So there’s some good news.  Although it’s predictable, it’s nonetheless good.  Proposition 8 supporters who donated money were denied special rights to anonymity.

It’s interesting to note that the Proposition 8 people are going to the U.S. District court to “overturn the will of the people.”  You see, the 1974 Political Reform Act was a California ballot initiative.  And the Prop 8 people are saying that the ballot initiative is unconstitutional.

Now, I believe that Prop 8 is unconstitutional as a constitutional amendment.  I’m hoping the California Supreme Court judges will agree.  But it’s so ironic that the people arguing that the voters are the ultimate judges and should dictate the rights of the minority are here arguing that no, the voters voted in 1974 for an unconstitutional law.

Proposition 8 proponents’ complaint that a California campaign-finance disclosure law has led to harassment of same-sex marriage opponents failed to sway a federal judge, who refused Thursday to throw out the law or shield donors’ names.

…

“If there ever needs to be sunshine on a particular issue, it’s a ballot measure,” U.S. District Judge Morrison England said after a one-hour hearing in his Sacramento courtroom.

…

He argued that the $100 disclosure requirement – adopted by California voters in 1974 – should be struck down, modified to raise the dollar limits, or at least not applied to Prop. 8′s contributors. As a first step, Coleson said, the campaign should be exempted from the state’s post-election contribution report, due Monday.

Get that? Everyone else who donates money since 1974 in California should have their donation records publicly available, but not the Proposition 8 people.  No! They have a special right to privacy.

And who are they comparing themselves to to argue for this right?

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld campaign disclosure laws in 1976 but ruled in 1982 that the Socialist Workers Party in Ohio could shield its donors’ names because of a history of attacks and reprisals.

Protect Marriage argued that it was entitled to the same exemption because of retaliation against some of its contributors, but lawyers for the state said the two cases weren’t comparable. They noted that the Prop. 8 campaign raised nearly $30 million from 36,000 donors.

So let’s get this straight (pardon the pun).  The California Supreme Court ruled that gay, lesbian and bisexual people have historically been subject to persecution and are thus a suspect class deserving strict scrutiny for laws limiting their rights (meaning, the bar is very high for the government to justify unequal treatment).  Now, the Proposition 8 people are comparing themselves to socialists, who received an exemption from a similar law in Ohio.  Why? Because socialists have been historically persecuted in the US, so they need extra protection in the form of anonymity to participate in democracy.

I’m not so sure I agree with that (mulling it over), but that’s the rationale they gave for the exemption.

What about the Proposition 8 donors? They’re not minority group that’s been historically persecuted.  They’re part of the majority that’s donating to persecute a minority group!

[Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini] noted that some of the reprisals reported by the Prop. 8 committee involve legal activities such as boycotts and picketing. Other alleged actions, such as death threats, mailings of white powder and vandalism, may constitute “repugnant and despicable acts” but can be reported to law enforcement, the judge said.

So let’s look at this again.  The Proposition 8 people allege that they’ve been threatened with illegal behavior.  But there are no lawsuits.  Compare this with the recent hate crimes in California against gay and lesbian citizens.  People are actually being found and tried, such as the gang rape suspects who targeted, kidnapped, raped and robbed and assaulted a woman who had a rainbow flag on her car in a gay neighborhood in San Francisco.

There’s no comparison.

But they still feel persecuted somehow.  Or are arguing for special rights to anonymity.

Referring to the donors whose names will appear in Monday’s public report, campaign spokesman Frank Schubert said England’s ruling “puts 1,600 people in harm’s way.”

Yes, so 1,600 people donated to strip fundamental rights from a historically persecuted minority group.  And the Prop 8 lawyers are right now arguing that 18,000 married people and their children should lose their marital and family rights and obligations — which would be a sure thing.  But the 1,600 people should become anonymous so that they might not get fake white powder or have people who don’t want to buy their goods or services.

Astounding.

[Quoting from Prop. 8 campaign can't hide donors' names]

Apparently Obama took over the white house domain one minute after swearing in.

A look at the civil rights sections is pretty amazing — the LGBT section comes second, but is longer and more comprehensive than the section for race.  Complete text below the jump.

In keeping with his political stance during the campaign for the presidency, he’s for repealing DOMA and for civil unions.  This means that being married anywhere will give acces to the  federal recognition of marriage, leaving recognition by individual states behind.

Support for the LGBT Community

“While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”– Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

• Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
• Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees’ domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
• Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
• Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
• Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
• Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
• Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, President Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. The President will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma — too often tied to homophobia — that continues to surround HIV/AIDS.
• Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. President Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

Hat tip to Tammy Bruce for catching the quick changeroo for the white house home page.

Proposition 8

Today, as expected, Ken Starr (yeah, that one) filed a new brief in response to California Attorney General’s recent brief against proposition 8.

He relied in major part on one thing I find a bit ironic: trust in the people.  Meaning, just because the majority of Californian voters want to treat the gays as less than equal in marriage doesn’t mean that they will want to take away other rights of the gays and lesbians and other minority groups.

Um, hello?

The amicus letters already filed, and especially the separate petition by the Asian conglomeration of organizations, points out just how terrible the majority of Californians have been in the past.

He calls it unwarranted fears.  We call it maize.

Although not a fan of Starr, what I found most compelling is this:

The Attorney General does not cite a single California case suggesting that the judiciary has authority to strike down properly-enacted amendments to the Constitution for violating article I, section 1 or undefined notions of inalienable rights or natural justice.

In other words, Brown’s argument is so new that he couldn’t find a single case anywhere in California’s history of major law suits to support the argument.

Leading with that fact, Starr goes on to try to undermine the argument.  I find a lot of that kind of hoakey, like the unwarranted fears bit.  The fears are so warranted by everyone involved that it’s kind of unbelievable that he would be able to argue that with a straight face (no pun intended).