Skip to comments.The New Blacklist: Freedom of speech--unless you annoy the wrong people [Prop. 8 Retribution]
Posted on 03/10/2009 9:02:23 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
Strange times we live in when it takes a ballot initiative to confirm the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Stranger still when endorsing that definition through the democratic process brings threats and reprisals.
In November, the San Francisco Chronicle published the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of California's Proposition 8 marriage initiative. All available information, plus the amount donated, was broadcast. My name is on that list.
Emails started coming. Heavy with epithets and ad hominems, most in the you-disgust-me vein. Several accused me, personally, of denying the sender his single chance at happiness after a life of unrelieved oppression and second-class citizenship. Some were anonymous but a sizable number were signed, an indication of confidence in collective clout that belied howls of victimhood. New York's Gay City News asked for an interview because I was "one of only four New Yorkers who contributed more than $500."
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Quite right, and their purpose is, I think, less retribution than to discourage people from contributing to future campaigns. Already parties have filed for propositions to overturn Prop 8, even to abolish the concept of marriage in civil law. They want to be sure we won’t be as willing to donate this time around.
Wow, fantastic story. Not surprising, either.
If you donate to support a conservative cause, you need to have the associated skills to maintain your safety once anonymity is broken.
>They want to be sure we wont be as willing to donate this time around.
The second time around might involve a firearm’s round.
The second time around is starting right now. Gays are gathering enough signatures to overturn Prop 8, not trusting the State Supreme Court to go their way. Two propositions are already in the mill with one already into its 150-day period to gather signatures. I don’t see violence as a viable option on the part of conservatives as yet. That may come but not in the next 150 days. If, however, they can continue to intimidate those who made contributions for the Prop 8 campaign, they will have scored a significant win.
What I would prefer is a way to preserve my anonymity. The court has already turned down a plea to allow contributors to remain anonymous. How can we legally give and keep our personal names out of it? Fictitious corporation? Shell game? Intermediary organization? Here in California we frequently see organizations such as “Citizens for Government Responsibility” (not a real organization, I made that up) which is actually a front organization for teacher unions or prison guard union or some other less-popular group. I think people should look at such a vehicle to help preserve privacy. (And if liberals fight against such anonymity, then at least they would be cutting their own throats at the same time.)
There must be a list of people and organizations who contributed to the anti Prop 8 campaign. Why is this list not published with names and home addresses and amounts contributed?
Boycotting is fine, it’s a 1A right. But it should cut both ways.
Intimidation and threats are another matter.
If Darwin was right, and only species with the best survivability aspects have a biological advantage, please explain how “teh gay” works in terms of Darwinianism?
It doesn’t. By definition, homosexuals can’t/don’t reproduce. That’s why the indoctrination in public schools, to garner recruits.
Anyone recieving harassment from the homosexuals for exercising their democratic rights should report it to the police and the feds. Save any emails and correspondence. Harassment, of course, was the goal of the SF paper.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
This is thug democracy. Wait until card check is in place. IF they find out how you vote and you didn’t vote for them, you are ruined. Life liberty and property are at risk because these thugs want power and wealth and they are not interested in your rights.
I don't see violence as an option for conservatives at all.
But militant homosexual leftist have been in the past and will be in the future violent.
They are full of hate.
Then it a matter of self defense.
Begging your indulgence, but isn’t CardCheck associated with abolishing Union members’ right to a private ballot? Is it in any way related to standard elections we participate in as private citizens? Please educate me.
Donate double then.
So, like... I voted for McCain see. And people who voted for Obama hate my guts now. They throw crap at my house, they dent my car. They threaten not to do business with me and they harass me. They know I voted for McCain because I had a lawn sign in my yard. But... if I wanted to keep my vote a secret, I could have done that by not telling anyone who I voted for.
With respect to the card check system... there is no secret ballot. Its just ACORN goons walking around intimidating people into voting for unionization. Nobody wants to be intimidated so they will likely just check the yes box. Why not? Higher pay. Bigger benefits. Who cares as long as its good for me.... But the PRINCIPLED person will have a problem with this method of intimidation.
Ouch!!! Sounds like you are in an urban, blue area. It is sad that it has degenerated to this level. There was once a time when the mores of people allowed for civil disagreement and discussion. Now it’s all low-class and trashy. We’ve degenerated into the animals many have been teaching us that we are all these years...
FASCISM Alive and Well and Encouraged In the Gay “Community”.
Sue them. Harrassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc., two can play at this game.
They’re just as gay and nasty as the SA Stormtrooper leader of Nazi Germany Ernst Rohm.
The brownshirting of Proposition 8 supports in California and beyond was a national disgrace but no political leader I know of has dared to address the issue.
They, too, are intimidated.
She could have a real case for libel.
It was published (check)
It was about her (check)
Material is defamatory (Could cost her a business reputation, as evidanced by the emails she recieved, but I’m not sure. Is she an artist?)
Material was false (a resounding yes)
Defendant was at fault (Isn’t nessicary in private people, but again a resounding yes)
I Love FR. It makes being a Com major so much easier (Espicially when you can find cases of libel when your studying it :D)
Let me amend the forth part of false, because I haven’t read the article, however, it sounds like that they just accused her of supporting prop. 8; if they said other things, well then she would have a case. Sorry :D.
I am so disappointed I sent money to McCain and the RNP, but didn’t send any to support Prop 8. I will be certain to donate next time. I hope they print my name EXTRA LARGE so the pink mafia can read it without their reading glasses!
If the emails border on harassment, the author should contact the email service provider and have the homo's account closed.
A proposition to overturn 8 will fail. The homo-activists had the deck stacked overwhelmingly in their favor last year, and they still didn't win. With homo-"marriage" already ensconced in "law," a sabotaged ballot initiative title, all the Hollyweird loons crowing about it, and a record turnout for the dems excited about the "messiah", you'd think they would have it in the bag.
What's going to happen with two voter initiatives saying no to marriage now being challenged as well as the momentum of a state supreme court saying that 8 is ok? I'd be surprised if the homophiles get 40% to vote for homo-"marriage."
“What’s going to happen with two voter initiatives saying no to marriage now being challenged as well as the momentum of a state supreme court saying that 8 is ok? I’d be surprised if the homophiles get 40% to vote for homo-”marriage.”
I believe the issue before the State Supreme Court isn’t the approval of the principle of marriage but the process by which the proposition got before the electorate. They first tried to argue that gay marriage was a fundamental right which could not be taken away by initiative or any other means. That issue was settled before the election. This alleges defects in the process. And most believe the Proposition will be upheld as having been validly in the election.
Now they are attacking marriage completely, basically saying that if gays can’t be civilly married, neither should heterosexuals, One of the propositions is to force the government to stop recognizing marriage for everyone and classify all married couples as “civil partnerships” on the same basis that gays are recognized. In general, it is saying to heterosexual couples, “If we can’t join you, you must join us.” They want religious marriage to be a social institution instead of a legal institution and only civil partnerships recognized by the state so heterosexual couples would have to go through both the civil partnership procedure and the religious marriage to get what we have today in traditional marriage.
It will be interesting to see what happens. In the case of Prop 8, many celebrities and politicians were hesitant to support gays. After Proposition 8 won, those same politicians and celebrities were quick to extend condolences to gays and to “tut tut” Prop 8 supporters. Schwarzeneggar and many others publicly urged the State Supreme Court to overturn the measure. Methinks it was their way of having it both ways: not on record against traditional marriage but sympathetic to gays. Now that gays are pushing on with further actions, those sympathizers might be pressured to support the gays more substantially. Time will tell.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
The direct attach on marriage across the board that the homo-activists have now adopted reveals their true enmity toward this staple of society - a horrendous strategic blunder on their part, I believe. More and more it seems lately, they are wantonly exhibiting the mindset to society at large which they formerly attempted to keep under wraps in the interest of the advancement of their agenda. I think this indifferent showing of their hand will do untold damage to their "cause" ultimately - we can only hope so.
The justices seem to rightly decipher this issue as one of properly following a constitutional process rather than the moral merits or lack thereof of same-sex "marriage." I see this as a very encouraging development, though no one can really be sure where this is going. If the Court is true to this line of thought, they must invalidate all previously issued same-sex marriage licenses. Either the principle of "fairness" should hold sway over the whole issue or the constitutional amendment power of the people should. No amalgamation of the two would make any sense.
You are right in stating that an amalgamation would be confusing but I’m not sure that issue is before the court at this time. If the only issue is whether the proposition was legally sufficient to be placed on the ballot, the court will not address the ex poste facto invalidation of the marriages between April and November. But, I don’t know the scope of the appellate review so it might just invalidate them. I know the gays accused Prop 8 supporters of turning their kids into “bastards”, thanks to the proposition so may it would relate back to the original law.