SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – The sponsors of California’s same-sex marriage ban must hand over some internal campaign records to lawyers seeking to overturn the voter-enacted initiative, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled Oct. 1.

Denying a request to shield the information, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker said the Protect Marriage campaign had failed to show that providing private e-mails, memos and reports would inhibit the political activities of same-sex marriage opponents or subject them to unbridled harassment.

“The First Amendment qualified privilege proponents seek to invoke, unlike the attorney-client privilege, for example, is not an absolute bar against disclosure,” Walker wrote in an 18-page order. “Rather, the First Amendment qualified privilege requires a balancing of the plaintiffs’ need for the information sought against proponents’ constitutional interests in claiming the privilege.”

The judge agreed with lawyers for two unmarried same-sex couples who have sued to strike down the ban, known as Proposition 8, that confidential communications between the campaign’s leaders and professional consultants could reveal a rationale for denying gays the right to wed that is relevant to the case.

The lawsuit argues that the measure was motivated by hostility toward gays and as such must be struck down as inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equality.

“What was decided not to be said in a political campaign may cast light on what was actually said,” Walker said.

At the same time, the judge said the couples’ lawyers must limit their fact-finding request to cover only central issues and individuals, including Mormon and Catholic church representatives who served on the executive committee that oversaw the campaign. He also left open the possibility that he would restrict public access to the documents.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer for Protect Marriage, said he was surprised and disappointed by the judge’s ruling. The groups legal advisers would meet Friday to discuss their next steps, including a possible appeal, he said.

“Giving the losing side of a campaign this level of information will discourage anyone from ever attempting to use the initiative process in the future, knowing that sensitive strategies will likely all become public if they prevail,” Pugno said. “It just seems like Alice in Wonderland for me, that we would get to a place that a consequence of winning an election is that you would have to open your play book.”

Christopher Dusseault, one of the lawyers for the couples, said the judge’s ruling made sense since Walker has said he wants to have as many facts before him as possible when the case goes to trial on Jan. 11.

“Their argument that documents about campaign strategy and rejected campaign messages being irrelevant, simply because they weren’t sent to voters at large, is an argument he rejected,” he said.

An example of the kind of information the plaintiffs are seeking is discussions showing that the campaign decided against running ads stating that marriage must be reserved to a man and a woman to foster responsible parenting since that is an argument Protect Marriage’s lawyers are making now to uphold Proposition 8, Dusseault said.

Depending on how and when the internal information is disseminated, its contents could revive the hostility some same-sex marriage supporters directed at Proposition 8’s financial donors after the ballot initiative passed in November.

Some contributors became the subject of consumer boycotts, and opponents of same-sex marriage have since tried to limit the disclosure of campaign contributions and other identifying information about their backers in Washington state and Maine, where measures to repeal legislatively enacted gay rights measures are on the ballot this fall.