Gay marriage foes pray for money and pass the collection plate

Backers of California’s Proposition 8 invoked a higher authority, as they ramped up their television advertising by an additional $1 million, and asked for more money.

In an e-mail appeal for more cash, campaign strategist Frank Schubert says foes of the initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot to ban same-sex marriage continue to outspend them.

Schubert had warned earlier this week that the "Yes" side would lose unless it could raise millions more in the campaign’s closing days. The missive apparently is having its intended effect, given the new ad buys.

Still, high-dollar donations to both campaigns reflect the money disparity.

In a 72-hour period ending Friday, Proposition 8 foes disclosed raising $3.6 million in donations of $1,000 or more. Backers, primarily Mormons, conservative Christians and Catholics, raised $661,000.

Proposition 8 would ban same-sex unions by creating a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as being....

...between one man and one woman. Our latest Proposition 8 money article is here and our latest poll story is here.

Schubert noted foes raised almost $4 million at a gala Tuesday at billionaire Ron Burkle’s Green Acres estate that, the e-mail says, was attended by “Hollywood liberals.”

Schubert is seeking another $2 million to match the "No" side, and offers this plea:

Through the grace of God, one of our most fervent supporters has agreed to make a sacrificial gift to match, dollar for dollar, whatever you and others can donate, up to a total of $1 million. That means that every dollar you give will buy two dollars in advertising time.

Please help us buy more advertising time now. And if you can make a sacrificial gift yourself, we ask you to prayerfully consider doing so immediately. The institution of marriage which we so dearly love depends on what we do together over the next few days.

Schubert didn’t identify the big donor, except to describe her as a Southern California widow. There are several other big donors to the Yes-side. Howard Ahmanson Jr. gave another $150,000 this week to the "Yes on 8" side.

Ahmanson is the wealthy Orange County philanthropist who has funded numerous conservative candidates and Christian causes over the years. He now has given $1.145 million to the "Yes" side, making him the measure’s largest individual donor.

Steve Smith, managing the No-8 campaign, suggested the tactic reflected a bit of desperation.

“I hate to break the news, but I don’t think God has taken a stand on this one,” Smith said. “There are people of faith on both sides. But the reality is that the battle is taking place here, in this realm."

On the "No" side, San Franciscan James Hormel, who was the Clinton administration's ambassador to Luxembourg, gave another $100,000 pushing his total to $350,000.

David Maltz, a Cleveland philanthropist who funds numerous gay rights and other organizations, also gave $100,000, pushing his total to $1.1 million.

You can search our database of Propositon 8 donors, updated regularly by Times Researcher Maloy Moore, here.

-- Dan Morain

To receive free instant alerts of all new Ticket items, go here and register.

Comments

[MickeyC]

Why would ANYONE in their right mind PRAY for harm to other people? It is mind boggling that any religion prays for other people's marriages to be destroyed. I am sure those who caused 9/11 also prayed for harm to others but I thought we were different in this country. I guess we can see just how evil some people can be. Next time we criticize terrorists from other countries, maybe we should be criticizing the ones in this country.

[Get A Life, Your Own!]

It is just another hate group hiding behind God. It is so dificult to tell them all apart, but these extremists don't wear sheets or towels.

[David Grinnell]

My partner and I were married in Indio, CA on September 22, 2008. Our love for each other has been growing since we first started going out together 6 years ago. Ours in not a -fly-by-night romance. I know God blesses our marriage; I just wish He'd spare us the meanness and bigotry of some of His supporters. Proposition 8 is a Hateful and Mean-spirited attempt by the Religious Right to impose their values on the rest of society.

[calmandcontent]

Yes on 8 – One Man and One Woman in marriage – nothing else will ever fit or bring lasting contentment Donate at www.protectmarriage.com

Stop encouraging immoral, gross sexual acts between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It is destroying society!

[JasonJack]

This measure is very esential to the plans for the future state. Opponents say there would be very little impact, but in reality this affects schools, adoption agencies. Whether or not you believe marriage is ordained of God, the are major issues in what would happen to churches, schools and, by extention, children. Please visit protectmarriage.com to learn more.

[Flex]

This is what christianity has become? A hateful, angry, vengeful, homophobic, bigoted cult?

[John S.]

Prop 8 is not about hate or discrimination. Putting societies stamp of approval on same sex marriage sends a message that gender does not matter, roles of men and women do not matter, and that it makes no difference to the well being of children to raise them in a fatherless or motherless environment.
Please show your support for gender differences and vote Vote “YES” on Prop 8.

[Mark]

I think it's disrespectful for Steve Smith to belittle people of faith by attacking them for praying on the issue.

Saying something like, "I don't think God has taken a stand on this one," and, "he battle is taking place here, in this realm," is condescending and will only strengthen the resolve of those for Prop. 8.

The debate over this issue should focus on the merits of either side of the argument and not degenerate into attacks on people's faith.

Just because Steve Smith may not, by the looks of it, believe in God, it doesn't mean he should demean those who do.

[Freedom Eagle]

God loves even pro-8 bigots.

Fallible man may never forgive though.

Mark, do you speak for God? I somehow doubt it.

It's kinda ironic that the Mormon church is a big supporter of the proposition, seeing that bigamy doesn't exactly fit in that "traditional" mold pro-8 people are espousing.

I'd be more worried about divorce being the destruction of the family, so what are pro-8 people doing about that?

It's an attempt by a hypocritical group that should be tending to their own to take away the rights of another group.

[Andrew]

Could a yes on 8 supporter please explain to me why banning gay marriage--for the state, mind you, as this has no effect on churches (that whole separation of church and state thing, remember?)--isn't just a case of "separate but equal?" Hasn't our culture already had an extensive debate and concluded that treating people differently under the law is immoral?

And to David Grinnell--congrats to you and your husband! But what the heck were you guys doing way out in Indio?

[civilrightschamp]

I believe there has been and there continues to be a fundamental misunderstanding of Prop 8. supporters.
Opponents would have you believe that it violates constitutional rights but have never sighted specifically why. They would also have you believe that all supports are christian evangelicals.
This is categorically incorrect.
1) The right to redefine a religious institution such as "marriage" is NOT a constitutional right. NOR is it a Civil Right, NOR is it a Human Right. That is why the federal supreme court will not hear this issue.
2) The reason why a constitutional ammendment to ban same sex marriage can even be raised is because their is a specific risk that regional (state courts) legislators and law makers can actually VIOLATE the rights protecting "religious freedom" which IS a constitutional right. By redefining a religious ceremony and the definition of that system of beliefs, their exists the real possibility for violating of the constituional right to religious freedom. (i.e. the "STATE" cannot redefine a religious ceremony) Marriage... as a legal institution and the rights that it conveys "legally" to a couple are a covered under civil unions) Thus nomenclature becomes the issue really. Both the state and religious (muslim, christian, catholic, buddist, hindi) what have you, define marriage differently. However only one predates the other...
Marriage as a religious institution predates US law, US society, as well as just about every modern form of government in the world. The "State" adopted the term first out of neccessity and then out of convience so as not to confuse everyone between the legal definition and the religious one which again came first.
I don't want you to think I'm some sort of bible thumper or anything so let me tell you my background. I have been and always will be a supporter of equal rights, especially minority rights. And I don't mean one of those lip service supports... I mean I give my time and energy and $$$.. my hard earned cash to these causes. More than I can afford at times... I'm an asian american and thus my passion for these sort of causes, I will admit, is influenced by personal background of having deal with racial discriminition from time to time in my life. But that is exactly why Prop. 8 which preserves the definition of a religious rights should be protected under first ammendment rights defining religious freedom.
If ANY thing should be done to guarantee rights to same sex couples, it should be to facilitate the aquisition of benefits afforded under marriage to civil union with far greater ease that is available today and at less cost.
The other option is the remove every instance of the word "marriage" which is a religious term and use another term to refer to state sanctioned unions to refer to ALL pair coupling. Same sex or otherwise.
THAT is fair
THAT preserves EVERYONE's constitutional rights gay and hetero.
To all opponents of Prop 8. I will comment as a life time champion of civil rights and equal rights that you cannot have you cake and eat it too...

[Freedom Eagle]

Sorry "civilrightschamp", you can't have it both ways either.

If "redefining" marriage isn't a civil, constitutional or human right, then shouldn't pro-8 people really be trying to take the definition of marriage out of the constitution entirely as you said?

If you, well, like your separation of church and state and all.

If you're not going to do that, and you're going to have a religious ceremony impart legal benefits and status, then you have to apply that equally without discrimination.

Religious freedom doesn't trump everything else, just as the 1st Amendment isn't unlimited either.

And if you really want to start tracing marriage back historically, you'll start to find out where it was a civil contract for financial purposes originally, which really doesn't help your argument much.

If it's a state-sponsored instiution, so it should not discriminate against a minority of any type. Plain and simple. You can dres up bigotry under any other name, but it's still the same.

Separate it from the state completely if you want it to serve yourself only.

[DJ]

ReligiousRightsChamp:

I, myself, donated to "No on 8."

I regret that there are religious folks feeding you this "Constitutional Religious Rights" line in an effort to scare you. Frankly, I don't think even you believe it, so why should anyone else?

Fairness and equality -- FOR EVERYONE -- is paramount.

[Stella]

Please see the links >

http://about-orphans.blogspot.com
and
http://needing-fathers.blogspot.com

Many thanks.

[Dan]

The voiceless ones in the debate over marriage are the children. This issue should be about what is best for them. What is best for children is family stability with a mother and father to provide female and male role models. The first blow that undermined family stability was no-fault divorce and the dramatic rise in the divorce rate. The second blow to family stability was the acceptance of cohabitation and the rise in out-of-wedlock births. Cohabiting couples are much more likely to split up, and it is the kids who suffer the most. Gay "marriage" is the third major blow to family stability. How does it do that? It cheapens marriage to being just a contract between any two people for their own gratification--a contract that can be broken when they no longer feel gratified. Again, it is the children who are hurt the worst. In Scandanavia, where civil unions were imposed by judges in the early 1990's, fewer people are bothering to get married, because it doesn't mean as much. Also, if gay "marriage" is allowed, then there is no logical barrier to polygamy, since there are thousands of years of tradition behind polygamy, versus only a decade or so in limited areas behind gay "marriage".

Regarding gay "marriage" infringing on freedom of speech and religion, it is already happening. In Canada, it is a hate crime to read in public portions of the Bible that talk about homosexuality. Churches will be forced to hire gays for ministry positions in violation of their beliefs. Over a decade ago, I heard a pastor tell the story of how his church in the U.S. was firebombed after they fired their gay $10/week organist. Schoolchildren in California are already forced to hear materials that say that homosexuality is normal, acceptable, and beneficial, and have their sexual identities confused before they even have one.

It is not the Christians overall who are bigoted (their are exceptions) and imposing their views, it is the radical gay activists who are imposing their agenda on the rest of us by whatever means they can--activist judges creating rights that never existed, indoctrinating children, slurs, name-calling, suppressing speech, and even terrorism.