Discussion for article #233831
If ever there was a tell, this is it.
The message is, We know a whole bunch of litigious folks are about to go nuts over our ruling on treating same-sex marriages as having the same legal standing as opposite-gender marriages, and we want to provide some practical disincentives to discourage raising this again in the any court system over which we have jurisdiction.
4 Likes
The thing is you can’t hide behind a bush, jump out and stab somebody in the back, and then go hide behind the bush waiting to do it again. By keeping their identity secret this is essentially what they want to do. Moreover, if they really stand behind their professed morals then they should have no problem disclosing who they give donations to. For instance, I have no problem with anyone knowing I’ve given to pro-marriage equality and pro-choice groups over the years. Indeed, I’m proud of it.
4 Likes
So, where’s the list of names?
3 Likes
Yes!! This is a strike for fairness and transparency in these political campaign funding issues. Thanks for a good Monday, SCOTUS!!
2 Likes
Hopefully, the good state of California will be seeing to it that list will be produced pronto.
"The groups sought to conceal their past and future campaign finance records because they feared harassment of donors. "
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! KARMA DOWN YOUR THROAT, BITCHES!!! These are the same people who do shit like taking down every license plate number in clinic parking lots to research peoples’ identities and post them on the intertubez, etc. May they reap what they’ve sown a hundredfold.
6 Likes
Interesting take on today’s development. I wouldn’t disagree. Seriously, I wouldn’t be too shocked if the eventual ruling for marriage equality across the land comes out to 6 -3 or even a 7 - 2 vote (though a possible 5 -4 vote would still be a victory, I would be a little disappointed). I am though expecting more than two opinions. However it turns out, the writing on the wall is becoming clearer with time. I never imagined I would be alive to witness this type of monumental shift in favor of fairness and equality for myself and my community. The real impetus for this push was born out of the devastation the AIDS epidemic was wreaking on us. I witnessed numerous times where a surviving partner was totally shut out of the life he and his significant other created. Homes were lost, bank accounts were raided by the blood families who most often hadn’t even spoken with the dying/deceased relative in many years – they were there only for court fights and argued over and over (quite successfully) that the couple were not legally married (couldn’t even obtain Domestic Partnership benefits, which was the precursor to this whole episode). At first, many didn’t even think to put it in writing for their partner to be executor of estate or to make medical decisions, etc. Eventually, community leaders decided to push for legal rights and started a campaign to educate the public about our situation, our desire to strive for nothing more than what so many took for granted, etc. I am very proud of my community, by and large, how we conducted ourselves and pushed ahead. I only wish some of my friends could be here to witness all this. Come June, when we will hear SCOTUS’ ruling, I will privately toast those who aren’t here anymore. I lost a couple close friends; as well, I worked in primary care and drug studies back in the late '80s, early '90s so I knew quite a few people – some who made it today, many who didn’t. These victories for fairness always make me think of them. 
2 Likes
SCOTUS to NOM on NOM’s desire to keep donors anonymous
2 Likes
Don’t forget publishing the home addresses of abortion providers, and the schools their kids attend. It’s funny how different things look when you’re inside the bowl.
5 Likes
One hour ago: Federal Judge declares Nebraska’s ban on marriage equality unconstitutional
4 Likes
I suppose NOM really takes the whole, “Invisible hand of the Free Markets” too seriously. Or maybe this is part of the whole, “we drank too much Tequila on the 2008 election night, thought we were invisible, but then that Socialist/Muslim/Terrorist got elected to the Presidency and now we don’t want the videos going viral.”
And really, if campaign donation roles can be kept secret, how will the Republicans ever know that the Democrats aren’t being secretly funded by the Chinese government for the eventual Red Dawn?
Probably.
It’s also, to this non-lawyer, perplexing, though. Donors’ names can remain public because, as the Ninth Circuit Court ruled, they have already been public.
But the Citizen’s United ruling seems to say something quite different.
Whatever, I guess. Good ruling from the Court should be accepted as a good ruling, or, rather, non-ruling.