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

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


Breaking News

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


Supreme Court: Kennedy’s questions offer hope -and worry- for both sides in state marriage ban argumentSupreme Court: Kennedy’s questions offer hope -and worry- for both sides in state marriage ban argument

Though attorneys for same-sex couples tried numerous times to focus attention to the damage that bans on same-sex marriage inflict on the rights of LGBT people, the spotlight during Tuesday’s U.S. Supreme Court argument stayed largely on the rights of states to regulate marriage.

» more


Sparring continues among appeals courts as Supreme Court puts off marriage cases another week

The U.S. Supreme Court put off until at least this Friday (January 16) a decision on whether it will hear appeals challenging a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that said states can ban same-sex couples from marrying. Meanwhile, three judges of the Ninth Circuit issued a blistering dissent against the full appeals courts refusal to hear appeals from Idaho and Nevada, and a three-judge panel at the Fifth Circuit heard arguments from challenges to three state bans on Monday.

» more


Sixth Circuit panel upholds bans on same-sex marriage, setting up national showdown for Supreme Court

In a decision that will compel the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of bans against marriage for same-sex couples, a panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that it is not unconstitutional for a state to ban marriage licenses to same-sex couples or refuse to recognize marriage licenses such couples obtain from other states.

» more


Healey makes history, Maloney survives, DeMaio’s in a squeaker, but Michaud comes up short

Maura Healey became the first openly gay person elected as a state attorney general, Sheila Kuehl won a hotly contested race in Los Angeles, Sean Maloney survived his U.S. House challenge, and Carl DeMaio may have won a squeaker in San Diego, but Mike Michaud lost his bid in Maine.

» more