Your Papers, Now!

Carol J. Williams has an update in this LATimes.com blog entry on a matter I wrote about in this posting – that marriage neutering advocates asking courts to force the campaign behind the California Marriage Amendment to hand over internal communications.

Lawyers for two gay couples challenging last year's Proposition 8 initiative banning same-sex marriage in California brought their case to a federal appeals court panel in Pasadena today, arguing that they need access to initiative sponsors' internal campaign communications to prove the ballot measure was passed with "discriminatory intent."

It never ceases to amaze me how they refuse to call Prop 8 what it is – an adopted amendment to the state constitution, and continue to refer to it as a ban on same sex marriage.

The request to review all messages pertaining to the campaign strategy of the Proposition 8 sponsors ahead of a Jan. 11 trial was approved by the San Francisco-based federal judge presiding over the case, prompting the initiative backers to turn to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with claims that such disclosure would violate their 1st Amendment protections.

Can we see all messages of the marriage neutering advocates pertaining to their strategy? There's probably something negative in there about religious groups, voters, traditional marriage, perhaps even certain ethnic groups, and so forth.

[Much more after the jump, including the latest development.]

Charles Cooper, an attorney representing the Protect Marriage group behind the successful initiative halting same-sex marriages, warned the three-judge appellate panel that disclosing the campaign's internal communications would have a "chilling effect" on freedom of speech and association in future political contests.

The way this was written, with "halting same sex marriages" (Really? Did all ceremonies stop?), the reader might not pick up on the fact that the proposed amendment was headed for the ballot before the state's Supreme Court ordered the neutering of marriage licensing, and the court could have stayed their decision until after the vote. Yes, there was a five month window in which neutered marriage licenses were being handed out... compared to the almost 160 years the state wasn't handing out neutered marriage licenses.

Theodore Boutrous, arguing for the two couples denied California marriage licenses because they don't meet the Proposition 8 definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, told the judges that getting access to the internal strategy discussions was essential to show how the Proposition 8 supporters plotted to "push the buttons" to fan anti-gay fears among voters.

It's not just the Proposition 8 definition. It is the definition of most of the world, most states, the federal government, and the official state definition. Do you notice the manipulation of language?

He produced one message obtained from a Proposition 8 proponent warning that the consequences of failing to pass the gay-marriage ban would include California "falling into the hands of Satan" and the next step in the gay-rights movement, including "sex with children."

Oooh, scary! The CMA supporters discriminate against Satan and child rape. I see a lawsuit by Satanists.

Here's the actual news of the day:

The judges, all appointees of President Clinton, expressed skepticism that the opponents of Proposition 8 needed to go beyond what was publicly available from campaign ads and Internet-based statements to show the strategy behind the initiative. But they also openly disputed Cooper's contention that much of the communication was entitled to 1st Amendment protection.

Maybe these campaigns should be staffed with doctors and their female patients. We know there is a right to privacy there.

I hope everyone is keeping in mind that if the campaign has to turn over the communications, then that is a precedent that can be applied elsewhere. A lot of marriage neutering advocates might like being able to force their way in to the private communications of their opponents, but they won't like it if they end up on the other end of such a demand on some other case or cause. If you say you're all about equality, then you have to understand that this won't apply only to marriage defenders.

Then again, for some marriage neutering advocates, everything must be sacrificed in their quest. It doesn't matter what bad precedents are set, what is torn down, or what tone is established – as long as they get that one goal.

Surely, if we don't have access to all communications made by and between public-servant lawmakers working with compulsory tax money - and we don't, despite sunshine and open-government laws - then there isn't a right to have access to the internal communications of a citizen-led ballot campaign funded with private, donated money.

Previously: Your Papers, Please