Gay marriage foes want campaign contributions anonymous, citing 'harassment'

Proponents of a ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage filed a lawsuit in federal court this week seeking to overturn state campaign finance laws that require that names and personal information of donors to state political campaigns be made public.

They claimed that donors to Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California after one of the most heated campaigns in recent memory, have been the victim of threats and harassment because of their support for ending same-sex marriage was made public.

“This harassment is made possible because of California’s unconstitutional campaign finance disclosure rules as applied to ballot measure committees where even donors of as little as $100 must have their names, home addresses and employers listed on public documents,” Ron Prentice, head of the Protect Marriage Coalition, said in a statement.

Since 1974, state law has required that donors who give more than $100 must have their names disclosed.

The law was intended to prevent money laundering and to provide disclosure of who is making contributions to political campaigns. It has withstood several previous legal challenges. Experts on the 1st Amendment experts said they did not believe the suit stood much of a chance of success.

“This trashes the 1st Amendment and it is a thinly veiled attempt to eliminate transparency as to the role of money in state election campaigns,” said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. The ACLU was a major opponent of Proposition 8.

-- Jessica Garrison

Photo: Proposition 8 opponents, including a couple who walked from L.A., demonstrate in San Francisco. Credit: Marcio Jose Sanchez / Associated Press

Comments

[christopher Lawrence]

AAAAAARGH!
These people are N U T Z !
Prop 8 is one thing ( UN-American I say) but now they want to screw with our disclosure laws!?!
Enough is enough!!!!!!
These people have NO idea what being American means!

[No on 8]

Hypocrites. This is exactly what these closeted haters want - if they are so convinced of their beliefs, they should be proud to proclaim they gave of their hard-earned money to a cause they believe in.

[rod]

When you destroy people's lives with hate you really shouldn't be given a chance to hide. I say strengthen the laws so that some of these hateful churches loose their tax exemptions too!

[stewart]

ahhhhhh....first we over turn the 2/3rds rule for the legislature to amend the constitution, now we overturn the public records provisions for campaign finace reporting, and thus the tyranny grows? How utterly unique.

[Jake Logan]

LMAO, everybody wants to express their 1st Amendment rights, but nobody wants to pay the price. If they feel so strongly about denying same-sex couples the right to marry, you think they would be proud to let the whole world know who they are. Hypocrites

[Fred]

If you are ashamed to have people know that you donated --- then don't donate.

Simple

[GL]

Why are going through the courts? Didn't they realize they can change the constitution however they please with a simple ballot measure? They got enough signatures for Prop 8. Why not do it for this too?

[Nicolas Martin]

I've read the First Amendment a few times, and I find nothing in it that mandates public disclosure of political donations. Nor do I find a public right to personal information about donors. But then I read it without the burden of ideology.

I support gay marriage, but there should be donor anonymity and the ACLU is full of constitutional hooey.

[dmjakers]

I didn't support gay marriage, but I certainly don't support letting people who threw literally hundreds of thousands of dollars each into a single political campaign hide their donations behind a cloak of secrecy.
People who threw money into Prop 8 the way I toss away a used kleenex should have realized that gay people and their supporters have every right NOT to spend money with businesses whose owners and executives have gone so far to take away rights from them.
I didn't vote one way or the other, but it seems to me that people who feel so strongly against gay people shouldn't WANT their money. So why are they so angry about not getting it? Hypocrisy? Surely not. LOL
It would be flat out wrong if any threats of physical harm were made, but pocket-book threats are as American as baseball and apple pie.
These gay-bashers dish it out, but they can't take it. If it weren't politically incorrect, I'd call them a bunch of sissies.

[Elides]

Open disclosure of political donations is an important check and balance in our electoral system, especially in the case of ballot measures, when there is no upper limit on the amount that can be donated.

[G. Marantz]

I have a better idea, instead of giving their name and address, how about letting them just wear a white robe and a pointy hat.

G. Marantz

[mark shcroeder]

As a gay person, I beleive we should try, with all are hearts, minds and physical ability, to pass an amendment banning hetersexual divorce. Because, is'nt it all about the children?

[fuzzygruf]

Members of the KKK use hoods to hide their identity. Don't be hoodwinked. If you don't want people to know that you support hatred, then don't support it.

[John Thunder]

Fred ; It is not to be ashamed, it is that your own life is in danger because of the bigots who cannot see what democracy is. That's almost terrorism; terrrorists do not follow rules, and that's precisely what those bigots were doing against those who voted for Prop 8

[The White Sheet]

In this kind of denial of human rights, it won't be long before the Prop 8 backers are wearing white sheets over their faces, burning lawns at night and looking to their Southern Brothers for advice. As decades pass, the pro-prop 8 ideals will look worse and worse.

[Mike Tidmus]

It shouldn't surprise anyone to learn that the radical religious right prefers to do its gay-bashing under cover of darkness.

And funny how Protect Marriage seems to have forgotten about how they mined the donor lists and attempted to blackmail gay business owners by threatening to expose them as ... gasp ... gay business owners.

And funny how after all that out-of-state meddling in California's Constitutional affairs over Prop H8, Protect Marriage brings in its legal goon squad, the Alliance Defense Fund, from out of state.

[Scy]

Bigots HATE the light of day.

[John K.]

Wait, you mean to tell me they're turning to the federal court and hoping that some activist judge will overturn a duly enacted law? Typical hypocrites. I hope they win so they can't complain when Prop. 8 gets overturned.

[bkl]

The issue is privacy. Supposedly, privacy is the basis of abortion rights. Privacy is the basis for the elimination of sodomy laws. If what women do and what gays do is private, why shouldn't what political donors do be private?

[John K.]

Nicolas Martin:

The question is not whether the first amendment MANDATES disclosure, but whether it PROHIBITS it. Absent a prohibition, duly enacted legislation requiring disclosure is absolutely fine. If you don't like it, get the legislature to overturn it. Afterall, isn't this the cry of these people up and down the streets ad nauseum: courts don't enact laws, the people (legislators) do. This is just more hypocrisy from those whose definition of an "activist judge" is not one that overturns a duly enacted law, but one that overturns a duly enacted law that they like.

[Peter Kilborn]

I can understand that many of those in support of gay marriage are in fact heterosexual. This stands to reason. Although they are willing to support gay marriage on the one hand, on the other, they fear they may be viewed as backdoor conquistadors should they be found out under the disclosure rules. My only piece of advice for these squeamish individuals is to never wear a cocoa sombrero.

[John K.]

bkl: Don't be a moron. A donation to a public campaign, which affects law, which affects everyone, is not private; IT'S PUBLIC!

[John K.]

If people want to make a private donation, they should make it to their church or their own vacation fund.

[John K.]

And now I read on another article on the subject that this donor disclosure law was passed in the '70s, not by the legislature, but BY A VOTER INITIATIVE! WILL OF THE PEOPLE, HYPOCRITES! GET OUT OF COURT! STOP ASKING ACTIVIST JUDGES TO OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

God is watching all of you, and he is NOT pleased.

[mark schroeder]

This is like George Wallace filing a racial discrimination suite in Alabama in 1963, because his rights were violated.

[Jim]

When Obama lists all of his donors using Visa gift cards (illegal) then the Liberals in this country have a leg to stand on. But right now they don't so they think "outting" people who stood by their constitutional convictions is ok.

Isn't funny how the left preaches how hateful the right is, yet in a nanosecond the hate expressed by the left comes out in droves. Anti religion, anti donors, anti American free speech to donate to whatever they feel like.

Hypocrites all.

[Joe L.]

The true hypocrites are those calling people like myself "haters" and "bigots" for opposing marriage for people with homosexual perversions. Publicly opposing immorality is a heroic stance in these times of shameless degeneracy.

[Mark]

Wow...now we have a group of people who don't have enough guts to stand behind what they believe in, no matter how wrong and want to hide their contribution information so people will continue to use their businesses and shop in their stores and restaurants...this is taking the new "no responsibility" to a new level. I was shocked that proposition passed and even more shocked now that this bigoted group would like to continue to push, push and push. Better watch out, the pendulum swings back really, really hard

Cowards and sniveling slimeballs

[tomterrific]

Thru disclosure is how they went after the mrmon church....but they want exemption....sissies.

[Donald H]

The hate mongering gay community are the first group I've heard of that has used this law to harass people that made contributions. Reason enough to overturn the law that allows this. Usually the ACLU is arguing for privacy laws, but I guess it doesn't meet their self serving agenda this time.

[mark schroeder]

Did God call you personally or just send a text?

[Brandon]

The poor babies. All they ever did was contribute financially toward stripping fundamental rights away from an entire class of people. Seriously though: if they felt strongly enough about "preserving marriage" that they donated money toward the cause, they should have no problem accepting responsibility for their actions.

[Christine B]

So it's not just that they want the freedom to practice their bigotry, they want to be able to *anonymously* practice their bigotry. Now they have two reasons to be ashamed of themselves.

[John]

They're finally showing their true colors. Do you know why we have disclosure laws?

Proposition 9 - Political Reform Act - 1974 "The Political Reform Act was adopted as a statewide initiative (Proposition 9) by an overwhelming vote of the electorate in 1974. The law requires detailed disclosure of the role of money in California politics. This includes the disclosure of contributions and expenditures in connection with campaigns supporting or opposing state and local candidates and ballot measures as well as the disclosure of expenditures made in connection with lobbying the State Legislature and attempting to influence administrative decisions of state government."

You can find this information on the site of the California Secretary of State:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/prd/

So much for the "WILL OF THE VOTERS". These right-wing groups are turning our political system into a circus and we're doing NOTHING to stop it.

[Jeffery P. Segall RN]

Why is common law marriage OK? Live in sin for seven or eight years and you are awarded marriage. California may not allow establishment of common law marriage but it does recognize it formed in other states. How is it that it's just fine to live in sin for seven or eight years and then you are legally married???

[plaw07]

If this were a case where small contributors to the No on 8 side were being harassed, you'd better believe we'd be hearing squawks and yelps, claims of homophobia and vociferous argument that the donor law should be amended.
Gimme a break, guys.

[Chase]

You people are fools. Many people were camped out at their HOMES and had their business boycotted because their donations were public. THAT is garbage. They simply don't want that to happen because PEOPLE LIKE YOU are too childish to let others have their opinions and leave them be.

[Manitou]

This attempt is deplorable, hypocritical, and pitiful. This public attempt to "legislate from the bench" just bring more shame to a hateful and ignorant movement.

[in SoCal]

Prop 8 wasn't political, it was social. Donors should not have had their personal information disclosed. Period. If it takes going through the courts to fix this, then so be it.

[No one special]

Dear Jessica:

You're a good reporter. But Justin McLachlan is running circles around you. He broke this story hours before you did, yet you can't give credit where credit is due?

http://justinmclachlan.com/09/01/protectmarriagecom-wants-to-hide-its-campaign-donor-records/

[Warren]

Please! Now they want to hide their activity to deny a minority group their right to the pursuit of happiness. If you want to play the game, you have to show your name.

[Anthony]

What has bothered me from the beginning was the amount of money which came in OUT of State to support this measure which was intended for our State only. To block this type of transparency is setting us up for rampant carpet bagging.

It is time to seriously look over our initiative process as most laws passed are badly written, and not in the best interest of the people.

[h]

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[Mark Malcom]

This is how the APA was pushed into declaring mentally defective people, you can have a birth defect you can't help and still be defective, into something that has to be taught to the 95% of the kids who aren't gay. Use Paypal. Photo gay vandals moving signs and prosecute their interference with free speech. Or get it understood that there is something called sexually harassment and gays that do it are prosecuted. Sexually harassing blacks and Hispanics who voted 81%for prop 8 is how the 5% of the pop that's gay operates.

[Jay Arr]

I donated to NO on 8. My name is available online too. Proud of it. You wanna picket my home or business, please do. Laws are laws, and anyone who donates to a political campaign should be prepared to take the heat.

[plaw07]

One of the signal ways in which the No on 8 campaign was disingenuous was in its stance on education. Even though the state Education Code requires the teaching of marriage, No on 8 said that fears that kids would have to be taught that gay marriage was in all respects equal to non-gay marriage were a bogeyman. The TV commercial to that effect was, in their view, a deceitful red herring.

In fact, judging from the angry self-righteousness of many of the comments here, how could gays NOT demand that schools reflect gay marriage as, in all respects, equal to and deserving of all the respect shown non-gay marriage? If that is the issue, how could they NOT insist on reflecting that principle in all respects throughout our lives?

Moreover, even if I were misreading the state's Education Code, and this were a matter determined under law solely determined at the local level, how could gays NOT challenge local determinations (arising, in some cases, with only 52% of the vote) that excluded gay marriage? Would blacks refuse to challenge an ordinance that discriminated against them--denied them their very human rights--on the ground that the ordinance was a properly ratified majority vote on a purely local issue?

No. Of course not. The No on 8 campaign was fundamentally disingenuous. The premise--that gay marriage should be legally indistinguishable from non-gay marriage--has enormous ramifications for society. They may not be legal ramifications that are tested immediately,but they will be (No on 8 might say: "Hey! Nobody's talking about teaching kids gay marriage!" Certainly, not now they aren't. 30 years ago, nobody was talking about gay marriage, either)

The reason why No on 8 was disingenuous was that it attempted to gain a legal right without permitting a rational, widespread discussion throughout society on the potential consequences thereof. Instead, it chose to portray it as a small, symbolic step (though of enormous symbolic significance) that really was just a matter of rejecting bigotry. It was not.

And until gays enter into that rational, widespread discussion--and the self-righteousness, vitriol and vindictiveness on this board do not give much hope--they have no hope whatsoever of changing society's attitudes at large. They might achieve a narrow judicial triumph, as they did in May, but think of what happened the last time a court arrogated to itself the prerogative to define fundamental rights in a way that preceded an informed, society-wide discussion of the issues: Roe v. Wade. And, arguably, a conservative counterrevolution that still has legs.

[Bruingrl68]

What people must realize and be VERY careful about is that the kind of harassment suffered by people who supported prop 8 and the verbal trashing they have taken (comparing to the KKK...hatemongers, bigots etc etc) DOES NOT change their beliefs, it only drives them undercover.

Racial discrimination experienced the same quieting. It became socially unacceptable to publicly express anti-minority sentiment so a lot of that simply went underground. It became insidious. It became hard to root out. And in that way, it became difficult to fight.

The same thing is going to happen here. you can't bully people into changing their belief system. It just doesn't work. And as despicable as legitimate hatred and discrimination is, it helps no one for people to hide their true feelings about the issue for fear of being publicly lynched. Because those true feelings come out in other, more hurtful ways.

People need to stop attacking eachother. It helps nothing.

[kristin]

I voted in favor of Prop 8, but I am completely against this idea of anonymous donations. If you believe in something, you need to stand up for it. The law was written to facilitate an open political system. Regardless of our political beliefs, we must uphold an open, transparent political system. Only cowards hide their political donations. I'd actually prefer such cowards to SUPPORT gay marriage than to accept their tainted, anonymous contributions.

[juan]

This must be done to protect heterosexuals from violent gay oppression!! Gay people have been videogtaped attacking innocent people!!!

[Stan Kansas]

Protect Marraige Coalition is a monster that is growing bigger and hungrier by the minute. Until we learn from our mistakes we are doomed to repeat them. Does Kristallnacht ring a bell? In August of 08 many of us believed that Prop 8 would not pass. It did. After the election, the victors said they did not want any marraiges annulled or voided. Shortly thereafter a lawsuit was filed to do just that. Today they want transparency removed from campaign donations. Real Americans need to be scared. It's starting again. To top it off, WE give them this power by 1) being so superstitious; believing in End of Days, the Antichrist and other such nonsense and 2) by being complacent and lazy, never believing that this could happen here on American soil. One day we may wake up and find that only Christian churches still stand and we are all forced to carry a Bible. Wake up!! REAL evil is in our midst.

[Vance]

Hey, I have an idea, have all the women who have abortions using public money have their names and addresses posted on public documents for all to see. I'm sure no harm will come to them from those who disagree and they will not be deterred from exercising their "rights."

[jason]

Proposition 8 passed..this is easy to resolve..if you don't like Prop 8, move out of California and your problem is solved...maybe there are not as many gays out there as the media wants you to believe or Prop 8 would have been beaten..based on voter turnout and exit polls it appears many faithful Obama voters don't like you guys too much !

[SAW]

All the small donors needed to do was to cut off their respective donation amounts at $99. You would think that the "yes on 8" campaign would have told them that to protect them from the backlash, wouldn't you? Of course, the larger donations should be disclosed. If you want to be a large donor, be prepared for the flack that comes with it.

[Otis Page]

The point is these homosexual begging for toleration are viciously intolerant of those backing Prop 8. They are asking for protection against the militantcy of the homosexuals who are tactically intimidating those who are critical of homosexuality and those who wish to protect traditional marriage.

[Francisco Cardenas]

In other words, they want to hide behind sheets like the KKK ... and their agenda is just as ugly and ignorant. I am reminded of this statement from Mark 8:36 "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" ... to hide behind annonymity is shows a lack of faith and is poison to the soul.

[Dr. Peter]

For that unbelievable ego-manical Jokn K posted above.
So John K, you now claim to have a special, close relationship with the Almighty that allows you to speak for Him, that He is watching, and best of all, that He is NOT pleased!
With humility I bow before the great Johk K, our newest 'prophet.'

Dr Peter

[Paco the Atheist]

Ever hear of the Dark Ages? These folks won't be happy until we have brought them back. Witch trials, Crusades, torture. Ah, gimme' that Ol' Time Religion!

[Bill G]

Right. So the next time a private business wants to take over a public utility, we'd never know that business was funding the initiative to make that happen. This isn't just a case of hypocrisy, this is a case of pathetic worms of human beings who must hide under rocks to avoid the light of day.

[john]

That's right, take away equality from others in the safety of anonymity, free from any consequences of your deplorable actions.

[magic johnson]

attn BKL:
interesting you think that sodomy is the sole domain of the gays and the gays only. i want to educate you about the concept that straight people engage in sodomy as well as gay people. you must know this but really want to make a dig at the gays so you are willing to act dumb, or perhaps worse, actually are.

[Shakespeare]

Lists of donors should obviously be disclosed, but when a list of donors is used by an opposing group to intimidate, harass, and otherwise make lives miserable for donors, what recourse does one have? Why aren't the liberal whiners crying foul about harassment and intimidation? Maybe it's because they're the real haters.

Tyranny of the minority.

[Bill]

Fine, if you all feel this way, why have the $100 limit?

Why not require disclosure of donations in any amount, to any cause whatsoever?

[FlexSF]

The KKK wore cardboard hats clothed in white to mask their hate.

[everett]

look who wants "special rights" now....

[John C.]

John K. great comments!

These Pro Prop 8 people want to hide in the shadows. COWARDS!

[Julian]

I'm so sick of these Yes of Prop 8 people who want to legislate their morality on me. It is Un-American to deny me the freedom to have love and marry who ever I want. If I want to marry my gay lover, I should be able to do it. If I want to marry a child, I should be able to do it. If I want to marry an animal, I should be able to do it. If I want to marry the corpse of my dead great grandfather I should be able to do it. How dare you tell me what I can do and what I can't do!

[Kevin]

This would help to protect innocent people from those who feel perfectly justified in using force and intimidation to affect the political process. Our votes are secret. Why shouldn't our contributions be secret, too? If you want to guard against people trying to buy politicians, set the reporting threshold at $50,000 for contributions to campaigns for elected office. For propositions, the threshold should be much higher because the danger is far less. Why is it my right to know how much Steven Spielberg donated to the campaign against Prop 8? What good does it do me?

[TBagpuss]

BKL - You are not comparing like with like. Your analogy would only hold water if the situation was that people who gave money to political campaigns to retain the right to choose, or to support laws respecting the human rights of gay people were not required to disclose those contributions.

[Rey Buono]

Now it's the homophobes who want to be in the closet!!!

[Mike]

Just another confirmation that these Prop 8 supporters / hate-mongers are really just cowards, one and all.

[Jim]

With the exception of the church that received white powder in the mail, every incident of harassment cited in media reports I've seen that allegedly occurred to a pro-8 donor has also happened to me PERSONALLY because of my sexual orientation. People refusing to do business with me? Check. Threatening phone calls? Check. Rock through my window? Check. Flyers distributed calling me an unflattering name? Check. Genuine fear for life and limb? Check.

I certainly don't condone vandalism or threats of violence, but, please, GET SOME PERSPECTIVE!

And I should also add, they're requesting anonymity for the bigots, and yet anonymity is one of the major things that has been denied to gays and lesbians by Proposition 8. Marriages can be private. Domestic Partnerships cannot. Gays and lesbians must out themselves in a statewide database in order to receive legal rights similar to (but not equal to) marriage.

Once again the bully is claiming to be the victim.

[Zach]

Look who's running to the "activist judges" now! Some conviction to principle, I guess Prop 8ers never thought they might face some backlash for taking rights away from their fellow man. Having disadvantaged at least 18,000 families and making a mockery of treasured American principles of equal provisions under the law, they whine and cry about boycotts and angry people making them feel uncomfortable? Boo hoo, deal with it, 8ers; you wanted to "take a stand," you'd better be ready to keep standing because those you oppress will not sit down.

And even in that, anti-8s have been largely polite. All guys like Juan have when they lie about "Gay people...attacking innocent people!!!" are isolated incidents like a woman in Florida getting a cross knocked out of her hand showing up on YouTube. Oh, the horror of "violent gay oppression!!!" It's laughable!

[Q]

Guess they want to put their white hoods back on huh?

[Laine]

They not only should be brought out into the light, they ought to have their photographs published, so that we may see the faces of hate.

[Laine]

Who are you to judge your Master's servant?
How dare individuals put my Constitutional rights up for a vote! If we
are not given equal status in this country, then our taxes should be
prorated to reflect this. We now look back at church justified racial
bans with eyebrows raised; this issue will be seen in much the same
way, given time. God will judge me on my earthly works, not men. Any
church leader throwing money into a political rat-race doesn't
understand that it is the Word that transforms hearts, not mere
political laws, vulnerable to being overturned. Trust the leadership
role of your Father and transform hearts with love, patience, and
sound Wisdom. Lobbying Christ into law is an inferior use of the Word
of God and will fail. Transformation requires cooperation. Do you have
that much faith in propositions? Do you have Faith? Is this a money
generator for you? Examine your motives, church leaders, and ask if
the teachings of Jesus will be fruitful in political realms. I
question the faith of any Church leader that wallows in politics in
order to plant spiritual seeds. It's futility. It's striving for the
wind and feeding on it. It's time to teach transformative Word, let
Wisdom prevail, and leave politics to the world. You'll honor the God
for whom you so often speak, changing hearts in a more permanent
fashion. People are being driven away from the message. Is that wise?
If Christ were to come back this instant, I'd rather be holding the
hand of a woman than a sign stating whom God hates.

[John K.]

SoCal: If it's ok for them to go to court to get this overturned, then I can count on you to keep your mouth shut if the Court overturns Prop. 8, right? Or is it only ok for the courts to overturn laws YOU don't like?

[John K.]

JayArr: Amen! The people who think Prop. 8 is not political and it is somehow none of the public's business who is responsible for it is the most outrageous nonsense I've ever heard. If you are so convinced that something is the right thing that you are willing to donate to it, then you do it proudly and accept the consequences, which are that the people you harmed can operate within the law to harm you back. Since it's so clear that the "will of the people" is that gay marriage should be illegal, then you shouldn't lose much business, right?

[John K.]

plaw07: After Prop. 8, children will be taught about gay marriage in school anyway: in civics class. The whole point is that Prop. 8 itself had NOTHING to do with education. Children can and will still be taught about gay marriage in school. It's legal in other states and other places in the world, so it will come up just as interracial marriage comes up. Are the Yes on 8 people that delusional? I don't think they are; I think they are just, as you put it, disingenuous.

Regarding rational discussion, there is no such thing as rational discussion when you are dealing with people's religious beliefs that cause a pre-conceived, unalterable notion that God hates gays, or at least gay marriage. Any reasoned discussion would immediately show that there is no harm done by allowing gays to marry, but much benefit to gays themselves. All the possible future ramifications you allude to are circular, i.e., children might be taught that gay marriage is equal to straight marriage, which assumes that this is a bad thing for them to learn. The only reason it would be bad is if it were bad to be gay in the first place, which is only bad because it might teach others that it's ok to be gay, etc. ad naseum. No where in there is any solid reason why being gay is per se bad. If gay marriage is allowed, the only losers are the people who want to control everyone else's lives and force those people to elevate their own personal religion and abide by its principles whether they like it or not. I'm sorry to say I don't feel sorry for their loss.

[John K.]

jaun: Have you got anything to say about the guy who called eleven gay bars in Seattle this week and threatened to kill 55 people with ricin? You bigots don't like to talk about THOSE people, just the gay guy who crushed the poor innocent old lady's cross.

[John K.]

Otis page: Can you please explain to me how boycotting people who donated to take your rights away is "viciously intolerant" but those making the donations to take rights away from gays are not "viciously intolerant" but merely exercising their free speech? Who gets free speech, only the Yes on 8 people? Is it not just the free speech of gay people to choose where to spend their money?

You people are so full of it that it's staggering.

[John K.]

Dr. Peter: My comment about God was intended partially to mock all the anti-gay people who seem to think they have a monopoly on the knowledge of God's law and partially just to point out that they are engaging in practices that they themselves would say God doesn't condone. In no way do I actually pretend to know what God wants (indeed, I don't even believe in a specific God).

[Blithe]

I, for one, support the Mormon Church's involvement in the passage of Proposition 8. In fact, I look forward to two new Mormon-backed propositions on the next ballot:

1.) A constitutional amendment legalizing underage sex.

2.) A constitutional amendment legalizing polygamy.

[John K.]

Shakespeare: The recourse that you have is not to donate to a cause that harms large numbers of people that are able to harm your business with a boycott. Oops. It's called freedom of speech/expression/association, and it works both ways buddy. Live with the consequences of your choices, just as we gays must.

[John K.]

Bill: I agree, anyone who donates a dime should have to disclose it.

[John K.]

Julian: Sarcasm only works when your making an intelligent point with it. Unfortunately, sarcasm only makes you look about 100 times dumber when the point your making is ridiculous to the point of being laughable. Since you're apparently too dense, I will spell it out for you. Children cannot sign ANY contracts; they cannot consent buying a car, a house, getting a tatoo, or entering a marriage. Neither can animals, and neither can dead people. Another adult male, however, is absolutely capable of consenting to a marriage with me. Grow up and get a clue.

[John K.]

Kevin: It allows you to choose whether to boycott Mr. Spielberg's movies or not. It allows you to know who your enemies and your friends are. It makes the political process more efficient by allowing you to know where to target your speech. For people who love to champion free speech, you don't seem to care to much about whether other people get to exercise it.

[John K.]

Jim: very well said.

[DKeat80433@aol.com]

Zach: Also very well put.

[John K.]

John C.: Thank you :-)

[David]

Oh no! Your friends and neighbors might find out what a hateful, horrible, horrible bigot you are!

If you're so ashamed of the donation you made that you don't want it publicized, maybe you're on the wrong side?

Evil and hate can't stand the light. There's a reason KKK members wear hoods, after all.

[informed1*]

Considering past behavior/attitude, that those spewing outrage over "activist judges overturning the will of the people" via overturning Prop 22, now are attempting to overturn via our judicial system legislation passed via majority vote, should surprise no one. After all, it fits their M.O. so well.

[LIZ in CA]

First commenter had it right: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you're ashamed to have your name attached to a donation, why are you donating? If you're too cowardly to stand behind your convictions, don't blame us for standing in FRONT of them!

[Michael Worley]

I'm sorry my name wasn't on that list, honestly. It wasn't on there because I didn't donate that much.

I support Traditional families.
Michael Worley

[Kevin]

Political donations affect laws and affect others. That should not be private. Just as racial bigotry is socially unacceptable, it should not surprise Prop8 backers that homophobic bigotry is also socially unacceptable.