Constitutional Law

Federal Judge Denies Shield For Supports of Calif.'s Prop. 8

A federal judge has rejected an attempt by supporters of California’s anti-gay marriage law to hide financial contributors to the cause from public disclosure. The religious advocacy group Protect Marriage, which helped spearhead Proposition 8 to amend the California Constitution to bar gay marriage, had asked a federal court to overturn a law requiring disclosure of donors of $100 or more to the political initiative. U.S. District Judge Morrison England ruled that, “If there ever needs to be sunshine on a particular issue, it’s a ballot measure.” England added that the state has the authority to require “full and fair disclosure of everyone who’s involved in these political campaigns.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the supporters of the anti-gay marriage law would appeal the judge’s ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Proposition 8, which invalidated a 2008 California Supreme Court decision that lesbian and gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, was supported by nearly $30 million from 36,000 donors, the Chronicle reported. The anti-gay marriage initiative was also strongly supported by the Mormon church and socially conservative lobbying outfits, such as James Dobson’s Focus on the Family.

Civil liberties groups in California, including the National Center For Lesbian Rights (NCLR), have lodged a lawsuit against the measure, arguing that it amounted to an illegal change to the California Constitution. NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter said that, “If Prop 8 is permitted to stand, it would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take away an existing right only from a historically targeted minority group.”

In a guest blog post for ACS, NCLR’s Liz Seaton explored the legal challenge to Proposition 8, noting that the ballot initiative “drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California’s Constitution, and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote….” Seaton’s article is available here.

Full post as published by ACS Blog on January 30, 2009 (boomark / email).