Leave a Comment Sagesse
What Do They Have To Hide?
January 14, 2010
by Robert Cruickshank
One of the most persistent features of the anti-equality movement is their desire to hide from public scrutiny. Whether it’s their efforts to close the trial to cameras or their efforts to block disclosure rules, Prop 8 supporters are adamant that they be allowed to hide their motives and even their names from us.
Why would they want to do this? Because it helps them politically. By claiming that they would somehow be harmed by public scrutiny and disclosure, Prop 8 supporters are reinforcing a narrative of victimhood that serves their broader agenda of painting marriage equality supporters as the bad guys. They also are able to keep their true feelings hidden, as their radicalism is masked by vague and reassuring images of smiling people protecting children and families from some existential threat that is supposedly inherent in same-sex marriages.
Conservatives have for decades cultivated a politics of victimhood – presenting themselves as victims of some group, usually liberal and often an oppressed minority, in order to gain sympathy for their insane beliefs and to delegitimize progressive ideas and actions. The result is a massive distortion of the true effects of Prop 8, and the normalization of support for discriminatory policy.
We saw this in the immediate aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008. As the names of those that donated to the Yes on 8 campaign were made public, in accordance with the laws of the state of California, some of those donors were held accountable by the public. Some were the target of boycotts, as consumers chose to spend their money at establishments that would not use that money to undermine equality.
Although this is an entirely normal process that did not result in any physical harm to anyone, Prop 8 donors and supporters framed those actions within the narrative of victimhood. The boycotts were used to reinforce the notion that there’s some big bad “gay agenda” out there looking to hurt poor innocent people.
While we might think this notion is absurd on its face (because it is), there is an increasing and disturbing tendency of courts to agree with this notion of conservative victimhood. In Washington State last year, courts ruled that signatures on a referendum petition to block a domestic partnership law could be kept hidden from the public in order to “protect” signers from some sort of supposed harassment.
That case will likely make it to the US Supreme Court, where yesterday’s ruling on cameras in the Prop 8 courtroom turned, in part, on the very issue of disclosure. As Rick Hasen explains, that has bigger implications for our democracy as the Supreme Court prepares its decision on the Citizens United case, which could eliminate campaign finance limits on corporate spending:
The Prop. 8 harassment issue is of course well known to the general public; but the same issue appears in the part of the Citizens United case that has gotten much less attention than the question of the Court possibly gutting corporate spending limits in candidate elections. Citizens United also asks for a breathtakingly broad exemption from generally applicable disclosure rules. If the argument is accepted, the public would not be able to tell who was spending what in most elections.
I had always assumed that CU’s disclosure argument was going nowhere, particularly if the Court majority was poised to strike down the corporate spending limits. One can imagine the Chief Justice pointing to disclosure as the more narrowly tailored alternative to the possibility of corruption, and trumpeting full disclosure as adequate campaign finance reform.
Now I’m not so sure, as I believe the conservatives on the Court could be buying a bit more into the harassment argument.
In other words, what we’re witnessing in America right now is a broad right-wing effort to hide the truth from the public so that voters can be more easily manipulated to embrace right-wing and/or corporate-friendly policies that voters might otherwise reject. It is an insult to our democracy and to our intelligence. But increasingly, courts seem to be arguing that being conservative is cause for protection.
As Hasen explains, if harassment is a genuine problem, then individuals can apply for and receive exemptions from disclosure rules. There is no need for a broad exemption.
What’s even more stunning about this argument is how it turns victimhood on its head. To my knowledge, no donor to or supporter of Prop 8 has ever been beaten, tortured, tied to a fence and left to die or beaten and strangled for their views. In fact, gay bashing incidents have risen dramatically since Prop 8 passed.
And yet we’re supposed to believe it’s the Prop 8 defenders who are vulnerable and should be kept hidden from public view? Since that’s a ridiculous idea, it should be obvious that their motives in wanting to close the trial and their donor lists and petition signer lists are primarily political in nature.
Ultimately, the desire to prevent public disclosure is very deeply linked to the desire to block same-sex marriage. Those who oppose marriage equality want to make it safe in this country to discriminate against LGBT people. They understand that overt statements of dislike of LGBT people don’t fly in California, so they have to hide it, whether it’s in their deceptive campaigning, their push for a closed courtroom, or their efforts to hide their names from mandatory disclosure.
What that tells me is they have everything to hide. If the public knew what their true beliefs were, Prop 8 might never have been approved.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
43 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
David | January 14, 2010 at 6:07 am
Clearly, it is incumbent on the gay community to "out" prop 8 supporters through the internet and community organizing. Secrets do not stay secret for long in the digital age.
2.
Scottie | January 14, 2010 at 6:08 am
Did you guys know about this: Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case
In 1996, activists won a landmark anti-bias ruling with the aid of the high court nominee.
August 04, 2005|Richard A. Serrano, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/04/nation/na…
3.
Rebecca | January 14, 2010 at 6:09 am
They have to hide the unavoidable fact that Prop 8 was motivated by hatred, bigotry and untrue stereotypes.
The more evidence that points to that indisputable fact, the worse the outlook for successfully defending this awful Proposition becomes.
Finally, thank you so much for all this live-blogging. I have read every word since Monday on this critically important issue.
Thank You!
Rebecca
San Francisco, CA
4.
Bill | January 14, 2010 at 6:14 am
Right on.
Are we TRULY supposed to believe that heterosexuals are now afraid of straight-bashing?
How many news stories have you seen about a truck load of drunken gay people carrying baseball bats coming into a straight neighborhood to beat and kill straight people while spray painting 'breeders' on their houses and cars??? No one? No? Anyone???
This entire Prop 8 disaster has made me more thankful than ever for having the good fortune of being born gay.
The alternative is simply to hateful, deceitful, and bigoted to even consider for 10 seconds.
If heterosexuality and its core belief is that its gay children are to be abused in every way possible, including via the law & our Constitution, is the only other option, I will happily and with a clear and moral conscience be a gay human being for a million lifetimes.
I simply cannot imagine walking this planet holding so much hatred inside for my fellow man.
But hey, maybe that's a gay thing.
5.
Jes Gonzales | January 14, 2010 at 6:16 am
Don't forget the damage it could do to their cause for people across the country to see homosexuals as actual people with lives and feelings.
6.
Chris | January 14, 2010 at 6:18 am
Scottie: wow, I did not know about that. Doesn't necessarily mean he's ready to support marriage equality, but that's a considerable step up from Mr. "Homophobia is a socially acceptable viewpoint" Scalia.
I guess that homosexual agenda has infiltrated the Supreme Court a little more than I'd thought
7.
Alan E. | January 14, 2010 at 6:19 am
With every day jobs and have similar ranges of income and similar interests/hobbies.
8.
Scottie | January 14, 2010 at 6:24 am
Heh. I had the same reaction as you, that it doesn't prove anything, except that he's obviously not uncomfortable with gay issues. I had assumed that as a conservative that would be an area he'd try to avoid.
9.
Warren | January 14, 2010 at 6:24 am
I remembered that from the confirmation hearings and looked it up again yesterday. Remember how shocked people were that Olson was pro marriage? It is not inconceivable that Roberts could be too, as we know outside of the religious 'arguments' marriage equality is actually a pretty conservative idea in that it limits government regulation of private choices. I'm by no means expecting a vote in our favor from Roberts in this matter, but it wouldn't shock me. Remember that O'Connor wrote her own concurrence in Lawrence as well with only Renquist, Scalia and Thomas dissenting.
One thing about this article, he was acting in his capacity as an employee of his firm at the time, i.e. doing his job. We can only hope it gives him some window into the discrimination faced by LGBT people.
10.
Don Diltz | January 14, 2010 at 6:26 am
Why did the KKK wear hoods? Oh yeah…same reasons
11.
Hannah | January 14, 2010 at 6:27 am
This was an excellent article. You've outlined everything I've been thinking since this whole debacle began.
I wish the portion of the public that's been duped into beleiving the lies surrounding this issue could understand that if their intentions were so "good" then; A) They'd be able to explain how same-sex marriage could possibly harm society and B) Let the trial be heard by all.
12.
InMA | January 14, 2010 at 6:31 am
Remember this gem last year from Marc Mutty during Maine's fight to keep marriage?
"We feel like the minority that's being discriminated against. We are being treated like pariahs everywhere we go."
Robert – thank you again for your incredibly insightful commentaries. any chance you can go inside the court room and give them all a "what for?"
13.
JimB | January 14, 2010 at 6:34 am
higher ranges of income than heterosexuals. yesterday's testimony, yes?
14.
Steffi | January 14, 2010 at 6:38 am
next they gonna make themselves the discriminated minority who need's to be protected
imagine Ku Klux Klan trying the same *lol*
15.
Alex Tsai | January 14, 2010 at 6:58 am
How come this makes me feel that US is more & more like China government? Everything has to be filtered or protected. Just the thought of that makes me sick!
16.
Chris | January 14, 2010 at 7:00 am
A smallpox virus could also claim to be an endangered minority, you know
Interesting thing about these homophobes is that they're only an endangered minority until it's time to argue why they're right.
And then it's "We're a majority! There are lots and lots of us! And the fact that lots and lots of us believe in discrimination means that discrimination is moral and American!"
Oh those wacky homophobes! They can't even decide whether they're an endangered species or not.
17.
InMA | January 14, 2010 at 7:02 am
Alex – it has becoming increasingly so since the Reagan days but especially with the last Bush admin. that we've seen a re-closing of civilian rights.
Unless we all demand separation of church and state NOW, we will not be far behind becoming a Christian-only Theocracy.
18.
Renee | January 14, 2010 at 8:02 am
Robert–
Thank you so much for this detailed analysis that helped me understand a few legal concepts that, as a layperson, I'd never quite grasped. One point you don't explicitly make that I think merits mention, however, is that the conservatives as victim narrative is rooted, in this case's case, in the stereotype that LGBT individuals are inherently violent and most likely mentally unstable.
That's why the few confrontations between anti- and pro-marriage equality factions that involved shoving and yelling (which are surely nothing compared to the murder and torture LGBT folks suffer at the hands of the bigots) immediately following Prop 8's passage were so unfortunate for our cause. I'm not blaming anyone on this point; I understand all too well the impulses that led to the confrontations (I marched on the Mormom compound in LA on 11/6, and, frankly, the rage I felt and expressed shocked and frightened me.)
I simply want to say that I think we have to fight the "psycho queer" stereotype more vigilantly–and we have to demonstrate clearly that the only legitimate "victims" in political battles are the people whose rights are being blocked or wiped out.
Thanks again; I'm looking forward to reading more of your posts.
Renee (one of the would-be married–I've been with my "partner" for 13 years)
Berkeley, CA
19.
Renee | January 14, 2010 at 8:06 am
Precisely.
20.
Sara | January 14, 2010 at 8:48 am
I had the "good fortune" as you put it of being born straight.
I watch this blog, and talk about it with several of my friends. Some are gay, some aren't. It doesn't make a difference what your sexuality is. This Proposition 8 thing affects everyone.
Equality is at the core of our country's philosophy. When one group is treated unfairly, it undermines our whole nation.
Please don't equate those of us who think this ban on marriage for same sex couples is a mockery of our nation with those scared and hateful people in that courtroom.
21.
Rebecca | January 14, 2010 at 8:52 am
"Equality is at the core of our country’s philosophy. When one group is treated unfairly, it undermines our whole nation."
Nicely said Sara.
22.
Michael Herman | January 14, 2010 at 11:27 am
My advice is that the Courage Campaign's next move would be to put videos on TV to raise the public awareness of the discrimination of LGBT people. Good examples to use are children bullied in school and Matthew Sheperd's murder. If more people know that the Prop 8 side is trying to play the victim and know that the real victims are LGBT people, then real change can begin to form.
23.
Shell | January 14, 2010 at 11:32 am
It makes me so mad when people who are not victums act the victum for political gain!!!
Its not like they were beaten with sticks through high school for the simple appearance of being a lesbian.
Have you seen "Holding Hands" its an Australian documentary about a young gay couple who were bashed and left for dead on Dec 3 2007 on Oxford Street (sydney equivelent of the Castro)!
i'm glad that the arguements are being put before a judge! (I can't believe that GLBT aren't automatically considered a "suspect class")
I hope we win!
24.
Jon | January 14, 2010 at 12:15 pm
The fantasy that Prop. 8 proponents are somehow victims is a sophisticated PR device designed and heavily bankrolled by the right wing. The purpose of the device is to get public support of initiatives that restrict rights, by framing the initiatives as somehow protecting victims. For that there must be victims.
Since the victims don't in fact exist, the image of victims is created. The image is good enough for TV ads and talking points. It's not good enough to withstand real examination. That's why the Prop. 8 proponents very much do not want public examination of the image.
It should be noted that the right wing uses this device a lot. "This theme of victimization by these 'elites' is pervasive in conservative literature, despite the fact that at the time conservatives controlled all three branches of government, was being served by an extensive media devoted only to conservative ideology, and conservatives had won 6 of the previous 9 presidential elections." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_…
25. Obscanity: You’ll k&hellip | January 14, 2010 at 1:53 pm
[...] What Do They Have To Hide? « Prop 8 Trial Tracker. [...]
26.
george foster | January 14, 2010 at 3:09 pm
hi, i don't hate gays, im not a biggot-just a guy who expressed his opinion by voting to ban gay marriage. my older brother was gay(died of aids complications) my two closest cousins are gay- i have no problem with gays at all. so why is it i am looked at as a hater,biggot,etc? the people of the state voted- we are just not ready for this yet. if the vote would have gone the other way i would have shrugged my shoulders and let it be. i believe in voting to attain what the majority wants; a lot of people voted from both sides-there was no winners and no victors-just a vote
27.
Bill | January 14, 2010 at 4:17 pm
So it comes down to whether the Court thinks gays can (or should) change, and whether or not they’re politically powerless.
I changed indeed. From pretending to be straight, to being who I really am. Even though I am a big 6ft3 football player guy, nobody ever disrespects me to my face. But it is surprising to learn how many would demean me behind my back. Just like how the Prop 8 people wish to remain covert in their operations.
Being treated as though you made a decision to sin against God and the very nature, they say, is something for which they believe one can repent and atone.
It is still about non-gay people not understanding that we did not make a choice is SIN against God and nature.
God does not make mistakes. If he made me this way, then he made me in his own image too. I do not believe this way of thinking, but it makes no sense in any event.
It is amazing to me that in a country that claims to be based on freedom of religion, that in reality, it appears to be more about people imposing and legislating their own religious beliefs on all others. Unreal.
My own family has struggled with this, but I have not struggled as much as they. To me, it just is. To them, however, I changed, and can and should change back.
As long as we are viewed as sinners, unrepentant, then I guess we are just the woman at the well. Samaritans. Mixed race. Unclean. Whatever. It blows my mind how it seems most of the religions are all about fear, hate, and mind control, than in acceptance and love. Love thy neighbor as thyself…… Seems impossible, for most.
28.
Nikki | January 15, 2010 at 1:46 am
Dear George,
What's missing in your post is WHY you voted to take away the right of a minority to marry. WHY you would, by your own admission, give little or no thought to an action that would destroy the hopes and dreams of thousands of fellow Californians. WHY you would leave untold numbers of children left legally unprotected and unfairly stigmatized by society by acting to take away the marriage right of their parents? Why, indeed, would anyone do such a cold and callous thing to an entire group of people if there were not some level of bigotry or animus for said people? If it talks like a bigot and votes like a bigot, then it's a bigot — as are you, my dear unthinking, in-denial George.
I'm sick of hearing so many Prop 8 supporters state as George "I am not a bigot" Foster has: "Just because I voted for Prop 8 doesn't mean I hate gay people. Why, some of my best friends are gay…"
Bullshit. Sounds just like the racial bigots of the sixties…"Why, some of my best friends are black!" Everything dear old bigoted George said in his post could so easily have been said by some old white yokel from the South, circa 1964, with respect to casting a disapproving vote to deny blacks the right to vote.
29. Truth Wins Out - Key Prop&hellip | January 15, 2010 at 5:31 am
[...] Prop 8 Trial Tracker: “What Do They Have To Hide” [...]
30.
Richard | January 15, 2010 at 5:37 am
"In Washington State last year, courts ruled that signatures on a referendum petition to block a domestic partnership law could be kept hidden from the public in order to “protect” signers from some sort of supposed harassment."
Not too many years ago, gay establishments were being raided and gay men detained, arrested or not for merely being gay. Then their pictures, home addresses, workplaces were published on the front pages of the newspapers.. I would say that we gay folks have suffered much, much more harassment and I am not even mentioning bashings and murders of our kind.
31.
Renee | January 15, 2010 at 5:37 am
What you ARE, dear George, is a deluded, unthinking, unfeeling idiot. Sorry, but it's so obvious; I just had to say it.
32.
Renee | January 15, 2010 at 5:46 am
PS: There is no such thing as "gay marriage"; there is only "marriage," which is first and foremost a civil right acted upon that results in a changed legal status. And choosing who to marry is perhaps the most personal choice a consenting adult can make. You impede my personal happiness and well-being, George. Regardless, no matter what, I would NEVER vote to take away any group's civil rights. In fact, I don't even want to vote on any group's civil rights. Such rights should not be put up for popular vote–*especially* in a state that has a bottom-ranking school system.
33.
Renee | January 15, 2010 at 5:49 am
Exactly.
34. They’re Afraid Of U&hellip | January 16, 2010 at 2:02 pm
[...] I explained earlier this week, those concerns are worse than a joke – they’re an example of misdirection and [...]
35.
Joe | January 17, 2010 at 3:09 am
What are these people hiding from? What are these people afraid of.
Bill says,
"Are we TRULY supposed to believe that heterosexuals are now afraid of straight-bashing?"
"This entire Prop 8 disaster has made me more thankful than ever for having the good fortune of being born gay"…"The alternative is simply to hateful, deceitful, and bigoted to even consider for 10 seconds."
George said,
"hi, i don’t hate gays, im not a biggot-just a guy who expressed his opinion by voting to ban gay marriage."
The response he received from the kind, tolerant, open-minded, peace-loving gay people on this post.
From Nikki, "If it talks like a bigot and votes like a bigot, then it’s a bigot — as are you, my dear unthinking, in-denial George."
From Renee, "What you ARE, dear George, is a deluded, unthinking, unfeeling idiot. Sorry, but it’s so obvious; I just had to say it."
Robert states, "And yet we’re supposed to believe it’s the Prop 8 defenders who are vulnerable and should be kept hidden from public view? Since that’s a ridiculous idea, it should be obvious that their motives in wanting to close the trial and their donor lists and petition signer lists are primarily political in nature."
Now I could be wrong, but I don't think it's George who looks "hateful, deceitful, and bigoted " in this post. And I'm fairly certain that he has not been prompted in any way to rethink his position on this matter.
36.
Paul (A.) | January 17, 2010 at 11:20 am
The obvious reason they want to conceal their identities would be consciousness of guilt. Why do drug dealers throw bags of crack from the car windows when pulled over? Same principle.
37.
Marco Luxe | January 17, 2010 at 2:50 pm
"Straight Bashing" is "documented and catalogued" by the Heritage Foundation! Who's calling them out on their lies????
Have any reports been generated to refute the distortions in the Heritage Foundation’s catalogue of anti-straight violence in reaction to Prop 8? The report, “The Price of Prop 8″, is just political lies. http://www.heritage.org/research/family/bg2328.cf…
I read the report’s footnotes to the “incidents”, and to me, some show pure unconfirmable political accusations with no evidence or corroboration, a la “He looked at me crosseyed so I felt harassed”
The Intervenors have alluded to all this fear of retribution, death threats, vandalism, harassment, etc. but it seems to be all made up…. and then the empty claims were “documented” by this ideological think tank’s "academic study”.
Where is the refutation of these lies? I haven't read anything in the press. I have read stories on the claims of harassment, but they don't question or research the veracity of those empty claims.
This is part of a scheme of "documented" lies that stretches back to the Wirthins of Mass. who were “outraged” in their TV ad because their son had access to diversity materials that included non-traditional nuclear families. [Mom cries, "He had to learn about gay marriage" !] The fact is that they were a plant by Mormons, whose top leaders are related to this family! They temporarily moved into the area to generate these lies used against marriage equality, part of the long -term Mormon plan. They've never been exposed in the mainstream press!
Where are the investigative reporters unearthing the lies?
38.
Pickles | January 21, 2010 at 1:25 pm
If it had gone the other way then you would have just "shrugged your shoulders and let it be"? If you care so little about this issue then why bother to vote to deny your fellow citizens a basic right? That doesn't add up George. What was your reason for denying your fellow Californians this right to marry who they love? You claim you are not a biggot. Not a hater. Then why?
You stopped people from GETTING MARRIED. You stopped loving, committed couples from legally expressing that love and protecting themselves in times of crisis. (Hospital visits, births, funerals, joint health care, etc, etc, etc. are all givens when you are married.) You don't care enough about this to give it more than a moments thought, but you cared enough to change the lives of thousands of people without nary a backwards glance. Still think you're not a biggot?
39.
Pickles | January 21, 2010 at 1:39 pm
I have to add one thing. A good friend of mine sat in a hospital waiting room today. On his lap sat a folder filled with legal paperwork all regarding his partner who was undergoing surgery. As if it wasn't enough that he was terrified that the man he loved wouldn't make it through surgery, he also had the worry that the paperwork he had to go to great lengths (and costs!) to get wouldn't be enough to prove his worth as the person who can make legal decisions for his partner of 10 years. His partner's family disowned him more than 20 years ago when he came out and my friend is, in essence, his only family.
But that doesn't matter, legally. Those people who disowned him two decades ago could walk into that hospital and have more legal rights then the man who has been by his side, loving him for the last 10 years. One little piece of paper could change all that. A marriage license. But people like George didn't give a shit about anyone but themselves and "weren't ready" to give my friend the honor of being in the same position that they so ungratefully take for granted.
40.
Rebecca | January 24, 2010 at 12:39 am
Jump in the way back machine to 1967 and we can replace George Foster's comments with inter-racial marriage instead of same-sex-marriage.
I'm not a bigot. I have lots of black friends.
I'm not a bigot. I have lots of gay friends.
George, you just don't get it do you. Taking away the Constitutional Rights of a minority is wrong. END OF ARGUMENT!
41.
Joe | January 24, 2010 at 11:43 pm
"George, you just don’t get it do you. Taking away the Constitutional Rights of a minority is wrong. END OF ARGUMENT!"
Amen! So George if you want to marry 2 guys, 3 girls, and a 5 year old child then you just go right ahead. We wouldn't want to take away your Constitutional Rights!
Oh wait, Rebecca, was that the argument?
42. The Supreme Court’s&hellip | June 24, 2010 at 11:28 am
[...] the anti-gay groups did not want these names to be disclosed, as part of a broader strategy to hide their names and intentions from the public – a strategy that we have seen repeatedly [...]
43.
Ming Vonsalis | April 20, 2012 at 12:00 pm
"Amen! So George if you want to marry 2 guys, 3 girls, and a 5 year old child then you just go right ahead. We wouldn't want to take away your Constitutional Rights! "
Good point Joe, after reading full discusion it was exactly what I wanted to say, there must be limits and people doesn´t realize about it…
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.