ad_email
ad_email_468

7 responses to “Marriage equality opponents vow rematch over public disclosure case”

  1. Bonny

    Gay activists shouldn’t be too happy. No doubt one day it will be the names of their kind being disclosed for supporting laws in favor of gay rights. Then they shall reap the whirlwind of those who want to harass people for having differing viewpoints, just like those affected by this ruling no doubt will.

  2. Anthony86

    Bonny – Oh please, what more harm and intimidation can anti-gay individuals and groups do to the LGBT community that they haven’t already done?

    You people are the ones threatening and menacing gays and lesbians on the streets and in their homes, not the other way around.

    You anti-gay cowards are so pathetic. You openly attack others with your prejudice and then try to hide behind walls of secrecy. But now the law just knocked that wall down.

  3. Reyn

    The names of THEIR KIND? Oh come on, Bonny — I’ve never hidden my name, or my identity — every petition and every action I’ve ever been part of has had my name – and often contact information – openly available. I believe in democracy. Have I been harassed? Sure. That doesn’t change me or my opinions one iota, nor do I run for protection. The laws already make clear lines that protect my person and property, I don’t need more, special rights — just equal rights — as we always want.

    Reyn
    mercuryhermes_01@yahoo.com

  4. Kyle

    @Bonny: So long as “our kind” stays out of the business of trying to take away the rights of another minority, we should be fine. But thanks for your concern,

  5. Joe Mustich, JP

    Let the sunshine in.
    Onward, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
    Washington, Connecticut, USA.

  6. August Berkshire

    Bonnie, the GLBT community has already suffered plenty at the hands of Christian gay-bashers. They have to resort to existing laws against violence, just as the defendants in this case will have to.

    The reason that names must be disclosed is to permit an open investigation against forged or ineligible signatures, since there is a minimum number of signatures required to put hateful propositions like this to a vote.

    Bonnie, when will we be permitted to vote away YOUR marriage rights?

  7. Mombian » Blog Archive » Weekly Political Roundup

    […] U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law requiring public disclosure of the names of people who signed a petition to put an […]

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

“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


Roberts’ questions stole the spotlight; will they steal the show on marriage?

Most legal observers who watched or listened to the oral arguments from April 28 in Obergefell v. Hodges, an appeal seeking to strike down bans on same-sex marriages in four states, focused on the likelihood that Justice Anthony Kennedy will vote with the court’s four liberal wing justices and find the bans unconstitutional. But a few, like University of California School of Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, believe the vote could even be 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John Roberts on board.

» more