Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Alston & Bird Adds Litigation Partner From Kirkland & Ellis | Main | Immigration Court Backlogs Continue To Climb »

August 12, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e20134862a88cd970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judge Blocks Release of Petition Signers' Names in Gay Rights Case:

Comments

Andrew Turek

How about abolishing the secret ballot and making people vote openly for or against black or white or male or male or female candidates or for or against legislative initiatives while you are about it?

St_Augustine_FL

Years ago, people who supported discrimination had white hoods to keep their identity secret, today, they have a judge doing it for them. My how times have changed.

Joseph A. Mustich

Transparency is the best way to handle the anti-marriage hysteria...

Onward to full civil and marriage equality in 21st century America.
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.

RickPo

If/when they release the names and addresses of the petition signers, also release the names and addresses of the state-registered domestic partners. Seems only fair.

Carmmen Leslie

Government has no business regulating "contracts" when they are not "commerce"and Government is NOT A PARTY to the "contract". The "contract" called "marriage" is a contract between one male and one female.
"Choice of Lifestyle" is a "choice", and a right to do so is "not discriminated against! However "imposing" that "lifestyle choice" upon others, who are within a "marriage contract", is not a "legal right". "Choice" is not a "right". Interference with "contact", in which the interfering party is not a "party to that contract", is "discrimination" against those w/i that "contract".
Gays have no "standing/right" to CHANGE others' rights to "contract", because those persons have "chosen" to enter into a "contract". That "contract" just happens to be "entitled" "MARRIAGE".
No person who agrees to the "terms of that contract" is prevented from engaging in a "contract", called "marriage". The parties challenging "marriage" HAVE NO "STANDING/RIGHT"g to destroy others' "contracts", because they CHOSE not to live the "lifestyle choice" of other.

"Interference with contract" carries the right to "sue" the anti-pro Prop 8 groups, because of they "choose" to "interfere" with others' "right to contract" a "marriage".
"Gays" do not WISH to live the "lifestyle choice" required to enter the "contract of the marriage", but want to change the "terms" of that "contract" to "suit their lifestyle choice", imposing their "wishes" on others, while not being a "party to that contract".
"Marriage is a CONTRACT". It is NOT "commerce"---Obama's regulaton---so Government stay out. Gays do not have the "right" to change MY "contract".


The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements