NP Rank:
Judge: Anti-gay marriage donors must be public
.
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.
Crowd Power
-
158
St. Louis, Missouri, United States
Recommendations (36)
-
Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan
-
harringtola
Town-send, Massachusetts, United States -
Tina Kells
Vancouver, Canada -
Amy Judd
Vancouver, Canada -
lefty_liberated
New York, New York, United States




Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
at 15:39 on January 29th, 2009
Votes have to remain private, however once money is involved it has to be public.
at 18:19 on January 29th, 2009
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.
at 15:59 on January 29th, 2009
am recommending the story because of the courts ruling. thanks for sharing.
at 18:24 on January 29th, 2009
Thanks for recommending and commenting.
at 20:54 on January 29th, 2009
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.
at 10:19 on January 30th, 2009
Yes, that is also a good viewpoint.