Calif. gay marriage foes want donors anonymous

---

Quote: SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Supporters of the ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors."No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its Web site.It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, reversed a state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. The measure's opponents have asked the Supreme Court to overturn it.The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter."Another donor reported a broken window, one said a flier calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts, the suit said.Supporters of the gay marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight an initiative seeking to overturn the ban."Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions ... and the public disclosure of that fact," the lawsuit said.The suit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make "an uncontroverted showing" that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion.California's Political Reform Act, which voters approved in 1974, established disclosure requirements for candidates and campaign committees.The secretary of state's office and another defendant, the state's Fair Political Practices Commission, declined to comment Thursday on the lawsuit.But Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, the gay rights group that led the campaign against Proposition 8, called it hypocritical for supporters of the measure to try to overturn voter-approved campaign finance laws.He said Proposition 8 supporters used campaign finance records during the campaign to threaten gay rights supporters."They've used these records to attack corporations, to attack individuals," Kors said.Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, which supports public access to government records and meetings, said the lawsuit is likely to be unsuccessful. But he also said the plaintiffs' arguments are not trivial."The problem with their argument, of course, is that campaign finance laws, both at the state and federal level, have been litigated endlessly now since Watergate and the argument has, in one form or another, been rejected," Scheer said. He said courts have consistently failed to agree that contributors have a right to donate directly and anonymously to a candidate or campaign. He said some states have less restrictive reporting requirements, but they always include disclosure of donors. Do you think this should be allowed?Personally I don't. My opinion is if you feel strong enough to donate money to a cause you should have enough pride to admit it.Now i am not saying I agree with the supposed threats because I don't. But there have been threats from both sides, it's part of the "game".Just want to hear everyone else's opinions.

Well, the fact is that these donors and others who have supported Prop 8 have been harassed, even to the point of losing jobs.I don't have a problem with them removing donor records for that reason, as long as they don't act like they are the only group this has ever happened to.

Well see I understand what you are saying and can even agree to a point. But at the same time, these people took the risk of supporting the cause. They knew what they were getting into before they contributed to support Prop Hate. You have to be wise enough to take the ramifications what will come afterwards, instead of now cowardly wanting to hide your support. If you were that proud of support the cause, why hide now? I find it very cowardly that these people wanted to add hate into the states constitution but now want to hide their support. There have be threats as well as gay people losing their jobs for protesting against Prop Hate, but you don’t see them trying to file a lawsuit to hide their support.

one simply cannot be an anonymous supporter of a political cause in a democracy

I don't think anonymity, in financial support, would be good for democracy in any way.

Well, I see both sides of this argument.Those who wish to be anonymous, do so because anyone can view these lists, including employers, customers, friends, and random serial killers. Is it fair, that in supporting a controversial political cause, that they suffer from the loss of a job, income, or perhaps even life. Edit: But I do see how that would be abused, so its really a double edged sword.

tell me why you would rather not know if your local political candidate was finacially backed by either the nazi or communist party... or that prop 8 for "traditional marriage" was supported by polygamist Mormans?

Thanks for posting that Eddie... It’s so sad it comes down to shit like this.Honesty, I'm like you in many ways. But I'm way too passionate about supporting the Gay marriage movement so I’ll try to keep clear and my mouth shut here except I have to say this…I wish I was granted one wish…..I would wish that all of these people who voted against gay marriage, or who are against gay marriage for whatever their reasons, have to spend some time in our shoes. Living life like we have to. There are so many things that they take for granted in their daily lives that we’re denied. So I would say. Try living like us and see if you think it’s fair. It’s about equal human rights. Why should I or my family be denied basic human rights because they of who I love or who I sleep with? I would like all of them to experience what it is like is to be hated by people you don’t know. To always have to look over your shoulder for fear someone will try to beat you up or even try to kill. To have the fear that someone will try to hurt your children or take them away from you because of whom you are. We are even denied the right to show our affection for the one another in public. We can’t hold hands. We can’t snuggle in the movies. We can’t sit next to one another in a restaurant. We can’t be in love in public. I’ll bet most of them couldn’t handle it. It’s extremely tough to live day to day with the hateful, discrimination that we deal with. I’d like to see them do it.It’s tough! It’s oppressive. It’s very sad. It’s very difficult to live like this… If being gay was actually a choice… I would be the first one to persuade anyone thinking about living this lifestyle to rethink their choice. Nobody should have to live with these conditions... But being gay isn’t a choice. We were born this way and we have to pay the price for it and so do our family and friends…. And these people think its fair???????

Well said Roc hugBut its nice to know that we have each other for support. One thing I can say, that for the most part, we have a very strong community

Would either you or Roc be willing to settle for calling it something other than marriage if it resulted in the same end?And to Damien and Thor, would either of you be willing to settle for a union enjoying all the same privileges of marriage as long as it wasn't called marriage?Just curious... what are your reasons either way?

Originally Posted By: OldFolks

And to Damien and Thor, would either of you be willing to settle for a union enjoying all the same privileges of marriage as long as it wasn't called marriage?
Please don't try to drag me into a discussion on gay marriage. I wasn't even addressing this in my post. I was addressing the reasons someone might want their donations to a cause to be anonymous. And I was very careful to state that they should understand they aren't the only ones suffering repercussions.

I just feel like you posted this with an assumption that I'm here to try to make a point on the marriage issue, or to lend support to the Prop 8 folks. I'm not. I don't have a dog in that fight.

But, to answer your question, and without saying "yes" or "no" to any question you're NOT asking...I have no problems with the union you're talking about, based on my limited understanding of what I think you're talking about.

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyselfWell see I understand what you are saying and can even agree to a point. But at the same time, these people took the risk of supporting the cause.A risk that shouldn't exist. Quote:They knew what they were getting into before they contributed to support Prop 8They knew they would lose their jobs for supporting something that they believe in? And have every right to believe in? Just like you should be able to support any gay rights legislation you want without fear of losing your job? How about a little consistency. Quote:You have to be wise enough to take the ramifications what will come afterwards, instead of now cowardly wanting to hide your support. If you were that proud of support the cause, why hide now? So, from this point on, you're not going to make any comment about any gay or lesbian who openly supports gay rights legislation and, as a result, loses their job or suffers some other kind of unfair loss. Super! Cause if they did, that would be awful cowardly of them. Quote:I find it very cowardly that these people wanted to add hate into the states constitution but now want to hide their support.I find it awful dishonest and manipulative of you to accuse them of hate. You know that's not fair. Not every person who disagrees with you on everything hates you. That's just a really convenient straw man to tote around. Quote:There have be threats as well as gay people losing their jobs for protesting against Prop 8, but you don’t see them trying to file a lawsuit to hide their support.And that is wrong. You should not lose your job or be threatened for supporting any legislation, or protesting against legislation. (Unless, of course, your protest consists of putting others in danger.) Do you know of any gay person who actually lost their job as a result of their protesting the proposition? If this is happening, then I certainly will also support their right to file a lawsuit to make their support anonymous.I certainly hope you will take my points for what they are, and not make them something they are not. There should be arguments and activism on both sides. But it should be fair. What's acceptable for one side should be acceptable for both, and vice versa.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend you, just asking the question as a means of trying to find common ground with you being a proxy for those who, more or less, share your beliefs.It's wasn't meant to be inflammatory or silicate any point, rather it's simply to open a dialog to work from a point of commonality.

Originally Posted By: OldFolksSorry, didn't mean to offend you, just asking the question as a means of trying to find common ground with you being a proxy for those who, more or less, share your beliefs.It's wasn't meant to be inflammatory or silicate any point, rather it's simply to open a dialog to work from a point of commonality. That works. I love the idea of finding common ground. And there is much common ground, even on these issues. I think the most sacred common ground is the fact that i absolutely adore you, Eddie and Roc.What I'm not so crazy about is being used as a proxy for others. I guess my fear is that people will think "gee, if Damien agrees with Poster X on point A, then he probably agrees with them on points B, C, and D", which is probably not the case.

Originally Posted By: damienI guess my fear is that people will think "gee, if Damien agrees with Poster X on point A, then he probably agrees with them on points B, C, and D", which is probably not the case. That's the problem with any discussion in general and what often, in my opinion, disallows forward movement on any given issue. The listener or reader pigeon holes the speaker as being representative of the most extreme views and can use that to discredit him. In doing so it relegates the discussion to the most extreme opinions on either side.The extremist use language as the tool of subterfuge to control the conversation. In doing so they negate any amiable participation to further the discussion. We all know that but sometimes it bears repeating.

Originally Posted By: OldFolksWould either you or Roc be willing to settle for calling it something other than marriage if it resulted in the same end?I personally would, and have always said that I'd be open to Civil Unions as long as they gave the same exact benefits as marriage. To me Marriage is a word, not the meaning.My only issue is that certain Christians want to claim Marriage as their own, meaning it’s a Christian Sanctioned idea. Okay great that’s fine and dandy but 1) I'm a Christian, yet denied, and 2) none Christians, as long as they are straight, are allowed to marry. If the Christian Church wishes to claim the word and definition of marriage than they need to remove it from the government setting of the word and use it for the Christian Ceremony only. Meaning only Christian Straight people can get married, leaving Civil Unions for everyone else. Otherwise I find it hypocritical of the church to argue the fact is a Christian sanction, yet allowed none Christians to marry and use the word.

Originally Posted By: damien

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyself

Well see I understand what you are saying and can even agree to a point. But at the same time, these people took the risk of supporting the cause.
A risk that shouldn't exist.

I absolutely agree. The risk shouldn't be there, but this is/was a very hot topic and getting involved and supporting the cause should have been enough to realize there was going to be a "risk".

Quote:

They knew what they were getting into before they contributed to support Prop 8
They knew they would lose their jobs for supporting something that they believe in? And have every right to believe in? Just like you should be able to support any gay rights legislation you want without fear of losing your job? How about a little consistency.

I think you missed my point. People should be allowed to support whatever they wish I strongly believe that, but you also have to be smart enough to evaluate the risks. They might not have realized they would lose their jobs, but when participating in an endeaver to add discrimination into a constitution you had to know there are going to be risks.

Quote:

You have to be wise enough to take the ramifications what will come afterwards, instead of now cowardly wanting to hide your support. If you were that proud of support the cause, why hide now?
So, from this point on, you're not going to make any comment about any gay or lesbian who openly supports gay rights legislation and, as a result, loses their job or suffers some other kind of unfair loss. Super! Cause if they did, that would be awful cowardly of them.

A bit confused because so far I haven't, nor have I ever seen, any gay people hide their support for equal rights regardless of the outcome.

Quote:

I find it very cowardly that these people wanted to add hate into the states constitution but now want to hide their support.
I find it awful dishonest and manipulative of you to accuse them of hate. You know that's not fair. Not every person who disagrees with you on everything hates you. That's just a really convenient straw man to tote around.

I agree people might not hate me personally (or hate gay people), but they hate the fact I am gay. I'm fine if people want to live by the "rule" love the sinner but hate the sin (if you believe being gay and loving someone is a sin). Problem is a lot of people cannot make the distinction and instead end up attacking/killing gay people.

And I'm sorry adding discimination into a states constitution is hate. We can walk around, re-word, call it this and call it that... bottom line is it's hate, its discrimination against a certain type of people.

Quote:

There have be threats as well as gay people losing their jobs for protesting against Prop 8, but you don't see them trying to file a lawsuit to hide their support.
And that is wrong. You should not lose your job or be threatened for supporting any legislation, or protesting against legislation. (Unless, of course, your protest consists of putting others in danger.) Do you know of any gay person who actually lost their job as a result of their protesting the proposition? If this is happening, then I certainly will also support their right to file a lawsuit to make their support anonymous.

Do I know anyone personally? No I do not, but there have be articles and reports of gay people losing their jobs over supporting against Prop 8. And I will say the same thing to them, they knew the risks before getting involved. Does it make it right they are losing their jobs? Absoluitely not, same with the people in support of Prop 8. But at the same time, don't come whining and crying later when your support ended up costing you in the end.

I certainly hope you will take my points for what they are, and not make them something they are not. There should be arguments and activism on both sides. But it should be fair. What's acceptable for one side should be acceptable for both, and vice versa.

I agree it should be fair on both sides. My point is I don't think in this society that its fair that you can cowardly hide after supporting a cause. If you have enough pride to support the cause than have enough pride to show it.

And sorry for the way I replied, just seemed easier to answer you back that way than a bunch of copying and pasting hehe :wink:

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyselfMy only issue is that certain Christians want to claim Marriage as their own, meaning it’s a Christian Sanctioned idea. Okay great that’s fine and dandy but 1) I'm a Christian, yet denied, and 2) none Christians, as long as they are straight, are allowed to marry. If the Christian Church wishes to claim the word and definition of marriage than they need to remove it from the government setting of the word and use it for the Christian Ceremony only. Meaning only Christian Straight people can get married, leaving Civil Unions for everyone else. Otherwise I find it hypocritical of the church to argue the fact is a Christian sanction, yet allowed none Christians to marry and use the word. There are a lot of very wise people who would agree with you on this. I ask myself similar questions.I think, once again, you are demonstrating in this discussion that you are more willing to be fair than most are. There are a couple small points of disagreement, but I think we obviously agree with the main principle being discussed - holding both sides to the same standard. I think there are points in these discussions in which your bias and emotions kind of poke out, but I also think that should be understandable. I wonder if I would be so fair and conciliatory if I were the gay man in this discussion.

Quote:

I wonder if I would be so fair and conciliatory if I were the gay man in this discussion.

You hit the nail on the head :smile:

I try hard not to let my emotions and bias "poke" out hehe.. but I guess when you live everyday with being discriminated against and/or the fear of being that next date line story of a hate crime, it's hard not to be overly passionate at times when it comes to topics of eqaulity.

It seems so simple, but I just wish people would let people love who they wish to love and let the big man upstairs be the judge.

Shakes headThis site really has gone to hell a civil discussion about a controversial issue.