Transparency, and hate: the names in Washington are released

In the referendum on domestic partnerships in Washington state last year, there was a bitter signature gathering campaign. Our side was suspicious that bad guys were not fairly describing the petitions, and getting signatures under false pretenses. There was also concern about their validity. For these reasons, under state law, petitioner names are supposed to be public.

However, in the now-typical fashion, the anti-equality forces whined that they would be attacked by marauding gays if the names were released and asked to make an exception to the law to keep them hidden. This case has bounced up to the SCOTUS and back down again, and now the judge has issued a smackdown of the anti-equality forces in his ruling (H/T Pam's House Blend)

“Doe has failed to supply sufficient, competent evidence that the publically known donors–as active supporters of R-71–have experienced sufficient threats, harassment, or reprisals based on the disclosure of their information in connection to R-71 that would satisfy the reasonable probability standard that Doe must meet in this case.”

“Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case.”

He details the descriptions, which include things like one man getting a mean email from his brother in law . Oh, the horror!

The FACT is that despite their desire to hide their bigotry, they can't.  And the consequences have been mild.  Some rude remarks.  A business boycott.  (Remember that the anti-gay forces ROUTINELY boycott pro-gay businesses.  Goose, gander?)   Yes, there have been some glitter bombs.

But remember the aftermath to Prop8 in California, hate crimes against LGBT people went up by nearly 17%.  Crimes against whining religious rightists, not so much.

Let's be clear on what real hate looks like. Let's be clear on which side is doing the hurting. And let's be clear on which side is doing the hating.  

Update In California, state law requires that the names of donors of >$100 be public. There was much fussing over the website that had the donor names on it (note that this includes donors on both sides). In a bid to keep Prop8 donors secret in retrospect has also been denied. Yes, the election was three years ago, but the Prop8 supporters consider that this is such a volatile issue that their donors are "at risk".

The judge read from a batch of declarations in which people claimed yard signs were stolen, that they received harassing phone calls, or, in one case, that people protested outside someone's business. "That's the extent of what happened," he said.

Get over yourselves, H8-ers! If "defending marriage" is so important to you, show the courage of your conviction.

NOM no longer about marriage, but about anti-gay hate

The National Organization for (straight) Marriage is an implacable foe of marriage equality. Up till now it has largely operated as a shadowy money-laundering machine for conservative Roman Catholic and Mormon donors.

 It is well known for its legal efforts to avoid compliance with campaign finance laws in many states--reasoning that opposition to marriage equality is deserving of special protections.

 But it's no longer about marriage equality. NOM is now attacking and demonizing gay people for being gay. The gloves are off.  Equality Matters actually reads NOM's website, and points us to many recent posts there that expose NOM's new strategy.  NOM now says Homosexuality Is “Immorality,” “Evil,” “Darkness Parading Around As Light”. There are many other examples  (also here). As Equality Matters notes,

NOM continues to claim that its “battle is not with an orientation” and that it works with “the love of God and our neighbor in our hearts.” Is this what NOM’s “love” looks like?

Well, I always knew they were hypocrites. As the numbers edge slowly into support for marriage equality nation wide, our foes will become more strident, more vicious, more angry, and more hate-filled. And that's what they are doing.

It therefore becomes even more important for us as a community to challenge the hate groups (NOM, FRC, FotF, ADF, etc etc) every time they lie.  too often their lies are reported by the media as facts. We need to take them on every time, so that it becomes clear that indeed, these people are no different from geocentrists or flat earthers, living a realm of fiction.

Ken Mehlman: another Republican comes out (video)

It should be noted that Ken Mehlman, former chair of the Republican National Committee and former chair of Bush's re-election campaign, has come out as gay, and in support of marriage equality.

But Mehlman was intimately involved with the Bush campaign that cynically relied on anti-gay ballot measures to get out the vote. Although today he says,

I understand that folks are angry, I don't know that you can change the past. As I've said, one thing I regret a lot is the fact that I wasn't in the position I am today where I was comfortable with this part of my life, where I was able to be an advocate against that [strategy] and able to be someone who argued against it. I can't change that - it is something I wish I could and I can only try to be helpful in the future.

I think that comes down to, "I couldn't do anything about it". Although turns out, he was in the thick of it.

"I think the issue was injected when a liberal court in Massachusetts said they were going to redefine a 200 year old institution in this country by judicial fiat," said Mehlman, who also endorses a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage political catnip for the Christian Right.-- (2006)

It's great that he's on the correct side, now. But he did a lot of damage--a lot of it. And the damage he did is why the one class of people I favor outing, is closeted conservatives who actively promote anti-gay agendas.

I'm glad he's opening his wallet and his rolodex. But if he's really going to support the community and make up for what he participated in during the Bush years, he's going to have to step up, admit it, and use his insider knowledge to defeat the dirty tricks of Roveian politics.

Which is it, Mr Mehlman?

Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Gay Old Party
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Keith Olbermann:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NOM's bus tour: a deliberate sham?

The HRC reports that NOM's bus tour is intended as a stunt to draw out counterprotesters that can be filmed and used to support NOM's contention that GLBT people are violent.

“NOM’s highly-touted bus tour is less about so-called ‘traditional marriage’ and more about creating an elaborate and cynical stunt. NOM rolled out a summer of nationwide events in order to draw lawful protesters, all so that NOM and its allies can pepper ongoing lawsuits challenging public disclosure laws with made-up stories of harassment. This unprecedented victimization crusade is the lowest denominator of political activism, and it won’t fly.”

They go on,

NOM’s efforts to trump up false claims of harassment are part of a radical nationwide plan to evade long-established public disclosure laws and to hide their political activities from legitimate scrutiny and accountability. In doing so, NOM has falsely alleged that their donors have been harassed and intimidated across the country to justify why it shouldn’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else. These tactics have prompted a state ethics investigation in Maine and recent court defeats across the country.....

Sainz concludes: “The bread crumbs of their deceit are clear. Let’s add it all up: NOM and its allies are making a last-ditch legal stand in Washington and Maine that they should be specially entitled to hide their political activities, and they’re saying that harassment and intimidation should provide them this cover. At the same time, Brian Brown schedules a series of virtually unattended weekday afternoon events hoping for counter-protests that they can then use as evidence of harassment and intimidation. Why else would NOM execute such half-hearted non-events and then completely subjugate its so-called ‘pro-marriage’ message in favor of devoting its energies almost exclusively to condemning lawful protesters?”

Are they smart enough to do this?

Are we reading too much into a total failure of an event?

Or is there even less here than there appears?

Discuss.

Follow the money: do marriage equality opponents really WANT to win?

It has been speculated that the Right doesn't really want to ban abortion; it's far more effective as a political and fundraising boogeyman if Roe v. Wade stays essentially intact.

I am starting to wonder the same thing about marriage equality. What a great rallying cry it is to trumpet the decline of marriage, to decry the activist judges, and bemoan the legislative process as middle-aged gays and lesbians seize the opportunity to join the married bourgeois and pay the marriage penalty.

In campaigns involving tens of millions of dollars, someone, somewhere, is getting rich.

A case in point is George "Lift my Luggage" Rekers, who made a profession of being a witness-for-hire at anti-gay hearings and trials. His employers didn't do so well because not only did he cost them a lot of money (on the order of hundreds of thousands) but his testimony was so over the top that it was routinely dismissed. Still, a lucrative business for Mr Rekers.

Or look at The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), and its CEO Maggie Gallagher with its hidden lists of donors and millions that it spends.

IRS reports from Gallagher's other organization, the "Institute for Marriage & Public Policy" reveal that she pays herself up to 42% of the donations received by that organization. I wonder if the donors know that over 40 cents of every dollar they give go to Ms Gallagher's bank account. This sounds a bit "excessive" by the standards used to judge compensation at non-profits.

Brian Brown is president of NOM and doled out over $160,000 to a consulting firm he runs called "Common Sense America". It shares an office with NOM. It sounds kinda like a giant shell game, doesn't it? Brown and Gallagher each have lucrative deals with a variety of organizations, all intertwined, while the centerpiece of NOM apparently acts as a money-laundering operation for institutional foes of marriage equality. And despite repeated investigations over campaign finance ethics, NOM keeps rolling on.

And the money keeps rolling in from every side....

I think that everyone was surprised at the weakness of the case that the Prop8 defenders put together to defend Prop8. Most pro-equality activists could probably have done better. The bad guys' witnesses managed to make the case for the equality side. Was that intentional? Losing early wouldn't be a problem, and might be a great fund-raising boon. If that's the case, their real triumph was in hiding the trial from public view. I suspect they are pretty confident of winning at SCOTUS but in no hurry to get there. Those of us they attack, who lose rights, and are materially damaged, are just "collateral damage" .

I know that there are many "true believers" in the anti-marriage equality movement. But increasingly I wonder whether they are all puppets to the most cynical puppet-masters, whose interest is not in the topics of social battles, but in the far more American desire to enrich themselves on the backs of those below.

It was the very American PT Barnum who reminded us "There is a sucker born every minute."

Update More on money at Pam's House Blend, pointing out the same logic is used for opponents of the DADT repeal.

In order for the coffers to remain full, gays must be deemed an enemy to be feared. This worked well forty years ago, but America has grown up to find FDR was right - there is nothing to fear but fear itself.

Now, desperate to remain relevant keep the cash flow steady, the religious right must go further and further from the political mainstream to justify their unjustifiable fear of gays. There is just one problem - the more outside the mainstream the religious right ventures, the more ridiculous they look.

What about the threats?

In Doe v. Reed, marriage equality opponents from Washington argued for secrecy for the signatures on the petitions that qualified Referendum 71 for the ballot (and thus allowed people to vote on whether or not domestic partner benefits should be expanded). They claimed that to reveal the signatures would expose the signers to violence.

As we know the Supreme Court decided that generally, signatures should be public. (See my previous post here). So the bad guys lost this round.

One of the amicus briefs filed with the court to support the good guys specifically addressed this claim of violence and intimidation. Several social scientists who study direct democracy and the initiative process actually did the research to see whether there is credible evidence that publicizing the names of petition signers leads to threats.

BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
The take home message?

More than a million names of signers of petitions for referenda and initiatives opposing gay marriage have been posted on the internet. Yet there is no evidence that any of these signers has faced any threat of retalia-tion or harassment by reason of that disclosure.

First they looked at Washington state petitions on all subjects

Petitioners do not, however, identify a single case in which a voter signing a petition has actually been subject to any form of harassment or intimidation as a result of public disclosure of that voter’s signature, name and address on the petition.
...
The lack of any demonstrable threat of intimidation or harassment is not limited to Washington. In fact, it is difficult to identify any case of intimidation or harassment of a petition signer occurring during the entire previous century.

Then they take on the claims about one particular organization around the gay marriage issue:

Petitioners state that an organization called KnowThyNeighbor.org, an organization supporting equal marriage rights for lesbian and gay couples, “posted the names of traditional marriage supporters signing petitions in Arkansas, Florida, Massachusetts, and Oregon.5 ” .... Upwards of a million names and addresses of these individuals in three states (Arkansas, Florida, and Massachusetts) have been posted online by KnowThyNeighbor. org. Petitioners, however, have not identified a single individual who has actually faced any threat of intimidation, retaliation or harassment as a result of merely signing any of these petitions and having that signature publicly disclosed.

And, in a sting to the tail, the publication of the signatures actually helps weed out fraud, which they show is epidemic in proportion in these initiative campaigns:

In Massachusetts, the public disclosure on the web by KnowThyNeighbor.org of the individuals who signed petitions to ban gay marriage led not to harassment or intimidation of those signers, but rather to the realization by thousands of citizens that they had been duped into signing the petition, thinking they were signing a petition to permit gay marriage.

The anti-gay side is fighting hard to make themselves the victim. Those marauding homos, doing violence against old ladies! Those terrible gays, destroying straight marriages! Those Godless 'mos, viciously attacking religious values!

It is imperative that we challenge these lies. The harassment that there was during Prop8 affected both sides --almost certainly, ours more than theirs. As I've said before, I was spit at, cursed, cut off on the freeway and had my car vandalized. During the post-8 mega-marches I attended, the only arrests were of THEIR side. And it's their campaign who wrote threatening letters to pro-equality donors.

No straight marriage ever failed because two gay people married. And plenty of GLBT and GLBT-friendly folks are very religious (just check out the crowded Episcopal Cathedral in San Diego for an example). The right-wing does not own the term "Christian" (and it's past time progressive Christians managed to wrest that name back again, but that's a subject for a different post).

And NO ONE has ever been harassed or threatened because their petition signature was made public.

Facts matter. Get them out there!

Update a great review of this and another relevant amicus brief at LGBT POV.

Also see another amicus brief at GLAD

SCOTUS: Signatures must be public

Doe v Reed is a case that came to us from Washington State in the aftermath of Referendum 71 that tried to overturn their state Domestic Partner law.* As I told you before, the Forces of Darkness brought a case up to the Supreme Court claiming that the signatures of the people who signed the petitions putting Referendum 71 on the ballot should remain private, because of their fictitious fears that the Rampaging Homos would injure them if they knew who they were.

More likely this had to do with verification of signatures and fraud, but then, I'm a cynic.

The Supreme Court decided 8-1 that the signatures must be made public. Only Justice Thomas, which seems ironic, supported the metaphorical hood of secrecy over hatred.

It's important to note that this is not a complete victory for this case. What they do is send the case back down for consideration. They found that generally things should be public, but several justices seemed to say that there might be times where secrecy could be justified.

Not Justice Scalia, though. I'll hand it to him, he's for transparency all the way:

Plaintiffs raise concerns that the disclosure of petition signatures may lead to threats and intimidation. Of course nothing prevents the people of Washington from keeping petition signatures secret to avoid that—just as nothing prevented the States from moving to the secret ballot. But there is no constitutional basis for this Court to impose that course upon the States—or to insist (as today’s opinion does) that it can only be avoided by the demonstration of a “sufficiently important governmental interest,” ....And it may even be a bad idea to keep petition signatures secret. There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously (McIntyre) and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.

The real question will be whether everyone who signed that petition, (a) really signed it, or (b) knew what they were signing. During the campaign there were numerous allegations of fraud and there were barely enough signatures to get it on the ballot.

UpdateGood background from the Keen News Service:

[Washington State Attorney General Robert] McKenna added, and the majority clearly agreed, that Protect Marriage plaintiffs had failed to offer any evidence to support their concern for harassment. And, noted McKenna, three other states with public disclosure laws held gay-related ballot measures and offered “no evidence…that anyone who signed any of these petitions in those three States was subjected to harassment.”

There's an amicus brief about the lack of credible threats. I'll track that down and tell you about it here.

*Aside: this kind of campaign proves that it's not marriage the bad guys are after, it's any recognition of GLBT couples, because this was about DPs, NOT civil marriage. And still the right opposes it.

Ethical problems in the fight against equality

In California, the Fair Political Practices Committee has fined the Mormons for failing to admit they had institutionally supported Proposition 8 by providing staff. It's only a bit more than $5000 but it's something to get them to admit it, even though they call it "an oversight".

Now I'd like to see more aggressive attention paid to the Roman Catholics and that nasty bishop Salvatore Cordileone who expressed such relish in attacking us.

In Maine, our friends at the hate-group NOM claim that they should be free of the reporting rules of Maine's election laws. Which in fact they consider "unconstitutional". Maine is one of those pesky states that expects to know who is donating money to campaigns there. NOM tried to appeal the decision, claiming its donors would be harassed (another example of the "violence" meme that the rightwingers claim as a justification for wearing a hood). That appeal was denied. As the Portland Press Herald says, approving the decision,

[The Magistrate's] ruling is not likely the last word on this subject. NOM's refusal to refuse to file reports with the state led the ethics commission to open an investigation into the group's actions, and it could continue to fight release of the information.

What is important is establishing that national groups should not be able to come to the state and make their own rules regarding transparency in election campaigns. If you choose to participate in this Maine campaign, you should abide by Maine's rules.

Except for marriage equality opponents, who claim in California, Washington, Iowa, and Maine that the rules don't apply to them.

And in a second blow, the 1st District court in Boston has now rejected NOM's attempt to block release, although the names will only be released to the state of Maine, not made public.

The speculative testimony set forth in the affidavits Appellant-Petitioners [NOM] offered does not establish a significant risk of chill stemming from disclosure severely limited by the entry of a strict litigation protective order.

Moreover, Appellees [Maine]have a compelling interest in defending Maine's election laws against charges of unconstitutionality. ... In this case, that interest extends to review of the documents in question. In framing some of their underlying constitutional challenges to Maine's election laws, Appellant-Petitioners have made relevant the issue of whether NOM has as one its primary purposes the influencing of ballot questions and/or candidate elections. We conclude that the materials in question have the potential to be highly relevant to that issue, and we see no less restrictive means for Appellees to probe the issue than by reviewing the materials under the auspices of the strict protective order to which Appellees have consented. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 27.0(c) we summarily AFFIRM the ruling of the district court. Because Appellant-Petitioners have not demonstrated "a clear entitlement to the relief requested," mandamus relief is DENIED......The stay entered by this court on May 28, 2010, is hereby LIFTED. (source)

Remember that based on Washington, they have actually got a case before the Supreme Court saying that uniquely for marriage equality, campaign transparency laws should not apply.

If you aren't outraged at this effort of these bigots to hide their bigotry, you really aren't paying attention.

Arguments in the Doe case

I've told you before about the case from Washington State, Doe v Reed, where the Forces of Evil claim that if the law is followed, and the state reveals the names of people who signed petitions against domestic partnerships, then bands of marauding homosexuals will savagely attack the signers./

Indeed, as Pam's House Blend reports, the bad guys actually accuse the state AG of KNOWING that violence will occur!

[Attorney General Sam Reed] is willing to allow access to petitions knowing that they will be used to harass and intimidate individual citizens

What evidence do they have that he KNOWS any such thing?

Fortunately, SCOTUS may not have lost its mind in this matter. the AP reports a certain skepticism:

Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Wednesday about keeping secret the names of people who signed a petition to repeal Washington state's gay rights law, suggesting citizens cannot always hide behind anonymity if they want to be heard.

Opponents of gay rights want the court to keep the names private to avoid intimidation by the other side. But several justices questioned whether allowing petitioners to stay anonymous might imperil other vital open records like voter registration and lists of donors to political candidates.

"The fact is that running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage," Justice Antonin Scalia said. "And the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate, or to take part in the legislative process."

Unfortunately, Justice Roberts (and probably Justice Thomas) may synpathize with secrecy.

Chief Justice John Roberts compared signing a petition to voting, saying a person's vote might be chilled if it was revealed which candidate they voted for. McKenna argued that chill would be no more significant than it is for having campaign contributions or voter registration disclosed.

Look, NOTHING serious happened in CA: everyone's names were public. Oh, sure, the Bad Guys claim awful things, but there is relatively little evidence that most of it happened. There were some scuffles, but the Pro-H8 side were just as likely to be perps as victims. I was spit at, cursed, and my car had paint thrown on it. But they claim THEY are the only victims. They just want the right to hide behind their sheets.

I've written a lot about this, and I refer you to a previous post here:

The opponents of marriage equality (AND civil unions) are claiming the mantle of honor for themselves, and as they strip the rights away from a persecuted GLBT community, they have the utter audacity to compare themselves to freedom marchers in the Civil Rights movement.

It is gob-smacking: those hiding under the hoods are pretending to be forces for justice. And it is even more outrageous if the courts let them get away with it.

Update Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has more quotes from the arguments.

GLBT cases in front of the SCOTUS, 1

We're all anxiously waiting progress on the Prop8 federal case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which at the moment is awaiting a series of legal maneuvers because the bad guys (the defendent-interveners, who are defending Prop8) want campaign documents from groups who opposed the initiative, even though those groups are not parties to this suit. This case will eventually be decided by Judge Vaughn Walker in US District Court, and then almost certainly will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. After that, it may get to the SCOTUS, depending on if it is appealed there, and whether SCOTUS chooses to hear it. So there is a long, long way to go.

As that wends its way through the legal arcana, there are two other cases affecting our rights that are already on their way to the Supreme Court. I'll discuss them in turn.

The first is Doe #1 v Reed in which arguments are scheduled for Monday, 19th April. That's Doe, as in John Doe: an anonymous! We have talked extensively here about the new right-wing anti-equality meme, that it's THEY who are the victims of those EEEEEvvvvvviiiiillll rampaging homos. This appears to be based entirely on a few incidents post-Prop8, and the mean things said about them in the papers and on the internet. Most of the incidents are completely unsubstantiated, and moreover, they conveniently ignore substantiated incidents where the conservatives attacked GLBT supporters.

In the wake of California Prop8, a web site was published that contained all the donor information from the pro-H8 side. (The information from BOTH sides was published by the state and freely searchable). This led to howls of outrage from the right, and fears that they would be attacked. And you know what happened? Absolutely nothing! That's right, no one was firebombed for being a donor. Oh, I'm sure some words may have been exchanged, but there was no evidence of violence.

Still, pointing at this, the supporters of referendum 71 in Washington State (which wanted to overturn domestic partnerships--remember this next time They claim it's only about marriage) have filed suit to prevent the release of the names of those who signed the petition to put its intolerance on the ballot,

Washington's laws, like California's, have transparency rules that require the release of names. So this is nothing special. But Their Side claims they fear intimidation. There's again absolutely NO evidence that this has or would occur.

Our side has two major arguments, I think. First, there were widespread accusations of signature violations on the petitions, in which signatures were invalid, or obtained under false pretenses. It seems to me that the rule of open government works on the side of release, here. Petitioners had no expectation of privacy and there is a legitimate public interest in seeing those names.

Second, we do not allow people to wear hoods and attack the rights of others. If you are ashamed of what you are doing, you are doing the wrong thing.

The problem for Our Side is that this Supreme Court has already bought into the intimidation argument EVEN THOUGH there is no evidence for it. As Chris Geidner reports,

The broad issue — the intimidation question — already has arisen twice in recent months at the Court, when the Court rejected the attempt to allow a live-streaming of the Proposition 8 trial to other courtrooms and in Justice Thomas’s opinion in Citizens United.

. That's the stunning case in which the court ruled corporations are people and can spend freely to influence elections.

I have just about lost any respect for Justice Thomas, but I really expected better of Justice Kennedy who is generally the swing vote between the sensible liberal side and the reactionary conservative bloc.

So although it seems obvious to me that Doe should be decided in a way that maintains an open government, I greatly fear that the current Supreme Court will decide in favor of secret cabals and blackballing.

SCOTUS and equality opponents: the courage of conviction?

As the Federal Prop8 trial (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) enters its second week, we are all relying heavily on the live-bloggers and tweeters to keep us informed, given that the SCOTUS agreed with the Defendant-Intervenors (the Bad Guys) and banned broadcast of the trial.

This decision was based ostensibly on the fear of the Prop8 proponents that their witnesses would be harassed, threatened and injured if people knew who they are. Because you KNOW how much violence there has been, right? Right? Yes, not so much. Despite the endless claims of roving bands of homos beating up on people, there is a paucity of evidence that anything dangerous has actually happened-- even though donor lists pro- and con- Prop8 were public in CA. Sure, there have been a few boycotts, but that tactic goes both ways.

In fact, in the aftermath of Prop8, its supporters made numerous unsubstantiated claims of violence. They accused the marriage equality supporters of terrorism --they even compared us to Al Qaeda for daring to march and claim the right of free speech! Let's not forget this.

And these experts and proponents of Prop8 who are reputedly so fearful, were certainly unafraid to be seen on camera during the run-up to the election, when you couldn't escape from them. Perhaps more telling is that, despite banning the broadcast, the Prop8 supporters' fearful witnesses have still retreated. It seems more likely that their withdrawal has something to do with the fact that their bias may actually be exposed-- see for example William Tam, who attempted to withdraw as a defendant-intervenor. His issue may be less about safety, than privacy, as noted by the Box Turtle Bulletin

I do not like the burden of complying with discovery requests. I do not like people questioning me on my private personal beliefs.

Of course he had no such qualms about sharing those beliefs to deny GLBT people of equal rights for months and years. (He also thinks the "gay agenda" is based on sex with children and was founded in Chicago in 1972. I am looking forward to his examination by the Olson / Boies team.)

Or perhaps it has something to do with the cross-examination of the expert witnesses, because some of them apparently don't look so good in the deposition tapes where they had to backtrack on their testimony.

In the end, these experts might end up blowing up in the defense’s face. If Boies and team is able to show what he claims, that their testimony was without basis, the experts have opened themselves to charges of perjury. Removing the possibility that the defense team knew about the baselessness of the depositions, because such a circumstance would be an egregious violation of professional responsibility, this also has huge implications for the case. If the defense experts admitted that there is no basis to say there is harm to straight marriages, that point becomes a big longshot to recover for the defense.

This embarrassment tends to happen when you are wrong, or careless, or somewhat ....stingy with the truth.

Both the LA Times and NY Times Op Ed pages decried the SCOTUS decision to hide the case. From the LA Times:

"Reasonable minds," the majority wrote, can differ over televised court proceedings. Fair enough, but some significant number of them also will be troubled by the five justices' blanket adoption of the assertion that televising the testimony of expert witnesses called to defend Proposition 8 -- including those being paid -- would create "irreparable harm" by exposing them to embarrassment and "harassment." If you accept that, you're on a path whose logical conclusion is secret testimony. It's easy enough to excerpt trial transcripts and post them on the Web. Doesn't that "expose" witnesses in any socially or politically divisive case to potential harassment? Television may accelerate the process, but the way text and photographs ricochet around the Internet these days, it's just a matter of degree -- and a rapidly diminishing one at that.

Moreover, as Justice Stephen G. Breyer pointed out in a 10-page dissent, in this particular case the witnesses "are all experts or advocates who have either already appeared on television or Internet broadcasts, already toured the state advocating a 'yes' vote on Proposition 8." What is there about these proceedings that will make them more vulnerable to reprisals than they already are?

That brings us squarely to the majority's troubling subtextual suggestion that there is something uniquely threatening -- even sinister -- about the activities of gays and lesbians advocating marriage equality. It's true that a tiny handful of activists on the movement's fringe have behaved outrageously toward opponents of same-sex marriage, but that criticism can't be made against the plaintiffs in this case. They've simply sought vindication of their rights through the courts, the very definition of law-abiding.

The Courage Campaign reminds of what's at stake in this:

The legal system exists precisely to counteract those kinds of situations, to provide those who have had their rights attacked or taken away the ability to confront those who have done so and take back their rights. And that in turn is precisely why ProtectMarriage.com wants to undermine the legal system in order to undermine marriage. If they can’t win fairly, then they’ll try to undermine the systems and institutions that ensure fairness.

Secret courtrooms and hidden testimony are antithetical to our principles of justice. And for an issue discussed almost exclusively in superficial media soundbites and advertising hyperbole, it is particularly disheartening to have hidden from public view the reasoned discussion of evidence in a courtroom that actually relies on facts and data, not lies and misinformation.

There's now another SCOTUS case, this one not just a request for an injunction, but a full-blown case, that the Court has agreed to hear, called John Doe vs. Reed. You may recall in Washington state last year the referendum on civil unions, in which the voters only narrowly approved generous partnership benefits. (The campaign against Referendum 71 provides yet another example of how the argument isn't about marriage, it's about ANY recognition of our families).

Washington has a law that releases the names of people who sign petitions to put referenda on the ballot. The proponents of discrimination want their names hidden, and in the case John Doe vs Reed, ask the SCOTUS to allow them to do so. From Pam's House Blend, a discussion of this case which asks the Court to

a. Declare Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.070 unconstitutional to the extent that it requires the Secretary of State to make the Referendum 71 petition, or any petition related to the definition or [sic] marriage or the rights and responsibilities that should be accorded to same-sex couples, submitted to the Secretary of State's office available to the public;

b. Enjoin Defendants from making the Referendum 71 petition, or any petition related to the definition or [sic] marriage or the rights and responsibilities that should be accorded to same-sex couples, available to the public pursuant to the Public Records Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.001 et seq., or otherwise;....

ONLY for this issue, note. They are seeking to cover up ONLY the opponents to marriage equality and civil unions. Unlike NOM, which is trying to overturn completely the campaign transparency law in Maine, the Washington folks want protection specifically, and ONLY, for petitioners involving same sex marriage or civil unions.

The irony is noted by the NY Times Opinionator :

Has anyone noticed that now that lesbians and gay men have left the closet to assert their equal rights as citizens, their adversaries seem to be running for a closet of their own?

But the Opinionator comments, more disturbingly,

A question now is whether the opponents of same-sex marriage can plausibly claim, as their court papers have sought to do, that they face threats to their lives and property comparable to those faced by civil rights workers in the Deep South in the 1950s and 1960s.

Did you catch that? Let's make this clear. The opponents of marriage equality (AND civil unions) are claiming the mantle of honor for themselves, and as they strip the rights away from a persecuted GLBT community, they have the utter audacity to compare themselves to freedom marchers in the Civil Rights movement.

It is gob-smacking: those hiding under the hoods are pretending to be forces for justice. And it is even more outrageous if the courts let them get away with it.

David LInk at the conservative Independent Gay Forum writes,

People who believe they are right should be willing to own the morality of their cause, even when that means taking very real, sometimes severe risks such as going to jail, or even being killed — neither of which anyone opposed to gay equality can truthfully claim. That’s what lesbians and gay men have had to do to get where we are. Perhaps that’s harsh, but I’m having a very hard time seeing how name-calling really counts as a similar sort of abuse, or how risking some loss of government funds equates with actual peril in a way that would justify refusing to air arguments in a public forum like a court of law.

And Firedoglake chimes in, remarking upon the hypocrisy of the conservative viewpoint:

Sure, harassment is fine and dandy when you’re the one brandishing firearms and shouting down congresspeople at townhalls, or yelling at women going into family planning clinics, but when there’s even the slightest chance that someone might call you a bigot, well, that’s just as bad as the KKK killing Freedom Riders.

It’s a truly amazing lack of perspective. Gays are persecuted, discriminated against, bullied, beaten, raped, and murdered; many of them feel they have to conceal the very essence of who they are to fit in and be safe. Gay marriage opponents? The worst that’ll happen to them is that they’ll get picketed or insulted, or get the cold shoulder from residents of the 21st century. But apparently the risk of facing intolerance of one’s own intolerance is too steep a price to pay for defending The Most Important Institution Evar.

Many of these people who want to hide under a hood claim to be Christians (which insults the many, many Christian faith groups who support fairness and inclusivity.) Perhaps it is time for them to actually READ the Bible that they thump so passionately:

And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.’
John 3:19-21

Hiding under the rock: NOM and campaign financing in Maine

You know what lives in the dark, under rocks and bridges, right?

The bad guys continually try to hide who they are and where the money comes from, amidst unsubstantiated claims of threats ad violence. (Let's face it, they have had great success telling lies in both CA Prop8 and ME Question 1 campaigns). Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate continues to shine a bright light on these people.

But this takes the cake. Now Maggie Gallagher and her band of NOMmers are trying to overturn campaign finance transparency laws in Maine, in order to cover up the money.

As commented in the Bangor Daily News Editorial,

In October, NOM filed suit in federal court claiming Maine’s referendum campaign finance reporting requirements were overly burdensome and, therefore, unconstitutional..... If its challenge is upheld, it would leave a big hole in the state’s reporting requirements and its Clean Election financing program, which relies on candidates’ reporting of donations to determine whether matching funds are warranted.

The group, based in New Jersey....has refused to disclose to state election officials where its money came from....

The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices is investigating whether NOM violated state campaign finance laws by refusing to name its donors in connection with Question 1 on the Nov. 3 ballot.

Attorneys for the group have argued that listing donors would discourage contributions because people would be afraid of retaliation.

Gay marriage is an emotional issue, but citing fear as a reason to flout the law is an unpersuasive argument, especially when thousands of donors are named — complete with their home or businesses addresses and occupations — on campaign finance reporting forms filed by groups on both sides of Question 1....

A close look at the group’s fundraising literature will clarify whether it was raising money for the Yes on 1 campaign in Maine. If it was, reporting is necessary, as it should also be for other national groups that contribute to Maine campaigns....

The bottom line is that Maine voters should be able to know who is trying to influence their vote.

Shine the light on the donors. Tell the truth.

Public access and the Federal Case against Prop 8

So, you remember, the Prop8 federal case, Perry v. Schwarzeneggar, right? Part of this case turns on whether the Bad Guys were motivated by animus against GLBT people. The judge ruled they had to release their emails.

Then a group of 3 judges ruled they didn't have to.

Now it appears that THAT decision will be reviewed en banc, by a larger group of the Ninth District Appeals Court.

Then there's the matter of whether it will be televised. First it was yes, but now the bad guys are suing to keep it quiet. Seems their witnesses are unwilling to be public.

In a letter to Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, lawyers defending Proposition 8 argued that allowing cameras in the federal court trial would violate federal rules and expose their side to threats, intimidation and harassment from gay marriage advocates.

The letter warns the judge that some witnesses for the Proposition 8 defense "have indicated they will not be willing to testify at all if the trial is broadcast or webcast beyond the courthouse."

Hmmmm.....something to be ashamed of? Or just afraid of marauding bands of tasteful homosexuals?

Honestly these people are their own parody.

More on this from LGBTPOV blog, including the response from the plaintiffs (=the good guys), who support full transparency and thus support televising the proceedings:

More than 13 million Californians cast a vote for or against Prop. 8. And there are hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian Californians who have a direct stake in the outcome of this case. Ultimately, however, the issues in this case are of such transcendent importance that every Californian should be afforded an opportunity to view the proceedings to the greatest extent practicable. .....The “ability to see and to hear a proceeding as i[t] unfolds is a vital component of the First Amendment right of access.” ABC, Inc. v. Stewart, 360 F.3d 90, 99 (2d Cir. 2004).

Proponents’ concerns about “the possibility of compromised safety, witness intimidation, and/or harassment of trial participants” (Doc # 324 at 6) are utterly unsubstantiated and groundless speculation. Indeed, Proponents willingly thrust themselves into the public eye by sponsoring Prop. 8 and orchestrating an expensive, sophisticated, and highly public multimedia campaign to amend the California Constitution. They certainly did not exhibit a similar fear of public attention when attempting to garner votes for Prop. 8 from millions of California voters, when touting their successful campaign strategy in post-election magazine articles and public appearances.....

As I've said before, Mother's advice was sound: if you are afraid to be known for what you did, that's a good measure that maybe YA SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT.

Update: The Judge is seeking public comment about televising the trial. Speak out for open access!

The Courage Campaign has a website: http://www.couragecampaign.org/TeleviseTheTrial

SIGNATURE DEADLINE: FRIDAY 9 a.m.:

NOM gets slapped in Iowa too.

Maggie Gallagher's hate group, the National Organization for Marriage, has been soliciting donations around the country to attack marriage equality. Part of what they promise is anonymity.

Letters and emails from NOM Executive Director Brian Brown .... stated:

“And unlike in California, every dollar you give to NOM’s Northeast Action Plan today is private, with no risk of harassment from gay marriage protestors.”

Only hiding your donors peeves ethics and openness standards of different states.

As mentioned yesterday, Maine's Ethics Commission is investigating, following a complaint from Californians Against Hate

And in Iowa, the Iowa Ethics Board is also cross:

In a August 27 letter, the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, warns the National Organization for Marriage about their campaign activities in Iowa. Here are the key points of the warning:
>>only an “insignificant and insubstantial amount” of NOM’s income is permitted to come from business organizations

>>if advocacy activities in Iowa exceed $750, NOM must form a PAC and disclose contributors

>>“To continue to file an independent expenditure statement for future elections in Iowa would mean that your organization is not raising more than $750 from outside sources for such purposes”

Last Friday NOM filed an independent expenditure report for nearly $90,000 worth of ads. The letter makes clear that to continue to file in this manner would run afoul of Iowa election laws.

The Advocate reports:

NOM’s lawyer, Barry Bostrom, has flat-out denied the allegations, calling them “unfounded and scurrilous.”

“These accusations and complaints are intended to inhibit our freedom of speech and freedom of association,” Bostrom told The Iowa Independent. “But we intend to aggressively safeguard these rights, while complying with all state and federal laws.”

But Des Moines attorney Sharon Malheiro says the lack of transparency undermines the democratic process.

“Election laws are necessary to protect public confidence in our democratic system,” she says. “When outsiders try to pervert the justice system and work around the election laws of our state, our public officials must call them out and hold them accountable.”

Time for NOM to take off the hoods.

The only good news in this? That $90K in ads was to influence an election for the Iowa House, where a pro-equality Democrat was paired against an anti-equality Republican. But despite potentially breaking the law to donate secret monies, their candidate lost. Good on yer, Iowans!

Mob Rule

During the Prop8 aftermath, peacefully protesting gay people were accused of being terrorists, and peaceful protests were referred to as "mobs". 25,000 people marching without incident were called intimidating. The Christianists made numerous unsubstantiated claims that they had been attacked, and when the donors (pro or con) were made public, as required by law, they bleated that they would be targets for violence.

Guess what?

NOTHING HAPPENED.

Conveniently overlooked was the fact that the Pro-H8 side had themselves threatened people and business and committed vandalism. Indeed, despite THEIR accusations of religious persecution, Pro-H8 demonstrators interrupted a Eucharist at the Episcopal Cathedral of San Diego because that church dared to disagree with them.

By contrast anti-Prop8 protests were legitimate, peaceful, and no one was harmed. (The largest demonstration, in San Diego in November, had one arrest: a PropH8 supporter who opposed GLBT rights).

Of course, right wing protests are a little different and the recent goal of the mobs have been to shut down any discourse with violence. The hypocrisy seems pretty clear.

Now, in Maine, the anti-equality forces are terrified that they will be targeted for violence, so they are hiding their address and making dark pronouncements. However, the pro-equality forces (who have not hidden their address) have issued a call for ethics and civility. Based on precedent, which side do you think is more likely to be violent?