Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Gay marriage opponents issue threats to Calif. businesses
10.24.2008 10:27am EDT
(San Francisco, California) Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California made an offer to businesses that have given money to the state’s largest gay-rights group: Give us money or we’ll publicly identify you as opponents of traditional unions.
Supporters of same-sex marriage called the tactic “an attempt to extort people” and “a bit Mafioso.”ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn this year’s California Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, targeted about 35 companies in the appeal, spokeswoman Sonya Eddings Brown said.
She called the letter “a frustrated response” to the intimidation felt by Proposition 8 supporters, who have had their lawn signs stolen and property vandalized in the closing days of the increasingly heated campaign.
Certified letters from the group this week asked companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.
“Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error,” reads the letter. “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. … The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.”
The letter was signed by four members of the group’s executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com.
A donation form was attached. The letter did not say where the names would be published.
San Diego businessman Jim Abbott, who owns a real estate company and is a member of Equality California’s board of directors, received one of the letters late Wednesday afternoon. His adult son called Abbott to read it to him.
“He characterized it as a bit Mafioso,” Abbott said. “It was a little distressing, but it’s consistent with how the ‘yes’ side of this campaign has been run, which is a bit over the top.”
Abbott, who married his same-sex partner at the end of August, estimated that over the last decade he has given $50,000 to Equality California, including a recent $10,000 gift to underwrite a San Diego event that raised money to defeat Proposition 8.
When asked whether ProtectMarriage.com planned to name businesses that have supported the No on 8 campaign, Prentice initially said he was unaware of any such effort.
“I’m not familiar of any organized attack against organizations that have given to No on 8,” he said Thursday.
But when asked about the letter to Equality California donors, Prentice confirmed they were authentic and said the ProtectMarriage.com campaign was asking businesses backing the other side “to reconsider taking a position on a moral issue in California.”
Prentice said it was his understanding that the letter was intended for large corporations such as cable operators Time Warner and Comcast instead of small business owners like Abbott. Time Warner and Comcast are listed on Equality California’s Web site as corporate sponsors that gave $50,000 each to the group.
Companies that have contributed directly to one of the campaign committees collecting cash to fight Proposition 8, including one set up by Equality California, also were recipients of the letter, Prentice said. That list includes companies such as Pacific Gas & Electric, Levi Strauss and AT&T.
“I think the IDing of, or outing of, any company is very secondary to the question of why especially a public corporation would choose to take a side knowing it would splinter its own clientele,” he said.
Equality California executive director Geoffrey Kors said Thursday he has heard from two other business owners besides Abbott.
“It’s truly an outrageous attempt to extort people,” Kors said.
While an anti-Proposition 8 group called Californians Against Hate has posted lists of gay marriage ban donors on the Internet and even launched boycotts of selected businesses, Kors said that work has been independent of the official No on 8 campaign.
“They are going after our long-term funding and trying to intimidate Equality California donors from giving any more to the No on 8 campaign and from giving to Equality California ever again, which would impact our work for seniors, youth and other people in need,” Kors said.
Perfect. Forward all this to the Calif Supreme Court as it will only serve to weaken the marriage ban proponents case. Ram rodding false advertising and mafioso style extortion from outside the state of California will not likely set well with most supreme court justice’. It will most likely get their ire up and running and could pose a decision earlier than expected.
The problem with the religious right is that their tunnel vision is tempered in steel, or is that steal.
I think it’s time the law blow torch their terroristic beliefs on which their steel side blinders are hinged.
I see no other way.
So, let me get this str8 < no pun… Str8 people want GLBT to marry them? Well, they want it to be one man and one woman. We do not want to marry you str8 people. Why wouldnt you want us to marry each other. So, you want to see such as a gay man and lesbian woman marry each other? And… why is that ? Please!
JT in the Army: The California Supreme Court has the right to declare any conflicts withing the California Constitution as UN-constitutional. The difference is that those who disagree with the CSC decision can appeal to the U.S. 9th District Court and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.
It would be very unwise for the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to hear an appeal over this issue, as it’s decision could ultimately invalidate DOMA and all other state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.
To all the people who believe I’m LGBT because I’m interested in your perspective, anyone interested in MRI polygraphs so we can end this fraud initially perpetuated by the likes of Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker and the subsequent revison of the ALIMPC?
I agree with “Quasi”. I too hope that Prop 8 goes down in flames. But what is to stop it from rearing its evil head again — year after year? How about the GLBT community getting more pro-active after this fiasco and coming up with something like a “Proposition 9” that could simply state, as an amendment to the California Constitution, that: “Any public referendum shall be considered null and void which jeopardizes or infringes upon the Equal Rights of Californians as set forth by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the State of California.”
I have read that this is already implied in the State Constitution which required that the state legislature, or a constitutional convention, be convened first in order to forward (by a super majority) any amendment to the state constitution for a public vote if such an amendment under consideration affects any substantial change to the basic structure of the state constitution.
The California Supreme Court has already ruled that homosexuals are a “suspect” or “protected” class of citizens under the state constitution. That ruling implies that the rights they share with heterosexuals are henceforth protected from public referenda as set forth by the California Equal Protection Clause in the California State Constitution.
In essence, it means that if laws were changed that either limited or expanded the rights of homosexuals then those changes in law, in effect, would also limit or expand the rights of heterosexuals. Proposition 8, if passed, would be in conflict with the California Equal Protection Clause as it exists today after the ruling. The California Equal Protection Clause would have to be re-written specifically to exclude homosexuals — this could only be accomplished by another state constitutional amendment which would first require a super-majority of the state legislators before being passed onto the people of California.
If passed, that would, no doubt, open the door to a challenge before the US Supreme Court, such as in Romer -v- Evans, where the court found the state of Colorado had violated the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause when it passed Amendment 2 that declared that homosexuals could not even petition their elected representative for equal rights in the state. Animus is no justification for denying equal protection, the court ruled.
////”[C]lass legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .” Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., at 24. …We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else.” ~ US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote in Romer -v- Evans as the court struck down Colorado‘s Amendment 2.///
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1039.ZO.html
So, Californians, how about adding something positive in the nature of advancing human rights for a change to the framework of the law? If a “Prop 9“, that clarifies the limits of public referenda, is voted upon it could serve to educate people. If it passes then it would further codify the law; if it fails, then that negative outcome would be moot, but it would still serve to remind people that “a provision against overturning fundamental rights by a citizens’ initiative ” already exists in the California State Constitution, and it cannot be changed by a public referendum.
It’s worth a try to make this clearer to future courts, and especially to put a finer point on it as it pertains to unremitting assaults on human rights caused by the hateful rabble-rousers out to poison the community well by seeking power at our expense and for their own profit. Unfortunately, bigotry is still a booming business both for unethical politicians and for immoral religions groups who pervert human decency for personal gain.
What will these manipulators of group-hate do when they don’t have the GLBT community to kick around anymore? I think that scenario frightens these sociopath miscreants to no end. We should all dedicate our lives to making sure that nightmare comes true for them.
~ Bud Evans
Even if the religious right manages to pass Proposition 8 using out-of-state money (77% of the pro-ban donations come from Mormons who don’t even live here), I don’t think their victory will last long. Maybe a couple of years. Perhaps a decade at most.
With such a low threshold for having a ballot initiative in California, the gays can easily gather the one million signatures needed to force another vote in a few years. Since most of the opposition to same-sex marriage comes from the older generations, it is merely a waiting game at this point.
Although I’d like to see the referendum process reformed, as long as we’re playing under these dreadful rules, then we might as well give the right-wing a taste of their own medicine. If Prop. 8 passes, I want to see measures to overturn it on the ballot every year until it is repealed.
To JT:
I read all 172 pages of the CSC opinion of May 2008. They specifically wrote in it that reserved the right to strike down any law or any amendment which creates a conflict within the California Constitution.
They have already ruled that marriage is a basic right of the people, and rightfully ruled in favor of mariage for ANY 2 PEOPLE in California. A “basic right” cannot be overruled by law or amendment no matte rthe numebr of times this amendment is brought to the people for a vote.
If Prop 8 passes, it will create a conflict within the California Constitution, and they will again strike it down. They have already done so several times to amendments approved by the people of California. It will happen again.
The courts were specifically setup by our founders and the people of California to keep a “tyranny of the majority” from doing exactly what they are trying to do this time. “Suspect minorities” are protected by the courts above and beyond what the general public might try to do. They did a detailed analysis of the situation and they ruled appropriately in May 2008. They simply must wait for another law suit to be brought to them to AGAIN STRIKE DOWN a prejudiced and dicriminatory amendment.
Quote:
“It found that “equal respect and dignity” of marriage is a “basic civil right” that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution.”
JT,
That’s not precisely true. They can’t overturn Proposition 8 outright. But there’s still the “nuclear option” favored by some libertarians. That is, they can remove the State from the marriage business completely.
As with most anti same-sex marriage amendments, Proposition 8 only defines marriage in the State Constitution. It does not “authorize” marriage. Nor does it provide the “mechanism” by which marriages are given force. The legislatively approved Marriage Act – which was last amended in 1977 – does that. This difference may seem insignificant to those outside the legal establishment. But it actually means the high court does have some wiggle room. And since California is the only state where homosexuals are considered a suspect class, any law that discriminates against them are subject to a “strict scrutiny” review. Thus, the California Supreme Court can still find the Marriage Act of 1977 unconstitutional as civil officers cannot discriminate against homosexuals in solemnizing marriages (in effect nullifying everybody’s state sanctioned marriages).
But if they do that, it would probably trigger a constitutional crisis. Which is why it is called the “nuclear option.” I don’t think they’ll go down that route because it is too risky. It would also create a severe backlash within the federal government and perhaps even revive the fortunes of the FMA in Congress.
Guy in SF:
The California Supreme Court cannot overturn Prop 8 if it passes because Prop 8 changes the state constitution, not amending any law.
Laws must be constitutional. Prop 8 is the constitution.
If we don’t donate to their organization… they’re going to tell everyone we’re decent, fair-minded people who respect equality and human rights! Oh noes!1!!11!
I wish I could find the video that 365gaynews aired on Logo the yesterday about the Mormons marching on the Temple in Salt Lake City… and the STACKS of petitions bundled in pink ribbons asking the church to stop its fight in California.
Can we get that video on YouTube or something to send out to the Yes Campaign? Even their own don’t want this Proposition to pass.
As for RJLigier’s comment: “The conservative groups have learned well from the master manipulators, the LGBT community.”
Since it appears you are not part of our community, or are isolating yourself outside the LGBT community, it is curious as to why you would be seeking your news on a very apparent LGBT news site? Hmmmmm.
Equal RIGHTS For ALL.
Peace, Life and Love Awaits.
http://www.NoOnProp8.com News and Donate… Visit Daily
If Prop. 8 is approved, the California Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional. My guess is by a 5/2 or 6/1 vote. The the fundamentalist will appeal the decision to the U.S. 9th District Court of Appeals, which will probably confirm the CSC decision. Then they will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The USC would be wise to decline to hear the appeal. If the USC does hear the case and agrees with the CSC, than that decision would invalidate all the other states constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman and potentially DOMA. This would be the best gift to the LGBT community from the right wingers since their California appeal gave the LGBT community suspect class for sexual orientation.
OK, if fair is fair, then YesOn2 should demand their supporters give an equal amount of the donations they received, to No On Prop 8. If they refuse to do so, then charge them with extortion or blackmail and put their butts in the slammer, works for me. Perhaps then they’d be on the receiving end.
For some good news, at the LA Center’s 37th Anniversary Gala and Auction, Tipper Gore came out against Prop 8.
The gala turned a spotlight on the No on Prop 8, Equality for All campaign. Former “Second Lady” Tipper Gore expressed her opposition to the measure, telling the crowd that “the Gore family is part of your family right now.”
Apple Computers (i.e. Al Gore and Steve Jobs) just announced today they’re donating $100,000 to fight Proposition 8. I admit I was a little dissapointed at how low-profile Gore has been on this issue. He posted that web-blog in favor of same-sex marriage last year. But we haven’t heard from him since. Now that the former Vice President has put his money where his mouth is, however, I’m more than willing to say I shouldn’t have doubted that he would do the right thing.