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

GOP field: split on Kim Davis, NOM pledge; agreed on Planned Parenthood

  While the many Republican presidential hopefuls hold similar positions on LGBT-related issues, the past two weeks has seen them begin to distinguish themselves in some ways. For instance, during the past two weeks, five said they believe Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis has a religious freedom right to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, […]

» more

Breaking News

Clinton promises to fight for LGBT Americans, Biden says the victories won in the past ensure the ease of future gains

There were some notable contrasts in the speeches of Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and potential contender Joe Biden during their separate appearances before Human Rights Campaign events in Washington Saturday.

» more

Fiorina shines, Bush ‘contorts’ to the right, Walker and Perry are gone

People posting on the Log Cabin Republican’s Facebook timeline last Wednesday night overwhelmingly agreed that business executive Carly Fiorina was the winner. But not everyone was praising Fiorina after the debate.

» more

Supreme Court denies stay in Kentucky clerk bid to refuse marriage licenses

In a significant blow to those who seek to use a free exercise of religion argument to discriminate against same-sex couples seeking to marry, U.S. Supreme Court on Monday evening denied an emergency request to stop enforcement of a federal district court order that a Kentucky county clerk resume issuing marriage licenses.

» more

Cruz says gay florist should be able to refuse service to evangelical

Republican presidential hopeful told a gathering last Friday that a gay florist should be able to refuse service to an evangelical couple if the florist disagrees with the couple’s faith.

» more

Religion v. equal protection showdown reaches 6th Circuit

An important showdown between the constitutional rights to religious freedom and equal protection reached a federal appeals court Tuesday (August 18). A county clerk in Kentucky filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in hopes of securing the right to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

» more