Judge: Anti-gay marriage donors must be public

by 158 | January 29, 2009 at 03:30 pm
150 views | 36 Recommendations | 6 comments

Photos

gay-Photo-01

gay-Photo-01

see larger image

uploaded by 158

.

I am not sure about this.

Openness is  politics is

good but privacy is also

an important issue.

.

A federal judge has denied a request to keep secret the names of donors to California's anti-gay marriage initiative.

U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. ruled Thursday that the state's campaign disclosure laws are intended to protect the public and are important during expensive initiative campaigns.

Supporters of Proposition 8 had sought a preliminary injunction to hide the identities of those who contributed to their campaign.

The initiative was approved by voters in November. It overturned a state Supreme Court ruling that allowed gay marriage.

Reports that identify those who donated within two weeks of the election or afterward are scheduled to be publicly released Monday.

This is the amendment that

 all the controversy was

about.

Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition in the November 4, 2008, general election. It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases. The measure added a new section (7.5) to Article I, which reads: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.[1][2][3] California's State Constitution put the measure into immediate effect on November 5, the day after the election.[4] The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California.
recommend This comment thread is now closed
1
Paschen

Votes have to remain private, however once money is involved it has to be public. 

0
158

I agree if the money goes to a politician or if it comes from a politician or corporation but if it is for or against a cause from a private citizen, it could remain private.

0
lefty_liberated

am recommending the story because of the courts ruling. thanks for sharing. 

0
158

Thanks for recommending and commenting.

0
harringtola

The initiative was a political action being taken. It was voted upon correct. The monies to promote the initiative are considered to be promoting a political position. It might also be considered by some as a personal or moral position but it is none-the-less political I think. Interesting opposing points of view to consider.

0
158

Yes, that is also a good viewpoint.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Paschen
First Flagged at 3:39 PM, Jan 29, 2009 by Paschen
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (36)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from