There have been some recent updates to California’s Prop 8 vote that happened during the elections. I’m sure we can all remember the violence that erupted when certain groups didn’t like what the voters had to say. Well, this time it is a Judge that may be in trouble:
In October, Walker ruled that Boies, Olson et. al (attorney’s for 2 gay couples) were entitled to see see the internal memos and e-mails between Yes on 8 strategists to look for evidence that the campaign had sought to exploit anti-gay bias. Such evidence would strengthen the plaintiffs’ claim that the ballot measure was discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.
But the Ninth Circuit put a swift kibosh on that ruling on Thursday. A panel comprised of Clinton appointees Kim Wardlaw, Raymond Fisher and Marsha Berzo ruled that the Proposition 8 sponsors “have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed in their arguments” that the discussions were constitutionally protected and that an order like Walker’s would discourage candid communications in political campaigns.
All this made me think of this Political Cartoon:
According to some, only the liberal minded groups or people are allowed to have freedom of speech. Not the conservative minded groups. What would be said if the Yes on 8 group wanted to see all of the internal memos and emails from the No on 8 group to search for anti-religious bias? It was the Mormon Church among many other Christians that were attacked after the election so it makes complete sense that this is what happened.
Can you imagine what would happen to our court systems if campaigns started to subpoena opposing sides internal documentation looking for bias? A Kangaroo court is what would happen. Nothing would be legit anymore.
Of course there are some news organizations that are implying that the yes on 8 is trying to ‘hide’ something since they won’t hand the information over. Yet, there is no mention that No on 8 is not handing anything over either.
This isn’t no longer a gay civil rights issue. This is a freedom of speech issue. If we start dictating who is allowed freedom of speech and who isn’t, we are no better then communists.
It’s all irrelevant. As more younger voters rise and older voters die off it will be legalized by ballot vote. The trend there is undeniable and has been explored on quite a few occasions.
California voters on a whole do support gay marriage (51-43), it was lack of GOTV efforts and overconfidence on the No side that led to its passage.
Dan –
As I said – this is no longer a “gay marriage rights issue” and has nothing to do with will it or won’t it be legal. This has everything to do with one group trying to suppress the free speech of another group and how the court system almost allowed it.
As a younger voter – that should concern you far more than will gay marriage be allowed or won’t it.
Oh, free speech concerns me Val, but when it comes to political campaigns I do wished they were forced to be more honest and whatnot. It’d be kind of nice for once. Candid language is nice, but you shouldn’t be putting it in all your official campaign correspondence for various reasons, document releases being one of them, and another being it creates a more professional appeal and puts you above reproach in actions.
As for the Mormon Church, anyone know if they were gone after for violating the condition of tax exempt stauts? They certainly should be IMO.
I suppose you also support the removal of Jesse Jackson’s tax exempt status, along with the SEIU, UAW, Moveon.org, Acorn…. Which happen to be some of the greatest violators of tax status and campaign finance laws.
Stu-
Go for it. I’m all for equal action on individuals violating tax exempt status by endorsing individual candidates.
PHENOM has to do it here- so should everyone else.
Dan –
The point is that there was a judge who was not going to be equal. Which part of that is confusing you? He wanted one side to submit their interoffice memo’s and not the other.
Also, the gay community is trying to say that Christians who believe God said being Gay is immoral is hate speech. They are also trying to say that if anyone tries to compare gay marriage to a legal marriage slippery slope – that is hate speech. Those are the things they are trying to ‘get’ from the Yes on 8 group. It’s BS.
Years ago some researchers developed a fail safe lie detector. When someone lies apparently a different neural pathway is taken than if someone tells the truth. So powerful is this device that it can give a true/untrue division even before a word is uttered.
So, I had a little fun imagining what our society would be like IF no politicians could lie; nobody in the court system criminals/lawyers/judges/police officers could lie; no salesman can lie; your spouse/ kids can’t lie and YOU cannot lie. Imagine going to an airport and asking: ‘Are you a terrorist?’ Then having the correct answer every time. Our society would be very different. (ref -softcover edition – ‘The Brain; The Final Frontier’ by R. Restack)