Dirigo Blue: NOM loses at Appeals Court
Maine blogger Gerald Weinand makes my day:
This morning, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) lost its appeal of a 1st District Court ruling requiring it to turn over information on its donors to the Maine Ethics Commission. NOM was ordered to turn over the names by Magistrate Judge John Rich in May.
NOM is the Mormon front group that donated $1.9 million in a successful effort last year to overturn Maine’s law that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry.
The Appeals Court found that the documents requested by the Ethics Commission do not violate 1st Amendment guarantees, nor does that request impose a “significant risk of chill.”
Joe Sudbay sums up: Bad day for campaign cheaters: NOM loses in Maine; Mormons lose in California
Totally O/T: By the way, I TA’d for Ralph Hancock, the BYU prof who is currently pondering perilous political navet & Prop 8 over at T&S in a post titled LDS & Public Square. This is me inviting you to comment over there if you’ve got the inclination and time.
Shorter Ralph Hancock:
Where did you get that “Yes on 8” poster, Chino?
Chino — Did you do the graphic? Fabulous!
I think I poached that graphic from Guy Murray’s blog. No idea who created it. Random Prop 8 oppo research find that I used and forgot, until Ralph’s post at T&S came along. By the way, should the guy waving the banner be that pale, or is that what’s politely called an “anachronism” ??
Well, it definitely illustrates Ralph’s post. 😉
Here’s another thing I don’t get … Why is it always “James Madison this” and “John Adams that” when it comes to naming these outfits?
If Public Affairs is what you’re about, why not show Edward Bernays a little respect and use his name?
Chino (#3): I believe the term you’re looking for is “white and delightsome.” 😉
So, Chino, what was Prof. Hancock like? The remark of his quoted below really disturbed me, as he really seems to believe that scary gay people will hurt him personally.
“As you have probably noticed, this comment by the good Professor “In the long run, the victory of the homosexual-rights faction would be incompatible with the religious freedom of those who oppose such rights the freedom, for example, to teach ones children that homosexuality is wrong and not conducive to ultimate happiness, or to run a private university in which the practice of homosexuality is grounds for dismissing a student or an employee.”
Naming his faith-based center after a deist with no love for Christianity just amuses me, but makes me wonder about, I don’t know, his, uh, competence?
This group of us, all former students, all remember him as a great teacher. He brought a lot of energy to class and made himself available to students. Even back then, though, half of what he’d say would make me want to pull my hair out.
I’m guessing Prof. Hancock didn’t decide on the name. That was probably Matthew Holland’s call. After giving up his NOM board seat to Orson Scott Card, Holland needed a new anti-gay outfit to direct, and it looks like he’s found it. And apparently Hancock is out to become the Mormon Robby George, although that ugly T&S post of his reads more like George Rekers.
By the way, a scary gay person just tweeted me:
So, there’s a bravo for you, djinn.
djinn — It doesn’t sound like he’s actually afraid, it sounds like he’s grasping at straws’o’crazy:
You can teach your kids whatever they please. I should hope I wouldn’t have to explain to a professor the problem with expecting the government to protect your kids from encountering information — outside your home — that contradicts your beliefs.
Ah, so now employers firing employees for non-work-related ideological reasons has been elevated to a “freedom”…?
It just reminds me of Oakes talk. The closest thing they had to real discrimination against Mormon supporters of Prop. 8 was an unsubstantiated claim that someone was fired over it. I hope that the good professor is consistent about it, and is ready to stand up for that (probably fictional) business owner’s “freedom” as well. Otherwise, I hope he’ll grant that an employer’s right to discriminate is one of the “rights” that falls into this category: