Federal judge refuses to block names of gay marriage foes
A federal judge today denied a request by supporters of Proposition 8 to withhold disclosing anymore names and addresses of donors who gave money to pass the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Yes on 8 campaign officials had challenged the constitutionality of the state’s Political Reform Act, saying that people who gave money were being harassed and some had even received death threats.
The act, passed in 1974, requires campaigns to reveal the name and employer of people who give more than $100 to campaigns. The law is intended to prevent money laundering and other illegal campaign activities.
But campaign supporters requested they be exempted from it arguing their supporters were being unmercifully harassed.
A judge disagreed, clearing the way for the donors who made contributions in the last two weeks before the election to be made public on Monday, the next filing date.
“This is a victory for the people of California and for campaign finance disclosure,” said Roman Porter, executive director for the California Fair Political Practices Commission. “We will vigorously defend public disclosure on behalf of the people of California on this and any other case.”
-- Jessica Garrison
EDITOR'S PICKS:
Hallelujah!
Posted by: Tom | January 29, 2009 at 02:42 PM
They should've known the laws before they decided to support stripping of a minorities rights.
Posted by: N.R. | January 29, 2009 at 02:47 PM
Full disclosure of all contributors to politics are necessary. Why would a donor, obviously proud of his supporting Proposition 8, become embarrassed having his support of it disclosed?
Posted by: tanaS | January 29, 2009 at 03:35 PM
Do opponents of gay marriage have any clue at all how many gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transpeople have been harassed, thrown out of their jobs and even killed for standing up for their rights? And now they want to hide from taking responsibility for promoting that attitudes that have led to this persecution? Thank goodness the judge didn't buy it. Gay people have never been protected from the crazies who harass them and threaten their lives just for being gay. Why should anti-gay people get special treatment? Political freedom ALWAYS comes with political responsibility.
Posted by: HeatherK | January 29, 2009 at 03:44 PM
......and their hoods were removed.....
Posted by: Richard | January 29, 2009 at 03:49 PM
abusive gay community nothing new they tried to intimadate me at as i was voting with abusive language and in my face .it is the gay way they are not toerant of other ask Conn. how straighs are treated if i beleive in gay marriage which i do not but for them to be in unoin together with all rights i beleive in that .why should i be labeled with them when a marriage is between god and the couple and god does not allow these choices they make so call it something else and stop your terror on straight people for not wanting the same title WE ARE DIFFERENT (hello is anybody in there) that is your CHOICE and wake up stop stuffing your way on me i do not do that to you.GAY people show some class and STOP it
Posted by: THE INTOLERANCE OF GAYS | January 29, 2009 at 04:41 PM
They paid for it, they bought it, now they get to publicly own it. Cry me a river.
If you're not proud enough of your position to shout it from the rooftops, maybe you ought to re-think it.
"First Amendment-protected free speech such as boycotts and protests against us aren't FAIR! Waahhhhh! Yeah, we sent extortion letters to "No On 8" donors, but that's US! We're in the RIGHT! Waaaah, the gays are mad at us because we took away their rights!! Waaahhhhh!! That's not FAIR!!! WAAAAHH!!!"
Posted by: Keori | January 29, 2009 at 05:04 PM
The article fails to mention that the Campaign Donor Discolsure Law was enacted by a votor initiative in 1974. So we have the same group defending one voter initiative (Prop H8) by claiming that the initiative process is inviolate and that the courts "must bow to the will of the people, no matter how unelightened" (a quote from their peitition pending before the California Supreme Court), while at the same time suing in Federal District Court to have a voter approved initiative invalidated. Hypocrisy is an article of faith for these people.
Posted by: TomTallis | January 29, 2009 at 05:07 PM
Just for the record, my same-sex marriage was performed in a United Church of Christ congregation, before God. Those citing God as a reason for banning same-sex marriage, please stop trying to legislate my church's beliefs. You wouldn't like it if I did that to you. Your ballot argument said so.
Posted by: Jim | January 29, 2009 at 06:11 PM
If they didn't know the facts about homosexuality why would the know the facts about the disclosure laws? Ignorance is far and wide.
Posted by: GT | January 29, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Let's completely remove marriage from government hands and let it be a matter for the churches, temples, mosques, congregations, individuals, etc. If there needs to be a legal basis for domestic partnerships, let ALL government sanctioned partnerships be considered "civil unions", and leave the religious baggage to the practitioners of religion.
Posted by: Marcos El Malo | January 30, 2009 at 02:18 PM
Seven straight comments supporting gay marriage.
Countdown to the opponents of gay marrriage throwing a hissy fit over this decision in 5-4-3-2....
Posted by: sb | January 30, 2009 at 03:04 PM
These activists are the worst hypocrites I've ever seen. After decades of whining about how their feelings can't withstand harmless namecalling, they're now resorting to violent threats and intimidation to pass their radical legislation. These religious voters are exercising their rights. The Nazis are on the other side of the issue!
Posted by: notpleased | January 30, 2009 at 03:21 PM
They were desperate because of a particular financial contribution they were trying to hide. What contribution? This one: http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/PDFGen/pdfgen.prg?filingid=1389733&amendid=0
Here it is, the proof about how much the Mormon Church was involved in all this. They didn't want the public to have access to this information. Well, TOO BAD.
Lol Lol Lol Lol Lol Lol Lol Lol Lol ...
Posted by: John | January 30, 2009 at 05:02 PM
I am reading these comments and am amused at the issue. The issue is that proponents are being harassed because of the disclosure. It is not that they are ashamed to speak their mind. Someone is targeting them personally and not the issue. As a minority and a citizen you do have the right to free speech. You do not maintain the right to abuse or harrass those with different opinions. I suggest you regroup and pursue a more constructive way about changing the popular opinion. A little less haughtiness, a little less flaunting, and a little more civilized behavior would be a start. If you live your lifestyle without imposing it on others. If you truly are soul mates your behavior should speak volumes of respect for yourself, your mate, and others. Clean up your act. I know many that don't have a chip on their shoulder and mingle among others comfortably. Try it.
Posted by: cecelia cronkhite | January 30, 2009 at 05:41 PM
cecelia cronkhite, there are a great many people on both sides who need to hear that advice. However, the no-on-8 people are not seeking to have the courts intervene in the harassment, vandalism, name-calling, threats, etc. that we've endured both before and after the election. The overwhelming majority of us respect the Constitution and the rule of law. Don't let a few bad apples turn you off to an entire group, especially when there's much common ground to be found by listening to the other side calmly and rationally.
Posted by: Jim | January 31, 2009 at 09:37 AM