And the sleaze just keeps on coming.
The No on Prop 8 website (the website for the campaign for marriage equality in California) has been subjected to a continuing and coordinated Denial of Service attack, attempting to shut it down and/or make it inaccessible.
It seems to be a coordinated national effort, coming in tandem with a similar attack on the No on 2 website in Florida (another campaign for marriage equality), and with participants from around the country.
So. Let me get this straight. One of the big tropes of the Yes on 8 campaign is that “activist judges” (i.e., the California Supreme Court enforcing the State Constitution) forced same-sex marriage down the throats of an unwilling state, and the Yes on Prop 8 campaign is simply an attempt to redress this wrong and restore democracy.
And yet somehow, their love of democracy doesn’t include the idea that their opponents have the right to publicize their views and raise money on their own Website. Their love of democracy somehow doesn’t include the right of people to donate money to the political campaign of their choice.
And their love of democracy — not to mention the traditional morality they’re claiming to be preserving — doesn’t include the idea that political campaigns should obey the law.
See, this isn’t just sleazy. This isn’t just dishonest. This is a federal crime.
The upshot: If you’re trying to donate money to the No on Prop 8 campaign, and you can’t do it through their website? There are other ways. You can do it through ActBlue. You can do it through Equality California. You can do it through the National Center for Lesbian Rights. If you’re trying to help, please don’t give up because you can’t get through on the No on 8 site. Thanks.
Ugh. I guess I’ll have to reaffirm my earlier wish that something could be done to significantly penalize the people responsible for this (that would be comparable to the harm on same-sex couples they’d inflict if this works). Preferable would be to take the measure off the ballot until the next election, when they’ll have a second chance to behave themselves, but I doubt that will happen.
I’ve kindof unofficially decided that every time I read of shady, backhanded smear tactics from any candidate of any party (they’ve all been republican so far, go figure) i’m going to donate $25 to their opponent. I’ve donated to Equality for All (no on prop 8) for a 3rd time today (along with Al Franken, Darcy Burner and El Tinklenberg). This is going to put me in the poorhouse but I can’t take it anymore.
Can I just say that the idea of Ronald George being an “activist judge” is just about the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard? Chief Justice George is a rock-ribbed conservative. He’s not a bad sort, necessarily, not a right-wing ideologue like Alito or a right-wing rubber-stamper like Thomas (although I gained a little respect for Thomas when he stood up to the rest of the USSC baddies in the Raich medical marijuana case). He’s a former prosecutor — deputy California attorney general, in which job he argued (unsuccessfully) before the California Supreme Court in favor of preserving the death penalty, and (successfully) before the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of a whole series of expansions of police search-and-seizure powers. He was appointed to the Court of Appeal by Deukmejian, which ought to tell you something. His record up to the Marriage Cases opinion has been your basic right-leaning middle-of-the-road don’t-rock-the-boat conservative. If this guy is an activist judge, I’m Emma friggin’ Goldman.
This is just one more piece of evidence tending to prove the utterly non-controversial proposition that “activist judge” means “judge who made a ruling I don’t like.”
Just thought you might like to know that, because of your blog, I just donated to the No on Prop. 8 campaign and to Kay Hagan’s campaign as well.
A new field poll just came out today, showing the NO side ahead, 49% to 44%. This is good news. Apparently it’s really hard for the “YES” side on any proposition to win if it has less than 50% support going into the election. This is because undecided voters tend to vote “no” on propositions if they’re not sure.
This is the first ray of hope we’ve had in days. But please don’t take this as a sign that we can let up against their sleazy tactics. Keep those donations coming, people!! By midnight tonight, if possible!! Greta and I are so very grateful to all of you.
And I second Jon’s comment about the bullshit notion of “activist judges.” Whenever I hear the phrase, just like when I hear “states’ rights,” I know I’m about to hear something I will heartily disagree with.
Indirectly donated $35 to the No on Prop 8 guys on the 30th.
We’re having problems in my own state, one of the initiatives is to ban unmarried couples (read: same-sex couples, but we couldn’t pass that through the legislation, because of the language) from adopting. Our state *used* to be one where adoption could be decided by sexual orientation, but, a recent 7 year court ruling struck down that rule, so the only way to reinstate it is through the law.
Anyone in Arkansas, vote against Initiative 1 if taking away the rights of others offends you.
This shouldn’t come to any surprise … after all, Palin supports her family’s right to choose “life” and marry off her teenage daughter, and we’re expected to “respect the family’s choice” while she simultaneously campaigns to remove everyone else’s right to make their own choice in the same situation.
Anyone ever watch the old TV show MASH? Frank Burns, notoriously hypocritical Republican conservative once said “I don’t mind individuality, as long as we all do it together”. This should be their tagline – freedom and democracy and choice and rights are all great, as long as you all choose to do what I say.
Also, regarding the “activist judge” label: if these conservatives are so concerned about “the will of the people”, then why do they never complain about Bush’s signing statements?
Of course, if you do, they will say “But Clinton used signing statements too!” Yes, many presidents have, but Bush 43 is off the charts. Besides, I thought that Clinton doing something was a reason NOT to do it.
Except, of course, when it’s convenient.
What a childish thing to do! Even though I’m a pro prop 8 person (gasp!!) I find that shameful. What dorks.
Question for anyone who can help: I’m doing a paper for my Human Rights and Equity class and I decided to do it on Prop 8 and its surrounding events (we haven’t heard a whole lot about it in Canada and I was curious to find out what was truth from lies after I was talking with my husband and finding out that one of his arguments was a whole lot of crock).
I’ve had no issues finding websites that were for, but when it comes to finding some that are against… it seems as if Wiki pulled noonprop8.com and equalityforall.com out of a hat!
Does anyone know of some website, article, paper that has some credibility to it (since I’m writting it for university) that you could direct me to? Cause I’m trying to show through my school paper that there was infringment of rights and some sort of equitable solution should be found, and I can’t reallly make that point with Yeson8.com now, can I?
Oh, and if anyone knows where those bans are coming from, please tell me so I can make mention of them too.
Thank you so much for your help!
V.
V: Check the internet archive (www.archive.org)’s “wayback machine”. This shows how websites looked on certain days in the past. Very useful for such historical research.