 8 Trial Tracker\u003c/a>, a pro same-sex marriage site. Leubitz focused on an exchange between Judge N. Randy Smith and attorney Charles Cooper, representing the proponents of Proposition 8, over the significance of the word “marriage”:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Judge Smith focused a couple times on whether the State of California was in a worse position for having passed Prop 8 because it has given all of the same rights and privileges under the auspices of the domestic partnership statute. In other words, if we are only fighting over a word, and no substantive differences at the state level, aren’t we essentially creating a subclass? And roughly transcribed, here’s what [Charles] Cooper [attorney for Prop. 8 proponents] said:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cooper: The word is the institution. If you redefine the word, you change the institution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I actually think this was a big moment of the oral argument. It said that yes, the anti-equality forces were there only to “put down” gays and lesbians, or as San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart said, [from my rough notes]…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the word is the institution, then the argument is just that gays and lesbians would “stain” the institution. The fact that Prop 8 is symbolic, it makes the insult obvious. This is classification for its own sake, and it violates the equal protection clause. Taking these components together, it infers animus.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If we only passed Prop 8 to show that same-sex couples aren’t as good, or as worthy as other couples, then isn’t the equal protection argument plain to see? It reveals the naked schoolyard taunting aspect of Prop 8. Nah-nanny-boo boo, you aren’t as good as me. And frankly, nanny-boo-boo isn’t a valid use of state authority.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Brekke continued…\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Theodore Olson, representing the plaintiffs trying to overturn Prop. 8, also took note of “the word.” He started his argument with a bang, saying “this court should focus on the fundamental fact that California has engraved discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation into its fundamental governing charter.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olson stressed that the character of Proposition 8 went beyond simply prohibiting same-sex marriage because it reversed a right established by the state Supreme Court in 2008. (For you California initiative history fans, he cited a case from the 1960s, Reitman v. Mulkey, in which the state high court–affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court–struck down a state initiative that encouraged discrimination in housing sales.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Judge N. Randy Smith suggested the state might indeed have a rational basis for observing a distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex couples—a suggestion Olson rejected. The judge persisted, leading Olson to seize on Cooper’s “the word is the institution” argument:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Smith: Now just sit the question—the idea of distinguishing marriages from domestic partnerships in name only, to promote it as a vehicle for procreation, all else being equal, children likely to thrive when raised by father and mother who brought them into this world—that it is irrational?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olson: Yes. In the first place, Mr. Cooper specifically said just a few moments ago ‘the name is the institution.’ Those are his words virtually verbatim. The name is the institution, and the witnesses at this trial, the witnesses that came forward and were willing to be cross-examined and were willing to testify under oath, not the law review articles and so forth that were put forth by the proponents, but the witnesses that came forward in this case, and the plaintiffs and other witnesses in this case talked about what marriage meant to them and what it means in this society as an institution. Not just what the [California] Supreme Court said, but we had what the plaintiffs said, what the experts said, what the Supreme Court said, and what the district court found. And there’s nothing that would suggest that children would thrive in a better way in that environment. In fact, the proponents’ expert, Mr. Blankenhorn, testified that the children in those relationships [same-sex households] would be better off, that we would be a better country, that we would be closer to the American ideal, if same-sex marriage were permitted.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To review the 9th Circuit appeal further, check out Dan Brekke \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/12/06/proposition-8-appeals-hearing-live-blog/\">live-blog of the oral arguments\u003c/a> that day, while also watching this \u003ca href=\"http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/296911-1\">video replay\u003c/a> from C-SPAN.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1238,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 22
},
"modified": 1685489921,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Notice from the court here. The Court anticipates filing an opinion tomorrow (Tuesday, February 7) by 10:00 a.m. in Perry v. Brown, case numbers 10-16696 and 11-16577, regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the denial of a motion to vacate the lower court judgement in the case. A summary of the opinion prepared by",
"title": "Ninth Circuit Decision on Prop 8 Constitutionality is Imminent | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Ninth Circuit Decision on Prop 8 Constitutionality is Imminent",
"datePublished": "2012-02-06T19:02:00-08:00",
"dateModified": "2023-05-30T16:38:41-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "ninth-circuit-says-it-will-rule-tomorrow-on-prop-8-constitutionality",
"status": "publish",
"templateType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/55491/ninth-circuit-says-it-will-rule-tomorrow-on-prop-8-constitutionality",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/02/06/Prop8_Announce_2.pdf\">Notice from the court here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The Court anticipates filing an opinion tomorrow (Tuesday, February 7) by 10:00 a.m. in\u003cbr>\nPerry v. Brown, case numbers 10-16696 and 11-16577, regarding the constitutionality of\u003cbr>\nProposition 8 and the denial of a motion to vacate the lower court judgement in the case. A\u003cbr>\nsummary of the opinion prepared by court staff will be posted along with the opinion.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55522\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM11.jpg\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-55522\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM1\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM11-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Prop 8 plaintiffs pose before the Appeals Court hearing in Dec, 2010. (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The court is ruling on an appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s now-famous August, 2010 decision to overturn California’s same-sex marriage ban because it violated the \u003ca href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection\">Equal Protection Clause\u003c/a> of the U.S. Constitution. (\u003ca href=\"http://www.scribd.com/goodasyou/d/35374462-California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010\">Read that decision here\u003c/a>.) It will also rule on a motion by Prop 8 proponents to have the Walker decision vacated on the grounds that he should have recused himself from the case because of his own long-term, same-sex relationship. That \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/06/14/judge-denies-motion-to-vacate-walker-prop-8-ruling/\">motion failed in a lower court\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop 8 was challenged by two same-sex couples, who sued to have it overturned. That led to Judge Walker’s decision. (You can \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2010/12/03/scott-shafer-interviews-perry-of-perry-v-schwarzenegger-prop-8-case/\">listen to Scott Shafer’s interview with one of those plaintiffs, Kris Perry, here\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Should the court uphold Walker’s nullification of Prop 8, does that mean same-sex couples will now be able to get married? Highly unlikely. As the \u003ca href=\"http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_19903900\">Mercury News’ Howard Mintz reports\u003c/a>: “Legal experts predict that even if the appeals court upholds Walker and strikes down Proposition 8, the judges are likely to put their ruling on hold to give Proposition 8 defenders an opportunity to appeal further. As a result, same-sex couples are likely to have to wait still longer for the right to wed in California.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(\u003cem>Update 7:02 p.m.\u003c/em> Also from \u003ca href=\"http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_19905426?source=rss&cid=dlvr.it\">Howard Mintz\u003c/a>: “The losing side can ask the 9th Circuit to rehear the case with an 11-judge panel, a process known as en banc review. A majority of the 9th Circuit’s two dozen full-time judges must vote to rehear a case en banc, but this often occurs in high-profile cases where there is disagreement within the court. The losing side has 14 days to ask for such a rehearing. If the 9th Circuit refuses to grant the request, the next step is the U.S. Supreme Court.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/06/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/\">Timeline: Same-Sex Marriage in California\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> \u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>To look at just one aspect of the constitutional merits or lack of same addressed at the Ninth Circuit hearing, check out the \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/12/06/prop-8-appeal-now-its-up-to-the-judges/\">report on KQED’s Prop 8 blog\u003c/a> by Dan Brekke, written after the December, 2010 hearing. He pulled the following \u003ca href=\"http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/12/06/flash-analysis-standing-romer-word/\">analysis\u003c/a> about the constitutional question from Brian Leubitz, publisher of the Calitics blog, who wrote for the \u003ca href=\"http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2010/12/06/flash-analysis-standing-romer-word/\">Prop 8 Trial Tracker\u003c/a>, a pro same-sex marriage site. Leubitz focused on an exchange between Judge N. Randy Smith and attorney Charles Cooper, representing the proponents of Proposition 8, over the significance of the word “marriage”:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Judge Smith focused a couple times on whether the State of California was in a worse position for having passed Prop 8 because it has given all of the same rights and privileges under the auspices of the domestic partnership statute. In other words, if we are only fighting over a word, and no substantive differences at the state level, aren’t we essentially creating a subclass? And roughly transcribed, here’s what [Charles] Cooper [attorney for Prop. 8 proponents] said:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cooper: The word is the institution. If you redefine the word, you change the institution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I actually think this was a big moment of the oral argument. It said that yes, the anti-equality forces were there only to “put down” gays and lesbians, or as San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart said, [from my rough notes]…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the word is the institution, then the argument is just that gays and lesbians would “stain” the institution. The fact that Prop 8 is symbolic, it makes the insult obvious. This is classification for its own sake, and it violates the equal protection clause. Taking these components together, it infers animus.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If we only passed Prop 8 to show that same-sex couples aren’t as good, or as worthy as other couples, then isn’t the equal protection argument plain to see? It reveals the naked schoolyard taunting aspect of Prop 8. Nah-nanny-boo boo, you aren’t as good as me. And frankly, nanny-boo-boo isn’t a valid use of state authority.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Brekke continued…\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Theodore Olson, representing the plaintiffs trying to overturn Prop. 8, also took note of “the word.” He started his argument with a bang, saying “this court should focus on the fundamental fact that California has engraved discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation into its fundamental governing charter.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olson stressed that the character of Proposition 8 went beyond simply prohibiting same-sex marriage because it reversed a right established by the state Supreme Court in 2008. (For you California initiative history fans, he cited a case from the 1960s, Reitman v. Mulkey, in which the state high court–affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court–struck down a state initiative that encouraged discrimination in housing sales.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Judge N. Randy Smith suggested the state might indeed have a rational basis for observing a distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex couples—a suggestion Olson rejected. The judge persisted, leading Olson to seize on Cooper’s “the word is the institution” argument:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Smith: Now just sit the question—the idea of distinguishing marriages from domestic partnerships in name only, to promote it as a vehicle for procreation, all else being equal, children likely to thrive when raised by father and mother who brought them into this world—that it is irrational?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olson: Yes. In the first place, Mr. Cooper specifically said just a few moments ago ‘the name is the institution.’ Those are his words virtually verbatim. The name is the institution, and the witnesses at this trial, the witnesses that came forward and were willing to be cross-examined and were willing to testify under oath, not the law review articles and so forth that were put forth by the proponents, but the witnesses that came forward in this case, and the plaintiffs and other witnesses in this case talked about what marriage meant to them and what it means in this society as an institution. Not just what the [California] Supreme Court said, but we had what the plaintiffs said, what the experts said, what the Supreme Court said, and what the district court found. And there’s nothing that would suggest that children would thrive in a better way in that environment. In fact, the proponents’ expert, Mr. Blankenhorn, testified that the children in those relationships [same-sex households] would be better off, that we would be a better country, that we would be closer to the American ideal, if same-sex marriage were permitted.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To review the 9th Circuit appeal further, check out Dan Brekke \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/12/06/proposition-8-appeals-hearing-live-blog/\">live-blog of the oral arguments\u003c/a> that day, while also watching this \u003ca href=\"http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/296911-1\">video replay\u003c/a> from C-SPAN.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/55491/ninth-circuit-says-it-will-rule-tomorrow-on-prop-8-constitutionality",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_55192": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_55192",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "55192",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1328127246000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1328127246,
"format": "aside",
"title": "Prop 8 Video Decision Due Tomorrow",
"headTitle": "Prop 8 Video Decision Due Tomorrow | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>From the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The Court anticipates filing an opinion tomorrow (Thursday, February 2) by 10 a.m. regarding the public release of videotapes made of the civil bench trial in Perry v. Hollingsworth, the Proposition 8 case. Note that this is not the main appeal regarding the constitutionality question.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>This particular legal issue in the Prop 8 saga has to do with the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/04/14/video-the-cross-examination-clip-prop-8-proponents-didnt-want-vaughn-walker-to-show/\">video of the 2010 Proposition 8 trial\u003c/a>, in which Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, was unconstitutional. Prop 8 proponents want to keep the video sealed, but opponents of the ban want it released. The issue first arose after Judge Walker showed clips from the trial during an academic legal seminar. The court seemed to indicate during oral arguments that it would overturn a lower court’s ruling and keep the video sealed. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After tomorrow’s ruling, there is another ancillary issue still before the court: whether Judge Walker had a conflict of interest because he was a gay man in a long-term relationship. The court seemed very skeptical of that assertion during oral arguments. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court must also rule on the issue of standing — whether the proponents of the Prop 8 initiative have a right to defend it in court when the governor and attorney general have declined to do so. The 9th Circuit turned to California’s Supreme Court for guidance on state law concerning that rather arcane issue, and the state court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/04/14/video-the-cross-examination-clip-prop-8-proponents-didnt-want-vaughn-walker-to-show/\">issued an opinion\u003c/a> that backers of an initiative do, indeed, have standing in such a case. The federal court, however, will have to apply federal standards in making its ruling on this issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The big enchilada, of course, is whether the court will uphold Vaughn Walker’s ruling that Proposition 8 — and by extension a ban on same-sex marriage — violates the U.S. Constitution. After that ruling, either way, the case is almost surely headed to the Supreme Court. \u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 340,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 9
},
"modified": 1685489966,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "From the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The Court anticipates filing an opinion tomorrow (Thursday, February 2) by 10 a.m. regarding the public release of videotapes made of the civil bench trial in Perry v. Hollingsworth, the Proposition 8 case. Note that this is not the main appeal regarding the constitutionality question. This particular legal",
"title": "Prop 8 Video Decision Due Tomorrow | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop 8 Video Decision Due Tomorrow",
"datePublished": "2012-02-01T12:14:06-08:00",
"dateModified": "2023-05-30T16:39:26-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "prop-8-video-decision-due-tomorrow",
"status": "publish",
"templateType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/55192/prop-8-video-decision-due-tomorrow",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>From the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The Court anticipates filing an opinion tomorrow (Thursday, February 2) by 10 a.m. regarding the public release of videotapes made of the civil bench trial in Perry v. Hollingsworth, the Proposition 8 case. Note that this is not the main appeal regarding the constitutionality question.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>This particular legal issue in the Prop 8 saga has to do with the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/04/14/video-the-cross-examination-clip-prop-8-proponents-didnt-want-vaughn-walker-to-show/\">video of the 2010 Proposition 8 trial\u003c/a>, in which Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, was unconstitutional. Prop 8 proponents want to keep the video sealed, but opponents of the ban want it released. The issue first arose after Judge Walker showed clips from the trial during an academic legal seminar. The court seemed to indicate during oral arguments that it would overturn a lower court’s ruling and keep the video sealed. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After tomorrow’s ruling, there is another ancillary issue still before the court: whether Judge Walker had a conflict of interest because he was a gay man in a long-term relationship. The court seemed very skeptical of that assertion during oral arguments. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court must also rule on the issue of standing — whether the proponents of the Prop 8 initiative have a right to defend it in court when the governor and attorney general have declined to do so. The 9th Circuit turned to California’s Supreme Court for guidance on state law concerning that rather arcane issue, and the state court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/04/14/video-the-cross-examination-clip-prop-8-proponents-didnt-want-vaughn-walker-to-show/\">issued an opinion\u003c/a> that backers of an initiative do, indeed, have standing in such a case. The federal court, however, will have to apply federal standards in making its ruling on this issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The big enchilada, of course, is whether the court will uphold Vaughn Walker’s ruling that Proposition 8 — and by extension a ban on same-sex marriage — violates the U.S. Constitution. After that ruling, either way, the case is almost surely headed to the Supreme Court. \u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/55192/prop-8-video-decision-due-tomorrow",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_52690": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_52690",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "52690",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1326238294000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1326238294,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Meet the Gay Republican From California On the New Hampshire Ballot Today; Video Interview",
"title": "Meet the Gay Republican From California On the New Hampshire Ballot Today; Video Interview",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/01/fredkarger.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"alignright size-medium wp-image-52701\" title=\"fredkarger\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/01/fredkarger-193x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"193\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>Covering the New Hampshire primary for \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/\">This Week in Northern California\u003c/a>, I had hardly checked into Concord's Residence Inn when I saw \u003ca href=\"http://www.newt.org/\">Newt Gingrich\u003c/a>’s wife \u003ca href=\"http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/callista-red-portrait.JPG\">Callista\u003c/a> pass by in the hallway. There was no mistaking her blonde hair-do...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The next morning Gingrich was sharing the Inn’s free breakfast and chatting up guests as he prepared to head out for the campaign trail. As has been oft-reported, New Hampshire provides close contact with all hopefuls who choose to run in this first-in-the nation presidential primary.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The state’s population is nearly 94% white. There are so few black people here, reporters looking for a little diversity often stopped me and asked for an interview. \"I’m one of you,\" I kept telling them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Forty percent of the state’s voters are registered as “undeclared” or independents. Republicans campaigning here got the longest and loudest applause when they voiced conservative views on the right to bear arms, support for the repeal of President Obama’s health care overhaul, and opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So it’s not exactly the place you would expect to find a guy like \u003ca href=\"http://www.fredkarger.com/\">Fred Karger\u003c/a> out on the stump. Karger, a California Republican, has been proudly proclaiming he's the first gay man to run for president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Karger is no stranger to politics, serving as a political strategist to three presidents: Ford, Reagan and George HW Bush. He hopes to chalk up enough votes to qualify for a spot on the party’s televised debate schedule. Like candidates Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney, Karger has been practically living in the Granite State. He says he entered the race because he wants young gays to know they can do anything, including become president of the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>His campaign events are small. He hands out buttons and frisbees with the slogan “Fred Who?\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In his home state of California, Karger was a leader in the effort to defeat Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure banning same-sex marriage. During the campaign, he \u003ca href=\"http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/02/fred-karger-save-gay-marriage\">discovered and publicized the large amount of funding\u003c/a> for the pro-Prop 8 side provided by the Mormon Church. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>During the presidential campaign, \u003ca href=\"http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc-tv/42553306\">Karger has pointed his finger\u003c/a> at \u003ca href=\"http://www.mittromney.com/s/mitt-romney-2012\">Mitt Romney,\u003c/a> the current GOP frontrunner and a prominent Mormon, for being part of a church crusade against same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Last month, Karger joined a chorus of YouTube video producers to parody Texas Governor \u003ca href=\"http://www.rickperry.org/\">Rick Perry\u003c/a>’s campaign ad, titled \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA\">Strong\u003c/a>,\" which takes issue with gays and lesbians being able to serve in the military. Karger’s parody, \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EQso7JBg8cI\">Rick Perry Ashamed\u003c/a>,\" went viral.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In New Hampshire, Karger has been saying that \u003ca href=\"http://www.ricksantorum.com/\">Rick Santorum\u003c/a>’s anti-gay rhetoric is “turning back the clock...to a 19\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> century type of discussion...that is ripping the country apart.” That message seemed to resonate with a group of students at \u003ca href=\"http://www.nec.edu/\">New England College\u003c/a> in Concord, who over the weekend, \u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGzsHURVE7Q&feature=player_embedded\">heckled and debated\u003c/a> the former Pennsylvania senator for comparing same- sex marriage to polygamy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I caught up with Karger last week at a dinner for campaign supporters at The Puritan Backroom restaurant in Manchester, New Hampshire. Karger has spent thousands of dollars of his own money on the campaign in order to, he says, allow New Hampshire voters the chance to hear the views of “a moderate Republican.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5rSB7zWuBOw\">Watch my interview with Karger\u003c/a> below...\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rSB7zWuBOw]\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 8:14 p.m. \u003c/strong> With 84 % of the \u003ca href=\"http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/new-hampshire\">vote counted\u003c/a>, Karger has received 276 votes. Right now he trails former candidate Michele Bachmann by nine.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>You can watch Belva Davis and the San Francisco Chronicle's Carla Marinucci discuss the New Hampshire primary with KQED's Scott Shafer on last Friday's This Week in Northern California \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/watch/archive/256357/a\">here\u003c/a>. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "52690 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=52690",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/01/10/meet-the-gay-republican-from-california-who-is-on-the-new-hampshire-ballot-today/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 658,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 18
},
"modified": 1398475441,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Covering the New Hampshire primary for This Week in Northern California, I had hardly checked into Concord's Residence Inn when I saw Newt Gingrich’s wife Callista pass by in the hallway. There was no mistaking her blonde hair-do... The next morning Gingrich was sharing the Inn’s free breakfast and chatting up guests as he prepared",
"title": "Meet the Gay Republican From California On the New Hampshire Ballot Today; Video Interview | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Meet the Gay Republican From California On the New Hampshire Ballot Today; Video Interview",
"datePublished": "2012-01-10T15:31:34-08:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-25T18:24:01-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "meet-the-gay-republican-from-california-who-is-on-the-new-hampshire-ballot-today",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/52690/meet-the-gay-republican-from-california-who-is-on-the-new-hampshire-ballot-today",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/01/fredkarger.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"alignright size-medium wp-image-52701\" title=\"fredkarger\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/01/fredkarger-193x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"193\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>Covering the New Hampshire primary for \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/\">This Week in Northern California\u003c/a>, I had hardly checked into Concord's Residence Inn when I saw \u003ca href=\"http://www.newt.org/\">Newt Gingrich\u003c/a>’s wife \u003ca href=\"http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/callista-red-portrait.JPG\">Callista\u003c/a> pass by in the hallway. There was no mistaking her blonde hair-do...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The next morning Gingrich was sharing the Inn’s free breakfast and chatting up guests as he prepared to head out for the campaign trail. As has been oft-reported, New Hampshire provides close contact with all hopefuls who choose to run in this first-in-the nation presidential primary.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The state’s population is nearly 94% white. There are so few black people here, reporters looking for a little diversity often stopped me and asked for an interview. \"I’m one of you,\" I kept telling them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Forty percent of the state’s voters are registered as “undeclared” or independents. Republicans campaigning here got the longest and loudest applause when they voiced conservative views on the right to bear arms, support for the repeal of President Obama’s health care overhaul, and opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So it’s not exactly the place you would expect to find a guy like \u003ca href=\"http://www.fredkarger.com/\">Fred Karger\u003c/a> out on the stump. Karger, a California Republican, has been proudly proclaiming he's the first gay man to run for president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Karger is no stranger to politics, serving as a political strategist to three presidents: Ford, Reagan and George HW Bush. He hopes to chalk up enough votes to qualify for a spot on the party’s televised debate schedule. Like candidates Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney, Karger has been practically living in the Granite State. He says he entered the race because he wants young gays to know they can do anything, including become president of the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>His campaign events are small. He hands out buttons and frisbees with the slogan “Fred Who?\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In his home state of California, Karger was a leader in the effort to defeat Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure banning same-sex marriage. During the campaign, he \u003ca href=\"http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/02/fred-karger-save-gay-marriage\">discovered and publicized the large amount of funding\u003c/a> for the pro-Prop 8 side provided by the Mormon Church. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>During the presidential campaign, \u003ca href=\"http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc-tv/42553306\">Karger has pointed his finger\u003c/a> at \u003ca href=\"http://www.mittromney.com/s/mitt-romney-2012\">Mitt Romney,\u003c/a> the current GOP frontrunner and a prominent Mormon, for being part of a church crusade against same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Last month, Karger joined a chorus of YouTube video producers to parody Texas Governor \u003ca href=\"http://www.rickperry.org/\">Rick Perry\u003c/a>’s campaign ad, titled \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA\">Strong\u003c/a>,\" which takes issue with gays and lesbians being able to serve in the military. Karger’s parody, \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EQso7JBg8cI\">Rick Perry Ashamed\u003c/a>,\" went viral.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In New Hampshire, Karger has been saying that \u003ca href=\"http://www.ricksantorum.com/\">Rick Santorum\u003c/a>’s anti-gay rhetoric is “turning back the clock...to a 19\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> century type of discussion...that is ripping the country apart.” That message seemed to resonate with a group of students at \u003ca href=\"http://www.nec.edu/\">New England College\u003c/a> in Concord, who over the weekend, \u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGzsHURVE7Q&feature=player_embedded\">heckled and debated\u003c/a> the former Pennsylvania senator for comparing same- sex marriage to polygamy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I caught up with Karger last week at a dinner for campaign supporters at The Puritan Backroom restaurant in Manchester, New Hampshire. Karger has spent thousands of dollars of his own money on the campaign in order to, he says, allow New Hampshire voters the chance to hear the views of “a moderate Republican.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5rSB7zWuBOw\">Watch my interview with Karger\u003c/a> below...\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutube'>\n \u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutubeInside'>\n \u003ciframe\n loading='lazy'\n class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__youtubePlayer'\n type='text/html'\n src='//www.youtube.com/embed/5rSB7zWuBOw'\n title='//www.youtube.com/embed/5rSB7zWuBOw'\n allowfullscreen='true'\n style='border:0;'>\u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/span>\n \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 8:14 p.m. \u003c/strong> With 84 % of the \u003ca href=\"http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/new-hampshire\">vote counted\u003c/a>, Karger has received 276 votes. Right now he trails former candidate Michele Bachmann by nine.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>You can watch Belva Davis and the San Francisco Chronicle's Carla Marinucci discuss the New Hampshire primary with KQED's Scott Shafer on last Friday's This Week in Northern California \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/thisweek/watch/archive/256357/a\">here\u003c/a>. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/52690/meet-the-gay-republican-from-california-who-is-on-the-new-hampshire-ballot-today",
"authors": [
"1074"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_1698",
"news_1871",
"news_2213",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1697"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_50146": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_50146",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "50146",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1323911824000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1323911824,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "George Clooney Lends Star Power to Prop 8 Play",
"title": "George Clooney Lends Star Power to Prop 8 Play",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>The West Coast premiere of \"8\", the stage play written by Academy Award-winner \u003ca href=\"http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0085257/\">Dustin Lance Black \u003c/a>(\"Milk\"), will star \u003ca href=\"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=clooney&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGeorge_Clooney&ei=KTbpTs-KHainiALS_9kP&usg=AFQjCNEuSl-ez06FvbEH4OX1jLuSL-20tA\">George Clooney\u003c/a>. The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), which is funding the legal team fighting Prop. 8, announced that Clooney will perform at a March 3 staged reading scheduled at the \u003ca href=\"http://www.ebellla.com/theater/index.htm\">Wilshire Ebell Theatre\u003c/a> in Los Angeles.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_50150\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 257px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/12/514px-George_Clooney_66e%CC%80me_Festival_de_Venise_Mostra_3Alt1.jpg\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/12/514px-George_Clooney_66e%CC%80me_Festival_de_Venise_Mostra_3Alt1-257x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"514px-George_Clooney_66ème_Festival_de_Venise_(Mostra)_3Alt1\" width=\"257\" height=\"300\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-50150\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">George Clooney (Photo: Nicholas Genin, Wikipedia)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The play is based on the 2010 trial that ended with Prop. 8 being struck down (it's still the law of the land of course). The dialogue is based on the trial transcripts and interviews with the plaintiffs and their families.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>AFER didn't say specifically who Clooney would play, only that he and other actors to be named later will portray members of the legal team, plaintiffs and witnesses from both sides.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A similar performance at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre in New York City in September featured a smorgasbord of A-Listers, including Morgan Freeman, who played attorney David Boies, and John Lithgow as Ted Olson. AFER says that performance raised $1 million for the fight against Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>George Clooney is having one helluva year. His performance as a distant father suddenly presiding over a family crisis in \u003ca href=\"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033575/\">\"The Descendants\"\u003c/a> has generated plenty of Oscar buzz. He also directed and stars in \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124035/\">The Ides of March\u003c/a>.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If Clooney picks up another statue at the Feb. 26 Oscars, his appearance in \"8\" six days later should make for a very fun after-party.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "50146 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=50146",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/12/14/george-clooney-lends-star-power-to-prop-8-play/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 256,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 8
},
"modified": 1323912190,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The West Coast premiere of "8", the stage play written by Academy Award-winner Dustin Lance Black ("Milk"), will star George Clooney. The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), which is funding the legal team fighting Prop. 8, announced that Clooney will perform at a March 3 staged reading scheduled at the Wilshire Ebell Theatre in Los Angeles. The",
"title": "George Clooney Lends Star Power to Prop 8 Play | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "George Clooney Lends Star Power to Prop 8 Play",
"datePublished": "2011-12-14T17:17:04-08:00",
"dateModified": "2011-12-14T17:23:10-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "george-clooney-lends-star-power-to-prop-8-play",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/50146/george-clooney-lends-star-power-to-prop-8-play",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The West Coast premiere of \"8\", the stage play written by Academy Award-winner \u003ca href=\"http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0085257/\">Dustin Lance Black \u003c/a>(\"Milk\"), will star \u003ca href=\"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=clooney&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGeorge_Clooney&ei=KTbpTs-KHainiALS_9kP&usg=AFQjCNEuSl-ez06FvbEH4OX1jLuSL-20tA\">George Clooney\u003c/a>. The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), which is funding the legal team fighting Prop. 8, announced that Clooney will perform at a March 3 staged reading scheduled at the \u003ca href=\"http://www.ebellla.com/theater/index.htm\">Wilshire Ebell Theatre\u003c/a> in Los Angeles.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_50150\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 257px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/12/514px-George_Clooney_66e%CC%80me_Festival_de_Venise_Mostra_3Alt1.jpg\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/12/514px-George_Clooney_66e%CC%80me_Festival_de_Venise_Mostra_3Alt1-257x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"514px-George_Clooney_66ème_Festival_de_Venise_(Mostra)_3Alt1\" width=\"257\" height=\"300\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-50150\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">George Clooney (Photo: Nicholas Genin, Wikipedia)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The play is based on the 2010 trial that ended with Prop. 8 being struck down (it's still the law of the land of course). The dialogue is based on the trial transcripts and interviews with the plaintiffs and their families.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>AFER didn't say specifically who Clooney would play, only that he and other actors to be named later will portray members of the legal team, plaintiffs and witnesses from both sides.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A similar performance at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre in New York City in September featured a smorgasbord of A-Listers, including Morgan Freeman, who played attorney David Boies, and John Lithgow as Ted Olson. AFER says that performance raised $1 million for the fight against Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>George Clooney is having one helluva year. His performance as a distant father suddenly presiding over a family crisis in \u003ca href=\"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033575/\">\"The Descendants\"\u003c/a> has generated plenty of Oscar buzz. He also directed and stars in \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124035/\">The Ides of March\u003c/a>.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If Clooney picks up another statue at the Feb. 26 Oscars, his appearance in \"8\" six days later should make for a very fun after-party.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/50146/george-clooney-lends-star-power-to-prop-8-play",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_223",
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_2151",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_49390": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_49390",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "49390",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1323389443000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1323389443,
"format": "aside",
"title": "Judges Hear Arguments on Prop 8 Trial Video, Judge Vaughn Walker's Same-Sex Relationship",
"headTitle": "Judges Hear Arguments on Prop 8 Trial Video, Judge Vaughn Walker’s Same-Sex Relationship | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Friday, Dec 9\u003c/strong>: You can listen to the complete audio archive of yesterday’s hearing below:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/blogs/newsfix/Prop8Video.mp3\">\u003cstrong>Part 1: Hearing on whether to release the Prop 8 trial video\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/blogs/newsfix/prop8recusal.mp3\">\u003cstrong>Part 2: Hearing on whether Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself because of his long-term same-sex relationship\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Also, here’s \u003ca href=\"http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201112090850/a\">Scott Shafer’s report from this morning’s California Report\u003c/a>, where you’ll hear some of the highlights:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yesterday’s post\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\nToday a 9th Circuit Court panel heard oral arguments on two ancillary issues in the long-running legal battle to decide the fate of Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage: Whether to release the video from the Proposition 8 trial, in which Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional; and whether Walker had a conflict of interest because he was a gay man in a long-term relationship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 7:25 p.m.\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scott Shafer reports:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether the federal judge who struck down California’s ban on same sex marriage last year should have disclosed his long-term relationship with another man.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Judicial ethics and rules of disclosure require judges to reveal whether they have a personal interest in the outcome of a case before them. Supporters of Prop. 8 argue for that reason Judge Vaughn Walker should have disclosed he was in a long term relationship with another man — and whether he ever intended to marry him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Charles Cooper, an attorney for Protect Marriage dot com, told an Appeals Court panel Thursday that a reasonable person could conclude that Judge Walker had a conflict of interest. But several judges questioned that notion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“A married judge would never be able to hear a divorce?” asked Judge Michael Hawkins.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Arguing for opponents of Prop. 8, attorney David Boies said the disclosure standard promoted by the other side would require any minority judge to reveal whether he or she might take advantage of a pro-civil rights ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Besides the issue of disclosure, the panel took up another question — whether the Prop. 8 trial tapes be unsealed and made public.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Both of these issues will likely be settled before this same panel rules on the fundamental question — whether Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update: 5:00 p.m.\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court has adjourned for the day. Scott Shafer will file a report later this evening. Check back later tonight for a blog post, and tune in to tomorrow’s \u003ca href=\"http://www.californiareport.org/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">California Report\u003c/a> to hear his report on the proceedings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://twitter.com/#!/scottshafer\">Replay Scott Shafer’s live tweets from the courtroom\u003c/a> by clicking below\u003c/strong>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=f615dd43ac/height=550/width=470\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"470\" height=\"550\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/div>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For background, Scott Shafer \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/12/07/prop-8-9th-circuit-hears-oral-arguments-thursday-on-whether-judge-vaughn-walker-had-confict-of-interest-as-gay-man-in-long-term-relationship/\">explains\u003c/a> what was at stake today:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>1. An appeal of a \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/District_court_order-to-release-tapes.pdf\">District court order to release the Prop. 8 trial tapes\u003c/a>. Plaintiff’s attorney Theodore Olson will argue the case for releasing the digital videos. Attorney Charles Cooper will speak on behalf of overturning the lower court’s decision and keeping the tapes sealed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>2. An appeal of a \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/Motion-to-vacate.pdf\">decision rejecting efforts to have Judge Walker’s decision vacated\u003c/a> because he had a conflict of interest as a gay man in a long-term relationship. Mr. Cooper will argue for Prop. 8 proponents, while David Boies will present the oral arguments on behalf of the lower-court decision striking down the motion to vacate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Both decisions were made in the past year by federal Judge James Ware, Chief Judge of the Northern District of California. Regarding the tapes, Judge Ware wrote that unsealing and releasing them to the public was in the public interest and necessary to maintain transparency in a case of such fundamental importance. His decision is supported by a coalition of media organizations, that includes Fox News, the NY Times and KQED among others. An attorney representing that coalition will participate in Thursday’s oral arguments.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In strongly \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/Doc-797-Order-Denying-Motion-to-Vacate.pdf\">rejecting the motion to vacate\u003c/a>, Judge Ware said that were Judge Walker required to recuse himself under federal statutes, all minority judges would have to recuse themselves from any case involving civil rights, something he said Congress could not have intended in writing the recusal statute.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Neither of these issues go to the central legal merits of the constitutionality of Prop. 8. That is especially true in the video tapes question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, the oral arguments regarding Judge Walker’s obligation to recuse himself because of his status as a gay man in a same sex relationship may reveal more about where the panel is heading.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>How forcefully will the panel of judges suggest that gay and lesbian rights are of interest to all American judges who care about a society with equality under the law, not just LGBT judges? Will they draw parallels with civil rights cases and minority judges, an indication they see gay rights on par with issues like interracial marriage, segregation and racial discrimination?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It may shed some light on where the panel is ultimately heading on the issue that is central to the appeal: Whether to uphold Judge Walker’s decision striking down Prop. 8. That decision will likely come next year, but not before the panel also rules on whether Prop. 8 proponents have legal standing to file the appeal in the first case.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here you can watch the \u003ca href=\"http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Vaugh/start/1987/stop/2213\">video clip of the trial\u003c/a>, used by Walker in a legal seminar, which prompted the battle over releasing the video.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": true,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 920,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [
"http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=f615dd43ac/height=550/width=470"
],
"paragraphCount": 28
},
"modified": 1685490632,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Friday, Dec 9: You can listen to the complete audio archive of yesterday's hearing below: Part 1: Hearing on whether to release the Prop 8 trial video Part 2: Hearing on whether Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself because of his long-term same-sex relationship Also, here's Scott Shafer's report from this morning's California",
"title": "Judges Hear Arguments on Prop 8 Trial Video, Judge Vaughn Walker's Same-Sex Relationship | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Judges Hear Arguments on Prop 8 Trial Video, Judge Vaughn Walker's Same-Sex Relationship",
"datePublished": "2011-12-08T16:10:43-08:00",
"dateModified": "2023-05-30T16:50:32-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "prop-8-hearing-on-trial-video-vaughn-walkers-same-sex-relationship",
"status": "publish",
"templateType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/49390/prop-8-hearing-on-trial-video-vaughn-walkers-same-sex-relationship",
"audioUrl": "http://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/blogs/newsfix/Prop8Video.mp3",
"audioDuration": null,
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Friday, Dec 9\u003c/strong>: You can listen to the complete audio archive of yesterday’s hearing below:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/blogs/newsfix/Prop8Video.mp3\">\u003cstrong>Part 1: Hearing on whether to release the Prop 8 trial video\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/blogs/newsfix/prop8recusal.mp3\">\u003cstrong>Part 2: Hearing on whether Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself because of his long-term same-sex relationship\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Also, here’s \u003ca href=\"http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201112090850/a\">Scott Shafer’s report from this morning’s California Report\u003c/a>, where you’ll hear some of the highlights:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Yesterday’s post\u003c/strong>\u003cbr>\nToday a 9th Circuit Court panel heard oral arguments on two ancillary issues in the long-running legal battle to decide the fate of Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage: Whether to release the video from the Proposition 8 trial, in which Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional; and whether Walker had a conflict of interest because he was a gay man in a long-term relationship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 7:25 p.m.\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scott Shafer reports:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether the federal judge who struck down California’s ban on same sex marriage last year should have disclosed his long-term relationship with another man.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Judicial ethics and rules of disclosure require judges to reveal whether they have a personal interest in the outcome of a case before them. Supporters of Prop. 8 argue for that reason Judge Vaughn Walker should have disclosed he was in a long term relationship with another man — and whether he ever intended to marry him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Charles Cooper, an attorney for Protect Marriage dot com, told an Appeals Court panel Thursday that a reasonable person could conclude that Judge Walker had a conflict of interest. But several judges questioned that notion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“A married judge would never be able to hear a divorce?” asked Judge Michael Hawkins.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Arguing for opponents of Prop. 8, attorney David Boies said the disclosure standard promoted by the other side would require any minority judge to reveal whether he or she might take advantage of a pro-civil rights ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Besides the issue of disclosure, the panel took up another question — whether the Prop. 8 trial tapes be unsealed and made public.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Both of these issues will likely be settled before this same panel rules on the fundamental question — whether Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update: 5:00 p.m.\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court has adjourned for the day. Scott Shafer will file a report later this evening. Check back later tonight for a blog post, and tune in to tomorrow’s \u003ca href=\"http://www.californiareport.org/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">California Report\u003c/a> to hear his report on the proceedings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://twitter.com/#!/scottshafer\">Replay Scott Shafer’s live tweets from the courtroom\u003c/a> by clicking below\u003c/strong>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=f615dd43ac/height=550/width=470\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"470\" height=\"550\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/div>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For background, Scott Shafer \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/12/07/prop-8-9th-circuit-hears-oral-arguments-thursday-on-whether-judge-vaughn-walker-had-confict-of-interest-as-gay-man-in-long-term-relationship/\">explains\u003c/a> what was at stake today:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>1. An appeal of a \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/District_court_order-to-release-tapes.pdf\">District court order to release the Prop. 8 trial tapes\u003c/a>. Plaintiff’s attorney Theodore Olson will argue the case for releasing the digital videos. Attorney Charles Cooper will speak on behalf of overturning the lower court’s decision and keeping the tapes sealed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>2. An appeal of a \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/Motion-to-vacate.pdf\">decision rejecting efforts to have Judge Walker’s decision vacated\u003c/a> because he had a conflict of interest as a gay man in a long-term relationship. Mr. Cooper will argue for Prop. 8 proponents, while David Boies will present the oral arguments on behalf of the lower-court decision striking down the motion to vacate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Both decisions were made in the past year by federal Judge James Ware, Chief Judge of the Northern District of California. Regarding the tapes, Judge Ware wrote that unsealing and releasing them to the public was in the public interest and necessary to maintain transparency in a case of such fundamental importance. His decision is supported by a coalition of media organizations, that includes Fox News, the NY Times and KQED among others. An attorney representing that coalition will participate in Thursday’s oral arguments.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In strongly \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/Doc-797-Order-Denying-Motion-to-Vacate.pdf\">rejecting the motion to vacate\u003c/a>, Judge Ware said that were Judge Walker required to recuse himself under federal statutes, all minority judges would have to recuse themselves from any case involving civil rights, something he said Congress could not have intended in writing the recusal statute.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Neither of these issues go to the central legal merits of the constitutionality of Prop. 8. That is especially true in the video tapes question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, the oral arguments regarding Judge Walker’s obligation to recuse himself because of his status as a gay man in a same sex relationship may reveal more about where the panel is heading.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>How forcefully will the panel of judges suggest that gay and lesbian rights are of interest to all American judges who care about a society with equality under the law, not just LGBT judges? Will they draw parallels with civil rights cases and minority judges, an indication they see gay rights on par with issues like interracial marriage, segregation and racial discrimination?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It may shed some light on where the panel is ultimately heading on the issue that is central to the appeal: Whether to uphold Judge Walker’s decision striking down Prop. 8. That decision will likely come next year, but not before the panel also rules on whether Prop. 8 proponents have legal standing to file the appeal in the first case.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here you can watch the \u003ca href=\"http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Vaugh/start/1987/stop/2213\">video clip of the trial\u003c/a>, used by Walker in a legal seminar, which prompted the battle over releasing the video.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/49390/prop-8-hearing-on-trial-video-vaughn-walkers-same-sex-relationship",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_145",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1244"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_49195": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_49195",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "49195",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1323280750000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1323280750,
"format": "aside",
"title": "Prop 8: Oral Arguments Thursday on Whether Judge Vaughn Walker Had Confict of Interest as Gay Man in Long-Term Relationship",
"headTitle": "Prop 8: Oral Arguments Thursday on Whether Judge Vaughn Walker Had Confict of Interest as Gay Man in Long-Term Relationship | KQED",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_49206\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/12/Prop8plaintiffsSM.jpg\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/12/Prop8plaintiffsSM-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-49206\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Plaintiffs in the Prop 8 trial (Photo: Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>It’s been exactly a year since a panel of 9th Circuit Court judges heard oral arguments on an appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/Prop8Decision.pdf\">2010 decision striking down Prop. 8\u003c/a> for violating the U.S. Constitution. No decision has been rendered on that appeal, and none is likely soon.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Thursday that same panel will hear two somewhat ancillary issues:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>1. An appeal of a \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/District_court_order-to-release-tapes.pdf\">District court order to release the Prop. 8 trial tapes\u003c/a>. Plaintiff’s attorney Theodore Olson will argue the case for releasing the digital videos. Attorney Charles Cooper will speak on behalf of overturning the lower court’s decision and keeping the tapes sealed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>2. An appeal of a \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/Motion-to-vacate.pdf\">decision rejecting efforts to have Judge Walker’s decision vacated\u003c/a> because he had a conflict of interest as a gay man in a long term relationship. Mr. Cooper will argue for Prop. 8 proponents, while David Boies will present the oral arguments on behalf of the lower court decision striking down the motion to vacate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Both decisions were made in the past year by federal Judge James Ware, Chief Judge of the Northern District of California. Regarding the tapes, Judge Ware wrote that unsealing and releasing them to the public was in the public interest and necessary to maintain transparency in a case of such fundamental importance. His decision is supported by a coalition of media organizations, that includes Fox News, the NY Times and KQED among others. An attorney representing that coalition will participate in Thursday’s oral arguments. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In strongly \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/Doc-797-Order-Denying-Motion-to-Vacate.pdf\">rejecting the motion to vacate\u003c/a>, Judge Ware said that were Judge Walker required to recuse himself under federal statutes, all minority judges would have to recuse themselves from any case involving civil rights, something he said Congress could not have intended in writing the recusal statute.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Neither of these issues go to the cental legal merits of the constitutionality of Prop. 8. That is especially true in the video tapes question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, the oral arguments regarding Judge Walker’s obligation to recuse himself because of his status as a gay man in a same sex relationship may reveal more about where the panel is heading.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>How forcefully will the panel of judges suggest that gay and lesbian rights are of interest to all American judges who care about a society with equality under the law, not just LGBT judges? Will they draw parallels with civil rights cases and minority judges, an indication they see gay rights on par with issues like interracial marriage, segregation and racial discrimination?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It may shed some light on where the panel is ultimately heading on the issue that is central to the appeal: Whether to uphold Judge Walker’s decision striking down Prop. 8. That decision will likely come next year, but not before the panel also rules on whether Prop. 8 proponents have legal standing to file the appeal in the first case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The wheels of justice do grind slowly!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Below you can watch a \u003ca href=\"http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Vaugh/start/1987/stop/2213\">video clip of the trial\u003c/a> used by Walker in a University of Arizona legal seminar on the issue of cameras in the courtroom\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 540,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 14
},
"modified": 1685490667,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "It's been exactly a year since a panel of 9th Circuit Court judges heard oral arguments on an appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision striking down Prop. 8 for violating the U.S. Constitution. No decision has been rendered on that appeal, and none is likely soon. But Thursday that same panel will hear two",
"title": "Prop 8: Oral Arguments Thursday on Whether Judge Vaughn Walker Had Confict of Interest as Gay Man in Long-Term Relationship | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop 8: Oral Arguments Thursday on Whether Judge Vaughn Walker Had Confict of Interest as Gay Man in Long-Term Relationship",
"datePublished": "2011-12-07T09:59:10-08:00",
"dateModified": "2023-05-30T16:51:07-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "prop-8-9th-circuit-hears-oral-arguments-thursday-on-whether-judge-vaughn-walker-had-confict-of-interest-as-gay-man-in-long-term-relationship",
"status": "publish",
"templateType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/49195/prop-8-9th-circuit-hears-oral-arguments-thursday-on-whether-judge-vaughn-walker-had-confict-of-interest-as-gay-man-in-long-term-relationship",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_49206\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/12/Prop8plaintiffsSM.jpg\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/12/Prop8plaintiffsSM-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM\" width=\"300\" height=\"225\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-49206\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Plaintiffs in the Prop 8 trial (Photo: Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>It’s been exactly a year since a panel of 9th Circuit Court judges heard oral arguments on an appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/Prop8Decision.pdf\">2010 decision striking down Prop. 8\u003c/a> for violating the U.S. Constitution. No decision has been rendered on that appeal, and none is likely soon.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Thursday that same panel will hear two somewhat ancillary issues:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>1. An appeal of a \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/District_court_order-to-release-tapes.pdf\">District court order to release the Prop. 8 trial tapes\u003c/a>. Plaintiff’s attorney Theodore Olson will argue the case for releasing the digital videos. Attorney Charles Cooper will speak on behalf of overturning the lower court’s decision and keeping the tapes sealed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>2. An appeal of a \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/Motion-to-vacate.pdf\">decision rejecting efforts to have Judge Walker’s decision vacated\u003c/a> because he had a conflict of interest as a gay man in a long term relationship. Mr. Cooper will argue for Prop. 8 proponents, while David Boies will present the oral arguments on behalf of the lower court decision striking down the motion to vacate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Both decisions were made in the past year by federal Judge James Ware, Chief Judge of the Northern District of California. Regarding the tapes, Judge Ware wrote that unsealing and releasing them to the public was in the public interest and necessary to maintain transparency in a case of such fundamental importance. His decision is supported by a coalition of media organizations, that includes Fox News, the NY Times and KQED among others. An attorney representing that coalition will participate in Thursday’s oral arguments. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In strongly \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/files/2011/12/Doc-797-Order-Denying-Motion-to-Vacate.pdf\">rejecting the motion to vacate\u003c/a>, Judge Ware said that were Judge Walker required to recuse himself under federal statutes, all minority judges would have to recuse themselves from any case involving civil rights, something he said Congress could not have intended in writing the recusal statute.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Neither of these issues go to the cental legal merits of the constitutionality of Prop. 8. That is especially true in the video tapes question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, the oral arguments regarding Judge Walker’s obligation to recuse himself because of his status as a gay man in a same sex relationship may reveal more about where the panel is heading.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>How forcefully will the panel of judges suggest that gay and lesbian rights are of interest to all American judges who care about a society with equality under the law, not just LGBT judges? Will they draw parallels with civil rights cases and minority judges, an indication they see gay rights on par with issues like interracial marriage, segregation and racial discrimination?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It may shed some light on where the panel is ultimately heading on the issue that is central to the appeal: Whether to uphold Judge Walker’s decision striking down Prop. 8. That decision will likely come next year, but not before the panel also rules on whether Prop. 8 proponents have legal standing to file the appeal in the first case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The wheels of justice do grind slowly!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Below you can watch a \u003ca href=\"http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Vaugh/start/1987/stop/2213\">video clip of the trial\u003c/a> used by Walker in a University of Arizona legal seminar on the issue of cameras in the courtroom\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/49195/prop-8-9th-circuit-hears-oral-arguments-thursday-on-whether-judge-vaughn-walker-had-confict-of-interest-as-gay-man-in-long-term-relationship",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1244"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_47520": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_47520",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "47520",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1321552685000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1321552685,
"format": "aside",
"title": "Court Rules Prop 8 Backers Have Standing to Defend the Law; Full Decision, Summary",
"headTitle": "Court Rules Prop 8 Backers Have Standing to Defend the Law; Full Decision, Summary | KQED",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_47547\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 240px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/Prop8plaintiffsSM1.jpg\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/Prop8plaintiffsSM1.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM\" width=\"240\" height=\"180\" class=\"size-full wp-image-47547\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The plaintiffs challenging California's same-sex marriage ban. (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/prop8standing.pdf\">\u003cstrong>Full decision\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/#summary\">\u003cstrong>Press release and summary\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\n\u003c/li>\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m#twitter\">\u003cstrong>Latest from Twitter\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\n\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>The fight over Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, is going to continue if a federal appeals court follows the opinion set forth in today’s unanimous state Supreme Court ruling. The court ruled that Prop 8 proponents do indeed have “standing” (the legal right to be a party to a lawsuit) to defend the measure in light of the fact that the attorney general and governor have declined to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The California Report’s Scott Shafer reports: \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“In a decision written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the justices said failing to allow anyone to defend Prop 8 would undermine voters’ faith in the system. The justices made clear their decision applies to all future ballot measures, and is totally unrelated to the substantive question of whether Prop 8 is constitutional.” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As Shafer \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/09/06/live-webcast-tweets-from-prop-8-oral-arguments-at-california-supreme-court/\">reported after attending the hearing\u003c/a> in September, even justices who one might think would be sympathetic to the case against Proposition 8 appeared highly skeptical of the legal argument for denying the voter-approved initiative’s proponents standing to defend it. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The court seemed to say that the voters have authority in the voter initiative process,” Shafer said. “And if the governor and the attorney general can simply pick and choose which laws to defend in court then that power voters have is essentially illusory. And they seemed very reluctant to say that voters don’t have any power when the state refuses to go to bat for them.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California’s high court was asked to rule on this somewhat arcane legal issue by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which asked it to settle the question before that court moved on to the issue of Prop 8’s constitutionality. A lower court ruling by former Judge Vaughn Walker found that the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"summary\">\u003c/a>Press release and summary: \u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Answering a question of state law submitted to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court today held, in a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, that under California law the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to defend the validity of the initiative in court and to appeal a lower court judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or file an appeal decline to do so. (Perry v. Brown (S189476).) \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The question whether initiative proponents have standing to defend the validity of a challenged initiative measure is one of the issues currently pending before the Ninth Circuit in the appeal of a federal district court decision that determined that Proposition 8 — the initiative measure that amended the California Constitution to provide that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” — violates the United States Constitution. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In today’s ruling, however, the California Supreme Court emphasized that although the legal question submitted to it happened to arise in litigation challenging the validity of Proposition 8, the procedural issue before it in the current proceeding “is totally unrelated to the substantive question of the constitutional validity of Proposition 8” and “may arise with respect to any initiative measure, without regard to its subject matter.” The court observed that the procedural question of an official initiative proponent’s standing to defend the initiative’s validity when public officials decline to do so does not depend “on the substance of the particular initiative measure at issue, but rather on the purpose and integrity of the initiative process itself.” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In analyzing the standing issue under California law, the court noted that because the fundamental purpose of the initiative process in California is “to enable the people to amend the state Constitution or to enact statutes when current government officials have declined to adopt (and often have publicly opposed) the measure in question, the voters who have successfully adopted an initiative measure may reasonably harbor a legitimate concern that the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law in court may not, in the case of an initiative measure, always undertake such a defense with vigor or with the objectives and interests of those voters paramount in mind. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As a consequence, California courts have routinely permitted the official proponents of an initiative to intervene or appear as real parties in interest to defend a challenged voter-approved initiative measure ‘to guard the people’s right to exercise initiative power.’ ” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court explained that “[a]llowing official proponents to assert the state’s interest in the validity of such litigation . . . (1) assures voters who supported the measure and enacted it into law that any residual hostility or indifference of current public officials to the substance of the initiative measure will not prevent a full and robust defense of the measure to be mounted in court on the people’s behalf, and (2) ensures a court faced with the responsibility of reviewing and resolving a legal challenge to an initiative measure that it is aware of and addresses the full range of legal arguments that reasonably may be proffered in the measure’s defense.” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court further noted that past cases had explicitly cautioned that in most instances it might well be an abuse of discretion for a court to fail to permit the official proponents to intervene to protect the people’s right to exercise their initiative power even when one of more government defendants are defending the initiative’s validity in the proceeding. The court concluded that in an instance — like that identified in the Ninth Circuit’s question — in which the public officials have declined to defend the initiative’s validity at all, it would clearly constitute an abuse of discretion to deny the proponents the opportunity to participate as formal parties to defend the measure’s validity or to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The majority opinion by the Chief Justice was signed by Associate Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter, Kathryn M. Werdegar, Ming W. Chin, Carol A. Corrigan, and Goodwin Liu. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In addition to signing the majority opinion, Justice Kennard authored a separate concurring opinion, highlighting the historical and legal events that led to today’s decision and briefly explaining the basis of her concurrence. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The concurring opinion observed in part: “The judicial system is designed to operate through public proceedings in which adversaries litigate factual and legal issues thoroughly and vigorously. When an initiative measure is challenged in court, the integrity and effectiveness of the judicial process require that a competent and spirited defense be presented. If public officials refuse to provide that defense, the ability of the initiative proponents to intervene in the pending litigation, and to appeal an adverse judgment, is inherent in, and essential to the effective exercise of, the constitutional initiative power. To hold otherwise not only would undermine the constitutional power, it also would allow state executive branch officials to effectively annul voter-approved initiatives simply by declining to defend them, thereby permitting those officials to exceed their proper role in our state government’s constitutional structure.” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the California Supreme Court’s decision becomes final, further proceedings in the underlying federal litigation will proceed before the Ninth Circuit. (Perry v. Brown (9th Cir. No. 10-16696).) \u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>10:55 a.m.\u003c/strong> The American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is sponsoring the legal challenge against Prop 8, puts a \u003ca href=\"http://www.afer.org/media/videos/special-marriage-update-about-the-california-supreme-courts-advisory-opinion-on-standing/\">positive spin\u003c/a> on today’s ruling, saying the constitutional case against Prop 8 is “airtight.” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"480\" height=\"274\" src=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/xa3u5OHsUc8\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\nOn the other side of the issue, the \u003ca href=\"http://www.nomblog.com/15806/\">National Organization for Marriage\u003c/a>, which is helping to defend the initiative in court, puts it this way… (You’ll notice the preemptive swipes at the Ninth Circuit, and the pinning of its hopes for a reversal on the Supreme Court.)\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The decision of the California Supreme Court today now will be considered by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which must ultimately decide whether the right of Initiative proponents recognized under state law meets the requirement for legal standing in the federal court. While the decision of the California Supreme Court is not binding on the Ninth Circuit, it seems certain that the Ninth Circuit would not ignore the advice, having asked the California Supreme Court to address this legal question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“With this victory in hand, it is time for the Ninth Circuit to move the Prop 8 litigation forward to its eventual decision by the US Supreme Court,” Brown said. “We fully expect the Ninth Circuit, the most overturned court in America, to invalidate Prop 8, finding some phony right to same-sex marriage in the US constitution. However, once this case gets out of San Francisco and reaches the US Supreme Court, we fully expect to be victorious.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1553,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 26
},
"modified": 1685490877,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Full decision Press release and summary Latest from Twitter The fight over Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban, is going to continue if a federal appeals court follows the opinion set forth in today's unanimous state Supreme Court ruling. The court ruled that Prop 8 proponents do indeed have "standing" (the legal right to be",
"title": "Court Rules Prop 8 Backers Have Standing to Defend the Law; Full Decision, Summary | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Court Rules Prop 8 Backers Have Standing to Defend the Law; Full Decision, Summary",
"datePublished": "2011-11-17T09:58:05-08:00",
"dateModified": "2023-05-30T16:54:37-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m",
"status": "publish",
"templateType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/47520/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_47547\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 240px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/Prop8plaintiffsSM1.jpg\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/Prop8plaintiffsSM1.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM\" width=\"240\" height=\"180\" class=\"size-full wp-image-47547\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The plaintiffs challenging California's same-sex marriage ban. (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/prop8standing.pdf\">\u003cstrong>Full decision\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/#summary\">\u003cstrong>Press release and summary\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\n\u003c/li>\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m#twitter\">\u003cstrong>Latest from Twitter\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\n\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>The fight over Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, is going to continue if a federal appeals court follows the opinion set forth in today’s unanimous state Supreme Court ruling. The court ruled that Prop 8 proponents do indeed have “standing” (the legal right to be a party to a lawsuit) to defend the measure in light of the fact that the attorney general and governor have declined to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The California Report’s Scott Shafer reports: \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“In a decision written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the justices said failing to allow anyone to defend Prop 8 would undermine voters’ faith in the system. The justices made clear their decision applies to all future ballot measures, and is totally unrelated to the substantive question of whether Prop 8 is constitutional.” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As Shafer \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/09/06/live-webcast-tweets-from-prop-8-oral-arguments-at-california-supreme-court/\">reported after attending the hearing\u003c/a> in September, even justices who one might think would be sympathetic to the case against Proposition 8 appeared highly skeptical of the legal argument for denying the voter-approved initiative’s proponents standing to defend it. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The court seemed to say that the voters have authority in the voter initiative process,” Shafer said. “And if the governor and the attorney general can simply pick and choose which laws to defend in court then that power voters have is essentially illusory. And they seemed very reluctant to say that voters don’t have any power when the state refuses to go to bat for them.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California’s high court was asked to rule on this somewhat arcane legal issue by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which asked it to settle the question before that court moved on to the issue of Prop 8’s constitutionality. A lower court ruling by former Judge Vaughn Walker found that the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"summary\">\u003c/a>Press release and summary: \u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Answering a question of state law submitted to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court today held, in a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, that under California law the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to defend the validity of the initiative in court and to appeal a lower court judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or file an appeal decline to do so. (Perry v. Brown (S189476).) \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The question whether initiative proponents have standing to defend the validity of a challenged initiative measure is one of the issues currently pending before the Ninth Circuit in the appeal of a federal district court decision that determined that Proposition 8 — the initiative measure that amended the California Constitution to provide that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” — violates the United States Constitution. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In today’s ruling, however, the California Supreme Court emphasized that although the legal question submitted to it happened to arise in litigation challenging the validity of Proposition 8, the procedural issue before it in the current proceeding “is totally unrelated to the substantive question of the constitutional validity of Proposition 8” and “may arise with respect to any initiative measure, without regard to its subject matter.” The court observed that the procedural question of an official initiative proponent’s standing to defend the initiative’s validity when public officials decline to do so does not depend “on the substance of the particular initiative measure at issue, but rather on the purpose and integrity of the initiative process itself.” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In analyzing the standing issue under California law, the court noted that because the fundamental purpose of the initiative process in California is “to enable the people to amend the state Constitution or to enact statutes when current government officials have declined to adopt (and often have publicly opposed) the measure in question, the voters who have successfully adopted an initiative measure may reasonably harbor a legitimate concern that the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law in court may not, in the case of an initiative measure, always undertake such a defense with vigor or with the objectives and interests of those voters paramount in mind. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As a consequence, California courts have routinely permitted the official proponents of an initiative to intervene or appear as real parties in interest to defend a challenged voter-approved initiative measure ‘to guard the people’s right to exercise initiative power.’ ” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court explained that “[a]llowing official proponents to assert the state’s interest in the validity of such litigation . . . (1) assures voters who supported the measure and enacted it into law that any residual hostility or indifference of current public officials to the substance of the initiative measure will not prevent a full and robust defense of the measure to be mounted in court on the people’s behalf, and (2) ensures a court faced with the responsibility of reviewing and resolving a legal challenge to an initiative measure that it is aware of and addresses the full range of legal arguments that reasonably may be proffered in the measure’s defense.” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court further noted that past cases had explicitly cautioned that in most instances it might well be an abuse of discretion for a court to fail to permit the official proponents to intervene to protect the people’s right to exercise their initiative power even when one of more government defendants are defending the initiative’s validity in the proceeding. The court concluded that in an instance — like that identified in the Ninth Circuit’s question — in which the public officials have declined to defend the initiative’s validity at all, it would clearly constitute an abuse of discretion to deny the proponents the opportunity to participate as formal parties to defend the measure’s validity or to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The majority opinion by the Chief Justice was signed by Associate Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter, Kathryn M. Werdegar, Ming W. Chin, Carol A. Corrigan, and Goodwin Liu. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In addition to signing the majority opinion, Justice Kennard authored a separate concurring opinion, highlighting the historical and legal events that led to today’s decision and briefly explaining the basis of her concurrence. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The concurring opinion observed in part: “The judicial system is designed to operate through public proceedings in which adversaries litigate factual and legal issues thoroughly and vigorously. When an initiative measure is challenged in court, the integrity and effectiveness of the judicial process require that a competent and spirited defense be presented. If public officials refuse to provide that defense, the ability of the initiative proponents to intervene in the pending litigation, and to appeal an adverse judgment, is inherent in, and essential to the effective exercise of, the constitutional initiative power. To hold otherwise not only would undermine the constitutional power, it also would allow state executive branch officials to effectively annul voter-approved initiatives simply by declining to defend them, thereby permitting those officials to exceed their proper role in our state government’s constitutional structure.” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the California Supreme Court’s decision becomes final, further proceedings in the underlying federal litigation will proceed before the Ninth Circuit. (Perry v. Brown (9th Cir. No. 10-16696).) \u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>10:55 a.m.\u003c/strong> The American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is sponsoring the legal challenge against Prop 8, puts a \u003ca href=\"http://www.afer.org/media/videos/special-marriage-update-about-the-california-supreme-courts-advisory-opinion-on-standing/\">positive spin\u003c/a> on today’s ruling, saying the constitutional case against Prop 8 is “airtight.” \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"480\" height=\"274\" src=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/xa3u5OHsUc8\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\nOn the other side of the issue, the \u003ca href=\"http://www.nomblog.com/15806/\">National Organization for Marriage\u003c/a>, which is helping to defend the initiative in court, puts it this way… (You’ll notice the preemptive swipes at the Ninth Circuit, and the pinning of its hopes for a reversal on the Supreme Court.)\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The decision of the California Supreme Court today now will be considered by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which must ultimately decide whether the right of Initiative proponents recognized under state law meets the requirement for legal standing in the federal court. While the decision of the California Supreme Court is not binding on the Ninth Circuit, it seems certain that the Ninth Circuit would not ignore the advice, having asked the California Supreme Court to address this legal question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“With this victory in hand, it is time for the Ninth Circuit to move the Prop 8 litigation forward to its eventual decision by the US Supreme Court,” Brown said. “We fully expect the Ninth Circuit, the most overturned court in America, to invalidate Prop 8, finding some phony right to same-sex marriage in the US constitution. However, once this case gets out of San Francisco and reaches the US Supreme Court, we fully expect to be victorious.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/47520/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_47377": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_47377",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "47377",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1321475509000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1321475509,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "California Supreme Court to Issue Ruling on Prop 8 Standing Tomorrow",
"title": "California Supreme Court to Issue Ruling on Prop 8 Standing Tomorrow",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cem>Update Thursday, Nov 17\u003c/em>: The court has ruled unanimously to grant Prop 8 proponents standing. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/\">\u003cstrong>Click here for the story\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From the court: \u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>San Francisco – The California Supreme Court today announced that it will file a written opinion at 10 a.m. on Thursday, November 17, 2011, in Perry v. Brown, S189476, a case that involves whether the official proponents of an initiative measure have standing to defend the constitutionality of the measure when the public officials charged with that duty decline to do so. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the time of filing, the opinion will be available on the California Courts website at \u003ca href=\"http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi\">this link\u003c/a> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Perry v. Brown on September 6, 2011, in San Francisco. \u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_47384\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 320px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/Prop8plaintiffsSM.jpg\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/Prop8plaintiffsSM.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM\" width=\"320\" height=\"240\" class=\"size-full wp-image-47384\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case. (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>As The California Report's Scott Shafer \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/09/06/live-webcast-tweets-from-prop-8-oral-arguments-at-california-supreme-court/\">reported after attending the hearing\u003c/a>, even justices who one might think would be sympathetic to the case against Proposition 8 appeared highly skeptical of the legal argument that Prop 8 proponents do not have \"standing\" (the legal right to be a party in a lawsuit) to defend the measure when the attorney general and governor decline to do so, as is the case here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"They seemed to say that the voters have authority in the voter initiative process,\" Shafer said. \"And if the governor and the attorney general can simply pick and choose which laws to defend in court then that power voters have is essentially illusory. And they seemed very reluctant to say that voters don't have any power when the state refuses to go to bat for them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"What became very clear is that this case is likely to go forward at the 9th Circuit and that proponents of Prop 8 will get to defend the law in court. It's not going to end here.\" \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California's high court is only ruling on this somewhat arcane legal issue because the federal 9th Circuit asked it to settle the question about standing before it moved on to the issue of Prop 8's constitutionality. A lower court ruling by former Judge Vaughn Walker found that the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar told Shafer the \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2011/08/02/prop-8-standing-question-a-close-call/\">question is complicated\u003c/a>, not easily falling onto either side of any liberal/conservative divide.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\"On the one hand you could say conservatives should not want cases to be brought in court very easily because they don’t want the courts meddling with what the Legislature does,” says Amar. “So conservatives should generally like a standing doctrine that limits access to federal courts to reduce litigation and reduce lawsuits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, says Amar, “a conservative may want standing doctrine to be a little more generous to Prop. 8 backers to make sure initiatives like Prop. 8 aren’t killed by liberal elected politicians, like attorneys general and governors. So standing and issues like it sometimes invert political instincts because these doctrines are easy enough to manipulate so that you can often use them to reach a particular result in a particular dispute without binding yourself in other bind cases down the road … where your result inclinations may be different.”\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>The opinion the California court will issue tomorrow is advisory and not binding on the federal court. But Amar said if the state court advises the 9th Circuit that California law does not confer legal standing on initiative proponents, it’s almost certain the appeal of Vaughn Walker's ruling will die. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But that does not appear to be likely. We'll find out tomorrow...\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "47377 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=47377",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/16/california-supreme-court-to-issue-ruling-on-prop-8-standing-tomorrow/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 618,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 16
},
"modified": 1321554865,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Thursday, Nov 17: The court has ruled unanimously to grant Prop 8 proponents standing. Click here for the story. From the court: San Francisco – The California Supreme Court today announced that it will file a written opinion at 10 a.m. on Thursday, November 17, 2011, in Perry v. Brown, S189476, a case that",
"title": "California Supreme Court to Issue Ruling on Prop 8 Standing Tomorrow | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "California Supreme Court to Issue Ruling on Prop 8 Standing Tomorrow",
"datePublished": "2011-11-16T12:31:49-08:00",
"dateModified": "2011-11-17T10:34:25-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "california-supreme-court-to-issue-ruling-on-prop-8-standing-tomorrow",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/47377/california-supreme-court-to-issue-ruling-on-prop-8-standing-tomorrow",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cem>Update Thursday, Nov 17\u003c/em>: The court has ruled unanimously to grant Prop 8 proponents standing. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/\">\u003cstrong>Click here for the story\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From the court: \u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>San Francisco – The California Supreme Court today announced that it will file a written opinion at 10 a.m. on Thursday, November 17, 2011, in Perry v. Brown, S189476, a case that involves whether the official proponents of an initiative measure have standing to defend the constitutionality of the measure when the public officials charged with that duty decline to do so. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the time of filing, the opinion will be available on the California Courts website at \u003ca href=\"http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi\">this link\u003c/a> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Perry v. Brown on September 6, 2011, in San Francisco. \u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_47384\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 320px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/Prop8plaintiffsSM.jpg\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/11/Prop8plaintiffsSM.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM\" width=\"320\" height=\"240\" class=\"size-full wp-image-47384\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case. (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>As The California Report's Scott Shafer \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/09/06/live-webcast-tweets-from-prop-8-oral-arguments-at-california-supreme-court/\">reported after attending the hearing\u003c/a>, even justices who one might think would be sympathetic to the case against Proposition 8 appeared highly skeptical of the legal argument that Prop 8 proponents do not have \"standing\" (the legal right to be a party in a lawsuit) to defend the measure when the attorney general and governor decline to do so, as is the case here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"They seemed to say that the voters have authority in the voter initiative process,\" Shafer said. \"And if the governor and the attorney general can simply pick and choose which laws to defend in court then that power voters have is essentially illusory. And they seemed very reluctant to say that voters don't have any power when the state refuses to go to bat for them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"What became very clear is that this case is likely to go forward at the 9th Circuit and that proponents of Prop 8 will get to defend the law in court. It's not going to end here.\" \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California's high court is only ruling on this somewhat arcane legal issue because the federal 9th Circuit asked it to settle the question about standing before it moved on to the issue of Prop 8's constitutionality. A lower court ruling by former Judge Vaughn Walker found that the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar told Shafer the \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2011/08/02/prop-8-standing-question-a-close-call/\">question is complicated\u003c/a>, not easily falling onto either side of any liberal/conservative divide.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\"On the one hand you could say conservatives should not want cases to be brought in court very easily because they don’t want the courts meddling with what the Legislature does,” says Amar. “So conservatives should generally like a standing doctrine that limits access to federal courts to reduce litigation and reduce lawsuits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, says Amar, “a conservative may want standing doctrine to be a little more generous to Prop. 8 backers to make sure initiatives like Prop. 8 aren’t killed by liberal elected politicians, like attorneys general and governors. So standing and issues like it sometimes invert political instincts because these doctrines are easy enough to manipulate so that you can often use them to reach a particular result in a particular dispute without binding yourself in other bind cases down the road … where your result inclinations may be different.”\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>The opinion the California court will issue tomorrow is advisory and not binding on the federal court. But Amar said if the state court advises the 9th Circuit that California law does not confer legal standing on initiative proponents, it’s almost certain the appeal of Vaughn Walker's ruling will die. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But that does not appear to be likely. We'll find out tomorrow...\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/47377/california-supreme-court-to-issue-ruling-on-prop-8-standing-tomorrow",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_41913": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_41913",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "41913",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1317850397000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1317850397,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Gay Rights Group Won't Try to Overturn Prop 8 in Ballot Campaign Next Year",
"title": "Gay Rights Group Won't Try to Overturn Prop 8 in Ballot Campaign Next Year",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California's largest gay rights group has decided against trying to have the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex unions overturned next year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Equality California announced Wednesday that it would not lead a ballot campaign to undo Proposition 8. The constitutional amendment limited marriage to a man and a woman five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Executive Director Roland Palencia says polls show voters are still divided and a court challenge that could overturn the measure is still pending. As a result, he says the time is not right to undertake a risky and expensive ballot fight.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead, Equality California plans to devote its resources to a public education and messaging campaign to counter beliefs that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry harms children.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here is \u003ca href=\"http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=5609563&ct=11261149¬oc=1\">Equality California's press release\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "41913 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=41913",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/10/05/gay-rights-group-wont-try-to-overturn-prop-8-in-ballot-campaign-next-year/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 145,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 7
},
"modified": 1317850581,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California's largest gay rights group has decided against trying to have the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex unions overturned next year. Equality California announced Wednesday that it would not lead a ballot campaign to undo Proposition 8. The constitutional amendment limited marriage to a man and a woman five months after",
"title": "Gay Rights Group Won't Try to Overturn Prop 8 in Ballot Campaign Next Year | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Gay Rights Group Won't Try to Overturn Prop 8 in Ballot Campaign Next Year",
"datePublished": "2011-10-05T14:33:17-07:00",
"dateModified": "2011-10-05T14:36:21-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "gay-rights-group-wont-try-to-overturn-prop-8-in-ballot-campaign-next-year",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/41913/gay-rights-group-wont-try-to-overturn-prop-8-in-ballot-campaign-next-year",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California's largest gay rights group has decided against trying to have the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex unions overturned next year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Equality California announced Wednesday that it would not lead a ballot campaign to undo Proposition 8. The constitutional amendment limited marriage to a man and a woman five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Executive Director Roland Palencia says polls show voters are still divided and a court challenge that could overturn the measure is still pending. As a result, he says the time is not right to undertake a risky and expensive ballot fight.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead, Equality California plans to devote its resources to a public education and messaging campaign to counter beliefs that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry harms children.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here is \u003ca href=\"http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=5609563&ct=11261149¬oc=1\">Equality California's press release\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/41913/gay-rights-group-wont-try-to-overturn-prop-8-in-ballot-campaign-next-year",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_40321": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_40321",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "40321",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1316452351000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1316452351,
"format": "aside",
"title": "Federal Judge Grants Motion to Release Video of Prop. 8 Trial; Watch Video Clip From Trial",
"headTitle": "Federal Judge Grants Motion to Release Video of Prop. 8 Trial; Watch Video Clip From Trial | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://twitter.com/#!/scottshafer\">\u003cstrong>Tweets from Scott Shafer here\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>http://twitter.com/#!/scottshafer/status/115834302662582272\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>http://twitter.com/#!/scottshafer/status/115837240827068416\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This side-issue in the Prop 8 legal battle grows out of a video clip from the trial shown by former federal judge Vaughn Walker at a University of Arizona legal seminar on the issue of cameras in the courtroom. Walker, of course, is the judge who ruled last year that the same-sex marriage ban is uncontitutional. Prop 8 supporters appealed his decision, which is still being heard by the 9th Circuit. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scott Shafer blogged this about the video clip at the time:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp> Prop 8 supporters say Walker illegally used that clip, which was under seal during the trial and explicitly forbidden from broadcast by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a lawsuit filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, Prop. 8 attorneys accuse Walker of illegally and unethically using the tapes and (the same court now considering the appeal of Walker’s decision) to force Walker to turn over all copies of the trial so they won’t be broadcast again.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Below is the clip in question.The event was recorded and archived online by C-SPAN. You won’t be able to see the proceedings up close, as the camera stays focused on Walker in front of a video screen, but you will be able to hear what’s going on, described this way by Scott Shafer:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The clip shows attorney plaintiffs’ David Boies cross-examining Claremont-McKenna political science professor Kenneth Miller on whether Prop. 8 meets his definition of “official” or state sanctioned discrimination. It is not a particularly flattering clip, as it shows Boies getting Miller to acknowledge that laws against same sex marriage discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. \u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 303,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 10
},
"modified": 1685492337,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Tweets from Scott Shafer here. http://twitter.com/#!/scottshafer/status/115834302662582272 http://twitter.com/#!/scottshafer/status/115837240827068416 This side-issue in the Prop 8 legal battle grows out of a video clip from the trial shown by former federal judge Vaughn Walker at a University of Arizona legal seminar on the issue of cameras in the courtroom. Walker, of course, is the judge who ruled last",
"title": "Federal Judge Grants Motion to Release Video of Prop. 8 Trial; Watch Video Clip From Trial | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Federal Judge Grants Motion to Release Video of Prop. 8 Trial; Watch Video Clip From Trial",
"datePublished": "2011-09-19T10:12:31-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-05-30T17:18:57-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "federal-grants-motion-to-release-video-tapes-of-prop-8-trial",
"status": "publish",
"templateType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/40321/federal-grants-motion-to-release-video-tapes-of-prop-8-trial",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://twitter.com/#!/scottshafer\">\u003cstrong>Tweets from Scott Shafer here\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>http://twitter.com/#!/scottshafer/status/115834302662582272\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>http://twitter.com/#!/scottshafer/status/115837240827068416\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This side-issue in the Prop 8 legal battle grows out of a video clip from the trial shown by former federal judge Vaughn Walker at a University of Arizona legal seminar on the issue of cameras in the courtroom. Walker, of course, is the judge who ruled last year that the same-sex marriage ban is uncontitutional. Prop 8 supporters appealed his decision, which is still being heard by the 9th Circuit. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scott Shafer blogged this about the video clip at the time:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp> Prop 8 supporters say Walker illegally used that clip, which was under seal during the trial and explicitly forbidden from broadcast by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a lawsuit filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, Prop. 8 attorneys accuse Walker of illegally and unethically using the tapes and (the same court now considering the appeal of Walker’s decision) to force Walker to turn over all copies of the trial so they won’t be broadcast again.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Below is the clip in question.The event was recorded and archived online by C-SPAN. You won’t be able to see the proceedings up close, as the camera stays focused on Walker in front of a video screen, but you will be able to hear what’s going on, described this way by Scott Shafer:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>The clip shows attorney plaintiffs’ David Boies cross-examining Claremont-McKenna political science professor Kenneth Miller on whether Prop. 8 meets his definition of “official” or state sanctioned discrimination. It is not a particularly flattering clip, as it shows Boies getting Miller to acknowledge that laws against same sex marriage discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. \u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/40321/federal-grants-motion-to-release-video-tapes-of-prop-8-trial",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1244"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_39181": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_39181",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "39181",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1315375857000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1315375857,
"format": "aside",
"title": "Justices Are Skeptical of Denying Standing to Prop 8 Support; Watch Replay of Today's Hearing",
"headTitle": "Justices Are Skeptical of Denying Standing to Prop 8 Support; Watch Replay of Today’s Hearing | KQED",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cem>Update Wednesday\u003c/em>: Watch the entire hearing at \u003ca href=\"http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/3005\">\u003cstrong>CalChannel\u003c/strong>\u003c/a> or KGO below.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Update Tuesday, 1:50 p.m.\u003c/em> The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the latest legal battle over Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The issue the court is deciding, at the request of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is whether proponents of an initiative like Proposition 8 have the right to defend it when elected officials of the state decline to do so, as is currently the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Supporters of same-sex marriage had been hoping that the state Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue would put an end to the case, with Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 invalidation of the same-sex marriage ban standing as the final legal word on the matter.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But if the questions coming from the bench were any indication of how the justices will rule, then it looks like today’s hearing will \u003cem>not\u003c/em> be the final Prop 8 legal battle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From The California Report’s Scott Shafer, who was in the courtroom today:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>It was rough sledding today at the court for supporters of same-sex marriage. The seven justices, in almost all of their questions, seemed very reluctant to say that when the attorney general and the governor refuse to defend a ballot measure, then no one can.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They seemed to say that the voters have authority in the voter initiative process and if the governor and the attorney general can simply pick and choose which laws to defend in court then that power voters have is essentially illusory. And they seemed very reluctant to say that voters don’t have any power when the state refuses to go to bat for them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>What became very clear is that this case is likely to go forward at the 9th Circuit and that proponents of Prop 8 will get to defend the law in court. It’s not going to end here.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">This case is likely to go forward at the 9th Circuit and proponents of Prop 8 will get to defend the law in court.\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The court has 90 days to make a decision on the standing issue. When it does, the case will go back to the Ninth Circuit, which will then take the state’s court’s opinion into account when deciding whether the case can go forward.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Keep in mind, even if the California court rules that the Prop 8 proponents do have standing, and the federal court accepts that opinion, the larger issue of whether the law is constitutional or not under the equal protection clause will still have to be decided.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To get a sense of how long same-sex marriage has been on the front-burner in California, take a look at this \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/01/05/californiasame-sex-marriage-timeline/\">timeline\u003c/a> we put together in January.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003cbr>\n\u003cem>Update 11:25 a.m.\u003c/em> The hearing is over. Here’s a \u003ca href=\"http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2011/09/06/live-blogging-todays-ca-supreme-court-hearing-on-standing-in-the-prop-8-perry-case/\">live blog\u003c/a> from the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, which opposes Proposition 8. It provides a good summary of the arguments and legal precedents cited.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We’ll have a report from The California Report’s Scott Shafer a little later today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Earlier post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_39202\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 320px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/09/Prop8plaintiffsSM.jpg\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-full wp-image-39202\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/09/Prop8plaintiffsSM.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"320\" height=\"240\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Prop 8 plaintiffs. (Photo: Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In San Francisco right now, the \u003ca href=\"http://www.courts.ca.gov/3014.htm\">California Supreme Court\u003c/a> is trying to untangle the latest legal issue in the long and winding Proposition 8 lawsuit. The issue that the court is deciding: whether the sponsors of Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, have legal \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/news/usworld/legalterms.jsp#standing\">standing\u003c/a> to defend the law in light of the State of California’s refusal to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From the KQED legal glossary:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>A plaintiff will have standing if:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Injury: The plaintiff has suffered, or will quickly suffer, injury to a legally protected right. The injury must be actual, and not abstract.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Causation: There must be a direct connection between the lawsuit at hand and the plaintiff. The party must be directly affected by the suit, and cannot be affected by a third party.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Redressability: It must be likely that if the plaintiff wins, the court decision will directly stop a legal injury.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The concept of standing is meant to prevent parties who are not directly involved in a controversy from assuming a role in a lawsuit. If either the plaintiff or defendant do not have standing then the court can throw the case out as a summary judgment.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>The court was asked to rule on the issue by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is currently in process of hearing a federal lawsuit against Prop 8. The 9th Circuit asked California’s highest judicial body for its opinion on the standing issue, which the federal court wanted before it ruled on the separate issue of whether Prop 8 is constitutional or not under the \u003ca href=\"http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e027.htm\">equal protection clause\u003c/a> of the 14th Amendment. A lower court ruling, written by now-retired judge Vaughn Walker, held Prop 8 to be unconstitutional on those grounds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.calchannel.com/channel/live/5\">\u003cstrong>Watch the proceedings live\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today’s detour back into state court may actually be a pivotal moment in the final fate of Prop 8. In August, Scott Shafer \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/08/02/analysis-prop-8-standing-question-may-be-a-close-call-in-hearing-set-for-sept-6/\">talked\u003c/a> to UC Davis law professor Vikrim Amar about the issue of standing. Amar said if the court advises the 9th Circuit that California law does not give initiative proponents legal standing, it’s nearly certain the Prop. 8 appeal will die. At that point, he said, the chances the U.S. Supreme Court would take up an appeal would be “infinitesimally small.”\u003c/p>\n\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 934,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 27
},
"modified": 1685492510,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Wednesday: Watch the entire hearing at CalChannel or KGO below. Update Tuesday, 1:50 p.m. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the latest legal battle over Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. The issue the court is deciding, at the request of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is whether proponents",
"title": "Justices Are Skeptical of Denying Standing to Prop 8 Support; Watch Replay of Today's Hearing | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Justices Are Skeptical of Denying Standing to Prop 8 Support; Watch Replay of Today's Hearing",
"datePublished": "2011-09-06T23:10:57-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-05-30T17:21:50-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "live-webcast-tweets-from-prop-8-oral-arguments-at-california-supreme-court",
"status": "publish",
"templateType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/39181/live-webcast-tweets-from-prop-8-oral-arguments-at-california-supreme-court",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cem>Update Wednesday\u003c/em>: Watch the entire hearing at \u003ca href=\"http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/3005\">\u003cstrong>CalChannel\u003c/strong>\u003c/a> or KGO below.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Update Tuesday, 1:50 p.m.\u003c/em> The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the latest legal battle over Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The issue the court is deciding, at the request of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is whether proponents of an initiative like Proposition 8 have the right to defend it when elected officials of the state decline to do so, as is currently the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Supporters of same-sex marriage had been hoping that the state Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue would put an end to the case, with Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 invalidation of the same-sex marriage ban standing as the final legal word on the matter.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But if the questions coming from the bench were any indication of how the justices will rule, then it looks like today’s hearing will \u003cem>not\u003c/em> be the final Prop 8 legal battle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From The California Report’s Scott Shafer, who was in the courtroom today:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>It was rough sledding today at the court for supporters of same-sex marriage. The seven justices, in almost all of their questions, seemed very reluctant to say that when the attorney general and the governor refuse to defend a ballot measure, then no one can.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They seemed to say that the voters have authority in the voter initiative process and if the governor and the attorney general can simply pick and choose which laws to defend in court then that power voters have is essentially illusory. And they seemed very reluctant to say that voters don’t have any power when the state refuses to go to bat for them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>What became very clear is that this case is likely to go forward at the 9th Circuit and that proponents of Prop 8 will get to defend the law in court. It’s not going to end here.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">This case is likely to go forward at the 9th Circuit and proponents of Prop 8 will get to defend the law in court.\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The court has 90 days to make a decision on the standing issue. When it does, the case will go back to the Ninth Circuit, which will then take the state’s court’s opinion into account when deciding whether the case can go forward.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Keep in mind, even if the California court rules that the Prop 8 proponents do have standing, and the federal court accepts that opinion, the larger issue of whether the law is constitutional or not under the equal protection clause will still have to be decided.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To get a sense of how long same-sex marriage has been on the front-burner in California, take a look at this \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/01/05/californiasame-sex-marriage-timeline/\">timeline\u003c/a> we put together in January.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003cbr>\n\u003cem>Update 11:25 a.m.\u003c/em> The hearing is over. Here’s a \u003ca href=\"http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2011/09/06/live-blogging-todays-ca-supreme-court-hearing-on-standing-in-the-prop-8-perry-case/\">live blog\u003c/a> from the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, which opposes Proposition 8. It provides a good summary of the arguments and legal precedents cited.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We’ll have a report from The California Report’s Scott Shafer a little later today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Earlier post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_39202\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 320px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/09/Prop8plaintiffsSM.jpg\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-full wp-image-39202\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/09/Prop8plaintiffsSM.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"320\" height=\"240\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Prop 8 plaintiffs. (Photo: Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In San Francisco right now, the \u003ca href=\"http://www.courts.ca.gov/3014.htm\">California Supreme Court\u003c/a> is trying to untangle the latest legal issue in the long and winding Proposition 8 lawsuit. The issue that the court is deciding: whether the sponsors of Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, have legal \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/news/usworld/legalterms.jsp#standing\">standing\u003c/a> to defend the law in light of the State of California’s refusal to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>From the KQED legal glossary:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>A plaintiff will have standing if:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Injury: The plaintiff has suffered, or will quickly suffer, injury to a legally protected right. The injury must be actual, and not abstract.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Causation: There must be a direct connection between the lawsuit at hand and the plaintiff. The party must be directly affected by the suit, and cannot be affected by a third party.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Redressability: It must be likely that if the plaintiff wins, the court decision will directly stop a legal injury.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The concept of standing is meant to prevent parties who are not directly involved in a controversy from assuming a role in a lawsuit. If either the plaintiff or defendant do not have standing then the court can throw the case out as a summary judgment.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>The court was asked to rule on the issue by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is currently in process of hearing a federal lawsuit against Prop 8. The 9th Circuit asked California’s highest judicial body for its opinion on the standing issue, which the federal court wanted before it ruled on the separate issue of whether Prop 8 is constitutional or not under the \u003ca href=\"http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e027.htm\">equal protection clause\u003c/a> of the 14th Amendment. A lower court ruling, written by now-retired judge Vaughn Walker, held Prop 8 to be unconstitutional on those grounds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.calchannel.com/channel/live/5\">\u003cstrong>Watch the proceedings live\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today’s detour back into state court may actually be a pivotal moment in the final fate of Prop 8. In August, Scott Shafer \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/08/02/analysis-prop-8-standing-question-may-be-a-close-call-in-hearing-set-for-sept-6/\">talked\u003c/a> to UC Davis law professor Vikrim Amar about the issue of standing. Amar said if the court advises the 9th Circuit that California law does not give initiative proponents legal standing, it’s nearly certain the Prop. 8 appeal will die. At that point, he said, the chances the U.S. Supreme Court would take up an appeal would be “infinitesimally small.”\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/39181/live-webcast-tweets-from-prop-8-oral-arguments-at-california-supreme-court",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_38548": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_38548",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "38548",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1314656867000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1314656867,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop 8 Judge Says He'll Rule Quickly on Release of Trial Video; Main Issue of Legal Standing to Be Heard Next Week",
"title": "Prop 8 Judge Says He'll Rule Quickly on Release of Trial Video; Main Issue of Legal Standing to Be Heard Next Week",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>At today's hearing on whether to release the Prop. 8 trial recordings, federal Judge James Ware noted that on his way into the building this morning he saw a woman holding a sign that read \"Free the Tapes.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That elicited giggles in the courtroom (the woman later showed up to a post-hearing press conference with her now-famous sign) but Judge Ware used it to underscore the legal question he's facing: Whether to lift the protective order that trial-court Judge Vaughn Walker placed on the trial tapes. Lifting it might make the public happy, he noted. But \"I am concerned about the integrity of the court and the judicial process.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Judge Ware said, \"I generally think it's a good thing\" to allow the media more access to the courts. But he also hesitated to lift another judge's order -- an order \u003ca href=\"http://www.protectmarriage.com/\">Yes on 8\u003c/a>. Attorneys said was an \"ironclad guarantee\" that the trial tapes would never be broadcast.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"These are not state secrets,\" said No on 8 attorney Theodore Boutrous. \"They are not radioactive materials. It's just a record of what happened in this courtroom\" and the public should get to see them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Judge Ware promised to make a decision quickly. But Yes on 8 attorney David Thompson asked for an immediate stay on Ware's decision should he lift the protective order. Once again with this issue, the end is really just another beginning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Next week is the main event: Tuesday the California Supreme Court -- presumably with newly sworn-in justice Goodwin Liu -- will hear oral arguments over whether Prop. 8 sponsors have legal standing to challenge the decision striking down their ballot measure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If they lose that legal round, backers of Prop. 8 will be very nearly out of rabbits to pull out of the hat as the 9th Circuit will almost certainly let Judge Walker's decision stand.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "38548 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=38548",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/08/29/prop-8-judge-says-hell-rule-quickly-on-release-of-trial-video/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 319,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 9
},
"modified": 1314657150,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "At today's hearing on whether to release the Prop. 8 trial recordings, federal Judge James Ware noted that on his way into the building this morning he saw a woman holding a sign that read "Free the Tapes." That elicited giggles in the courtroom (the woman later showed up to a post-hearing press conference with",
"title": "Prop 8 Judge Says He'll Rule Quickly on Release of Trial Video; Main Issue of Legal Standing to Be Heard Next Week | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop 8 Judge Says He'll Rule Quickly on Release of Trial Video; Main Issue of Legal Standing to Be Heard Next Week",
"datePublished": "2011-08-29T15:27:47-07:00",
"dateModified": "2011-08-29T15:32:30-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "prop-8-judge-says-hell-rule-quickly-on-release-of-trial-video",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/38548/prop-8-judge-says-hell-rule-quickly-on-release-of-trial-video",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>At today's hearing on whether to release the Prop. 8 trial recordings, federal Judge James Ware noted that on his way into the building this morning he saw a woman holding a sign that read \"Free the Tapes.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That elicited giggles in the courtroom (the woman later showed up to a post-hearing press conference with her now-famous sign) but Judge Ware used it to underscore the legal question he's facing: Whether to lift the protective order that trial-court Judge Vaughn Walker placed on the trial tapes. Lifting it might make the public happy, he noted. But \"I am concerned about the integrity of the court and the judicial process.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Judge Ware said, \"I generally think it's a good thing\" to allow the media more access to the courts. But he also hesitated to lift another judge's order -- an order \u003ca href=\"http://www.protectmarriage.com/\">Yes on 8\u003c/a>. Attorneys said was an \"ironclad guarantee\" that the trial tapes would never be broadcast.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"These are not state secrets,\" said No on 8 attorney Theodore Boutrous. \"They are not radioactive materials. It's just a record of what happened in this courtroom\" and the public should get to see them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Judge Ware promised to make a decision quickly. But Yes on 8 attorney David Thompson asked for an immediate stay on Ware's decision should he lift the protective order. Once again with this issue, the end is really just another beginning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Next week is the main event: Tuesday the California Supreme Court -- presumably with newly sworn-in justice Goodwin Liu -- will hear oral arguments over whether Prop. 8 sponsors have legal standing to challenge the decision striking down their ballot measure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If they lose that legal round, backers of Prop. 8 will be very nearly out of rabbits to pull out of the hat as the 9th Circuit will almost certainly let Judge Walker's decision stand.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/38548/prop-8-judge-says-hell-rule-quickly-on-release-of-trial-video",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_1820",
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Spooked",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?tag=proposition-8": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 84,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 134,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_55491",
"news_55192",
"news_52690",
"news_50146",
"news_49390",
"news_49195",
"news_47520",
"news_47377",
"news_41913",
"news_40321",
"news_39181",
"news_38548"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news_tag_proposition-8": {
"isLoading": true
},
"news_126": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_126",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "126",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Proposition 8",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Proposition 8 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 130,
"slug": "proposition-8",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-8"
},
"news_6944": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6944",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6944",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/News-Fix-Logo-Web-Banners-04.png",
"name": "News Fix",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "The News Fix is a daily news podcast from KQED that breaks down the latest headlines and provides in-depth analysis of the stories that matter to the Bay Area.",
"title": "News Fix - Daily Dose of Bay Area News | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6968,
"slug": "news-fix",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/news-fix"
},
"news_6188": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/law-and-justice"
},
"news_82": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_82",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "82",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "LGBT",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "LGBT Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 83,
"slug": "lgbt",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/lgbt"
},
"news_323": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_323",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "323",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Perry v. Schwarzenegger",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Perry v. Schwarzenegger Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 331,
"slug": "perry-v-schwarzenegger",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/perry-v-schwarzenegger"
},
"news_322": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_322",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "322",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex marriage",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex marriage Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 330,
"slug": "same-sex-marriage",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex-marriage"
},
"news_13": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_13",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "13",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 13,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/politics"
},
"news_1698": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1698",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1698",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Belva Davis",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Belva Davis Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1710,
"slug": "belva-davis",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/belva-davis"
},
"news_1871": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1871",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1871",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California GOP",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California GOP Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1886,
"slug": "california-gop",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california-gop"
},
"news_2213": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2213",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2213",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Fred Karger",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Fred Karger Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2228,
"slug": "fred-karger",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/fred-karger"
},
"news_1697": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1697",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1697",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "This Week in Northern California",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "This Week in Northern California Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1709,
"slug": "this-week-in-northern-california",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/this-week-in-northern-california"
},
"news_223": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_223",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "223",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Arts and Culture",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Arts and Culture Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 231,
"slug": "arts-and-culture",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/arts-and-culture"
},
"news_2151": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2151",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2151",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "George Clooney",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "George Clooney Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2166,
"slug": "george-clooney",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/george-clooney"
},
"news_145": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_145",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "145",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Proposition 25",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Proposition 25 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 151,
"slug": "proposition-25",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-25"
},
"news_1244": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1244",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1244",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Vaughn Walker",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Vaughn Walker Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1256,
"slug": "vaughn-walker",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/vaughn-walker"
},
"news_1820": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1820",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1820",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Judge James Ware",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Judge James Ware Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1835,
"slug": "judge-james-ware",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/judge-james-ware"
}
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {
"region": {
"key": "Restaurant Region",
"filters": [
"Any Region"
]
},
"cuisine": {
"key": "Restaurant Cuisine",
"filters": [
"Any Cuisine"
]
}
},
"restaurantDataById": {},
"restaurantIdsSorted": [],
"error": null
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
}
}
