The Gay Mafia Is Out For Blood

From time to time, I've attempted to keep our readers updated on the very important legal battle in California over Proposition 8 (the Traditional Marriage Amendment to the California constitution). In summary so far, the California Supreme Court upheld the amendment and a lawsuit has now been filed in federal court claiming, among other things, that the law violates basic federal constitutional rights which override California's law.

After shopping all over the west coast for a Ninth Circuit federal judge who would allow such a lawsuit to proceed (it's called "forum shopping"), the anti-Prop 8 forces finally found a judge who held that the complaint was sufficient to go forward into a pre-trial phase. Now between thee and me, I am really wondering how smart the attorneys could be when they didn't start by looking in San Francisco first. After all, this is the City where a liberal federal judge ruled some years back that California's Anti-Discrimination amendment for all public employment was invalid. Judge Thelton P. Henderson, a Carter appointee, essentially held that the words of the U.S. Constitution in the Fourteenth Amendment were "unconstitutional." Forbidding racial preferences in public employment was somehow discriminatory to Henderson. That was too much for even the ultraliberal, slightly loony, and much-reversed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found that a cause of action upon which relief can be granted was present in this case, as well as a valid contention that federal law preempts the field in this area of civil law. A minimum of seven other judges throughout the circuit had previously found that no such cause of action existed and that the case was properly decided upon adequate independent state grounds. For the information of the legally uninitiated, the federal rule is that federal district courts must use the substantive federal law in a case which has been accepted for litigation, but must apply the local jurisdiction's procedural rules. Since Walker did not state in his findings specifically what was wrong with the California Supreme Court's ruling, it is conceivable that he found problems both with substance and procedure. But that remains to be seen.

Once a case has been accepted, it then moves into pretrial proceedings, usually including multiple legal motions. Walker's true colors have just come out. Not only was his original finding contrary to that of seven of his fellow judges, but now he has demonstrated that his rulings will go in favor of the anti-Prop 8 advocates. The plaintiffs were denied access to any "lists" which would show the names of every person who contributed in any way to the promotion and ultimate success of Prop 8 at every level of the state litigation. Walker has now found that the formerly protected "proprietary information" must now be released to the plaintiffs. The extremely tenuous and unprecedented ground that Walker bases this on is that if "any of the backers of Proposition 8 were motivated by discrimination, then the court can strike down the measure without having to decide if gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry [emphasis added]."

This is a breathtaking divergence from prior cases, and an insult to the integrity of the California appellate process. And it is a thuggish attack on the right of the people to advocate for legislation that might offend a "victim group." The value of this reprehensible tactic was already demonstrated in the Prop 8 campaign. Although every court in California refused to grant a motion for the release of this kind of broad fishing expedition, many of the official backers of the measure were on public record. Radio personalities, news reporters and private businesses which showed any affinity for Prop 8 were publicly "outed," boycotted, picketed and threatened. Several companies were forced to do penance by contributing to the anti-Prop 8 war chest. Several people lost their jobs. As Chronicle reporter Debra Saunders says: "Unless this ruling is overturned, the word will be out that sore losers who can't beat you at the ballot box and probably can't beat you in court can file a lawsuit designed to pry away proprietary information that they later can use to embarrass you."

There is no doubt that there were persons who contributed time and/or money to the campaign for Prop 8 are simply anti-homosexual. So what? If backers of a proposition have both personal and legal reasons for supporting a law, the only legitimate question remains is does the personal (and perhaps unlawful) purpose of some of the measure's backers in any way affect either the words or the intent of the actual legislation? Many activist homosexuals openly hate heterosexual traditionalists. If they backed a successful pro-gay marriage amendment, would that invalidate the measure? Regardless of what the very confused Walker may think, the answer is no. No matter how hateful the proponents of a measure may be, if the measure promotes a legitimate state interest, and violates no constitutional provisions by either word or effect, then the motivations of the backers is of no legal interest to the court.

Walker has demanded that lists of backers and all pro-Prop 8 strategy documents be turned over to the plaintiffs. Legal experts have so far been unable to find any previous court case which required such an onerous burden on the supporters of a ballot measure. Once again, those who cannot win at the ballot box or by healthy advocacy in the halls of the legislatures, resort to the courts to overturn the will of the people.

Essentially, what the court seems willing to do is to allow plaintiffs to argue that the motives of the proponents of a measure were not "sufficiently pure." There is absolutely no precedent for such judicial overreach, even in the crazed Ninth Circuit. Chief Justice Ron George of the California Supreme Court, who had ruled pre-Prop 8 that gay marriage was valid in California under the then-existing state constitution, ruled in upholding Prop 8's change in the state constitution that: "The issue [this time] is the right of the people to change the state constitution regardless of whether the provision is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution." Now that's the law.

The defendants (the People of the State of California) should immediately appeal this decision. If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling, the People should then request an emergency hearing at the United States Supreme Court. Otherwise, it might be too late to protect the integrity of the electoral process. In most states, that action would be a given. But if you'll recall something I told you about awhile back, you'll know that it's not a sure thing here. The lead counsel for the People is one Jerry Brown, Attorney General of the State of California, and an active opponent of Prop 8. He has refused to recuse himself, and will not even go so far as to say that "regardless of ny personal opinions, I will vigorously defend the People of the State of California in this lawsuit."

The People of the State of California, the state and federal constitutions, and the law are all being given cards dealt from the bottom of the deck by expert crooks, liars and leftists. And none of them have considered what might happen if this travesty is allowed to continue. Prop 8 attorney Chuck Cooper said: "I cannot imagine that what is sauce for the goose will not also be sauce for the gander." Before you start applauding the judge's ruling, environmentalists and civil libertarians, consider that fact.