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

Why some think the dissent cries ‘wolf’ over Supreme Court marriage decision

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 decision striking down state bans against same-sex marriage has been touted as “probably the strongest manifesto in favor of marriage” and pilloried as “a threat to American democracy.” The huff and puff will soon die down, and here’s a look at the legal bricks that will remain standing and why some might think the dissent is crying “wolf.”

» more


Breaking News

EEOC decision gives concrete remedies for federal employees facing bias

A U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decision Thursday could provide important remedies to thousands of federal workers who might face sexual orientation discrimination and may increase pressure on Congress to advance the ENDA.

» more


“Justice that arrives like a thunderbolt”: On same-sex marriage “the fight is over”

June 26 has been solidified as the historic date for LGBT history in the United States. It is the day in 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not enforce laws prohibiting same-sex adults from having intimate relations. It is the day in 2013 when a Supreme Court procedural ruling enabled same-sex couples to marry […]

» more


Supreme Court: States must license and recognize licenses of marriages for same-sex couples

In a widely expected yet stunning victory for LGBT people nationally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 26) that state bans on marriage for same-sex couples are unconstitutional. The decision requires states to both issue marriage licenses to couples and to recognize marriage licenses obtained in other states by same-sex couples.

» more


Supreme Court upholds health insurance subsidies critical to people with HIV

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision, upheld the right of the federal government to provide health care insurance subsidies to people with low income in states that have chosen not to participate in the Affordable Care Act by setting up insurance “exchanges.”

The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is a big political victory for the Obama administration and a big relief for people with low incomes, including many people with HIV.

» more


Abercrombie case: LGBT and evangelicals on the same side

It is a rare occasion when LGBT legal activists find themselves on the same side of a case as the conservative Christian Legal Society and the National Association of Evangelicals. It is also rare to find LGBT legal activists on the same side as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and his fondness for hewing to the original explicit language of a law.

But so it was with EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch June 1, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot escape federal law’s requirement to accommodate a job applicant’s religious practices by claiming the applicant never told the employer about his or her religious practices.

» more