ad_email
ad_facebook_468

7 responses to “Contempt order looms in Prop 8 trial”

  1. James

    The irony of this whole thing is that the Proposition 8 proponents made the exact same arguments when the plaintiffs demanded their documents. And now the shoe is on the other foot and the plaintiffs do this. What a bunch of hypocrites.

  2. Misken

    Not hypocrites. The Yes on 8 group actively sought to do something. The No on 8 actively sought to prevent something. There is something different than pushing and preventing. The point of the case is to determine whether the Yes on 8 people had animus towards gay people as their motivation to push the case.

    As for the No on 8 people. Well…they aren’t even part of the lawsuit. There is no reason for them to have to turn over private communications. This is simply more stalling tactics on the part of the Yes on 8 council.

  3. CraigNJ

    James, you missed the point. Equality CA and the ACLU are NOT plaintiffs in the case, yet they are still being required to turn over the documents.

  4. Anymouse

    Maybe because it’s all valid? Last time I checked, both YES and NO participated in the campaign, which means both made contributions. Last time I checked, NO was the side that made outright attacks against a specific minority and tried to place all blame on them, so I’m not surprised that their own communications should be in question since they obviously moved to antagonize themselves, in which case, yes, they are being hypocritical. Over the course of this, NO supporters have made so many comments about how YES kept its communications ‘hidden’ and how that MUST be proof of something, and now that the tables are turned, they are complaining how it ‘violates’ their privacy rights. Oh well, I guess those rights must only apply to them then, since obviously other organizations must not have those same rights. Here’s some advice, if you demand something of someone, be prepared to do the same yourself, otherwise, you’re just whining. That is why NO lost in the first place, self-focused thinking that caters only to those who agree with them, not to opening up communications and understanding.

  5. MaryJo

    Yes on Prop 8 is NOT anti-gay! (See last line of 2nd paragraph.) They are PRO marriage between a man and a woman. Gays can still be gay. No problem. They’ve been doing it for years and they will for years to come.
    Lisa Keen, please state the case correctly without personal bias. Perhaps that line was just an error. In that case, please be more careful about editing.

  6. Ruth Institute Blog » A Prop 8 Trial Development I’m Not Sure I Like….

    [...] No on 8 crowd is getting a taste of its own medicine. They are being ordered to turn documents over to the courts. I’m not sure I like it because it is a tit-for-tat move [...]

  7. marshzd

    Everyone keeps saying that the No on 8 side shouldn’t have to turn over their documents – actually, that’s NOT true. Due to the nature of this case, it’s more like a lawsuit than anything else. When someone sues someone else, does anyone argue “but you shouldn’t be investigated, because you’re the one sueing”? Absolutely not.

    Part of the No on 8 argument is that [LGBT people] have no political power. Which means part of the Yes on 8′s side ability to prove they have political power could be found in the No on 8 documents.

    Establishing animus. If the Yes on 8 side can prove the No on 8 side had animus, while they haven’t, it solidifies their case.

    I’m not saying that these things WILL happen, I’m saying that the arguments the No on 8 side are using have opened them up.

    Now I know a bunch of you are going to disagree with me, but it’s apparent that two judges agree that the documents should be released.

Leave a Reply

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

A Closer Look

Utah marriage cases cued up before the Tenth Circuit today, and next weekUtah marriage cases cued up before the Tenth Circuit today, and next week

The Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals today will become the second federal appeals court to tackle the question of whether statewide laws banning same-sex couples from marrying violate the U.S. Constitution. A three-judge panel will scrutinize the decision last December that held the state constitution’s definition of marriage as being only between “a man and a woman” is not permissible under the U.S. Constitution.

» more


Breaking News

Prop 8 book ‘Forcing the Spring’ triggers pile-on of criticism for ‘distortions’

There has been a dramatic pile-on of criticism around the release Tuesday of a new book about the legal case that challenged California’s Proposition 8. The book, Forcing the Spring, by New York Times writer Jo Becker, has been thoroughly pilloried by many plugged-in LGBT activists and journalists this week, both publicly and privately.

» more


Utah marriage cases cued up before the Tenth Circuit today, and next weekUtah marriage cases cued up before the Tenth Circuit today, and next week

The Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals today will become the second federal appeals court to tackle the question of whether statewide laws banning same-sex couples from marrying violate the U.S. Constitution. A three-judge panel will scrutinize the decision last December that held the state constitution’s definition of marriage as being only between “a man and a woman” is not permissible under the U.S. Constitution.

» more


Report urges push to get the full picture on LGBT health in CDC data sweepReport urges push to get the full picture on LGBT health in CDC data sweep

A report released March 27 by the Boston-based Fenway Institute has found important health-related risks within the LGB community that are not well-documented or well-known and not addressed by prevention and treatment programs.

» more


Supreme Court hearing on religious exemptions seems “deeply worrisome”Supreme Court hearing on religious exemptions seems “deeply worrisome”

The implications of two U.S. Supreme Court cases argued Tuesday for LGBT people and for laws that seek to prevent discrimination against LGBT people were a big part of the political discourse Tuesday afternoon. Jenny Pizer, director of Lambda Legal’s Law and Public Policy program, said her sense of how the arguments went is “deeply worrisome.”

» more


Sixth Circuit stays Michigan until Wednesday; hundreds already marriedSixth Circuit stays Michigan until Wednesday; hundreds already married

The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued a stay at 5 p.m. Saturday of a district court decision Friday that struck down Michigan’s ban on same-sex couples marrying. Meanwhile, hundreds of same-sex couples married before the stay was issued. The appeals court is expected to render its decision on the stay Wednesday.

» more