January 29th 2009
Judge Abets Harassment Of Prop 8 Supporters
U
.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. curtly rejected a frantic attempt by supporters of Prop. 8 – California’s marriage protection initiative – to keep late donor names separate, saying dismissively:
“The court finds that the state is not facilitating retaliation by compelling disclosure.” (source)
Interesting finding, with “interesting” being polite for “lame, ridiculous, unintelligible.” While California law is straightforward, stating that disclosure is required, Prop. 8 supporters made a compelling argument for privacy protection – you know the protection they give women who want to kill their pre-borns - claiming donors have been ravaged by hateful and threatening e-mails and phone calls, confrontations, and even death threats.
Now the judge could have ruled that the California Political Reform Act requires disclosure of contributors of more than $100 and the Prop 8 donors failed to make a compelling case for not enforcing it, but instead he said the state “is not facilitating retaliation by compelling disclosure.”
On what planet? Prop 8 supporters aren’t going around in Yes on Prop 8 T-shirts, bating violent straightophobes who want to punch someone out for supporting traditional marriage, so how else will the No on 8 die-hards find victims?
Does England really think putting the names of contributors into the hands of people who have done plenty to prove their capabilities in thuggery and harrassment will have no consequences? He must be a liberal intellectual, because only a liberal intellectual could be that dense.
Posted in California, Gay Marriage | 10 Comments » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments
January 29th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Why should anyone who donates to a political cause be allowed to do so anonymously? What’s funny here is that the Prop 8 supporters, before the vote, threatened opponents and called for boycotts. Now that they are facing the same they demand special status. Let the sun shine on the bigots so the world can see who they are.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:01 am
Nice unsubstantiated claim. You’re just as bigoted against people who believe in the 4,000+ year history of marriage.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Funny that you can’t even address the main point of my comment — that the prop 8 supporters are now crying foul when the very tactics they first used are now being used against them. And now they want more special privileges, the privilege of hiding their donations, of keeping their actions anonymous. This seems to fit with their idea that they somehow are deserving of rights reserved only for themselves.
What is unsubstantiated about my claim? When a group of people seek to deny rights to another group, rights that they themselves enjoy, this is called inequality, and it’s a violation of the most fundamental tenet of our nation. And the people who support such inequity are called bigots — you may remember them as the same type of people who sought to deny black people the right to vote. Those bigots, the KKK, the Southern Baptists, also referenced history as some sort of justification for their support of inequity. But just because something is historical does not make it right. Again, see slavery and Jim Crow for examples.
I’m glad the court has upheld the disclosure. The bigots have been recorded and their names are known, and will be known as long as the Internet is around.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Kara, campaign managers and high rolling donors are slightly different than your comon Joe donating $50 or $100 to a political campaign. You know as well as the rest of us that 99.9% of the folks who gave money were not involved in the initial calls for disclosure, the commercials, or any of the campaigns decisions. They simply believe that the word marriage should be defined as one man, one woman. They aren’t necessarily bigots. Most are not calling for the imprisonment or disenfranchisement of gays. They aren’t saying gay relationships can’t go on or that all rights afforded to married couples shouldn’t be extend to gays. They simply want to protect the word and the institution. So get a grip. Laer is right. Stop being a thug.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:44 am
You said, “Prop 8 supporters, before the vote, threatened opponents and called for boycotts,” but provided no substantiation.
You now say that “the very tactics they first used are now being used against them,” which is also unsubstantiated. The actions they are concerned about are the post-election harassment and threats many have experienced. People have been pushed around, yelled at, forced out of their jobs because they exercised their freedom of speech and democratic rights. Some opponents of Prop 8 have behaved appallingly. I have seen no reports that Prop 8 supporters ever harassed or threatened opponents. “Reserving rights” is very different from asking the state for a specific, one-time protection for cause.
I’m terribly sorry, Kara, but there is nothing bigoted about acting to protect the sanctity of marriage. Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the dawn of history in every society of the earth. When I seek to protect that long-established traditions from the whims of the gay rights lobby I am not asking that the rights of gays be otherwise restricted. Gay couples should (and largely do, thanks to recent laws, court decisions and changes in policies) have rights on a par with the rest of the public.
There is something very bigoted about your calling me, who you have never met and don’t know, no better than a racist.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Lauren -
I don’t see how it makes a difference how much one donated to the cause. Whether they donated thousands of dollars or just a few, they donated to finance a political campaign. If they didn’t support the advertisements or the “calls for disclosure”, they should not have donated. In the end, they supported a campaign that very specifically does disenfranchise homosexuals, by denying them the right to marry. Civil unions may give them the same legal standing, yet they cannot be married. That is an inequity, and it is not right. Either allow all to marry, or get the gov’t out of marriage altogether. If the gov’t is involved in marriage, then it cannot be reserved solely for one group of people.
And I don’t understand why allowing gays to marriage is so threatening to your conception of the idea of marriage. If don’t want to marry a homosexual, don’t. If you have a strong marriage, then a homosexual getting married does no damage to it.
Laer -
Here’s a reference to the threatened “outing” of Prop 8 opponents. This is essentially the same tactic that supporters are now crying about. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/23/state/n145556D05.DTL&tsp=1.
As for my claim of boycotss of Prop 8 opponents, I may indeed be wrong about that. I’m sorry about that. I was thinking of other boycotts of gay-friendly businesses by conservative groups. Nevertheless, it’s a tactic widely used to campaign against gay rights, and now these same people are complaining when the tables are turned.
Yes, people have been confronted and their businesses boycotted by Prop 8 opponents — this is also an “excercise of free speech and democratic rights.” Threats of course are wrong, and I condemn them, but that’s a law enforcement issue. The Prop 8 supporters should not be given the special privilege of having their donations made anonymous, as it undermines the democratic tradition. Democracy requires transparency.
Again you refer to historical precedent as some kind of justification for limiting marriage only to hetero couples, as if historical actions are infallible. And clearly they are not — again, look at slavery, another institution that dates back thousands of years. You need to come up with a better defense than just a long tradition; it means nothing.
If you feel marriage must be protected, do it within your own church. But when your moral framework encroaches on the rights of others, others who simply want to enjoy the same right to be marrried that you enjoy, then it is wrong, it is harmful, and it is unfair.
And there’s nothing bigoted about comparing those who would deny rights to gays with those would who deny rights to blacks. I support your right to believe what you like as long as your belifes do not harm others, but when your beliefs limit the rights of other law-abiding citizens, then those beliefs are harmful and should not be tolerated.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Kara – in your comment to Lauren, you used “disenfranchise” to describe gays not being able to marry. The word has a very specific meaning, and it does NOT apply to marriage.
Thanks for the documentation – it’s interesting; I hadn’t read it before. But it’s about an organization threatening businesses – which is out of line in my book – NOT about individuals threatening individuals, which was the basis of the plea to the court.
Long tradition definitely does NOT mean nothing For the one or two examples of bad long traditions that we need to fight (antisemitism, slavery), there are many we need to cherish: marriage, freedom, human rights, charity, democracy, respect. Now take respect as an example; it’s just a societal tradition, like marriage. If suddenly the definition and application of respect were to be changed by fiat in a way that bothered people who have been showing respect for generations, that would be a bad thing. It’s the same with marriage.
Marriage is more than just an old tradition. It is at the core of the stable, nuclear, productive, balanced, procreating family, which is the basis for the continuing strength and viability of a civilization. It is honored in the Bible, and the Bible is, whether you like it or not, the most influential book in America, a country where a very strong majority believe in the God of the Bible. In societies were marriage has broken down, like Scandanavia and Canada where more people now live together than are married, birth rates are dropping, and it’s now reaching the point where some European nations don’t even have a sustaining birth rate. Don’t knee-jerk and say “population bomb/good thing” – it’s not, it’s very bad because these nations won’t have enough young workers to support the welfare of older citizens.
I don’t offer that up as an argument against gay marriage per se, just as evidence of the sort of mental track I’ve followed in the formation of my opinions, a track that has nothing whatsoever to do with bigotry.
Finally, you said Prop 8 took away gays’ right to marry. It actually re-established the prior vote of the people to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman – an action the majority of the people of California took by the rights granted them in the state’s constitution. Our rights were taken away by a panel of judges that threw out the first gay marriage ban.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:37 am
No one forced anyone to donate money to this or any other proposition. Donating money was not mandatory to be able to vote. It was a chose on the part of those people to provide financial support to strip homosexauls of their equal rights. What they voted on in the voting booth is private and should remain so but that is not the case with donations. These people assumed that they could help finance homophobia and discrimination and not suffer any consequences. Is like punching someone in the face and expecting them not to retaliate. These people where proven wrong and the normally patient and polite homosexual not willing to take it anymore fought back and now the people who expected homosexuals to just turn the other cheek are crying foul because they did not act the way they where expected to act. Should this issue come back in 2010 or some other date to a vote perhaps people will think long and hard about whether they wish to financially and therefore publically support bigotry and discrimination. They are still in their right ot donate money if they feel strongly about it but they are not entitled to do so in a consequence free environment as they once did. The same holds true for the opposing side who are within their right to donate money to support gay marriage but don’t have the right to do it in a consequence free environment free from backlash from religious advocates.
For those who try to argue that opposition to same sex marriage is not about bigotry, the end result is the same, as it denies homosexuals their equal rights. And because there is not logical secular rational to justify opposition to same sex marriage such opposition is homophobic. God said it is not secular, it is icky is not secular, its been like that for thousands of years is not an argument because slavery was like that, and all those remarks about how its better for children and all that have been proven wrong with numerous studies.
February 24th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Stripped homosexuals of equal rights? Really??? What about the majority of Californians who were stripped of their right to vote when the court overturned their vote? Is that meaningless to you?
It is not homophobia; using such catch words just make you look like an idiot. The matter is a challenging social issue revolving around what should become of an age-old institution that has stood society well. To blow it off as homophobia – which basically doesn’t exist any more – shows you are unwilling to deal with reality, Dan.
And your threats against people exercising their constitutional rights to support or oppose political matters than concern them is just flat-out fascism.
August 24th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Laer the court acted upon the constitution, you know that little document that requires that everyone be treated equally under the law. The Court Found that the laws that prohibit gays and lesbians from getting married was unconstitutional. The constitution exists as a firewall against a thing called the Tyranny of the Majority. Which means a majority who try to harm and oppress a minority group they simply do not like or do not understand. Years ago people voted and supported Jim Crow laws, school segregation, bans on interracial marriage. The decision to overturn them was not left up to voters because Jim Crow laws, segregation, bans on interracial marriage all violated the constitution and even though the majority wanted to keep them because the violated the constitution they could not.
Tradition is not an answer regardless of how age old you claim it to be. Traditionally marriage was about female ownership, passing possession of a woman from her father to her husband as if she was cattle, that tradition is not upheld anymore. Traditionally marriage was prohibited between people of different races, again that tradition is no longer held, traditionally slavery was the law of the land and practiced by many but again that tradition is no longer held, the vast majority of people traditionally kept the Sabbath day a pure day of rest doing next to no work again that tradition is all but gone. Many traditions have come and gone and just because something is traditional does not mean and never means that it is sacra set for all time and unable to change or disappear. Just as those people who called for upholding racist laws like the Jim Crow laws or segregation because it was tradition are now called racist. Those who call for discrimination against homosexuals because it is tradition are bigots.
Finally since when has allowing people to boycott/ refuse to spend their money at business for whatever reason be it their stance on same sex marriage, or the attitude of their staff considered fascism. When I talk about a non-consequence free environment I am not talking about throwing same-sex marriage opponents in jail or slapping a fine on them, or any other such legal nonsense. They are free to do so and free to do so without the government punishing them. That doesn’t mean that consumers can’t financially punish them by refusing to do business with them or that their opponents can’t peacefully protest outside their business. As they are not entitled to the money those boycotters would pay and they are not entitled to deny others their freedom of speech. As such when they blatantly throw their views out into the open by funding something like Prop 8 they are not permitted to hide from the consequences of that action.