Bankrollers of Bigotry, Financiers of Fairness Dwell Among Us [Prop 8]

hey, let's show how tolerant and open-minded we are! Let's slag these people who opposed a ballot initiative that we agreed with and supported it with their hard-earned cash. Let's post their private information online and tell everyone how awful they are and how much better we are because we're open-minded and tolerant. Let's look up everything about them online and repost it publicly so people can make half-baked judgements about them. We should find their MySpace and Facebook accounts and harass them on the internet. That's what tolerant, decent, understanding, progressive people do. They wage internet jihad against people that don't agree with them.

whoa...most comments i've ever seen on an austinist post.

1) i donated to No on 8, but don't show up on the good (in my opinion) list! :( but that makes it at least 128 austinites.

2) does no one understand what "freedom of speech" means in this country? jesus. i love the "you're violating their freedom of speech" argument... first, i am not the government, so i how exactly did i violate your freedom of speech? more importantly, sure, you have the freedom to speak your mind...but that doesn't "free" you from having to deal with the consequences of your speech and actions. if i don't like them, i can boycott your business or protest against them. that is a great example of free speech at work, in my opinion.

So the manager at Dell that donated 25k, what's up with that? Do the LDS allow you to tithe directly to political groups now? How well are they paying up in RR for these folks, meanwhile they are laying people off or whatnot. Quite odd, seems like quite a large amount for someone so young that hasn't been there long. Anyway, just my two cents. I find the whole thing quite nasty and horrible. blech. Love people, don't hate people. or so at least I thought jeebus preached.

Oh and hey Aunt FeFe:

Do you know what "public record" means? Guess not. Nobody's rights are being violated by Austinist or SFGate. By making those donations, these people brought themselves into the public eye. It's just a matter of who cares to take a look.

Get a clue.

Davetx your arguments get to the heart of the matter:

If your religion doesn't recognize gay marriage, then DON'T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX. Leave your views out of the government.

Quite often, the difference between social conservatives and liberals is that social conservatives' "moral" views apply not only to themselves but to others as well. So this gets down to a fundamental discussion about whether or not to legislate morality, and if so then *whose* morality. Christians/Catholics like to think theirs is the only game in town when it comes to morality, but really theirs is just the one view. There are many others, and there's really no reason to think that one is more right than another.

So how do we pick, eh? The answer is supposed to be: we don't. Government stays the hell out of it. How about if we stick with that plan, mmkay? I don't want to rob Christians of their right to practice their religion, but I also don't want me or anyone else to have to live by their religious doctrine. That's just not what government is for, in my opinion.

that's right, aunty!

the grassroots movement that was inspired by the policies of obama and got such an amazing figure elected is the same movement is what will overcome the outdated ideals of folks who believe that it's ok to use methods that put laws in place to protect human beings to limit the rights of others when actions resulting from those rights have NO AFFECT on you.

welcome to the new america. i love it here.

Hi Aunt Fefe,

Links to both lists appear in the article.

Thanks.

You people are just wrong. By posting this list, you have violated these individual's constutional right of privacy and freedom of speech. Where is the list of those that oppose? Where is the ACLU? Nowhere are you guaranteed the right to be married, but you have the right of freedom of speech. The majority have spoken. Let it go. You are asking me to live with Obama, now you live with the results of the Prop election.

Do you need a history lesson on the last time the government sanctioned the notion of "separate, but equal"?

Now you're just being a dick. The opponents of same sex marriage have won the day and you are so wrapped up in your self-righteous indignation that you don't even care to understand why some people may be on the fence. You'd rather make a bad situation worse by resorting to childish name-calling than work toward a real solution.

FTR davetx speaks my mind on letting the government define all relationships as civil unions and leaving "marriage" to religious institutions.

Both. (I certainly have no problems -- on this issue -- with anyone who against Prop 8 though.)

That's actually a difficult question to answer, since both groups (financiers and voters) are misguided and hateful. I really wonder about someone who has $25,000+ to burn on this kind of policy though.

Next question! Who was worse - the Coors family or the Nazis?

So is your problem with the person who wrote a check to some anti gay marriage PAC or with all 6.1 million who voted against prop 8?

However, there are also many people who are otherwise supportive of the civil rights of gay people who get hung up on the term "marriage" for religious reasons.

Do you need a history lesson on the last time the government sanctioned the notion of "separate, but equal"?

Actually, my viewpoint does allow for that possibility.

Sure, they might not see their vote and support of Prop 8 in the same light as I do. I recognize that as a more likely possibility than the idea that Spencer Wheelwright sat down, wrote a check for $25,000, and specifically said "I am hatefully trying to crush the love of loving couple in California."

But just because they don't see their vote as forcing harm, hatred, and stupidity on other persons doesn't mean it is not doing so.

Like I said earlier, they are (unfortunately) entitled to those (misguided) beliefs. I also don't anticipate Spencer Wheelwright changing his views either, regardless of whether or not my comments on a blog are compassionate, loving, and somehow "understanding" of his misguided views or if I call him a cockwad. And, I don't think there are people who are somehow on the fence about gay marriage that are reading this and saying "Shit, because he called Spencer Wheelwright a cockwad, I certainly am AGAINST the idea of two lesbians getting married now! Take that Ellen Degeneres!"

Bottomline is that a decent person, regardless of intent, would not write a check for 25 cent or $25,000 to prevent the loving union of two individuals. Fortunately, that's not what decent people do. Decent people just do the right thing in my book.

I'm sorry, Wes, but I couldn't disagree more. If you're using religion as an excuse or reason to deny freedoms to any minority group, it's wrong and shameful.

Whether or not it's constructive to "label" them isn't really important to me. I'm calling them as I see them. I could use a lot worse words than "hatemongering" as well, because I find very little as despicable as bigotry of any sort.

If religious folks want to petition the church of their choice to refuse to acknowledge gay marriage, I'm completely cool with that. But when you take that to a government level, it's a whole different ballgame.

As far as I'm concerned, the government should stop acknowledging "marriage" and simply recognize "civil unions" between any two people. "Marriage" can then become the sole property of the church to do with as they choose. The point here being that there is no distinction from a governmental level between the two. Anything less is unacceptable.

That's just it, cram, your all-or-nothing position doesn't allow for the possibility that the people who voted against gay marriage in CA don't see their vote as forcing harm, hatred, and stupidity on other persons.

davetx, do hatemongers sometimes hide behind religion? Absolutely. However, there are also many people who are otherwise supportive of the civil rights of gay people who get hung up on the term "marriage" for religious reasons. Labeling them all hatemongers does nothing to move the dialogue on gay marriage forward.

Of course I believe what I wrote. I believe no decent person would ever force harm, hatred, and stupidity on other persons solely because of who they love.

That's not decency and you know it.

cram, if you truly believe what you've written then you are just perpetuating the politics of hate and divisiveness and, in that respect, you are no better than the Lee Atwaters and Karl Roves of this world.

Hiding bigotry behind religion doesn't make it any less "hatemongering".

No, Wes, if your religious beliefs are such that you don't believe two people should be allowed the exact same legal rights and benefits based on who they love, you are a hatemonger.

While people are entitled to those beliefs, it does not change that fact that "decent" does not describe anyone with these beliefs.

Try as you might, you can not rationalize away the fact that no "decent" person would try to deny two loving individuals the same rights as their heterosexual friends and family enjoy. Unless, of course, you are batshit crazy and choose to avoid reality completely. Then, carry on!

At a minimum, you owe an apology to the word "decent" for even thinking about using it to describe people as despicable as the Texans who supported Prop 2, the Californians who supported Prop 8, and the 20 or so Austinites listed above.

6.1 million came from the California Secretary of State's website.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm

For the record I voted against Texas proposition 2 (gay marriage amendment) because I thought that it was a stupid, unnecessary piece of legistaion but I wouldn't call the people who supported the proposition "hatemongers". Name-calling doesn't help change hearts and minds and it ignores the fact that there are many decent people with strongly held religious beliefs on the subject.

Looking closer, Mister $25,000 actually "defended marriage" to the tune of an additional $200 three weeks earlier.

Even if Allen has too much class say it, Wes, I'll answer your question:

In my world, yes.

I cannot tell you how relieved I am not to see my parents on the list.

For once...

@wes: where's this 6.1 million from? the finally tally (at least according to ballotpedia) was 5.8-5.3M

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_(2008)

but to answer your question, no. the actual number of donors who contributed to fund the propaganda was far less than that.

So Allen, in your world California must be home to 6.1 million "hatemongering brohams"?

Just a quick google search reveals bankroller Carlos Romero had a brush with the law as a result of pure douchebaggery.

http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/092707kvueRomero-cb.116dd509d.html

Also, I always suspected Jeff Kent was a bit of dick since his days with the mets.

Apple is on the list of Austin donors because they have a large office here.

Googling most of these other easily googlable names leads to alumni of BYU. I'd be surprised if any of them *weren't* Mormons. Check out the LDS concept of Celestial Marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_marriage

http://wikimapia.org/38680/Apple-Inc-Austin-Site