Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Judge Says Prop 8 Donors Must Be Made Public

Jim Burroway

January 29th, 2009

U.S District Judge Morrison C. England, Hr. denied an attempt by the Yes on 8 to overturn California’s Political Reform Act. The act, which was approved by California voters in 1974, requires political campaigns to disclose the name, occupation and employer of anyone contributing $100 or more to the campaign. Yes on 8 campaigns sought to withhold disclosing the names of late campaign donors.



Timothy Kincaid
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

I think it is worth noting that Judge England is an African-American, Republican, Army Reservist. He was appointed to the court by George W. Bush.

None of which will stop anti-gay activists from calling him a “liberal activist judge”.

Rob Lll
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

Marriage issues aside, this is an important victory for anyone who cares about transparency in public affairs. Bravo.

Emily K
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

I agree. This is one of the ways you keep government small, people. Transparency and accountability. Keep things close to the public.

I wonder if the author of those stupid “twilight” books tithed over her earnings to prop 8. If that’s the case, they’ve even duped all the heterosexual teenage girls into fighting equality…

Richard W. Fitch
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

The Sacramento Bee readers’ comments are very telling of the conflict between ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ on HP8. It appears some are even confused about which side is which. And, of course, is there already the cry of Liberal, Revisionist, Law-making Jurists.

Richard W. Fitch
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

Emily — checked out the YouTube link… almost fell out of my chair laughing. You have a wondefully unique sense of humour!!

Emily K
January 29th, 2009 | LINK

Richard, please distribute that link as you see fit.

January 29th, 2009 | LINK

It amazes me that a group of people could take what the US Supreme Court defines as “fundamental rights,” away from someone, and then turn around and claim persecution based on small scale methods their own organizations have been using for decades…

The painful arrogance, lies, and hypocrisy of the right can’t ever find the bottom of their own barrel.

Onslowe Sater
January 30th, 2009 | LINK

It sickens me to watch both sides on this use the exact same terms over and over to describe the enemy. You both use identical arguements and justifications: i.e. hypocrites, lefties-righties, haters, liars, gay-bashers, mormon-haters, boycots, agendas, “our” rights, church and state… no state and church… i forget which site I’m on periodically. Both sides subscribing to the slippery-slope theory and fear mongering. It’s really sad. It really is! And from my vantage point… you almost deserve each other. Now there’s a marriage made in heaven!!! (hey, a chuckle amid all the madness) I posted the exact same comment on protectmarriage blog. I’ll forward both parties any ammo for the war I may get emailed as a result. Tks and sorry. My tummy has a hole from reading these two sides.
-On S

January 30th, 2009 | LINK

Emily K: That was awesome.

January 30th, 2009 | LINK

On S,

But…but…THEIR fear mongering is more unsubstantiated than ours.

David C.
January 30th, 2009 | LINK

It sickens me to watch both sides on this use the exact same terms over and over to describe the enemy.— Onslowe Sater

The tone of “both sides” has become a little shrill and less than productive in too many cases. In the defense of LGBT people, I can only say that we were pretty much minding our own business when all the so-called “pro-family” groups and many evangelical leaders starting trashing us with every lie and distortion they could manufacture. Much of the war of words and its vocabulary can be traced back to the outright libel and slander that permeates the propaganda coming from these sources. This has to a large extent poisoned the dialogue and turned much of the debate into a shouting match.

To borrow the words of another writer:

It’s been said that if you fight something long enough, there is a danger of becoming what you hate. I think we’re getting dangerously close to that…. —Candace Chellew-Hodge


Returning to the subject of this thread, it does strike me as hypocritical that Prop-8 proponents want to hide their (often substantial) material support of the measure in the name of protecting themselves from the political and economic consequences of that support. As if LGBT people were not affected in any of these ways by passage of Prop 8, or that the Yes campaign didn’t try to blackmail the contributors to the No campaign which they were able to identify by means of the same kind of publicly available information about themselves that Yes contributors (or at least the Yes Campaign) now want to suppress.

At least the No contributors were unafraid of the implications of their support for defeat of Prop 8. One should ask themselves what the Yes supporters are really afraid of.

Ben in Oakland
January 30th, 2009 | LINK

Sent to various newspapers today

Dear Editor:

Karl Marx wrote that history usually occurs twice: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

Prop. 8’s passage was a tragedy. Here comes the farce. Supporters have gone to Federal Court to overturn the California Political Reform Act of 1974, which requires than the donors for political campaigns be made known to the general public. They claim that some alleged threats and harassment entitle them, at the least, to a special exemption for themselves. The Court refused, and they have appealed.

When we gay people seek equality before the law, our birthright as Americans, anti-gay propaganda accuses us of seeking “special rights”. Yet those who would deny this equality are requesting exactly that– special rights. One of the propaganda arguments in support of Prop. 8 was that “liberal, activist judges” should not overturn “the will of the people”. Like the previous law on marriage, Prop. 22, which was overturned by the Supreme Court, the Political Reform Act was a voter-approved initiative. I guess one’s commitment to the will of the people must depend on which people one is referring to. The final irony? Judge England, who ruled against them, was appointed by George Bush, which I suspect does not make him a liberal activist.

Groucho Marx might have written this: “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the propaganda.”

January 31st, 2009 | LINK

The ‘Pro-Family’ side’s main argument was a smokescreen. If they had really been concerned about protecting families and marriage, they would have been wailing and gnashing their teeth about divorce and adultery which are actually threats to marriage and families. Instead, their focus was solely to deny rights to others who are not like them. They never figured we’d start digging and figure out who among our family, friends and neighbors and which businesses we support were actually in the opposing corner.

If we trotted out a proposition limiting straight people to ONE marriage, with all subsequent relationships being “Domestic Partnerships” that granted no special rights or federal benefits there would be a hue and cry from the “Pro Family” types the likes of which we’ve never seen.


Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.