Some people thought it was a good idea to prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying in California. In fact, they thought it was such a good idea that they gave money to help pass Proposition 8. Now that their addresses are public record, these people are having second thoughts.
The battle over Proposition 8, which specifically defines marriage as existing only between a man and a woman, is not over. People from all over the United States donated money to the battle over Prop 8, some in support, some in opposition. No election besides the presidential election has ever involved as much money. On election day, supporters won, passing the measure by a small margin.
According to the New York Times, an organization called Protect Marriage (NYT) has filed a lawsuit to keep donors' names and addresses a secret. Opponents of Prop 8 have published Google maps showing addresses of contributors of at least $100 to the cause. Donors claim that they have been harassed, threatened, and boycotted because of the publication. Now they wish to challenge the California law that makes their names public record.
Most people can probably relate to their discomfort with having their addresses and employment published for all the world to see. James Bopp, Jr., a lawyer for Protect Marriage claims that the "cost of transparency cannot be discouragement of people's participation." Transparency is the one thing most needed in government, especially in cases involving people's rights. When donors wish to hide their support for Prop 8, their desire for "privacy" begins to resemble that of a fully robed Klansman.
Americans value standing up for one's beliefs. When donors want to support Prop 8 and maintain their anonymity at the same time, they are manipulating the system rather than standing up. They should reap the results of their campaign.
Laws protect these donors from physical attack and harassment. Those laws absolutely must be enforced. Those who have harassed the supporters of Prop 8 should stop immediately. Hate speech, name-calling, and anger accomplish nothing. There are legal, nonviolent actions that will accomplish more than threats. No laws protect donors from the business consequences of their position nor should any. If the gay and lesbian community and their supporters simply refuse to do business with supporters of Prop 8, they will give supporters a powerful reason to change their minds.
Marriage is a legal state that establishes property rights and certain personal rights. American society allows all heterosexual couples to marry, regardless of their character, economic status, or mental fitness. Those who support denying others the right to marry enough to donate money ought to be willing to bear the consequences. He who pays the piper gets to call the tune. Then he has to listen. Supporters' money bought exactly what they asked for. They cannot expect anonymity as well.
The boycott is a venerable and legal action that targets a person or company, usually for political reasons. People in a free society have the right to do business with anyone they please. This right presumes the right to refuse to do business with anyone they please as well (Wikipedia). Donors who spent money to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying should have thought about this possibility the day they wrote the checks.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 182
Haters - they will reap what they sow.
I also have this problem:
You seem to have no problem whatsoever with the people who donated to oppose Prop 8 having their names publicly exposed. Why are you NOT jumping on the bandwagon when the Republicans and others are asking for President-elect Obama to release the names of the people who donated to his campaign? And before you go there, no, ALL the names have NOT been released, and there are hundreds, if not thousands of discrepancies that the campaign still has not cleared up. Why are you not writing an article about that? Are not the two equal? In fact, is it not MORE important for the people of the US to know where the money came from for the presidential campaign?
I ask this question - you brought it up - look at your article.
As for point a to point b: Donors are complaining that they are being boycotted, as if that is some kind of injustice being done to them.
I KNOW that donors are complaining that they are being boycotting. I watched on the news a few months back when this story broke and saw that not only were they being boycotted, they were being harassed. Those are two ENTIRELY different animals.
Your call for non violence will not be headed, we all saw what the radical side of the pro homosexual marriage community did after the failure of the prop.
If they are so proud of their views and opinions let them stand up openly for them!
I hve to agree that there is a difference between boycott and harassment although I'm sure some who are boycotted would consider that and complain of it being harassment. Sometimes the line is fine but generally, those with strong feelings on a subject such as this are willing to subject themselves to whatever the fates may bring because they believe that their stand, popular or unpopular, was morally right!
Tolerance, you'd better agree with such the tolerant ones or else.
I understand that marriage commitments, in working reality, have no gender requirements. They come closer to being SOUL FRIENDSHIPS which can include sexual sharing and parental responsibility, and raise the vibration of both partners and hopefully all family members.
That's the ideal. That would be a high-vibrational marital partnership.
As currently practiced in the USA and many other places, however, there are a lot of low-vibe marriages which are really relationship addictions and enemy camps, and drag the soul down. A lot of these low-vibe partnerships are heterosexual.
So the marriage law change we need has nothing to do with restricting gender expression, but everything to do with encouraging thoughtfulness and lovingkindness and development of better support systems for understanding the challenges of soul friendship.
The so called Christian right is nothing but a group of hypocritical bigots that constantly profess their religion and in the second breath spit on it.
On Andrea's "point": the campaign did give out the information that they were required to--they did not have information on anyone that gave them less than $25 at one time because there is no requirement for campaigns to keep that informationsince it is such a small amount.
This information (on the small donors) is available if you go to all the different states and bring up the public record.
I also prefer secret bigotry to overt bigotry. I would like people to be ashamed of being bigots.
How in the world does two people of the same sex getting equality affect my life? Will we all become Gay by association?
Arrgh! I get angry and there is no one to take my temper out on.
Pardon me for a moment while I put my fist through the wall.
Sorry - too bad and tough sh*t, walk a mile in my shoes.
These people came up with the money, now let them explain their hate.
Am I to understand that many people believe it is appropriate to boycott a business because they supported Prop 8? Would these same people be willing to accept boycott of business based on their opposition to Prop 8? It's a double-edged sword.
The question, impartially stated, is whether political donors' names and addresses should be available online for anyone to view. The current interpretation of the law is that "public record" means it can be posted on the internet as is, even though that creates a very different situation from the physical record being available for viewing in a brick-and-mortar location for those who dedicate the time and energy to going there. So, if you've donated over a set amount for a campaign, anyone who knows your name can find your address on the internet at the click of a mouse. (Or a few clicks.) If you have a not-too-common name, they don't even have to know the city you live in. I don't think this is a particularly good idea. I think listing the name and the city (as the SFGate site does) is perfectly enough for transparency.
That said, boycotting businesses that gave money to a cause you disapprove of is perfectly legitimate, and yes, some commentators around here have suggested that since it's meant to financially destroy the owner, it should be illegal. They never quite acknowledged that they were really saying that if you're gay and want to get married and you've found out that your dentist donated money to make this impossible, you are obligated to keep seeing the same dentist forever. Or they never explained how this was not what they meant.
So, all of you liberals who are getting your butt on your shoulders over some people who would like a little privacy because they are getting harassed because they gave money to defeat a statute in California - how about you do a little bit of research before you start writing articles getting upset over such things. People have a right to expect not to be harassed over how they vote and how they donate money, if they do if legally. Obama's team most likely did not raise their money legally. If you want to scream about an injustice, why don't you scream about that????
I agree with MK: "If you can't support something fully out in the open, then ask yourself why you feel you've got to hide."
And I don't think these hateful people have any room to talk about being harassed, when the people they support harass others for being born the way they are. The duplicity is nauseating.
So, yeah, I AM going to get MY butt on MY shoulders and STAND up for THOSE people because they happened to be in the right.
I am still waiting on some lib on here to answer my charges about Obama. I see that no one has tackled that monkey yet. Perhaps it is because you know I am right?
Those people aren't IN the right, they ARE the right and they're wrong about most issues that affect an individual's life. They need to spend more time working on their own lives and stop obsessing about others.
No one's answering you on Obama because it's off topic and I find it interesting that you chose the word "monkey."
There are products/companies I don't do business with because they've made public the contributions they've made to organizations I don't wish to fund in any way. I haven't seen any of them go out of business, but I feel just fine about my choice.
As I said before, boycotting is fine. But there is no excuse for interrupting worship services with hatred. There is no excuse for harassing people. There is no excuse for threatening bodily harm.
Of course the people who voted that way should be able to stand tall and proud for voting the way they believe. And you should accept the way the votes went. Go ahead and boycot. Bring it up for a vote again later. But don't threaten people with hurting them. Don't trash their churches.
Interesting that she chose that word maybe, but not surprising.
Marilyn, you look pretty foolish talking about Obama can do no wrong and the rules were not made for him when your guys admitted in public this past month that they broke the rules/laws, they don't care (so what?), and one of them is "disappointed" about lying us into killing hundreds of thousands of people for no reason. Please, focus on your own wrongs and leave everyone else alone.
The only other issue I can think of now that has a similar situation is abortion. A lot of pro-lifers boycott companies that support Planned Parenthood. It just doesn't get as much press coverage. I have not seen any coverage to indicate that individual supporters and donors have been threatened.
Lists of donors are public record. This is legal--even more, it is REQUIRED by law. Let's have a reality check on why that data has not been released: just how many entities (individuals, organizations, businesses, etc.) donated to Obama's campaign? Half a dozen or so? That donor list is probably long enough to circle the globe; no way has the information been categorized and filed by now. His campaign lasted YEARS, people.
Sheesh.
Our votes are private--a protection guaranteed by law. Donations are NOT, in order to protect against undue influence and election tampering--another protection guaranteed by law.
Did I stop? Nope. If you believe in something enough to write a big check or to put your work into it, then you better be willing to go all the way and face down the fear.
How are we to identify when corporations or other organizations are bankrolling an initiative if that information isn't made public?
Well, I"m still waiting for your reference to this material on Obama contributions, and I doubt you didn't know what I was asking you for, the first time.
Oh, and MJ, you did me a HUGE favor when you boycotted me. Not that I was ever on your friend list that I recall. But, I do not have anything in common with you, and would rather spend my time with my conservative friends and those who are not conservative who can be nice.
See, I am not being mean per se to Ann. I just did not agree with her article.
I'm gone for the night. I have better things to do - and you have some stuff to research.
Ya'll Christian Republicans sure are a loving bunch. . . .
Ann,
I stopped to read and post as support......dove right into the hornet's nest.
Keep fighting
I live in the very conservative center of the our state, still I was hoping for a no vote on this rotten bit of work.
There is no basis in fact for the foriegn donations, as noted by Snopes, or for the mickey mouse, donald duck crap, other than donations made that occur in any campaign, and are returned. Campaigns do not control who donates, but they do control what is done with those donations, and they have to make reports to the FEC about those cases. There is nothing illegal about that, and frankly, Andrea, I don't care if you wait for a reply or not, you're drawing on highly partisan sites that take the same BS stories, and change the details a smidgen, and make it look like there is something where there is nothing. You don't want to come up with reputable sources, fine, but until you do, you're the one blowing smoke. I referenced my info. If you think anyone is going to take your word, just because you said it, you're on the wrong board, and need to go back to your partisan blog chats. They'll love you there.
No it has not, at least as far as there having been anything illegal done. I know the conservative blogosphere may have trumped it up to true believer's satisfaction, but that don't make it so. As for going back on his promise to accept public financing, I don't see that as a problem, it's his decision. Not to mention McCain had already broken the campaign finance laws he himself had passed on that, so there is no high ground for you folks on that score. He wasn't, then he was, and then he wasn't going to accept matching funds before he finally settled on taking them. Once you take funds, which he did when his campaign faltered and almost went bankrupt during the primaries, you don't get to go back on it. He tried before finally realizing he couldn't. Broken promises about releasing names of donors? Give me a reputable reference on that one too, will you? I hadn't heard that either, but it only took two seconds and Google to find the error of Andrea's claims. I figure it will probably be the same on this one. If not, I'll learn something, I guess. I'm not afraid of that, like some here.
The requirement to disclose all donors over $100 in California referendums was a previous Proposition adopted by right wingnuts who did not want "outside" money tainting their anti-tax reforms.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot (they are being confronted about their bigotry and ignorance), suddenly the disclosure requirement is scary and un-American.
I hope that California sticks to the disclosure laws, and the media gets a chance to examine just who is opposed to Civil Rights in these United States.
I'm sure that ACORN registrars, who are paid to enroll new voters, padded their lists on occassion.
But, this was reported by ACORN itself. And, there is not one claim of a fraudulent vote being cast from phony registrations.
The same can not be said of the Republican enrollees in Orange County, where the Republican Committee chair is going to jail for outright fraud.
Once again, Republicans make wild and inaccurate accusations, while they are actually committing the sins about which they complain.
Yes they are spewing hate. "Traditional" marriage included paying men to take daughters off the hands of the parents who didn't want to support them any more. "Traditional" marriage included teaching women to allow husbands to insult and beat wives. "Traditional" marriage teaches people to live lies. "Traditional" marriage leaves women helpless. Can't be much more hateful than that.
Since I'm back, I'll play with your title, Ann. Prop 8 Donors Want to Hide because they're used to living in closets.
And why has everyone (like today Tom Hanks?) gotten all riled up over the Mormon Church being against gay marriage? So is the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. Perhaps it's because the Mormon church is an easy target?
Democrats, have not had frontal lobotomies, we retain our own judgment and viewpoints.
WE do not follow a party line and talk and act exactly as directed.
It has caused the party much grief. . . . .The passing of this proposition is one of the sad tragic things, not one of the good things about life in California.
The ban won't stick., but is it a problem now.
I looked at the most viewed list
Top is some point whore freebie list
Your post is #2 most viewed
that puke Berf is no. 3 with his obvious lie, point grabbing title
"Is MLK day going to be a paid holiday??" . . Unless he is really dead and an actual zombie.
He has to know it is a paid Federal Holiday. . . .
I decided to post my comment here. I will never clidk on a Berf, Marliyn M or certain other
consevative point hogs. We all know exactly what they have to say anyway.
I do respect legitimate concerns over having one's name and address
posted publicly, particularly on issues to do with terrorism, whether it
be abortion doctors, critics of Islam, opposers of gay marrigage or
whatever. There are a lot of crazy people out there that will do
crazy things if a target is close enough and cheap enough. It is a
legitimate problem.
Can you imagine a place like Iraq posting names and political
affiliations publicly? So far we do not have problems like Iraq.
Tough problem.
Laws protecting people that financed this should be enforced to the limit of the law, but letting those people hide their bigotry, no, no way.
"In November 2008, California put this issue to a vote. The results reinforced existing law to prohibit gay marriage. 52.3% of voters — including 70% of blacks — supported keeping the ban. Why not go after voters, not just people who donated money?"
Because many of them only voted that way because of the media campaign of hate and fear that was financed by those people, and that church. Breaking the law, targeting anyone for violence is not to be condoned, but those that financed that witch hunt should, and will be exposed. As for Hillary and Obama, and those other churches, how much did they contribute?
I think it is a dreadful irony that Mormons and Roman Catholic men would interfere with anyone's right to marry.
The irony is astounding. The very people who push and push for transparency when the opposition raises money for a cause are the ones screaming the loudest when they are put out in the light for their causes. Doesn't it occur to any of these hypocrites that there is a reason why they are so unpopular? Abortion doctors' names and addresses and private family information have been splashed across websites for years now..with messages inviting people to harass and hound these people.
I do not condone the harassment, but it is so ironic that people are having a problem NOW with the very law they helped put on the books.
Great article, Ann.
Donor lists by state.
My goodness, there are a lot of churches on those lists. These wouldn't be tax-exempt churches, now would they...?
Campaign donations are a matter of public record.