Disclosure is What Makes Democracy Work

February 16, 2010 at 1:15 pm 108 comments

by Brian Leubitz

My day job involves a lot of work with political campaigns in California. The one thing that I’ve learned more clearly in my years of doing this sort of work is that you can never underestimate the importance of money in politics. It’s why I and the Calitics Editorial Board joined an amicus brief supporting the federal campaign finance legislation in the now infamous Citizens United case. But now that campaign finance regulations providing limits are virtually gone these days, transparency becomes the only hope for our democracy.

In elections, this means that we must provide information to the public on who is paying for the political campaigns they are seeing. Even if we can’t stop any one individual or organization giving huge sums, at the very least we should know who is paying for these messages. Yet, a Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) commissioner, Ronald D. Rotunda, feels differently. He’s a professor at the notoriously conservative Chapman Law School, a Cato Institute Fellow, and served on Kenn Starr’s witchhunt investigation of President Bill Clinton. Apparently, Mr. Rotunda read the Heritage Foundation’s notoriously biased reports of a few random acts of stupidity against Prop 8 signs, and now feels it is just too dangerous to expose Prop 8 donors to sunlight.

In Bowen, the plaintiffs are two committees that supported Proposition 8 – a ballot measure that bans gay marriage. The issue in Bowen relates to free speech, not gay marriage. California law requires these committees to disclose the names of individuals who donated $100 or more to support Proposition 8, and also their street address, occupation and name of employer. The committees resist disclosure because their donors have said they will not contribute in the future because of the harassment they have already received because of prior disclosures.

People have a constitutional right to support (or oppose) Proposition 8. Yet some have urged their followers (as one Web page put it) to “take action against those who want to deny us our equal rights,” and “fight back.” Sadly, some people have taken this request literally. Donors who already have been disclosed have suffered threatening phone calls and e-mails, sometimes accompanied by death threats. These death threats are even more intimidating because of the compelled disclosure of the donors’ street addresses.

Donors have seen their pro-Proposition 8 signs stolen, windows broken and property vandalized with spray paint, cars keyed. Employers who did not contribute to Proposition 8 have been blacklisted because their employees contributed. In some cases, employees have been forced to resign their jobs. (Sacramento Bee op-ed)

The first problem that I see at this point is the aggrandizement of the threat that Prop 8 donors are facing. A few signs were stolen and there was some minor property damage. Of course, the Heritage Foundation’s report conveniently forgot to include the hate crimes against LGBT Californians inspired by the fear that was being stirred up by Prop 8, the threats that students received when they publicly opposed Prop 8, and the general anxiety of Prop 8 opponents who live outside of the Coastal Bubble. After all, how often have we all seen “faggot” spray painted on a car or house of a member of the LGBT community? Or heard stories of bullying of LGBT students? Or seen monstrous hate crimes?

I want to absolutely condemn any vandalization of property, personal attacks or threats against any political activist, no matter what political persuasion. While I don’t want to make light of the sheer stupidity of some people, the threats faced by Prop 8 supporters absolutely pail in comparison to what LGBT Californians face every single day. And during the Prop 8 campaign, it was that much stronger. Yet, the No on 8 Campaign disclosed campaign donations.

Furthermore, the ProtectMarriage.com group is as guilty of threats as any other group. During the campaign, they sent letters to big No on 8 donors demanding money or they will be “publicly exposed.”

“Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error,” reads the letter. “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. … The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.”

The letter was signed by four members of the group’s executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, the lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com. A donation form was attached. The letter did not say where the names would be published. (AP)

What’s good for the goose, isn’t good for the gander, I suppose. Ron Prentice and Andy Pugno personally signed letters threatening No on 8 Donors whose names were disclosed. Now they don’t want their donors made public. I think I would be slandering the word hypocrisy by labeling this series of logical contortions hypocritical.

As to “employees have been forced to resign their jobs,” blocking disclosure brings up some very troubling notions to the fore. The Yes on 8 team argues that they shouldn’t be forced to disclose because it is speech. Yet it’s not important enough speech for the donors to say it publicly. If a company or an employee wants to say that they don’t think that their customers are entitled to equal rights, say that publicly. And your customers can decide if they want to patronize your business.

If government-compelled disclosure results in private parties harassing those who have a different view of gay marriage, then the First Amendment steps in. It prevents the government from aiding those who disagree in a most disagreeable way.

And this is the crux of Rotunda’s argument, from his perch at the FPPC, he feels that disclosure is simply too risky. After all, signs were stolen and a car was keyed! To Rotunda, that risk far outweighs the public’s interest in knowing who is trying to orchestrate the first popular vote campaign to take away rights from a minority in this country’s history.

To most of the rest of the country, disclosure is an important public interest. They say sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. It’s telling that the Prop 8 campaign is trying to stay in the shadows at every turn.

Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

Always Fighting Ken Starr Leaving California: Good Riddance

108 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Ronnie  |  February 16, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    “To most of the rest of the country, disclosure is an important public interest. They say sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. It’s telling that the Prop 8 campaign is trying to stay in the shadows at every turn.”

    I 100% agree….we have more to fear from them they do of us…after all they don’t stop at ripping signs they go straight for the bashing and murder….<3…Ronnie

  • 2. John  |  February 16, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    And how many pro-H8 people have been killed because of their position?


  • 3. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 16, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Oh, really! So a few signs were stolen, and a few cars were keyed. Do they have any proof tha it was done by anyone in the LGBTQQIA community? NO! For all they know, it could have been done by the local teenagers out having fun. But because they are doing everything they can to stir up animus toward marriage equality, they will very quickly lay the blame at our feet and use the same tactics that hae been used so often down through history to justify tyranny any shape and form–tell the lie often, tell the lie hugely, tell it repeatedly, and the more often you tell it, the larger the ie is, and the more you repeat it, the more people you will be able to convince of its veracity.
    I truly pity these people who feel they need to lve in the shadows, just as the KKK did duirng he era of segregation and racism, just as the SS and the Gestapo made their midnight raids on entire neghborhoods, just as all who are afraid. They are only afraid because they know tey are in the wrong. They know they are behaving immorally, yet they don’t care. It is okay for them to blame us for everything that goes wrong–we are the hatred of the week.
    How many of them would put themselves in our shoes, where even today, in the US, being open abot who you are and who you love could mean that you have signed your own death warrant? How many of them really want to put teir children through the certain knowledge that their parents are only paying lip service to “I love you” because they are gay? How many of them would really want to live the lives we were born into, the lives of third class citizens who pay taxes yet have no real political voice, have no rights whatsoever, except the right to be torured, harassed and beaten, shot, clubbed, or stabbed to death, or even torched and alllowed to burn alive? A few stolen signs, a keyed car–those can be replaced. A living human being cannot.♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

    • 4. GAYGUY  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:29 pm


    • 5. Ed-M  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:59 pm

      You forgot raped. I escaped possibly being raped when I was mugged in Brighton, Mass. in 1990. I was pounced on by three men. I thank God that I was able to escape before they discovered the gay newsweeklies I was carrying in my gym bag. Some gay men and lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, etc. was well as heterosexuals mistaken for such did not get the chance I got and now they have to serve a life sentence. :(

      • 6. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 16, 2010 at 5:32 pm

        Yes, I am sorry that I forgot to mention being raped. That was one of the forms of gay bashing my adopted “fathr” used on me growing up. And every time he cme at me, if I even acted like I was going to refuse, he came back with the commandment about honoring your father and mother, as well as Paul’s diatribe about children obeying your parents. And this was coming from a man who claimed to be an atheist! Most atheists I know refuse to misuse the bible that way.

  • 7. Ronnie  |  February 16, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    I saw that video of the so called “granny” who was attacked….its total a swing of actual events when it was put into writing by the prop ha8te propaganda machine…..The protest was peaceful….they pro LGBTQQIA Rights protesters on one side and the ha8ters on the other…..Then that “granny” crossed over carrying a giant cross..then a man who is for marriage equality stepped in front of her with a sign…..around 2:20…then a man who was against marriage equality tried to rip the sign out of his hand….they struct the first blow…she was in the wrong place and was not even touched…they said the cross was pulled out of her hand watch the video SHE DROPPED IT because she lost her balance….she shouldn’t of been there WTF did she think was going to happen….FOOL!!!….I’ll post the video if somebody wants me too but if not just go to youtube and look up….”Gay Marriage Mob Violently Attacks Elderly Woman”…..excuse me she was not violently attacked she was surrounded by and angry mob and she freaked out….anybody in that situation would….again she shouldn’t have been there…she have just stayed on her own side….JMHO!!!!…..<3

    • 8. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 16, 2010 at 1:53 pm

      Yes, Ronnie. Please post that video!♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

      • 9. Ronnie  |  February 16, 2010 at 1:56 pm

        LOL…Ok I will….<3…Ronnie

      • 10. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:08 pm

        Andjust who supposedly pulled the cross out of her hands. To me, it looked more like she was trying to throw it at someone or trying to dub them with it, in the same manner that you would use a sword to dub a knight. Were tese two reporters watching what I was, or are they plants from Faux News and Rushing Windbag?

      • 11. Ronnie  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:13 pm

        See I told you…It’s like the ha8ters really do not know what age we are living in…the video proves everything…were they wrong for surrounding her yes and no,,,,but really come on now…she had to have known that was going to happen…<3…Ronnie

      • 12. David Kimble  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:22 pm

        Thanx, Ronnie. It looked to me like she may have even thrown it to the ground herself. It is difficult to tell from the camera angle. <3 David

      • 13. Ronnie  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:03 pm

        you’re welcome….David K,,, its hard to spin what actually happened what it is all on video….they are fools…lol….<3…Ronnie

      • 14. JonT  |  February 16, 2010 at 5:30 pm

        Hmm. After looking at the video segment in question repeatedly, it does appear that she is lowering the cross, and then a hand comes out (camera left, low) and swats it out of her hand.

        If so, that was inappropriate, but you can hardly hold that up as an example of the horrible harassment to be expected if NOM et. al are required to reveal their donor lists.

        How many gay people were assaulted (for real) or killed in the last year in the US? (Ahem, including one particularly horrible case in Puerto Rico).

        How many xtians were hunted down and assaulted/killed by roving bands of militant gay gangs?

        huh. So, they are the victims. Oooookay.

        To the haters:

        Do a google on ‘fag drag’ to get an idea of what we get to deal with. There are many variations on that particular activity. Please let me know (you pro-prop8ers) where the equivalent might be found for, oh… I don’t know… Christians. Mormons? Anyone else?

        Keyed cars? Stolen signs? Really? That’s all you got?


    • 15. Urbain  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:22 pm

      Oh, I remember that incident. It was so stupid.

      With respect to that old woman, I thought it would make more sense for her to see how much gas was in her tank by using a cigarette lighter.

      Come on … Would the H8ters cheerfully hand out hugs and love & light to a Prop 8 opponent who willfully appeared at one of their rallies to stir things up?

      I am glad Brian brought up ProtectMarriage.com’s blackmail letters. I don’t understand why more attention is not given to that in the media.

      • 16. Tim  |  February 17, 2010 at 2:07 pm

        Urbain, This where I feel the *No on team* failed. We stood back and took hit after hit, lie after lie and we did not fight back, media with media and expose the lies they were telling. The h8ters want to live in the shadows, we should out them in the next campain. And expose the lies to all.

    • 17. rpx  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:02 pm

      I objectively watched he video which I had never seen before, it appears to me that she dropped the cross and was reaching for it and someone pushed it down away from her. That is what I see.

      But come on, I agree with Ronnie, what was she expecting would happen? She went there to provoke, she should have stayed on her side of the street. She wasn’t manhandled at all, just yelled at and that is free speech. She placed herself in the situation and I would not be surprised if she didn’t call the press in advance and tell them at what place and at what time she would be pulling her prank.

      I don’t know how Ronnie pulls up all these videos for us all the time, he must have an inside source at YouTube or something as I would not even know where to begin to look for these videos. Ronnie the only gay oriented videos I have ever seen in my life are the ones you post. Just think about that. You are widening my horizons and perceptions.

      • 18. John  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:04 pm

        I just wish that streaming video wasn’t blocked at work, or that I had more time at home to watch them (or both). From the comments, they sound really interesting.

      • 19. Ronnie  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:07 pm

        lol..rpx…I am really good at navigating my way around youtube….and notice they said she was physically attacked and it was on video on youtube…I have yet to find that video but in this one she was not touched at all…..<3…Ronnie

      • 20. dieter  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:15 pm

        simply go to youtube and type in GAY on the search bar and you will find a million gay videos and stories.

      • 21. fiona64  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:32 pm

        This video gets brought up all of the time under the guise of “look at the gay men beating up little old ladies.” Yet, not one Prop 8er with whom I have shared the following link has much to say about the Prop 8 supporting *men* who beat up the teenaged Prop 8 opponent girl and the man who came to her rescue.



  • 22. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 16, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error,” reads the letter. “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage.

    This is something like saying that during the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s, those who supported rights for A-A were intent on overturning the rights of Caucasians. …Well, perhaps. They were attempting to overturn the bigoted ‘right’ of white supremacy. In addition, this sounds like out and out extortion.

    • 23. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:04 pm

      Richard, if this sounds like out and out extortion, there is a very good reason that it does. It sounds like out and out extortion bcause that is exactly what it is. And I believe this letter was one of the documents that the Prop h8ers tried to keep out of the evidentiary base. Unfortunately for them, the judge inthis case knows his legal statutes better than they do.

      • 24. Urbain  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:23 pm

        So this letter was introduced into evidence? Sweet. That is GREAT news.

      • 25. JonT  |  February 16, 2010 at 5:44 pm

        The whole point of their resiting the release of their donor lists is to prevent us from doing what they routinely do – ie: boycott, demonstrate, publicize, etc.

        Neat setup they’ve worked out there. Why is it legal?

  • 26. fiona64  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    I guess the fact that supporters of any political issue, yay or nay, are required to disclose if they donate more than $100 is irrelevant to these people? They are acting as though only the Yes on 8 supporters were required to do so.



    • 27. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:13 pm

      But, SIs, it dosn’t apply to them because they are doing it “for Jesus!” Therefore, the laws are null and vid in this instance. How is Phaedra?♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

      • 28. fiona64  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:17 pm

        I haven’t been back home yet today, Richard. I gave her a prednisone this morning (she gets one every week or so for her herniated disc). She was curled up in her chair out in the garage, very quiet. She is sleeping a lot more these days, too. She can still hear very well, although (like most of us oldsters) she is getting presbyopic and her vision is not all it could be. Her back problem has only slowed her down a little bit when it comes to running and playing with the other two dogs, but she needs help to get into bed at night (she was bottle-fed as a pup because her dam had mastitis; all of the pups in that litter think they are human, LOL).

        I will be spending lots of snuggle time with her in the weeks to come, I can assure you all of that. Thank you so very much for asking.


      • 29. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 16, 2010 at 5:36 pm

        Anytime. And BZ said to let you know he is sending out the word to keep you and your family in their prayers, so you will not only have your local faith groups praying for you, but you will also have a nationwide network of Jews praying for you and your family also. Please keep us posted. And BZ said if you need to, call. Any time, day or night. We re here for you. Especially since you are here for us.♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

    • 30. Kevin_BGFH  |  February 16, 2010 at 5:13 pm

      Exactly. And just think how not too long ago, pro-gay issues and candidates had trouble raising money because the closeted and semi-out LGBTs were afraid of having their names listed. When Jose Sarria ran for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1961, he struggled to get 25 people to publicly sign his filing documents, one of the requirements to qualify for the ballot, yet got over 6,000 votes in the anonymity of the ballot booth. How things have changed when it’s the homophobes who are now afraid to be public.

  • 31. Bill  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    “Donors who already have been disclosed have suffered threatening phone calls and e-mails, sometimes accompanied by death threats. These death threats are even more intimidating because of the compelled disclosure of the donors’ street addresses.
    Donors have seen their pro-Proposition 8 signs stolen, windows broken and property vandalized with spray paint, cars keyed. Employers who did not contribute to Proposition 8 have been blacklisted because their employees contributed. In some cases, employees have been forced to resign their jobs.”

    LGTB Citizens face this EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES.

    Turnaround is fair play, bitches. I have said it before and I will say it again…


    I mean, that’s like, third grade logic.

    • 32. John  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:20 pm

      Not to mention, y’know, being beaten, stabbed, and shot. And that’s not even for contributing to the campaign. That’s just for existing.

    • 33. David Kimble  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:27 pm

      Thank you, Bill, for bringing this up – I have seen no evidence to support their claims. If anyone has any information about this, can you please post it here. I have seen plenty of evidence that quite the contrary is true. Usually, the PropH8 side starts a confrontation and then claims to be the victim. <3 David

      • 34. fiona64  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:35 pm

        There isn’t any evidence to support their claims. It is hyperbolic. The *only* thing that happened was legal boycotts. In Sacramento, the director of the local musical theatre resigned after it was revealed that he had donated $50K to Yes on 8 — despite having numerous LGBT people who worked for him, and in the theatre community in general. The main impetus for his resignation was that Equity announced, in light of the information, two of the scheduled shows (one of them “Avenue Q,” mind you) would not be coming to the theatre in question — by request of the actors.


      • 35. rpx  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:48 pm

        @27. fiona64 – WOW, I guess if he could afford to fork out $50,000 he could afford to leave his job.

      • 36. fiona64  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:31 pm

        rpx, LDS faithful (of which the theatre director was one) were told pretty much what dollar amount they were expected to pony up, based on their tithing records. One Sacramento family, with 5 kids, turned over the $75K that they had put aside for their childrens’ college education. They talked to the Sacramento Bee newspaper about how proud they were to have done it. The husband was a construction contractor, and he was shocked when jobs were canceled by gay clients. Ditto the Leatherby’s Ice Cream Shop, which always had a booth at the Sacramento Gay Pride Fest … they were boycotted and picketed by the community whose money they were happy to take — and then spend on legislation that harmed that very community.


      • 37. Ed-M  |  February 16, 2010 at 5:17 pm

        And the media buy into it and even put our side under a cone of silence sometimes.

      • 38. David Kimble  |  February 16, 2010 at 5:22 pm

        We must hold them accountable for what they have done – I agree picketting their places of business and choosing to do business elsewhere it probably our best effort. When I lived in Seattle, I actively sought out gay contractors to do remodelling in my home. In many larger communities there should be a listing compiled, usually by a gay realtor, which is where I found my contractor. I was extremely pleased with his work, since the price was a little lower than the other bids I had received and the work was flawless. <3 David

    • 39. JonT  |  February 16, 2010 at 5:47 pm

      Right on Bill! :)

  • 40. Dracil  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    I was talking to a friend about something similar a while back, and the argument she used was that donors should not be publicized for the same reason voters are not publicized. Because it causes negative influencing. I’m not sure how to respond to that.

    • 41. John  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:28 pm

      Voters all have an equal say. One person, one vote. And voting takes negligible resource investment. Campaign contributions are different. Especially now, a corporation can put in more support than thousands of individuals. Even among those individuals, the wealthier get more of a say, and many people get none at all. Short of abolishing contributions altogether (which would probably create more problems than it would solve) and contribution limits (thank you SCOTUS), making those contributors public is the only reasonable way to try to balance it.

    • 42. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:33 pm

      Secret ballots protect the vote itself, not the voter. It prevents having to prove that you voted one way or another in case someone wanted to buy your vote.

      • 43. Marlene Bomer  |  February 17, 2010 at 1:45 am

        I happen to be an election official.

        The voter lists are readily available to anyone who has the funds to buy them. You can get them in any variety — party only, independents, etc.

        When a voter comes in to vote, their name is checked off a master list which is kept for two sections of time (from 7:30am-11am and 11am-4pm) available to anyone who requests it. This is because someone like precinct captains or advocacy groups have a list of their own to check off so they may call the ones not on their lists.

        And as an election official, and in fact the Presiding Judge for my precinct, I do whatever it takes to make sure a voter’s ballot is sacrosanct. I just wish I had a bigger room in which to hold the election, because at the ’08 general election, there was a *90 minute* wait to vote, and I wanted folks to not have to wait so long.

    • 44. cc  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:09 pm

      I understand her point but people need to know who is backing a political movement in order to cast an educated and informed vote or opinion.

      Take for example: A proposal to remove an endangered animal off the endangered species list.

      If the funding that is backing the proposal is from an oil company or logging industry that would be a whole different story then if the funding was provided by the department of fish and game or a wildlife refuge.
      Diffrent questions would need to be asked depending on who was funding it.

      • 45. Kevin_BGFH  |  February 16, 2010 at 5:17 pm

        Years ago, I served on the statewide steering committee for the “no” side of a ballot measure. The measure claimed to strengthen smoking restrictions in enclosed public places and make it harder for kids to have access to cigarettes, when in fact it did the reverse. We had to go to court to force them to publicly disclose that 98% of their campaign contributions came from tobacco companies. The public has a right to know this.

    • 46. Dracil  |  February 16, 2010 at 7:40 pm

      Ok, so far the examples seem to be about companies. Another thing she brought up is personal donations should never be revealed, while corporate ones are more iffy. She’s thinking about what happened to El Coyote.

  • 47. Alyson  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    I got an email alert about a new blog post re: ken starr but it seems to have not actually made it to the web site? technical difficulty?

    can’t wait to read it!

    • 48. John  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:30 pm

      There was a post about it on another thread as well. I’m guessing either it didn’t get posted somehow, or it’s not finished, but the notification went out early.

  • 49. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    I am watching the Prof. Chauncey testimony on the reenactment right now, and it “threat” that pro-discrimination people face pales in comparison to the real threats that gays and lesbians have had to face since forever.

  • 50. J. Stone  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    I just have to vent.
    I’ve been visiting the NOMblog to see what kind of craziness they’re spouting over there. I’ve tried to engage in a little debate in their comments section. Unlike here, there your comments wait in limbo while a “moderator” checks them over. Many of my posts have never made i through, despite the fact that I’ve never used profanity or personal attacks. Now I’ve just spotted a post there under my name that has been edited–half of it was deleted, and its intended meaning entirely changed. Of course, there’s no one you can complain to about this, because it’s the very people in charge who are doing it! These people portray themselves to be such Christians, then rely so much on deception and disinformation. It makes me so angry!

    • 51. John  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:34 pm

      Reminds me of some Christian sites I’ve seen with ridiculous rules like “Failure to capitalize the word ‘Bible’ will get you banned.”

      • 52. David Kimble  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:43 pm

        Yes, we do! Thanx, Frijondi!

    • 53. Frijondi  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:37 pm

      Post your full comment here, and tell us about the context. Maggie and her minions may not want to read it, but plenty of us do.

      • 54. J. Stone  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:53 pm

        Several days ago, I had posted a comment about how legalizing gay marriage did not threaten religious liberty. Then someone posted saying I was wrong, that Catholic adoption agencies were being shut down in Massachusetts for refusing to play kids with gay couples, that a photographer in NM was fined for refusing to take pictures at a gay commitment ceremony, etc., etc. (no citations were provided, by the way). Before typing out a long response to her, I wanted to test whether my post would make it through, since they had not been appearing for the last couple days–ever since I had encouraged visitors to the NOM site to read the trial transcripts for themselves at AFER, and questioned why NOM didn’t provide the transcripts at their own site. Anyway, my test post was “Jennifer, I’m not sure if I can respond to you. My posts have been disappearing lately.” When my post appeared, the last sentence had been deleted, giving the impression that I was unable to respond to the points Jennifer had made.

      • 55. John  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:56 pm

        Well, what did you expect? Telling people to think for themselves. What a horrible thing to do.

      • 56. J. Stone  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:57 pm

        This was my original post that started the ball rolling:

        “Jennifer, I’ll address the issue of religious liberty. I haven’t bothered to before, because I know I would be preaching to the choir. You see, even though I support the rights of gay people to marry, I also support the rights of people to hold whatever religious beliefs seem true to them, including the belief that homosexual behavior is immoral. I see no tension at all between these two rights.
        Now, I don’t believe that people should be able to write their religious views into law. I agree with John Stuart Mill that the only justification for limiting individual liberty is the prevention of harm to others. I support the rights of gay people to marry because I see lots of good and no harm that would come from allowing gay people to marry.
        As for the bill being debated in Britain, I’ve read only one article about it, and based on that, I would agree that the proposed law threatens religious liberty to the extent it penalizes people for preaching what they believe to be true.
        To be clear, I must say that I flatly disagree with the idea I’ve seen advanced on this site that legalizing gay marriage threatens religious liberty.”

      • 57. Frijondi  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:59 pm

        Thanks, J Stone. And shame on them.

      • 58. J. Stone  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:09 pm

        Thank you, Frijondi. I feel better now.

      • 59. fiona64  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:37 pm

        J. Stone, what you were told was inaccurate. Catholic Charities was being paid by the state of Massachusetts to handle adoption services — that’s right, they were getting tax money. They were then told that they could not discriminate in placing children *because* they got tax money. They closed their doors voluntarily rather than be forced to place children with gay or lesbian couples.


      • 60. fiona64  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:39 pm

        PS to J. Stone re: the photographer:

        The photographer was in violation of the Unruh Act, which says that you cannot offer services to the public and then discriminate. If the photographer was offering her services for anything other than her church, she was in the wrong.


      • 61. Dave T  |  February 17, 2010 at 6:41 am

        Let’s see… some photographer should be allowed to refuse to provide services to LGBT clients, but LGBT clients should not be allowed to boycott businesses that support Prop 8?

        Pointing out the hypocrisy of the other side is getting kind of pointless :-p

    • 62. Michelle Evans  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:41 pm

      And why would any of us be surprised that they twisted your words to suit their own nefarious purpose? That’s what they’ve done since Day One. They twist the words in the bible and neglect to mention things like when Paul and Jesus both abolished the Leviticus laws, things of that nature. Whatever makes them feel more superior is what they will use, forgetting who they are hurting along the way.

    • 63. PDXAndrew  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:59 pm

      Have these pseudo-Christains never heard of their own Ninth Commandment?thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
      Oh wait, I forgot… We can’t possibly be their neighbors because we’re second-class citizens… There we go, no more conflict… Problem solved.
      I swear, as I’m destined to go to Hell according to the guys, I’d enjoy being there ahead of them. Then, I can be there waiting at the gates to welcome them. And I’ll laugh, and Laugh, and LAUGH.
      Oh, that would be so much fun.

      • 64. John  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:08 pm

        Besides, if they’re right, all the interesting people are going to be in Hell. We’ll get to meet some of the greatest minds in history, and they’ll be sitting around telling God how awesome he is all day (seriously, a lot of Christians I know think that’s what Heaven is like), just like they do on Earth.

      • 65. Frijondi  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:14 pm

        “…with a whoop-de-la, whoop-de-la, a whoop-de, whoop-de, whoop-de-laaaa.”

        “Great luau, Satan! ”

        “Gee, thanks, guys.”

      • 66. Ronnie  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:18 pm

        Personally I can’t wait to meet Alexander the Great and find out what the “Great” really stands for…..lol….<3…Ronnie

    • 67. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 16, 2010 at 5:42 pm

      J. Stone, the disinformation, lies, deception and all the other tactics, including their attempt to keep this off YouTube, are means to an end for them. Anything they can do to kep their sheeple under their collective thumb, they will do, and they will find ways to justify it that sound so logical until you dig a little deeper into the truth. They are like vampires wrt mirrors. They are afraid to look at themselves because they know what they will see. Therefore, they twist everything around to make other people look bad if they don’t agree with them, using hyperbole, logical fallacies, the slippery slope, apples to orange comparisons and any other tactics that will work, just to keep a tight rein on their sheeple, and justify their hatred. And for them, it is alright because they are doing it in the name of their version of Yeshua ben Yosef. Yeshua I could sit down and have a nice, adult, rational conversation with. Wish I could say the same for some of those who claim to follow him.

    • 68. JonT  |  February 16, 2010 at 6:01 pm

      J. Stone: dude (or dudess), I would simply not recommend saying anything over there. Indeed, within a couple of days of the trial’s start, I stopped looking at their (NOM) and PM’s ‘news releases’. It strictly a marketing thing for them (their web presence) – they have absolutely no interest in an opposing view, and trying to provide one on those sites is, IMHO, pointless.

      I’m sorry they’ve edited your post to conform to their intended desires, but this is what they do. It’s what they have to do to survive.

      The truth is not on their side – it does not serve their purposes to be exposed to it :)


  • 69. Michelle Evans  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    I tried to follow the trial closely, but am wondering if I missed the point where the extortion letter from the Prop 8 side was allowed to be introduced as evidence. I was looking specifically for that during that period of the trial and thought it had not been brought up. So, am I incorrect in my recall and was this actually brought in as evidence? I certainly hope so.

    • 70. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:07 pm

      I have been looking, but there is so much information to parse. I’m sure I will see it while watching the reenactments. I just don’t want to have to go through all of the transcripts right now.

      • 71. dieter  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:19 pm

        it was NOT introduced

  • 72. David Kimble  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Here is a list of Mormon donor’s I found on the Internet. Sorry, I couldn’t find another one that listed all donors. If someone has a source, please list. <3 David

  • 73. Frijondi  |  February 16, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    Prop 8 supporters “forced to resign their jobs?” Good God, man! There was the Mormon theater director in Sacramento who resigned voluntarily, once he realized his generous contribution to Prop. 8 had made himself persona non grata st work. (I find it hard to sympathize, considering how many gay people stick it out for years in work environments where they are constantly reminded that they are not welcome. That goes for a lot of other unpopular minorities, as well.)

    Then there was the El Coyote boycott in LA. As I recall, an employee who was also a relative of the owner, and next in line to inherit the business, made a modest contribution to Prop. 8, and was shocked — shocked, I tell you! — to learn that her former gay customers didn’t want even a small fraction of their hard-earned dollars subsidizing an assault on their civil rights.

    And somehow, Maggie and Co. had the gall to suggest that the evil gays were intimidating this poor woman, and others like her, because we don’t want to reward them for attacking us.

    • 74. John  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:00 pm

      And what about when they boycotted the buses decades ago? It’s a perfectly legitimate tactic, and there’s nothing stopping the pro-H8ers from doing the same to us. That’s one of the risks you take for being politically active.

    • 75. David Kimble  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:04 pm

      Yes, it is sad, when they gave money to a campaign that sponsored hate, they had no idea they could be identified! This is after all the 21st Century, when information flies at the speed of light. Perhaps in a time, when the wagons still rolled across the plains, their secrets could be kept, but not now. <3 David BTW, I need to go lay down again, I am getting tired.

    • 76. Ronnie  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:09 pm

      Ooooo…heaven forbid your loyal customers don’t like your politics….its their right to do that….I mean seriously the EGO!!!!……..<3…Ronnie

      • 77. Marlene Bomer  |  February 17, 2010 at 2:02 am

        Indeed…. I go to WalMart for one reason and one reason only — they’re the only store in town who carries blueberry cream cheese. Otherwise, I boycott the place.

        I’ve boycotted Wendy’s restaurants because Dave Thomas once said he did want to see gay and lesbian couples adopting.

        If I know of a rental agency in the town I live in who’s actively involved in a drive to repeal two non-discrimination ordinances passed this past August. You can be assured that at the next housing fair, there’s going to be fliers put out which proclaims that fact!

    • 78. Dave T  |  February 17, 2010 at 6:45 am

      My family & I are boycotting Lassen’s (a health food chain here in SoCal) because of their support for Prop 8. Not that I’d usually shop there anyway, but the few times I’ve thought “they’ll have what I’m looking for”, I’ve refused to go there.

      It’s kind of funny, actually – I just found their entry on yelp – there are only two reviews, both from people boycotting them :-)

  • 79. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    Too many people have taken the internet age for granted because they don’t understand it. This seems like a protection campaign for the ignorant who think they can just give money and keep silent about it. This ruling has been around for a while, and people have developed boycotts using the same methods of investigation, but it hasn’t been until the “highly controversial” Prop 8 that the investigation methods have come to light.

  • 80. jimig  |  February 16, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    This weekend my SS parents celebrated there 46 anniversery. I hold out hope they can marry. My 7 and 9 year old asked lots of questions because they are getting old enough to ask hard questions (they also go to a Christian school). My 9 year old said so they are lesbians (he only knows them as gramma — and grandma —). He thought about it a minute then said cool. My 7 year old just said ya I know happy aniversery gramma.

    Here’s my piont my LGBT parents are teaching my kids to love one another and be kind and respectful.
    That old lady just taught her grandchildren to hate and that it is okay to use a cross to stick in someones face and yell at them.

    By the way my house was egged twice and vandilized because of my no on 8 yard signs. I asked the police to file it as a hate crime, they did not so that one didn’t show up on the records. It also didn’t show up on the crime report in the paper, guess I needed that very bias news reporter.

    • 81. David Kimble  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:50 pm

      Great – please wish them my best for many more happy years together. Where I live, a few of my mother’s friends were PO’d because their signs were stolen! “BREAKING NEWS – PROP-H8 SIGNS STOLEN FROM YARD.” Yet many of these same people didn’t have a problem with going to vote H8 into the constitution – And these people walk among us…LOL <3 David

  • 82. Regan DuCasse  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    To Frijondi
    That El Coyote situation was blown way, way WAY out of proportion to what really happened.

    I was there at a meeting convened in which the owner’s daughter could directly talk to her customers. She came in read a speech which in effect said
    “if you boycott this restaurant, I’ll have to fire people and that will effect 89 families so whatever happens to them is all on YOU!”

    She then fled and refused to talk to anyone again. She wasn’t ‘forced’ to resign, she did pretty much what the Prop. 8 witnesses did: she didn’t care to hang around with the people she’d betrayed so didn’t just didn’t want to show up for work.

    Days later as a rally passed by the restaurant, there were shouts of ‘shame on you!”
    But she wasn’t there and in fact, the business didn’t suffer any more setbacks than other places in the area due to the economy.

    But to hear the anti gays tell it, she or a waitress was fired, her place burned to the ground and anyone else left standing was lynched.

    Nothing that happened with the El Coyote issue was illegal, let alone affected the business in the most detrimental way.

    But each anecdotal issue of litigation or boycott or rally by gay people, has been portrayed as a nationwide trend of intimidation, violence and jobs and business lost.

    I’ve gotten attacked and outed on a conservative website as if I was personally involved in the downfall of El Coyote.

    As long as such distortion of facts and results goes on, the myth of gay people as threatening and predatory gets deeper.

    It’s horribly unfair. Truly.

    I will say that I had no sympathy for the owner/manager of El Coyote or anyone else who publicly said they had gay friends or ‘but we love gay people’, yet turned around and took away a vital, quality of life right away from them and continue to.

    Even in areas such as in the case of the musical theater director in Sacramento, or El Coyote’s owner, it was gay people who made their lives prosperous and financially supported them.

    It should have occurred to someone, ESPECIALLY who espouses faith in God, should have felt an understanding that marriage equality and a lot else IS about quality of life. That would have made life better and more secure in kind.

    The Prop. 8 supporters who claim gay people as friends, really think that absolves them from such a betrayal and expression that their ‘friends’ are less, deserve less than they have?

    That if in the shoes of gay people, THEY wouldn’t have responded with anger and hurt?

    Well, since gay folks weren’t betraying or hurting anyone BEFORE Nov. 4, what was their excuse then?

    • 83. Frijondi  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm

      Thanks for the eyewitness report Regan, and thanks for being a voice for truth and reason.

    • 84. David Kimble  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:57 pm

      Yes, a big thanx from me, as well! <3 David

  • 85. Straight Dave  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    Apropos of nothing, other than our current mission…
    I woke up at a weirdly early hour yesterday and started daydreaming about how the trials are going to play out. Did I have advance Divine knowledge that this will be true? No, but maybe it made me feel a little better.

    So here’s how it’s going to go down.
    Walker rules for us, across the board. How could he not? I mean seriously, people! If he doesn’t, we’ll have to enlist Olsen and Boies to contest the recount. But this time they’ll be on the same side. Judgment is routinely stayed pending appeal.

    The 9th Circuit affirms the judgment, finding no meaningful flaws in the facts, law, procedures or logic. This is hardly a stretch. The environment is ready for such a call.

    Then it gets interesting.
    SCOTUS can take eons getting around to dealing with stuff. The 9th stays enforcement pending further appeal, but only with respect to the states other than California. Because of the special circumstances and history in CA, only a 30 day stay is ordered for CA. This give SCOTUS a reasonable time to decide if it wants to extend the stay pending a final resolution, without introducing more chaos into the picture. IF SCOTUS doesn’t bother, then 30 days is all you have to wait. They still have a full opportunity to strike you down later, but it does open the door for more marriages to pour through.

    Why would the 9th allow this to happen? Their reasoning goes like this:

    1. When evaluating a stay, the risks and burdens have to be evaluated and balanced. Who will get hurt and how messy can things get under each of the scenarios available? If the decision is reversed on appeal, has someone lost something irrecoverable or does it result in a legal quagmire? Courts try to avoid burning their bridges and creating a bigger problem, even at the cost of a delay in justice.

    2. If the plaintiffs are forced to wait another year, they do suffer real burdens, some of which will never be compensated.

    3. If SSM is reinstated in CA after 30 days, and then SCOTUS later reverses this, who will have suffered from this mistaken decision of a limited stay? The nominal defendant, the State of CA, will have lost nothing, since they argued that they actually benefit from SSM. What will the intervenors have lost? Well, Walker will have already ruled that neither they nor the state have any legitimate interests in the outcome. So how can they claim to have lost anything that is legally recognizable? All they have lost is their smug superiority complex, which is not a constitutional right.

    4. The only practical effect of a limited stay is that more SS couples will likely get married in the interim until SCOTUS acts. So how does that create a loss or burden to anyone? It doesn’t. The outcome of the trial, as supported by the evidence, shows that SSM causes no harm to any person or institution. So what if a few more people get married that perhaps might not have under a permanent stay? There’s already 18,000 out there. It makes no difference if the number is something different. The facts of the trial are that this causes no harm, and that fact is not subject to review. There’s no change in the structure of marriage, since there are still the same 4 distinct non-sensical categories of people.

    5. When you add it all up, the weight of risks and burdens all fall toward the plaintiffs. There is no *legal* downside to letting them marry right away, even if it is later revoked by SCOTUS.

    6. The other western states are a different story. They are not in the same position currently as CA. Legalizing SSM for them prior to SCOTUS review is more complex. If they later lose that right, then those states would end up in the same mess that CA is now with multiple inconsistent flavors of legal marriage coexisting. That’s the kind of predicament courts try to avoid. There’s a huge difference between having zero people in that condition and a few 100. But there is no meaningful legal difference between 18,000 and 19,000 as long as nobody gets hurt as a result (see above).

    7. CA citizens actually lost something they previously had, due to what is now an invalid act, Prop 8. A fundamental right (already decided by CA SC) was removed from a suspect class (already decided by CA SC) by a bare majority. That should be enough constitutional weight to restore the previous status quo, especially since there is no recognized harm in doing so. The other states have never been in this position, and are trying to move forward. Courts will sensibly be more cautious in their case because the balance of risks and burdens are different.

    8. The other states do not yet have a recognized suspect class and the associated protections, nor an illegitimate Prop 8 sitting there ripe for overturning. I think they ultimately have the same rights, but CA has a shorter journey at the moment because they have already been to the promised land. Overturning Prop 8 is a no-brainer. The rest takes a bit more work.

    If it were up to me, I would affirm Judge Walker’s decision, issue a 30 day stay for CA, and a permanent stay for the other states who would have to wait for SCOTUS. And I would have felt true to my profession and oath of office.
    (I’m not actually a lawyer or a judge, but I like to play one.)

    • 86. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:14 pm

      That’s certainly a lot to chew on. I will have to reread it when I’m not at the end of my work day.

    • 87. Ed-M  |  February 16, 2010 at 5:36 pm

      Straight Dave, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you!

      I can imagine the explosion of righteous OUTRAGE if SCOTUS were to reverse the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

      And the explosion of HATE and the fastest-passed Federal Constitutional Amendment EVER (if the Congress and Senate lets it out to the states to ratify, God forbid) once SCOTUS reaffirms Judge Walker’s decision.

    • 88. Dave T  |  February 17, 2010 at 7:01 am

      Comments from another straight Dave who is not a lawyer (but is married to one).

      “The 9th Circuit affirms the judgment, finding no meaningful flaws in the facts, law, procedures or logic. This is hardly a stretch. The environment is ready for such a call.”

      Under what grounds might the defendant-intervenors (DI) appeal the ruling?

      1. Biased judge – they’ve already made some noise about this in the media (although less than I would have expected). But Walker has covered his butt by allowing an extremely wide scope to this trial. Anything that the DI might point to as bias, Walker can simply say “but you were allowed to offer your testimony on exactly the same point, and your witness sucked”.

      2. Inability to present their own evidence – this is a non-starter. If they’re going to argue that their witnesses were too frightened to show up in court, they’ll have to explain why their witnesses can be seen all over the place (national news, lecture circuit, churches, academia, youtube, etc. etc. etc.) spouting their nonsense.

      3. Some error – unless Walker makes some egregious error in his final judgement, it’s hard to imagine what they have to base this on. Again, Walker has allowed a very broad scope to this trial and it’s hard to see what error he might have made, beside allowing too much into the trial. And because it’s a bench trial, the judge and the appellate court will be free to disregard any of this wide range of testimony that they feel is irrelevant.

      I think there’s a good chance that the DI will decline to appeal. They’ll simply admit California is a lost cause and then go back to the middle of the country and say “look at all those godless perverts in California” and use that as a way to raise more money. Of course, the problem with that plan is that the longer SSM is legal anywhere in this country, the more evidence that it’s actually a good thing will accumulate, making it harder & harder for them to make the same arguments in the future. But that’s assuming that they don’t believe they can get a decisive win at the Supreme Court.

      • 89. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 17, 2010 at 7:15 am

        Hmm, I had been assuming that appeal is inevitable (dammit Jim, I’m a scientist, not a lawyer), but I’ve often thought that with public opinion steadily turning in favor of SSM, they might, as you say, declare California a lost cause. In 2000, they had 61% of the vote, in 2008, 53%…2012 they could lose even at the ballot box, or win only by seriously draining their bank accounts.

  • 90. PDXAndrew  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    I’m wondering… I assume some of us would have had “No on H8” signs… And knowing the complete hatred these bigots have, I further assume these signs sparked negative reactions… And I’ll bet it was more than just a few stolen signs.
    Has anyone documented these crimes?

    • 91. Ronnie  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:22 pm

      I have had nasty looks and whispers when I wear my “Legalize Gay” t-shirt from American Apparel….<3..Ronnie

      • 92. John  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:44 pm

        I have one of those too. It’s great for drawing attention.

    • 93. David Kimble  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:29 pm

      I get the same reaction, when I wear my “100% GAY t-shirt…hmm, do ya’ think they’re trying to tell us something?

      • 94. Ronnie  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:31 pm

        It can’t be that we’re gay….although they are that dense…lol…<3…Ronnie

      • 95. David Kimble  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:43 pm

        LOL, Ronnie, thanx, I needed a good chuckle today! <3David

    • 96. fiona64  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:46 pm

      I have already written about the teenaged boy (a rather hulking specimen) who came over to threaten me with violence when I refused to take the No on 8 sign out of my own front yard.

      In addition to Phaedra, who is elderly and quiet, I have her boisterous nephew (his dam is Phae’s littermate) Jarvis — who is large, loud and unamused by people getting in his mama’s face. :-)

      I also have a loaded weapon. :-( Between that kid and the Prop H8 cyberstalkers I acquired, it just isn’t funny.


      • 97. fiona64  |  February 16, 2010 at 4:47 pm

        PS — Law enforcement got involved with the cyberstalking matter.


      • 98. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 17, 2010 at 6:12 am

        As Christopher Hitchens said of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Fiona, “I think I can say that…there isn’t anyone in this room who wouldn’t very proudly stand between you and anyone who wished you harm.”

      • 99. Ronnie  |  February 17, 2010 at 7:38 am

        Fiona64….i would pop that cracka for you…all it takes is one tranquilizer shot…then I would use sharpie in all the colors of the rainbow to spread my message of peace and love…using him at the canvas……hehehe…..<3…Ronnie

  • 100. Bolt  |  February 16, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    I absolutely hate the religious corporation managers that facilitated the vote to take our right to get married away. They deserve all of the negativity that they’ve received, and continue to receive!

  • 101. K  |  February 16, 2010 at 7:29 pm

    If it’s the law, then they have to give up the list, end of story, right? If I had been inclined to support their cause and I were afraid of putting myself in harm’s way by having my name disclosed, I would have stuffed large bills in a FedEx envelope instead of writing a check.

    Agree that their violence far, far, far exceeds anything they have been or would be subject to.

    That “old lady” video was cited in their Supreme Court Application for Stay regarding the broadcast of the trial. When I saw it, I wondered if that dumb young reporter had caused the whole thing by convincing the woman to walk into the middle of the No on 8 crowd. Just the sort of thing a reporter might do to make the story sensational by creating a scene. That video looked like BS for the sake of ratings to me.

    Everything they present is bogus.


  • 102. Steve Caple  |  February 17, 2010 at 7:41 am

    From our letter, published in the Sacramento Bee in mid-January:

    Supporters of Prop 8 say they are afraid they’ll be exposed to ridicule (awwww!) or worse if tapes of the current trial are shown to the public. In my opinion, they’re afraid of the light. We who oppose Prop 8 have something real to worry about. Our car had a “Repeal Prop 8” sign in the window when my wife parked it in the Costco lot last August. When she came out she found a slashed tire and a semi-literate note (the author of the screed seemed to think the present participle of the “F word” ends in “en”), scrawled on a paper towel, under the windshield wiper. Let the trial tapes be seen so that those who cannot spend day after day in San Francisco can see the proceedings. Let the light in.

    Steve and Polly Caple

    (PS – we can send you a photo of the note; this was reported to Sac PD as a hate crime.)

    • 103. Frijondi  |  February 17, 2010 at 10:52 am

      Ah, Sacramento. Summer before last, I was shrieked at in two different public restrooms on the same day, by two different middle-aged women. Apparently, a boyish haircut+jeans+polo shirt=male, even if you have a conspicuously girly figure. There was nothing I could say that would convince them I was in the right restroom.

      Let’s just say that when I visit the state capital, I steer clear of beer and coffee.

  • 104. JimiG  |  February 17, 2010 at 8:22 am

    I live in the central valley, last week I went to the downtown art walk. They had a display of segregation with the black children in one school and the white in another. I realized that I work with a couple of people who were in the white school (mid 60’s) they are highly righteous religious and against LGBT SS marriage mostly because of what they hear on programs like Focus on the Family. The ironic part is one of the ladies daughter is married to an African American. I am tempted to point out that the same people who oppose SS most likely opposed the relationship that has given her 3 grandchildren.

    As I reflect I look at all the mixed relationships around me many are devote Catholics and I wonder do they the parents, children and religious leaders remember the same leaders would have stopped them from being a family. Have the leaders ever come out and said well we once denounced all mixed marriages but now it is okay in the churches eyes or do all these people attend church weekly not knowing that their leaders are against mixed relationships and only a few years ago were protesting mixed marriages. And yes this includes all mixed marriages.

  • 105. James Sweet  |  February 17, 2010 at 8:49 am

    I’ve heard an interesting argument that the ruling in the Citizens United case might actually do some good in the long run by breaking down a barrier to transparency. With restrictions on campaign finance, corporations had to do their lobbying indirectly. Without those restrictions, they might as well do it directly — possibly making transparency easier.

    I am not at all saying I agree with this argument. But it’s an interesting one nonetheless, and it came from a source that surprised me.

  • 106. IT  |  February 17, 2010 at 11:20 am

    THis is a coordinated national scheme to keep their bigotry hidden. Remember, the SCOTUS is hearing a case about the signatures in referendum 71. And we know from the Prop8 injunction that they will believe anything the conservatives say and nothing we do.

    I was cursed, spit at, and yelled at in the Prop8 runup. My car was vandalized. But I guess that’s okay becuase I’m gay and I deserve it?

    We should be yelling loudly that we don’t let people wear hoods in this country.

  • 107. Religious News Verses: A Bit of Give and Take - God Discussion  |  February 18, 2010 at 7:00 am

    […] of attacks, attorney Brian Leubitz of Courage Campaign Institute points out that Disclosure is What Makes Democracy Work, despite the claims of fear and intimidation made by anti-gay religious groups.  As we have […]

  • 108. jimig  |  February 22, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    I had to watch the video twice, realy I couldn’t believe it. I am a veteran, I served with Gays and Lesbians I put my life in their hands. I would do it again. No I am not gay just proud to have served with some very fine and outstanding men and women.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.


TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,331 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...