Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

It’s Easier To Be A Bigot Behind My Back


By Brian Leubitz

Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas and presidential candidate, isn’t shy about appearing on TV. In fact, he’s a favorite guest of Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. He appeared on Rosie O’Donnell’s radio show today, and tried to nuance a friendly conversation with his bigoted views, which, given his previous statements that “children aren’t puppies”, could be hard.

“What I’m saying is that I think the ideal environment for children is in a relationship that has both a mother and a father,” Huckabee told O’Donnell, acknowledging that he had supportted a constitutional amendment banning gay adoption in Arkansas.

O’Donnell, of course, wasn’t hearing any of it.

“I’m mentioning that there are half a million kids in foster care in America,” countered O’Donnell. “To have public officials deem homosexuals unworthy of parenting is disastrous for the nation, for equality and for humanity and, Mike, for Christianity.” …

Huckabee fought back, arguing, “That’s not my intention. I have great respect for your choices.”

“Your children are very fortunate,” he added at one point.(NY Daily News)

See, it’s all well and good to say that you “oppose gay adoption” when you are hanging out on FoxNews. But, in the flesh, when you see real families, living real lives, it becomes a lot harder. In the face of Rosie, he had to back down, and acknowledge that her children were in a very good situation.

And ultimately, that is the case for nearly all of the children in the care of gay and lesbian parents. They are children that are wanted, planned for, and cared for properly. And, as Rosie pointed out, there are far too many children either in foster care or group homes that have no such environment.

Gay and lesbian parents are, without question, better parents than group homes. And frankly, there’s no evidence showing that they are any better or worse than heterosexual parents. Laws banning gay adoption are solely a function of bigotry, and nothing more.


  • 1. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 24, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Bravo on this one! My husband has two adult children who have turned out just fine, and they are very loing and welcoming of me also. In fact, I have even been honored by one of our grandchildren posting a comment on a photo of the two of us together that simply says, "my grandparents." And I have seen too many gay couples with children to be able to believe Mike Huckabee when he says that we are unfit parents. I have seen far too many children abused by heterosexual parents who were nowhere near ready. In fact a 19-year-old and her 22-year-old boyfriend are in the Cumberland County (North Carolina) jail right now on several felony child abuse charges after taking their 11-month-old to the emergency room one time too many in too short a period of time.

  • 2. Kevin S.  |  April 24, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    This stance irks me for multiple reasons. Not only is it a completely baseless characterization on the parenting abilities of same-sex couples, but it also automatically assumes that single parents can't be good parents either. Get divorced? Can't have your kid. Spouse dies? Too bad. The other parent leaves? SoL. They're so bigoted against LGBT parents that they don't care who else they blast with their horrific arguments.

    But yeah, they care so much about the kids that they'd rather leave the half million who can't find homes in foster care.

  • 3. Kevin S.  |  April 24, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Whoops, wasn't meant to reply to Richard, just the article itself.

  • 4. Mike  |  April 25, 2010 at 1:25 am

    This is a Political game and we are being played !

    Huckabee is using Rosie's Show to "brand" himself as a Conservative who is able to dialogue with the left.

    But he is not changing his opinion.
    He will not and will never support our families
    He will not and will never gives us any room to co-exist with "them".
    He will not and will never respect us.

    Huckabee knows that not a single gay/lesbian parent will vote for him – he can care less of our votes.

    He is aiming for those "moderates" ….who any signs of "dialogue" will justify their support for a Bigot.

  • 5. Dan Hess  |  April 25, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Hello, I'm a moderate. I would also never support Huckabee precisely because his positions are disgustingly extremist. Please don't lump moderates in with closet fundamentalists, who WOULD support an extremist candidate if they thought they could get away with it and not be branded bigots. No moderate would.

  • 6. Ronnie  |  April 24, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    This is how I always see our side of the rainbow

    When we decide to have children we are usually in a committed relationship, financially stable, both partners have weighed the pro & cons and have come to a thoroughly thought out decision as a committed couple, and we strongly believe that we are ready to be parents (nobody really is…I think)…..No "Oops I'm pregnant"…..personally I think they're jealous because we do family the way it was always traditionally done (meaning the ideology not the physical sense)

    I'm only a 25yo gay man and I know with all my heart and soul that I am gay and that I want to marry a man someday and ever since I was in the first grade I wanted to be a father….That is my truth….and it really ticks me off when the Hateros ASSume to know what's in my heart and soul and what my truth….It's not cool…and they really need to stop….NOT COOL!!!…..<3…Ronnie

  • 7. Carvel  |  April 24, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    Rosie should have taken him on full force. Get him to give more details and not just gloss over the simple one or two statements that they make to catch the news.

    The problem is that most children from broken homes come from heterosexual marriages. Well, it is true that most children come from heterosexual coupling so the elimination of heterosexual coupling will eliminate broken homes of children.

    Simple reasoning that does not make sense. He is such a homophobe that we need to get him to make lots of statements and get out his facts and reasons for his opinions and then show that his reasons are all false. then if his reasons are false, then his conclusions are false. Not that the heteros will believe us or listen to us, but it should help to destroy his reputation and ability to argue his points.

    Make him be a bigot to our face and then confront him. I suspect that Rosie's balls are much bigger than his.

  • 8. LND  |  April 24, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Fabulous that Rose got Huckabee to back off his earlier statements, way to combat bigotry.

    But you know what worries me?

    That the people who need to hear Huckabee back off the most (i.e. the people he spewed that hateful garbage to) don't listen to Rosie's show. They will continue their hateful thoughts, Huckabee has done nothing but add fuel to the fire.

    Words have power, when is our leadership going to get that?? How about a public apology Huckabee?? Yeah, I didn't think so.

    My apologies for being a Debbie Downer, I think challenging him like Rosie did was awesome. At the very least maybe he will think twice before he opens his mouth on same-sex couples again.

  • 9. adam  |  April 24, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Evil, evil, evil, evil, evil. There is simply no other word for it. Huckabee approves of Rosie having kids, but not of other gay people having kids, because they may be Bad. Never mind that countless straight couples in Arkansas and elsewhere have abused their kids–they may be Bad, but at least they're not Gay! We can rejoice in the fact that the State of Arkansas has not only sent children to Straight Parents Who Love God(tm)!

    UGH. While I am (mostly) straight, I am not evil–and if you support people who think like this, then I'm sorry, but there is no word for you but "evil."

    I will be sending in my defection from the Catholic Church next week. If any readers were baptized as Catholics and have not done so, I advise them to do co. has some good advice.

    Soon, I will be a card-carrying apostate of Catholicism, and damn proud of it.

  • 10. Bee  |  April 25, 2010 at 11:17 am

    Huckabee isn't actually a part of Arkansas much anymore. He's moved to Florida with his wife. I'm sure he's trying to remove all ties of his life here just like everyone else.

    My point, though, is please don't bash AR. Attack the world for being silly, not just one state.

    — The Gay Arkansan. 😀

  • 11. JonT  |  April 24, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    You know, as someone who spent most of my childhood in receiving homes/group homes/foster homes, I really would not have given a crap about whether the house parents/foster parents were straight, gay, best friends, whatever.

    All I really wanted was to be somewhere where I was wanted, and where I could feel confident I'd still be living there 6 months later. 14 'homes' in 9 years didn't really do that for me. I guess I am lucky in that at 17 years old, social services contacted my biological dad and warned him I'd be aged out in a year, and the statistics didn't support a good outcome.

    So he invited me to move in with him and his new family. If he hadn't, I doubt I'd still be alive. I owe him a great debt. Others that went though the 'system' with me weren't so lucky.

    It really *pisses* me off when people like ol huck just talk about us as if we are just some unfortunate number on a ledger somewhere. I really wish people like him could have seen this situation from my perspective.

    He kept going back to '..well the ideal family, blah blah blah. Reality is never ideal Hucky. Fucking figure that out would you? You got 20 years, at least, on me and I figured this out a long time ago. And you want to be president?? Really???

  • 12. Kathleen  |  April 24, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    JonT, my dear, beloved fellow BSG loving nerd…. I hope you won't be offended by me telling you your story literally made me cry. I'm so glad someone stepped forward to offer the help you needed, even if it was much later than it should have been. I'm in awe of your persistence and courage and am very, very glad you're here.

  • 13. Michelle Evans  |  April 24, 2010 at 5:07 pm


    Like Kathleen, I appreciate hearing about lives such as yours, and am also moved by it. Wish you could have been up on the stand during the trial when it came time for the Prop 8 jerks to try and defend the whole one man, one woman garbage as being the one and only way to do things on this planet.

    And it's nice to know of other BSG fans, too! 🙂

  • 14. chamisaguy  |  April 24, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    Jon T — your comment is one of the most powerful and cogent statements I've seen — and affected me deeply. I, like Michelle Evans below, think you and your perspective and testimony should have been up on the stand in the Prop 8 trial. And that story and truth should be loudly and clearly made public. I agree with your assessment of "reality is never ideal"

    Bravo, Jon T!

  • 15. Andrew_WA  |  April 26, 2010 at 12:32 am


    Thank you, thank you, thank you, for your post. One of the things people always forget when talking about these situations is actually the children themselves. What they are feeling, what they want, and what their perspective is.

    With millions of kids in foster homes, people forget that they are human beings too and in need of love, support, respect, and a stable environment to grow.

    I have always wondered why people look to other countries for kids when we have such a need here in the US. There are kids that truly need a loving environment to grow up in and establish their roots.

    My partner and I celebrated our 16th year together this year and I cannot begin to tell you JonT how many times we have talked about fostering a child. I could care less whether it is a boy or a girl or even what age. We have gone over the pros and cons until our eyes bleed but we always get back to the issue of society and if the child would mind having 2 dads. How would this affect them, would this hinder them?

    I will show your post to my partner tonight… It is quite refreshing to see…

  • 16. Tigger  |  April 26, 2010 at 7:22 am

    Right the e'ff on dude! Instead of these ridiculous politicians spouting BS like they are so sure of themselves, people like you need to be heard and in the forefront on the adoption issue. In the FRONT telling your story!

    Sure, being a child in a straight, white, rich, christian, college educated, good looking, ripped, 36/24/36, blue eyed, oversized penised home with Picasso living in the guest house could give one an easier road to more plentiful opportunities.

    In my experience,those who have overcome the initial challenges of being "different" in some way, dealth with trying or uncertain situations, and know how being a "them" feels, develop a profound stength to help others, are much more aware than the norm, and are some of the kindest, loving and most sucessful (which has nothing to do with money in the least) homosapiens I am honored to call friends.

    So Huck, you and your toddler aged soul need to do some more work.

  • 17. JonT  |  April 26, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Thank you all for your kind words and support. Eventually we will prevail. I am certain of that.

  • 18. Michelle Evans  |  April 24, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Unless I missed it being mentioned earlier, the law that Huckabee supported on banning gay adoption in Arkansas was struck down a few days ago as completely and utterly unconstitutional!!! The trial, originally slated for May, was actually deemed by the court to be unnecessary because it was so blatantly unconstitutional as to not require a trial. It was just summarily struck down.

    Also, another point often missed is that this notion about how heterosexual couples are supposedly somehow better than same gender couples, was thoroughly demolished by our side in the Prop 8 trial. Each and every time it was brought up by the defense, it was destroyed on cross as being completely untrue. Time after time the defense witnesses had to admit that there was no basis in fact for their prejudice and bigotry,

    Just goes to the heart of the whole matter about how they lie to suit their purpose, and why being in a court of law is so important because they can no longer get away with it.

  • 19. Lora  |  April 24, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    Has anyone heard weather Huckabee has accepted the dinner invite from the gay couple and their family?? Has he even acknowledged it?? Anything??

  • 20. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 24, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    I have been following Natespopsblog, and so far, Huckabee has not even had enough balls to give any acknowledgement whatsoever, and I am certain it is because once he accepts the Hearty Boys' invitation and sees how well their family runs, he will have to give up his stance as an anti-family bigot. As was stated earlier, Rosie has more balls.

  • 21. eDee  |  April 24, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    If you want to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to raising children based on the believe that children need both a mother and a father, then you would have to remove all children from single parent homes also.
    The argument doesn’t hold water. Many, many outstanding young men are raised by single mothers with fathers not in the picture.

    Our President was raise by his mother and by his grandparents – he seems pretty well adjusted.

  • 22. Kevin S.  |  April 25, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Unfortunately, invoking the name of our fantastically educated and articulate president (I've got my issues with him, but his makeup isn't one of them) is not going to get the right to feel all warm and fuzzy.

  • 23. Sagesse  |  April 25, 2010 at 12:32 am

    This is one piece of their argument they should avoid.

    Because there are few enough jurisdictions that permit marriage equality or civil unions, and because it is relatively recent, they can get away with saying 'OMG, we don't know, but we're pretty sure it's going to be disastrous and wreck marriage as we know it.' There are loads of children being raised in same sex families in the US and Canada, dating from before marriage equality and domestic partnerships, and there has to be loads of social science data to support that the children fare as well as children raised in traditional families (including the evidence given in the trial).

    There are no new initiatives that go down this road, and the Arkansas law has been struck down. They'll hang themselves with this argument.

  • 24. Carvel  |  April 25, 2010 at 3:55 am

    There are many same sex couples raising or helping to raise a child from one of the partners when their opposite sex marriage failed because they were gay. So the children are being raised by nonbiological people and the courts have recently seen fit to allow the gay parent visitation and to help raise the child.

    Don't they realize that a gay man or woman married to a straight person makes for an unhappy marriage. Many times the gay person gets out and the straight person is frustrated sexually because they had for years a sexually incompatable partner.

    Some women like that because they don't have to have much sex if any with their spouse. But many times the few instances of sex they did have produced a child. The children are being raised exposed to same sex couples because one of the couple is their biological parent and the heteros had better just get used to it.

  • 25. John B.  |  April 25, 2010 at 12:41 am

    The proper comeback is that we'll stop adopting children if heterosexuals will stop popping out thousands more babies than they can or will take care of! They should be grateful we're picking up some of their slack.

  • 26. John B.  |  April 25, 2010 at 12:44 am

    And of course the follow-up comment should be, "How many of those kids are YOU willing to adopt?"

  • 27. Ronnie  |  April 25, 2010 at 12:44 am

    amen to that….ingrates(them)….<3…Ronnie

  • 28. Ronnie  |  April 25, 2010 at 12:47 am

    The Video is not the best quality but the point is…"It's Hard Knock Life"……<3…Ronnie:

  • 29. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 25, 2010 at 1:00 am

    And let us never forget that for the musical and movie "Annie" they actually toned down how bad kids had it, and still have it in foster care and orphanages.

  • 30. Sagesse  |  April 25, 2010 at 12:48 am

    It would be really helpful if there was an organization, as the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network does for DADT, that collects and publishes whatever credible statistics there are to answer these people… if Rosie could have at hand that there are xxx,000 children living in same sex families in the US and xx,000 children in Canada. There was an ad posted on an earlier thread, but I have no idea how I'd find it again, that had great stats on non-traditional families (but no sources, as I recall). All these families are indirectly insulted by their claim that you need a mom and a dad and their biological kids to make a family.

  • 31. Kathleen  |  April 25, 2010 at 2:34 am

    The Williams Institute at UCLA might have this information.

  • 32. G Rod  |  April 25, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    @ sagesse
    The 2006 Canadian census enumerated 45,345 same-sex couples, of which 7,465, or 16.5%, were married couples (reflecting the legalization of same-sex marriages that began via court decisions in 2003 and achieved in all 13 jurisdictions in 2005).
    Over half (53.7%) of same-sex married spouses were men in 2006, compared with 46.3% who were women. Proportions were similar among same-sex common-law partners in both 2006 and 2001.
    About 9.0% of persons in same-sex couples had children aged 24 years and under living in the home in 2006. That is approximately 4120 couples; 16.3% being female parents and 2.9% being male parents. Assume that the number of children per household is not more than the norm.
    Gay couples made up some 0.6 percent of all Canadian couples, a figure which compares with Australia (0.6 percent) and New Zealand (0.7 percent).
    The next census is in 2011.

  • 33. Ronnie  |  April 25, 2010 at 1:12 am

    My mother is the youngest of eight children. After her father(who survived Pearl Harbor) died when she was 9yo, three years later her, my aunt Carol(later in life Lesbian), and my uncle Charlie(Gay, RIP) were taken away from their mother because of her drinking. My mom and aunt were split up from my uncle….first they were in a foster home, the foster parents(straight) were mean to them and then were placed in another home….when my mother started dating the captain of the basketball team (she a cheerleader) they put her in a nunnery….My uncle always stayed in the same home and they loved him regardless of his orientation.

    The older kids all split up on their own….many long stories…..

    But the one story that always stood out to me was later in life when my mother was 18 and was in contact with her mother she(my mother) was dating a black guy…..Her mother disowned her completely spouting out the Bible…we all know the run around….calling it abomination (like she should talk)…..on her death bed she still said the same things…my half brother was 5 months old and my half sister was ….as my mother puts it… the oven…..

    Final note….the parallels are the same no matter what the Hateros believe and/or say….<3…Ronnie

  • 34. Carvel  |  April 25, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Yes, the parallels are the same. Yes, they won't see it because they hold their hand up in front of their face and say, hand, what hand. I don't see any hand. It is that old saying that people who do not remember the past are destined to repeat it.

    I think it was Robert Heinlien who said that a people without a past had not future. To these people all they see if the word of God or Jesus as written down by men and not the message. The message was love, hope, compassion and do the right thing and not to judge others. One day they will learn. I hope before it is not too late for us.

  • 35. Ronnie  |  April 25, 2010 at 2:20 am

    i just wanted to share because I find it so amusing….

    That anti-human FB page (I bet we can get 10 million or more people AGAINST same sex marriage) is bragging about how many fans they had on day 60……WELL

    The pro-human FB page (I bet we can find 1,000,000 People who Support Same Sex Marriage) reached the number the anti-humans have now, on DAY 3… DAY 17 they were well over 2 Mill.

    Today (4.25.10) the pro-human FB page (I bet I can find 1,000,000 People who support Same Sex Marriage) has 2,240,427 members on DAY 85..those anti-humans only have 3,637….so sad

    It is obvious who the winner is….yeah?……<3…Ronnie Mc

  • 36. Bolt  |  April 25, 2010 at 4:00 am

    The opponents of marriage equality seem to have a wholesale lack of understanding of their reckless homophobia. They don't know what it is. An aspect of it is the cognitive process of sexualizing non-sexual scenarios. When they think of a gay couple as adopting children they automatically think of gay sex. That is a homophobic, and it goes unchallenged.

    My faith rests in the federal court system. There is too much craziness to challenge.

  • 37. Carvel  |  April 25, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Remember, the Supreme Court used to be nine men in long black dresses that hated homos. Now we have a chance, but we need to be ever watchful as they may still vote to not give us equality. I think the court cases say they will, the reasonings and the last 110 years of court cases will agree with this conclusion, but in the end it is simply a vote of justices and there are some that are diametrically opposed to us.

  • 38. Kathleen  |  April 25, 2010 at 7:15 am

    UPDATE: Court files ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the No on 8 groups should not be held in contempt. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 4/28/2010 10:30 AM

    From the Order:

    It appears from the record before the court that the No on 8 groups have not in any way complied with the court’s orders. … The No on 8 groups are therefore ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing by not later than April 27, 2010 at 5 PM PDT and at a hearing before [Judge Walker] on April 28, 2010 at 10:30 AM PDT why they should not be held in contempt for failing to produce documents as ordered in the March 5 and March 22 orders.

    … the court is considering imposing sanctions to coerce compliance in the amount of $2,000 per day per group … for each day that the No on 8 groups fail to comply with the court’s orders.

    The Order (Doc 641) can be viewed in its entirety at:

  • 39. chamisaguy  |  April 25, 2010 at 8:09 am

    What was the strategy/rationale again behind not supplying the documents by the plaintiffs (the No on Prop 8 side)?

    The deliberate withholding resulting apparently in contempt and fines is meant to accomplish what for our side or these parties outside the actual case?

    Thanks for your clarifications and patience!

  • 40. Kathleen  |  April 25, 2010 at 8:17 am

    The No on 8 groups are not the Plaintiffs in the case. The "No on 8" groups that are challenging the discovery order are organizations that were involved in the campaign – ACLU and Equality California — but are not parties in the lawsuit. The Proponents (D-Is/Yes on 8) have requested discovery of documents held by these third parties. So, this is not a case of "our side" in the lawsuit withholding requested evidence.

    For a discussion of what's at stake here, read Brian Leubitz's earlier post:

  • 41. Kathleen  |  April 25, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Oops, bad copy and paste. Here's the link

    Also, there are a couple of other links I can point you to, but will have to post separately, or my post will get hung up in moderation.

  • 42. Kathleen  |  April 25, 2010 at 8:21 am

    See also this blog for informative analysis and also links to the relevant court documents.

  • 43. Andrea  |  April 25, 2010 at 11:39 am

    the court is considering imposing sanctions to coerce compliance in the amount of $2,000 per day per group

    Well it's about bloody time.

  • 44. chamisaguy  |  April 25, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    Andrea, I believe the sanctions for non-compliance are against the ACLU and Equality California — our side — not against the Pro Prop 8 side (the D-I/defendants)

  • 45. Andrea  |  April 25, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Ms. Perry and Messrs. Olson and Boies are "our side."

    EQCA and ACLU are not, and they need to stop the endless foot-dragging. Maybe a $2K/day fine will help with this. (I'm sure the donors will be thrilled to see their money used that way, too.)

  • 46. Kathleen  |  April 25, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    I considered responding to chamisagu, but then I figured, Nahhh, Andrea will be back and she'll let him know what's what. 😉

  • 47. Andrea  |  April 25, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    We all have our jobs to do… mine is to be the curmudgeon I guess. 😉

  • 48. chamisaguy  |  April 25, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    I get it, I get it – mea culpa for not seeing your point that the organizations' refusal has its own set of issues, regardless of with whom they're allied .

    Moving right along…."and now, for something different"!

  • 49. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 25, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    @Andrea–the LGBTQQIA community's answer to Andy Rooney? Cool! Go for it!

  • 50. Andrea  |  April 26, 2010 at 2:12 am

    (And now, a few paragraphs with Andi Roonie)

    Y'ever wonder about… Court?

    There are so many different kinds… there's Traffic Court, Family Court, Civil Court…

    What's with Civil Court, anyway? You have to go there because someone sues you. There's nothing "civil" about that.

    When I was young we didn't go to Civil Court, we grunted things over at the watering hole. If that didn't work, we'd talk to the guy who touched the black rectangular thing during the eclipse. He always knew what to do.

    Then there's Criminal Court. Now, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I don't understand how you can get justice from a Court that is criminal itself. Seems like they would side with the criminal every time, y'know?

    Oh well, there's still the People's Court. So if your dry-cleaning comes back with the gravy stain still on it and they charged you anyway and you don't have the receipt, don't take the law into your own hands – you take 'em to Court.


  • 51. chamisaguy  |  April 25, 2010 at 8:30 am


    Thanks – I wrote my question poorly — I meant to/should have conveyed that these groups were third parties outside the case but were organizations involved in the campaign against Prop 8. I did understand that – I just couldn't recall if their refusal was gauged to have a plus outcome in the end.

    I'll go back to Brian's discovery postings. Thanks.

  • 52. Kathleen  |  April 25, 2010 at 8:37 am

    chamisaguy, I never know at what stage people are coming in to the discussion here, so am never quite sure how much information to include in my response.

    If, after reading the sources I've pointed to, you still have questions, please ask!

    I particularly recommend Michael Ginsborg's most recent post at his prop8legalcommentary blog. It gives an overview of the procedural history and discussion of the legal issues involved. His post also links back to prior posts which go into greater detail of earlier proceedings.

    For anyone who has been following Mr. Ginsborg's blog, the link above is to his most recent entry, posted today.

  • 53. chamisaguy  |  April 25, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Of course you couldn't know when I started if I didn't post from Day 1 … – but I've been following right along and only recently made a few comments.

    Looking back at the Brian posts, the District Court ordered the surrender of documents from ACLU et al — and will hold the organization(s) in contempt as I understand if they don't comply by April 27 in writing and in a hearing before Judge Wlaker April 28 . I guess the ACLU can appeal to the 9th Court of Appeals; Judge Walker is at a lower Federal Court..

    I do wonder how this will affect proceeding with the case itself (Perry vs Schwartzenegger, etc.) timely.

  • 54. Kathleen  |  April 25, 2010 at 9:17 am

    I have to admit that, unless you're a really regular poster here (and maybe not even then!), my poor memory makes it pretty difficult to remember who knows what and what I've previously explained to whom. 🙂

    Yes, the discovery orders that are in dispute have been issued by a District Court and, in theory, can be appealed to the 9th Circuit. ACLU/EQCA has tried to appeal it already, but the 9th Circuit refused to review the order (see discussion at Michael Ginsborg blog for more detail), but indicated appeal might be possible once the No on 8 groups were held in contempt.

    The hearing on April 28 is on the issue of whether the No on 8 groups should be held in contempt. However, I don't know if Walker will issue a ruling at the end of the hearing or wait until later to do so. I strongly suspect that once held in contempt, ACLU/EQCA will renew their appeal to the 9th Circuit.

    As to the effect on the case, there are two I see immediately. The first and most obvious is the delay being created by this dispute. The second, and to me more troubling effect, is the possibility that it may result in the Yes on 8 (D-Is) successfully removing evidence in the case. As as been reported, Yes on 8 is challenging the discovery order against them– both with Walker and with a petition requesting the US Supreme Court to grant cert– in part based on the same arguments the No on 8 groups are making. How much a successful challenge could hurt Plaintiffs' case is impossible for me to even speculate on, as I don't know the scope of the evidence presented in the case nor how much of that would be removed under a revised discovery order.

  • 55. draNgNon  |  April 25, 2010 at 9:35 am

    chamisaguy, the analysis by Michael Ginsborg is pretty insightful. in summary he speculates that the First Amendment argument will in the end result in a lot of evidence produced during discovery that the Plaintiffs are using might be struck. IANAL but I think ultimately it will all hinge on relevance to the case at hand.

    I also think that the First Amendment decisions that are going to be determined as a side effect to the central issue at stake here might have more far-reaching consequences than the issue itself.

  • 56. Kathleen  |  April 25, 2010 at 11:47 am

    draNgNon, will you clarify "I think ultimately it will all hinge on relevance to the case at hand." Not sure I understand what you mean. Thanks!

  • 57. chamisaguy  |  April 25, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Thank you. Simple and clear — even if speculation at this point is necessarily unreliable!

  • 58. draNgNon  |  April 25, 2010 at 9:43 am

    will someone who maintains this blog be at the hearing Wednesday?

  • 59. Kathleen  |  April 25, 2010 at 10:24 am

    I don't think anyone from here was at the earlier hearings on this issue, but Teddy Partridge over at firedoglake was at the March 16 hearing, so maybe he'll attend Wednesday's.

    In case you missed it, here's Teddy's from the earlier hearing:
    You need to read the comments as well as the main entry to see the full report.

    I certainly hope someone will be there to report on it somewhere.

  • 60. Kathleen  |  April 25, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Meant to say, I'm in southern cali. If I was in the bay area, I would gladly attend.

  • 61. free website&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    Watch it…

    […]Interesting info[…]…

  • 62. credit card consolidation&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Hot Sun…

    […]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[…]…

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!