Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Gay Rights Advocates
Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Gay Rights Advocates
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gay rights advocates
seeking to release the names of signers to a Washington ballot
measure that sought to repeal a gay rights law, the AP reported.
seeking to release the names of signers to a Washington ballot
measure that sought to repeal a gay rights law, the AP reported.
The opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts was broadly
supported by seven out of the eight justices, only Justice Clarence
Thomas dissented.
supported by seven out of the eight justices, only Justice Clarence
Thomas dissented.
Roberts emphasized that public disclosure “promotes transparency
and accountability in the election process to an extent other measures
cannot.” The ruling solely deals with whether disclosing the names
of ballot petitioners violates their First Amendment rights. Roberts
added that petitioners could return to the lower courts with their
specific concerns.
and accountability in the election process to an extent other measures
cannot.” The ruling solely deals with whether disclosing the names
of ballot petitioners violates their First Amendment rights. Roberts
added that petitioners could return to the lower courts with their
specific concerns.
The court agreed to hear the case after Protect Marriage Washington
appealed a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that ordered the
release of nearly 138,000 signatures that put Referendum 71 on
last fall's ballot.
appealed a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that ordered the
release of nearly 138,000 signatures that put Referendum 71 on
last fall's ballot.
Referendum 71 asked voters to accept – or reject – a domestic
partnership law approved by lawmakers that gives gay couples
all the rights of marriage. Voters opted to keep the law.
partnership law approved by lawmakers that gives gay couples
all the rights of marriage. Voters opted to keep the law.
Led by lawyer James Bopp Jr., opponents argued in April that
releasing the names would put signers at risk of harassment,
reprisals and boycotts of their businesses, amounting to an
unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights.
releasing the names would put signers at risk of harassment,
reprisals and boycotts of their businesses, amounting to an
unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights.
“No person should suffer harassment for participating in our
political system, and the First Amendment protects citizens
from intimidation resulting from compelled disclosure of their
identity and beliefs and their private associations,” Bopp told
the court.
political system, and the First Amendment protects citizens
from intimidation resulting from compelled disclosure of their
identity and beliefs and their private associations,” Bopp told
the court.
But Bopp failed to find an ally in even the court's most conservative
justice, Antonin Scalia.
justice, Antonin Scalia.
“Oh, this is such a touchy-feely, so sensitive” point of view, Scalia
said as the court erupted in laughter. “You know, you can't run
a democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his
political positions known.”
said as the court erupted in laughter. “You know, you can't run
a democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his
political positions known.”
“I'm sorry, Justice Scalia, but the campaign manager of this initiative
had his family sleep in his living room because of the threats,”
Bopp said.
had his family sleep in his living room because of the threats,”
Bopp said.
“Well, that's bad,” Scalia responded. “The threats should be moved
against vigorously, but just because there can be criminal activity
doesn't mean that you have to eliminate a procedure that is
otherwise perfectly reasonable.”
against vigorously, but just because there can be criminal activity
doesn't mean that you have to eliminate a procedure that is
otherwise perfectly reasonable.”
In an amicus brief filed with the court, four gay rights groups –
GLAD, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Center for
Lesbian Rights and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force –
argued that opponents were feigning victimization.
GLAD, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Center for
Lesbian Rights and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force –
argued that opponents were feigning victimization.
“Petitioners seek, through their feint of victimization, to take away
one of the few defenses that lesbian and gay individuals have to
defend against hostile initiatives: the use of public records to stop
the fraudulent qualification of such measures in the first place, and
to lobby, through personal advocacy, the people who legislate using
such measures,” the groups wrote.
one of the few defenses that lesbian and gay individuals have to
defend against hostile initiatives: the use of public records to stop
the fraudulent qualification of such measures in the first place, and
to lobby, through personal advocacy, the people who legislate using
such measures,” the groups wrote.
“The Court should decline the invitation to scrap these protections
based on a poorly-supported and largely fictitious tale that those
who seek to deprive lesbian and gay Americans of rights are the
ones being victimized.”
based on a poorly-supported and largely fictitious tale that those
who seek to deprive lesbian and gay Americans of rights are the
ones being victimized.”
Under Washington state law, names of people who sign petitions
become public record after the Secretary of State verifies a petition,
but Referendum 71 names have remained sealed pending the court's
decision. State officials argue that the names should be released
because signers are acting in place of lawmakers, who do not
approve laws in secret.
become public record after the Secretary of State verifies a petition,
but Referendum 71 names have remained sealed pending the court's
decision. State officials argue that the names should be released
because signers are acting in place of lawmakers, who do not
approve laws in secret.
Gay rights groups announced early in the campaign their intention
to make the names public via the Internet once released by the state.
to make the names public via the Internet once released by the state.
The ruling is good news for gay rights advocates who worry about the conservative leanings of the court as three cases wend their way to the
Supreme Court. All of the cases involve the right of gay and lesbian
couples to marry.
Supreme Court. All of the cases involve the right of gay and lesbian
couples to marry.
Two of the cases challenge the federal Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA), which blocks married gay couples from accessing
federal benefits, while a third questions the constitutionality of
California's gay marriage ban, Proposition 8.
Act (DOMA), which blocks married gay couples from accessing
federal benefits, while a third questions the constitutionality of
California's gay marriage ban, Proposition 8.
BY CARLOS SANTOSCOY
PUBLISHED: JUNE 24, 2010
Comments