10/2/2009

in

Opponents of Proposition 8 see this as opportunity.

Robyn Chelsea-Seifert

Opponents of Proposition 8 made small progress when U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in their favor October 1.  
  
The judge's ruling said anti-gay marriage groups must provide records associated with last fall's campaign to ban gay marriage in California to the State: meaning all emails, memos and reports dealing with its strategy, voter messages and rationale for preventing gay couples from marrying must be turned over.  
  
"What was decided not to be said in a political campaign may cast light on what was actually said," Walker stated.  
  
Ted Olson and David Boies are legal representatives arguing Prop 8 was motivated by hostility toward gays and as such must be struck down as inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equality. They are challenging this in federal court.  
  
ProtectMarriage.com is the sponsor of Prop 8, the voter-approved referendum that ended gay marriage in California, and is represented by the Christian conservative group the Alliance Defense Fund.  
  
Those in favor of Prop 8. argue discussions were meant to be private and making them public would violate free speech rights and possibly subject supporters to harassment.  
  
Andy Pugno, a lawyer for Protect Marriage, said he was surprised and disappointed by the judge's ruling. The groups legal advisers will meet Friday to discuss their next steps, including a possible appeal, he told KTVU.  
  
Christopher Dusseault, one of the lawyers for the couples, said the judge's ruling made sense since Walker has said he wants to have as many facts before him as possible when the case goes to trial on Jan. 11.  
  
"Their argument that documents about campaign strategy and rejected campaign messages being irrelevant, simply because they weren't sent to voters at large, is an argument he rejected," he said.  
  
"An example of the kind of information the plaintiffs are seeking is discussions showing that the campaign decided against running ads stating that marriage must be reserved to a man and a woman to foster responsible parenting since that is an argument Protect Marriage's lawyers are making now to uphold Proposition 8," Dusseault said.  
  
Depending on how and when the internal information is disseminated, its contents could revive the hostility some gay marriage supporters directed at Proposition 8's financial donors after the ballot initiative passed in November. Some contributors became the subject of consumer boycotts, and opponents of same-sex marriage have since tried to limit the disclosure of campaign contributions and other identifying information about their backers in Washington state and Maine, where measures to repeal legislatively enacted gay rights measures are on the ballot this fall.  
  
"Giving the losing side of a campaign this level of information will discourage anyone from ever attempting to use the initiative process in the future, knowing that sensitive strategies will likely all become public if they prevail," Pugno said.  
  
Campaign disclosure has been a key element for advocates. In Maine, the group National Organization for Marriage has been campaigning for a same-sex marriage ban on the November ballot, but the state ethics commission there agreed to launch an investigation into the group's fund-raising practices. Fred Karger, a Southern California activist, sought the investigation as he has been tracking down who is funding their efforts.  
  
Olson and Boies expect the suit to reach the Supreme Court.