Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“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…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyJanuary 26th, 2010
Anthony Pugno is the general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and is posting his daily perspectives and arguments about Perry v. Schwarzenegger on the ProtectMarriage.com website. As such, Pugno is responsible for spinning the story in the way that the supporters of Proposition 8 wish and one of his themes has been Judge Walker’s “bias” against his side.
In a commentary posted yesterday he expresses a complaint that reveals the lack of logic, principle, or purpose behind the team seeking to defend Proposition 8:
Before resting their case, plaintiffs began Week Three this morning with a “document dump,” which means they admitted into the trial record a slew of documents they view to be evidence to support their case. Nothing earthshaking in and of itself, but the subtext is utterly astounding.
Despite supposedly winning our appeal in the Ninth Circuit to protect the privacy of our internal Prop 8 campaign records, the trial judge has still forced us to hand over literally tens of thousands of pages of sensitive campaign memos, emails and other documents to the plaintiffs. After sifting through our internal documents for facts they think aid their case, they had them labeled as trial exhibits and added to the court record.
So if the Yes on 8 campaign has been forced to open up its internal campaign records for this court trial, then shouldn\’t also the No on 8 campaign have to do so, too?
Well, although we filed a motion some time ago asking the court to order the “No on 8” campaign to disclose to us the same types of documents as those we had to disclose to them, the court has refused to rule on our request and thus we have been prevented from examining even one single document from the opponents of Prop 8. [emphasis in original]
This argument betrays that either Pugno is completely lacking in logic and knowledge of the purpose of the case, or else he believes that his readers are not too bright.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger seeks to prove that animus and bias were the bases for the initiation, collection of signatures, strategy, marketing, and implementation of the campaign to pass Proposition 8. As such, Pro-8 campaign correspondence is relevant in that it can reveal whether, indeed, animus and bias were motivators.
But the correspondence of the Anti-8 side would tell us nothing about the motivations for passing Proposition 8. It would add no value, answer no questions, and provide no insight. Pugno and company would have to argue for a reason to see this material based on its relevance to the question at hand, and there is none.
But in Pugno’s us-v.-them Culture War mentality, if you can read my email then I should be able to read yours. It’s not about the legal principles behind the constitutionality of discrimination, it’s all about waging war on a culture that doesn’t privilege the religious beliefs of his faith.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
johnathan
January 26th, 2010
Although Pugno is completely playing childish, WHEN this case does eventually reach the supreme court, I can just imagine the other childish a$$h*les on the SC rejecting the valid merits of the case based on Pugno’s claim. At least the ruling judge should issue his opinion that Olson/Boies should hand over their memos as well OR should not (as work-product) and let Pugno’s childish argument of this moment be placed to rest.
Ginger
January 26th, 2010
Good point, can you also respond to Pugno’s claims that the No on 8 side is not providing a legal argument against 8 (rather a personal argument). Also, can you respond to the point he made about the immutability of sexuality in his week two wrap up.
Ben in Oakland
January 26th, 2010
I find myself agreeing with Puggno. Partly becuase we don’t want it biting us later. But Precisely because there most likely IS nothing in there at all.
He loses on both counts.
CPT_Doom
January 26th, 2010
One other huge issue – of course Pugno et. al. can see all relevant documentation from Olson/Boies, that is part of standard trial protocol. But No on 8 is not the plaintiff in this case. That organization existed solely to fight the proposition. It is NOT the group behind this lawsuit, so why should their work product be relevant? It has no bearing on the questions of the case, which stem directly from the decisions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas SCOTUS rulings.
Donnchadh
January 26th, 2010
Basically it makes no sense legally but it does politically. The thinking isn’t wrong but it’s made with the wrong mindset.
Still, it might help to release those documents. Preferably without a court order.
Paul in Canada
January 26th, 2010
Have you noticed that Pugno does not allow ‘comments’ on his webpostings?
Ray
January 26th, 2010
Pugno’s opinion is especially odd since the defense has asked even a single question with the aid to determine of there was animus on the part of the No On 8 campaign. Not one. If that was even relevant, wouldn’t that have at least pursued that line of thinking? I mean, if the No Campaign’s mindset is relevant, where are the questions from the defense to probe that mindset?
Ben in Oakland
January 26th, 2010
The only animus that they could show would be the totally imaginary animus to the institution of marriage (That’s why we want it, you know). for that, they would need totally imaginary facts and a totally imaginary perception of gay people, straight people, and the institution of marriage…
uh-oh. wait.
Oh, never mind
majii
January 26th, 2010
Everything should be on the table because, if a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and case law is followed, the plaintiffs should have access to all materials, including donor lists. IMHO, the recent SC decision in this case was a violation of the Constitution. Conservatives only like judicial activism when it’s in their favor. If this case makes it to the SC, the only constitutional outcome would be to rule in favor of the opponents of Prop 8, but I fear this will not be the case because the majority of the Court is conservative. The Constitution allows for the SC judges to be impeached, and I’d like to see it if the Court votes against Prop 8 opponents. I would also like to see it because of the recent ruling in favor of corporations over citizens. Although I am heterosexual, I stand with my LGBTQ brethren every step of the way in the process of gaining constitutionally guaranteed rights. I am also African American. I lived under segregation, and through the civil and voting rights periods in America. If anyone knows what it is like to live in America and be denied one’s civil rights, it’s I. For these reasons, among others, there is no way that anyone can convince me to take away others’ civil rights. I feel that to deny anyone his/her civil rights places all of us in jeopardy of losing ours. I love your blog.
Brady
January 27th, 2010
Has anyone noticed that the majority of Pugno’s posts are about how unfair the judge is being or what he personally thinks about the trial vs. a recap of what is actually going on?
It strikes me that he sees the case is going badly, so rather than point out who his side is doing to win the case (and giving examples as to how they are doing that), he is simply giving his own interpretation of why the gay side’s argument is wrong. Which, is especially strange given his argument re: the political vs. legal case he sees going on.
He thinks our side is giving a political and not a legal case, yet he gives little to no examples of how his side is winning the legal case…just his own opinions on why our argument are wrong.
Priya Lynn
January 27th, 2010
Thanks for your support majii.
sammyseattle
January 27th, 2010
No on 8 is not involved in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are not members of No on 8, they are private citizens. Why would the judge allow campaign records from a party not involved in the suit? Pugno is simply appealing to the sentiment of his base, he knows the documents of No on 8 are inadmissable as the No on 8 campaign is not a plaintiff.
Chris McCoy
January 27th, 2010
…waits for the counter-suit claiming the No on 8 Campaign was based entirely on animus towards the proponents of Yes on 8.
Leave A Comment