Archive for the ‘Proposition 8’ tag
California Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments about Proposition 8 on March 5
Just received this email from Equality California.
The California Supreme Court’s press release has some great information, including:
- A list of cable companies that carry California Network, which will broadcast the oral arguments live
Oddly, they’ve broken down the oral argument time into three hours, with each of the lawsuit plaintiff lawyers receiving 30 minutes (for 90 minutes for angel’s advocates). The attorney general will receive 30 minutes, but has been directed to spend half of his time arguing in support of prop 8, and half his time against prop 8.
Remember, he argued it both ways in his briefs, that proposition 8 isn’t a revision (one of the key questions the Court asked him to answer) but that it shouldn’t be constitutional anyway.
Let’s hope that the angels win and there’s no need for any more ballot initiatives to fix prop 8. In case you’ve forgotten, 90 days is the legal requirement for the California Supreme Court to render a decision after oral argument has been completed.
This means there will be an answer on or before Wednesday, June 3, 2009.
Text below from Equality California’s email. Read the rest of this entry »
Prop. 8 Campaign Has No Special Right to Anonymity
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]
Kenneth Starr’s New Prop 8 Filings
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?
Proposition 8 Attorneys Working through the Holidays
This just in. The California Supreme Court has issued an order. Details after the jump.
Attorney General Jerry Brown: Proposition 8 Must Be Stricken
A happy Friday surprise!
California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed an 111 page brief this evening asking the California Supreme Court to strike Proposition 8.
Yes On Proposition 8: People of the Year?
I just saw this headline and had to read. I’ve culled the best so you can skip the rest:
El Coyote Manager Steps Down
Looks like all the pressure on El Coyote has paid off for LA local supporters of marriage equality, according to Frontiers magazine: Read the rest of this entry »
brief tweets weekly (2008-12-07)
All the week’s briefs that are fit to tweet: Read the rest of this entry »
Bons Mots: Robin Tyler on the No on 8 Failure
Tyler with New Wife Diane Olson
Again, hat tip to Kip for his link on Proposition 8. Fun and ironic words from unusual circumstances: Read the rest of this entry »
Brief Appearance: Trust, But Verify
I’m sort of stealing this concept from KipEsquire (as I do many links lately). He calls the feature “comment left elsewhere. I thought it would be nice to have my own archive here if the comment is one relating to something I usually blog about, this time made on Trust, But Verify which is almost everything I remember about Ronald Reagan’s presidency as a child. The full text of my comment below the jump.
