See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Judge to Prop. 8 backers: Turn over your papers
Source:
http://www.sfgate.com
URL Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic ... /c/a/2009/10/02/BANH1A0DM8.DTL
Published: Oct 2, 2009
Author: Bob Egelko
Post Date: 2009-10-02 22:53:38 by freepatriot32
Ping List: *libertarians* Subscribe to *libertarians*
Keywords: Judge, Prop. 8, papers please, libertarians
Views: 226
Comments: 13
(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. Backers' argument A day earlier, Prop 8's sponsors told Walker in a court filing that their opponents' claim of anti-gay motivation is legally irrelevant. In a final round of arguments seeking to uphold the measure without a trial, defenders of the ballot measure said California voters were entitled to amend their Constitution to preserve the traditional, male-female definition of marriage for numerous reasons - including a belief that "extending marriage to same-sex couples carries a risk of weakening the institution of marriage." Because there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it wouldn't matter if the plaintiffs could show that Prop. 8 "was also accompanied by irrational attitudes such as animus," or prejudice against lesbians and gays, said attorney Charles Cooper. The initiative, approved by 52 percent of the voters, overturned the state Supreme Court's May 2008 ruling that gave gays and lesbians the right to marry in California. The state court upheld Prop. 8 as a valid state constitutional amendment in May but also ruled that 18,000 same-sex couples who married before the election were legally wed. Walker has scheduled an Oct. 14 hearing in San Francisco on whether to dismiss the suit or let it go to trial in January. Judge looks for bias In previous rulings, Walker has said the constitutionality of Prop. 8 is not an open-and-shut legal question but could depend on a variety of factors, including whether backers were biased against gays and lesbians. He amplified that view Thursday in ordering Prop. 8's sponsors to disclose documents, including notes and e-mails between campaign officials and consultants, that discussed their strategy and the message they wanted to send to the voters. Although "voters cannot be asked to explain their votes," Walker said, a ballot measure's authors and strategists can be scrutinized to see what their motives were. He cited a magazine article last year by the heads of the public relations firm that managed the Prop. 8 campaign in which they discussed their strategy, including plans to show how advocates of same-sex marriage would indoctrinate schoolchildren. Walker said the article undermined the campaign's insistence that its strategy discussions were confidential. Bad precedent? Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the Prop. 8 sponsors, said Friday it was unprecedented to allow "the losing side of a campaign to pry into the most intimate strategy discussions of the winning side." "This will make any citizen group think twice before attempting a ballot initiative," Pugno said. He said his clients might ask a federal appeals court to intervene. A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Theodore Boutrous, said Walker's order would allow them to see whether the justifications Prop. 8's defenders are now claiming for the measure were part of the campaign or after-the-fact rationales. "Our position is not dependent on the notion that everyone who voted for Proposition 8 was acting out of bad motives," Boutrous said. He said the plaintiffs would look for "evidence that bolsters our argument that Proposition 8 was irrational and disfavors a group in a way that's unconstitutional." E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com. Read more: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar...H1A0DM8.DTL#ixzz0SqEThTQE
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, *Jack-Booted Thugs*, *Humor-Weird News* (#0)
ping
If one doesn't fit neatly into some government category, they're different and must be fixed.-jethro tull
Fine, then I say about 99% of laws are motivated by prejudice against those who don't make large campaign contributions. We can have some fun with this.
In 2007, the FBI reported on concern about white supremacists recruiting soldiers, saying "hundreds" of neo-Nazis were in the active military. But in April, a Department of Homeland Security report on extremism that reiterated much the same point was widely criticized by veterans groups and some conservative politicians as being unpatriotic, leading the Justice Department to retract the DHS report. Critics acknowledge that extremism in the Army is a touchy political subject. Marriage shouldn't be a legal institution at all. They are having the wrong argument.
The people (local governments) and states rightfully decide what is subject to public license. The 10th amendment affirms this idea as a legal fact.
Please don't take debatable positions or state falsifiable arguments. The use of this forum is restricted to those wishing to bait any and all comers until everyone runs out of breath or dies of apoplexy.
I never said it wasn't currently legal, I was saying the government should NOT have no place in your love life. They should only see you as an individual, period. I don't care if 99.9% of the people think it should or accept that it does, it still has no business in your personal life like that.
The primary function of marriage is child rearing, not eros or pleasure or financial advantage. It is self-evident that all societies have a stake in the welfare of children. It used to be that you had to get certified to be STD-free before you got a marriage license, disease-free status being important for child rearing and child welfare. Those days are gone because GLBT activists are converting the institute of marriage into a kind of hedonism and monetary union of advantage between 2 people.
What exactly are you claiming is a "falsifiable argument"? I haven't stated anything that is falsifiable, whatsoever. If you want to debate, here's the text of the 10th amendment.... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Ordinary people, unaffiliated with federal or state government, exercising law- making "power" are acting as a local government. This fact is self-evident. What is it exactly you don't understand about the 10th amendment?
I wasn't arguing the 10th Amendment at all. Actually, your statement is very strong, and I was just commenting that it is an argument that can be demonstrably shown to be true or false; IOW it is worthy of debate or is falsifiable. It's debatable or falsifiable in the way that the statement "Obama was born ( or not born) in the United States." is falsifiable. It can be shown to be true of false. And I believe that your statement "The people (local governments) and states rightfully decide what is subject to public license." can be shown to be true or false in light of what we know about the law and the meaning of "rights" and "rightfully." The same could be said about "The 10th amendment affirms this idea as a legal fact." Assertions such as "Marriage shouldn't be a legal institution at all." are very iffy logically and are the germ of endless carping that degenerates into the kind of crazed and mindless namecalling that you find in countless threads that start out pretty good but die an ignominious death. (This thread is locked.) It's on a par with "Murder is evil." which involves purely a moral question and doesn't lend itself to logical probity. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Another reversal waiting to happen.
Nothing you stated has anything to do with or justifies the government being involved in your personal relationship with someone else.
Nonsense. Raising children is fundamental to hetero marriage. All normal human societies have a stake in the welfare of children. A childs welfare includes responsible parentage. If you want to live like an animal, outside of a human society, that is your business. Don't expect any human society to accept or support you in your raising of baby animals.
What are you smoking? That STILL has nothing to do with government being involved in marriage, period, end of story. Raising children has nothing to do with marriage and plenty who are married in fact, do not have them. Even if societies have a stake in the welfare of children, that still has no relation to the government being involved in it and in fact, the more involve the government is with the parentage of children, the worse the results are. Not wanting the government involved in my personal life has doesn't mean the person wants to live like an animal and go fuck yourself for saying otherwise. If you really think that small the animal in this debate would be you.
#2. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
Although "voters cannot be asked to explain their votes," Walker said, a ballot measure's authors and strategists can be scrutinized to see what their motives were.
#3. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
#4. To: Ncturnal (#3)
#5. To: Googolplex (#4)
#6. To: Googolplex (#4)
#7. To: Ncturnal (#6)
(Edited)
#8. To: randge (#5)
#9. To: Googolplex (#8)
What is it exactly you don't understand about the 10th amendment?
#10. To: Dakmar. all (#2)
Although "voters cannot be asked to explain their votes," Walker said, a ballot measure's authors and strategists can be scrutinized to see what their motives were.
#11. To: Googolplex (#7)
#12. To: Ncturnal (#11)
#13. To: Googolplex (#12)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest