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]

The South American nation of Columbia has gay marriage now.  Sort of.

Yesterday’s ruling goes farther, giving gay couples all the benefits and responsibilities enjoyed by heterosexual common-law couples.

Gay and lesbian couples can claim common-law marriage after living together for two years.

The ruling alleviates discrepancies in the areas of military pensions, social security benefits and property rights.

Several prominent lawmakers support giving more rights to gay and lesbian couples, Bogota’s Mayor Luis Eduardo Garzon and prominent Senator Armando Benedetti among them, reports the Washington Post.

This part threw me:

Gay people are often called desechables, which translates to disposable people.

When I visited Brazil as a kid, the disabled were called handicapped in America and deficientes, or deficient people.

via Colombia Establishes Equality For Gay Couples | On Top Magazine :: Gay & Lesbian News, Entertainment, Commentary & Travel.

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).