By a slim 5-4 margin the U. S. Supreme Court today blocked cameras from broadcasting the Prop 8 trial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A trail date of January 2010 has been set for hearings to begin on a Federal challenge to Proposition 8, which passed in November of 2008 preventing California from recognizing same-sex marriages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five male friends were ejected from a Chico’s Tacos in El Paso in late June, when security guards observed two of the men kiss, saying “they didn’t allow that faggot stuff to go on there.” When police arrived to investigate the incident, they refused to hear the complaint first, citing that it was illegal for two men or two women to kiss in public… in Texas.

At about 12:30 a.m. on the morning of June 29, the five men were placing their order at the Chico’s Tacos on Montwood when the two men made their public display of affection, sparking the ire of two contracted security guards at the restaurant, police and witnesses said. After the group sat down, the security guards told them “they didn’t allow that faggot stuff to go on there,” and made them leave, de Leon said. An officer arrived at the restaurant about an hour later, after police received five calls, including from the security guards and de Leon. The men were told to leave the restaurant and had anti-gay slurs directed at them while they waited for the police.

“I went up to the police officer to tell him what was going on and he didn’t want to hear my side,” de Leon said. “He wanted to hear the security guard’s side first.” The officer informed the group it was illegal for two men or two women to kiss in public, de Leon said. The five were told they could be cited for homosexual conduct – a charge the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas. That same year, the city of El Paso passed an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation by employees of the city and by businesses open to the public. El Paso Police Detective Carlos Carrillo said a more appropriate charge would probably be criminal trespass. “The security guard received a complaint from some of the customers there,” Carrillo said. “Every business has the right to refuse service. They have the right to refuse service to whoever they don’t want there. That’s their prerogative.”

More from ABC7 in El Paso:

After losing a lawsuit accusing the city of San Francisco of hostility toward the Catholic Church, Richard Thompson of the Thomas Moore Law Center had some harsh words for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, drawing on the holocaust for inspiration:

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

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

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

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

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