Tightie Rightie Melt Down over Prop 8 Ruling

[Hepburn]

The Outrageous Order of Judge Vaughn Walker

Judge Vaughn Walker, after ordering a trial which neither party requested, is now ordering only one side — the pro-marriage forces, to turn over confidential campaign communications.

This is outrageous. Prop 8 was not passed by the five or six men who form the Protect Marriage Committee. It was passed by the votes of millions of Californians. Confidential campaign communications cannot, by definition, be relevant to their personal motivations in voting for Prop 8.

This is judicial harassment, plain and simple. It means that millions of Californians who expressed opinions to the Prop 8 campaign may now be exposed to the tactics of intimidation that have taken place against donors. It means that campaign strategy may be judicially revealed a few months before 2010, the year gay-marriage advocates have pledged to repeal Prop 8.

This is not an even playing field. It is one-sided in the extreme. The private, confidential intentions of the proposers could not have had any influence on the voters — and so are irrelevant.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGY1MWMzNWZiM2Y0OTQ5ZTI0M2FhZjc4ZjUwYmExYjk=

The claim for wanting the communications to be kept confidential? Violence from teh gay. Yep, this RW nutcase refers to the violence which has already taken place.

Oh, poor, homophobic victims... GMAFB... :puke:

[Richardo]

1. I understand Orly Taitz is between cases right now....

:D

[Hepburn]

2. Should we send them her number?

She most likely will be needing the funds soon...REAL soon! :evilgrin:

[KamaAina]

3. Of course not. Massive media blitzes funded by out-of-state $$$ never have any effect on voters.

And certainly not in a campaign over a ballot initiative (ass opposed to a race between candidates). That never happens.

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge up in The City I'd like to show you... :eyes:

[Ian David]

4. Are they looking for proof that the anti-gay people KNEW they were lying? n/t

[Hepburn]

6. Here is what the judge's ruling was all about:

Judge to Prop. 8 backers: Turn over your papers

(10-02) 18:10 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge has ordered sponsors of California's Proposition 8 to release campaign strategy documents that opponents believe could show that backers of the same-sex marriage ban were motivated by prejudice against gays.

Plaintiffs in a federal suit seeking to overturn Prop. 8 - two same-sex couples, a gay-rights organization and the city of San Francisco - contend that the measure's real purpose was to strip a historically persecuted minority group of rights held by the majority.

If the courts find that the ballot measure was motivated by discrimination, they could strike it down without having to decide whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

"The intent or purpose of Prop. 8 is central to this litigation," Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker declared Thursday in requiring backers of the November 2008 measure to give the opposing side their internal campaign communications.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/02/BANH1A0DM8.DTL&tsp=1

IMO, those who drafted the lawsuit are very, very good lawyers. This is my opinion because of the manner in which they defined the issue ~~ not whether same sex couples have a right to marriage, but rather that Prop 8 was motivated by prejudice and therefore it must fall.

That is why the judge, IMO, found that the communications of the backers were completely relevant to the issue raised in the suit and therefore subject to discovery.

Edit for typo

[Ian David]

8. Got it. Thanks! n/t

[Howardx]

10. thanks!

that made it clearer

[Hepburn]

11. Both of you are very welcome.

As a retired lawyer, I really like to see "good lawyering" and the way this suit drafted to define the issues to me falls squarely within that category.

:hi:

[DireStrike]

12. Note how the counter-statement makes NO MENTION of what the case is really about

Spin, spin, spin. Yes, you are arguing in good faith. I'm going to go eat my breakfast stick now...

[Hepburn]

15. They are sooooooooo worried about their rights...

...but wish to walk all over and cover with shit and destroy the rights of gay partners and families.

Talk about being blind....:eyes:

[gratuitous]

5. The poor dears!

Having to bring their bigotry out in all its glory for the scrutiny of great unwashed. Pissing and moaning about the one-sidedness of it all, did the pro-Prop H8 folks request full disclosure of the other side's campaign communications? The court can't issue a ruling on a question it wasn't asked, you know.

I also note that for all the crying about "intimidation" against Prop H8 supporters, the Corner fails to cite any examples. I'm guessing that's because either there aren't any or the "intimidation" cried about wouldn't qualify as intimidation by anyone over the age of 3.

[Hepburn]

7. Yeah....

...there are sooooo many "hate crimes" by teh gay against str8s.

:sarcasm:

[Kerrytravelers]

9. I know that every day, I walk in fear of the Gay Banditos.

Nobody says it better than Lewis Black.

[Arkana]

14. They walk in, all stealthy-like...

and proceed to FUCK EACH OTHER ON THE LAWN!!!!!!!!

[Arkana]

13. They're afraid of backlash like earlier against businesses that donated to the Prop 8 cause.

[Hepburn]

16. I do agree....there have been boycotts.

But let me put it this way: I do not want my money going to any business which supported Prop 8. As important as it was to the homophobic bigots to hurt others in the name of Jay-zus, they need to understand that actions have consequences and one of those may be the loss of revenue because their views are offensive.

JMHO

[Howardx]

17. bingo

they need to have the courage of their convictions, if what they are doing is so right then the threat of boycotts/lost revenue shouldnt bother them a bit.