ad_email
ad_email_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

Sixth Circuit GOP judges: Why not let the voters decide who gets to marry?

The three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals seemed to signal pretty clearly where they’re headed on the six marriage equality lawsuits they heard arguments in Wednesday: toward the first federal appeals ruling to undo lower court rulings that held state bans on marriage for same-sex couples to be unconstitutional.

» more


Breaking News

Polis tries parliamentary maneuver in hopes of moving ENDA to the floor

Because House Speaker John Boehner has vowed to block ENDA from getting a vote, the discharge petition has become the only hope to force ENDA to the floor if the Republican-dominated chamber. U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, with the backing of Democratic House leaders, filed a petition with the House clerk. It’s a long-shot but ENDA supporters need to find just 16 signatures to get the ball rolling.

» more


Sixth Circuit GOP judges: Why not let the voters decide who gets to marry?

The three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals seemed to signal pretty clearly where they’re headed on the six marriage equality lawsuits they heard arguments in Wednesday: toward the first federal appeals ruling to undo lower court rulings that held state bans on marriage for same-sex couples to be unconstitutional.

» more


Fourth Circuit panel votes 2 to 1 to strike Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban

It was clear from the oral argument that two out of three of the judges on a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel would vote on opposite sides concerning the constitutionality of Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. The question was how the third judge would vote. That question was answered Monday: He voted against the ban.

» more


President signs historic executive order

President Obama this morning (July 21) signed a long-sought executive order prohibiting contractors who do business with the federal government from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and adding to existing protection (which includes sexual orientation) for federal employees a prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity.

» more


Legal activists call Hobby Lobby decision ‘radical’ and will require vigilance to protect LGBT equality

Some LGBT legal activists say today’s decision in a U.S. Supreme Court religious exemption case amounts to a “dangerous and radical departure from existing law that creates far more questions than it answers.”

Saying it is not providing a “shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice,” a 5 to 4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 30) that a federal law may not require a closely held commercial employer to provide health insurance coverage for contraception if that employer claims that to do so violates his or her personal religious beliefs.

» more