-
Yet Another Proposition 8 Supporter Blacklist – Long Beach Edition
This time for the Long Beach area – an area with a higher than average gay/homosexual population.The site includes details about business owners and employees who donated to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (including at least one Google map). One big target in Long Beach has been the owner of numerous El Pollo Loco franchises. This can be a problem if you like that chicken. As one commenter on the website said: “This one is the saddest for me as WKS Restaurant group owns most of the El Pollo Loco franchises (over 50) in So Cal and several Denny’s and Corner Bakery Cafe’s in CA, AZ, and Utah. El Pollo Loco is one of my favorite restaurants. I am working on the locations so I know which ones I can’t go to anymore …”
Yet another blacklist to deter donors to the next attempt (likely in 2010) to legalize gay marriage in California.
Exit question: What kind of damage is the gay rights community doing to their movement by vindictively attempting to control the thoughts of California voters?
Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage
-
More Victims of a Proposition 8 Blacklist – This Time Texas Style
Flap asked the question: Who will be the next victim(s)?And, we have an answer via M/M.
Proposition 8 attracted tens of millions of dollars on both sides of the gay marriage issue from out-of-state contributors who see California as a trendsetter for the rest of the nation.
According to figures from the California Secretary of State’s Office — which requires campaign donors to list their place of residence, their employer and their occupations — more than 750 Texans donated tens of thousands of dollars on either side of the campaign. One of the biggest Texas donations was $50,000 to a Yes on 8 group that apparently came from the president of a Midland oil company.
About 115 Austinites gave about $180,000 — most in increments of $100 — to fund both sides of the campaign. About 20 of the Austin contributors supported the gay marriage ban; the rest opposed it. Computer giant Apple Inc. is listed as the biggest donor from Austin, with a $100,000 donation in opposition to the measure.
Some gay rights activists say any business that supported Proposition 8 should be boycotted.
“We strongly believe that one of the best ways for the gay community to be heard is by speaking with our wallets,” said Austin resident Warren Clark, whose warrenandderrick.com Web site published the “blacklist” of Yes on 8 donors.
“Blacklisted” by the gay rights Web site are Austin attorneys and tech companies, investment fund managers and doctors, real estate developers and even the Los Angeles Dodgers. Former Dodgers infielder and Austin resident Jeff Kent gave $15,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign.
“It’s a shame,” said Austin real estate developer Michael Knepp when a reporter told him he was on the list for his $10,000 donation to the Yes on 8 campaign.
“Everyone has a responsibility to support the issues they feel strongly about,” Knepp said. “If someone else was offended by that, I apologize, but we just feel very strongly about how (gay marriage) could affect our society – so we made a donation.”
For Austin attorney Roger Hepworth, who gave about $10,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign, the backlash first came in the form of what he called a “hateful” e-mail to him and other employees of his firm, Henslee Schwartz.
“It started with ‘Shame on you Roger Hepworth’ and got worse from there,” he said.
The firm also is on the “anti-gay blacklist” created by Clark.
“I think irresponsible for them to smear an entire law firm that had no knowledge of any donation I made,” Hepworth said. “It’s unfair to target a company for something a person has done.”
No. 1 on the group’s anti-gay “blacklist” — errantly enough — is Dell Computer Inc. That’s because the biggest Austin-area donor to the Yes on 8 campaign was apparently Spencer Wheelright, a Dell marketing employee who gave $25,200 to support the gay marriage ban, according to records from the California Secretary of State’s office.
Dell had nothing to do with the donation and, in fact, the company has an internal rule prohibiting it from taking a position or making a donation regarding any state or local ballot initiatives, said company spokesman Bryant Hilton.
Dell usually gets good marks from gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender groups. It is a supporter of the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign as well as other national and local gay organizations.
“This was an employee who made a personal donation and employers are listed because of California’s reporting laws,” Hilton said. “But this doesn’t reflect the company’s position at all.”
Wheelright did not return a reporter’s e-mail seeking comment. He couldn’t be reached otherwise.
Exit Question:
As the gay marriage boycott continues will homosexual activists whose Human Rights Campaign receives hundred of thousands of dollars in corporate contributions to buy their goodwill (and who, by the way, contributed to the No on Proposition 8 campaign) insist that corporations and companies terminate (FIRE) those managers/officers/employees? Or face their continued WRATH?
Is the gay, the new Thought Police of NEWSPEAK?
Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage
-
Los Angeles Film Festival Director and California Proposition 8 Supporter Richard Raddon Resigns
LA Film Festival’s Rich Raddon and Film Independent Executive Director Dawn Hudson
The Hollywood BLACKLIST over California Proposition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) has begun.Under mounting pressure, LA Film Festival director Richard Raddon has ankled his post.
Raddon and Film Independent (FIND), the festival’s parent org, have faced a barrage of protests over Raddon’s contribution to the successful Yes on Prop 8 campaign that banned same-sex marriage in California.
After bloggers published his name, culled from public records of donors, Raddon tendered his first resignation on Nov. 13 to Film Independent’s board of directors, which was not accepted. Film Independent then released a statement saying, in part, “Our organization does not police the personal, religious, or political choices of any employee, member, or filmmaker.”
Yet Internet message boards and other published reports kept the issue at the center of a growing protest movement that has targeted “Yes on 8” donors including the Mormon church and Cinemark Theaters, whose CEO was a contributor.
On Monday, Raddon submitted a second resignation. Those close to the org described Monday’s conference call with the board of directors as emotional. While Raddon’s contribution had caused some internal angst, he was well liked within the org.
On Tuesday, Film Independent issued a statement saying “With great reluctance, Film Independent has accepted Richard Raddon’s resignation. Rich’s service to the independent film community and to Film Independent has been nothing less than extraordinary. He has always shown complete commitment to our core principles of equality and diversity during his long tenure.”
Raddon, a devout Mormon who took the reins of the fest in 2000, said, “I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion, or sexual orientation are entitled to equal rights. I prefer to keep the details around my contribution through my church a private matter. But I am profoundly sorry for the negative attention that my actions have drawn to Film Independent and for the hurt and pain that is being experienced in the GLBT community.â€
The oh so tolerant anti-Proposition 8 mob has another notch on their belt.
Previous:
Gay Marriage Proponents Boycotting Lassen’s Natural Foods & Vitamins Over Proposition 8?El Coyote Mexican Cafe Bullied Into $500 Donation to Homosexual Advocacy Group – JIZYA
El Coyote Mexican Cafe Bullied Into $500 Donation to Homosexual Advocacy Group
Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage, Richard Raddon
-
Recalling the California Supreme Court Over Proposition 8
California Supreme Court Justices, from top left, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin Baxter and from lower left, Ming Chin, Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Carol Corrigan
Power Line makes the obvious observation as to the consequences of the California Supreme Court overruling a vote of the people on California Propsition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman).The votes by which the people of California passed Proposition 8, restricting the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman, had barely been counted when the ACLU filed a lawsuit. That suit, filed directly with the California Supreme Court, claimed that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in so fundamental a way — i.e., taking important rights away from a minority group — that it amounts to a constitutional revision. As such, the theory goes, the legislature was required to pass it before submitting the matter to the voters.
This kind of argument seems like meat and drink for California’s liberal Supreme Court. But my friend Craig Harrison tells me that if that court once again tells the voters “to go to hell,” he expects recall petitions to be circulated for the judges in question. This is permitted under the California Constitution if signatures can be obtained from 20% of the number of people who voted in the last election. Given the 2008 turnout, it might make sense to submit the petition following the primaries that will occur next year.
The petition would not just pertain to the merits of Prop 8, but also to the fact that the state’s judges will have thumbed their noses at the popular will. Perhaps those judges will consider this risk when they take up the matter.
Paul and John don’t quite have the timing correct as ANY election would be in June 2010 and there are no primary elections scheduled next year in California.
However, Flap does not think the California Supreme Court will throw out the California voters’ wishes. We received an indication of this the other day by Justice Kennard’s actions.
There is no sense in talking about a recall election of the court unless they go off the deep end again.
But, recalled all they would be in 2010.
Previous:
OUTED: A California Democrat Assemblywoman Who SUPPORTED Proposition 8 – Wilmer Amina Carter
California Gay Marriage Proponents Organize Boycott Against San Diego Storage Company Over Proposition 8 DonationsPoll: 3 of 5 in California Say Gay Marriages Before Proposition 8 Should Remain Legal?
Technorati Tags: California Supreme Court, California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage
-
OUTED: A California Democrat Assemblywoman Who SUPPORTED Proposition 8 – Wilmer Amina Carter
And, the Democrat Assemblywoman from the Inland Empire of California did not sign a friend of the court brief urging the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8 either.Carter, in a recent interview, said she voted for Prop. 8 and disagrees with her colleagues’ actions.
Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter, D-Rialto
Many of her constituents also supported the initiative, she said.
“It primarily stems from my constituents but also from deep religious convictions,” Carter said. “Since I represent my district, I didn’t sign on to it.”
Flap wonders if the Rialto Democrat Assemblywoman will be the subject of protests by the opponents of Proposition 8 – supporters of gay marriage?
Will homosexual activists target Carter in the Democrat primary election in two years?
Stay tuned….
Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Wilmer Amina Carter, Gay Marriage
-
California Gay Marriage Proponents Organize Boycott Against San Diego Storage Company Over Proposition 8 Donations
Californians Against Hate Web Ad: Terry Caster and his family gave $693,000 to take away the rights of same sex couples to get married.Californians Against Hate have launched yet another boycott against a California business whose owners donated to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.
A San Diego nonprofit known for organizing protests against Proposition 8 supporters is calling for a boycott against a San Diego-based storage company.
Californians Against Hate has launched a statewide “virtual boycott” of A-1 Self Storage, owned by Terry Caster, who gave nearly $700,000 to support the gay-marriage ban that prevailed at the polls Nov. 4.
Fred Karger, head of Californians Against Hate, said the boycott is virtual because it will be promoted through blogs and social and business networking sites. His group organized a boycott against the downtown Manchester Grand Hyatt, owned by Proposition 8 supporter Doug Manchester, and a phone campaign against A-1 Self Storage.
More harassment and intimidation from the homosexual community as they prepare for a repeat election to overturn the gay marriage ban voted into law on November 4th.
It is likely that California Proposition 8 will not be overturned on state constituional grounds and gay marriage supporters wish to discourage donors to the 2010 effort to reinstitute gay marriage.
What better way then to publicly shame and financially hurt the businesses?
Polling is unclear whether Proposition 8 protests are effective in helping their cause. These types of boycotts also risk a voter backlash and portray gay marriage supporters as “sore loser” bullies.
Stay tuned…..
Previous:
Poll: 3 of 5 in California Say Gay Marriages Before Proposition 8 Should Remain Legal?
-
Does California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard’s Vote Yesterday a Good Sign for Proposition 8?
California Supreme Court Justices, from top left, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin Baxter and from lower left, Ming Chin, Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Carol Corrigan
In yesterday’s post about the California Supreme Court accepting California’s Proposition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) to the California Constitution for review, Flap briefly mentioned the fact that Justice Kennard did NOT sign the order.Justice Kennard would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in this court of an appropriate action to determine Proposition 8’s effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before Proposition 8’s adoption.
Justice Kennard, in fact, voted against reviewing the constitutionality of Proposition 8.
Why?While both sides cheered the court’s decision to take up the cases, Kennard’s lone vote to deny review could spell trouble for opponents of Prop. 8.
Kennard is the court’s longest-serving justice, having been appointed in 1989, and has been one of its foremost supporters of same-sex couples’ rights. Without her vote, the May 15 ruling would have gone the other way. But she wrote Wednesday that she would favor hearing arguments only about whether Prop. 8 would invalidate the pre-election marriages, an issue that would arise only if the initiative were upheld.
“It’s always hard to read tea leaves, but I think Justice Kennard is saying that she thinks the constitutionality of Prop. 8 is so clear that it doesn’t warrant review,” said Stephen Barnett, a retired UC Berkeley law professor and longtime observer of the court.
For those seeking to overturn Prop. 8, “I would not think it would be encouraging,” said Dennis Maio, a San Francisco lawyer and former staff attorney at the court.
Flap thinks the court ultimately will support California’s voters and uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Flap predicts a 6-1 vote with Justice Moreno dissenting.
Justice Kennard has sent a message to her fellow Justices yesterday that she plans to uphold Prop. 8.
Or did she?
Stay tuned……
Technorati Tags: Joyce Kennard, California Supreme Court, California Proposition 8
-
Poll: 3 of 5 in California Say Gay Marriages Before Proposition 8 Should Remain Legal?
Newlyweds Sharon Papo (L) and Amber Weiss toast each other outside of San Francisco City Hall after exchanging wedding vows on the first full day of legal same-sex marriages in California on June 17, 2008The Survey USA poll of 500 Californians conducted November 19, 2008:
The Question: What should happen to gay couples who were legally married in California before the law changed? Should their marriage remain legal? Should their marriage be immediately annulled? Or, do you not know enough to say?
- 59% Remain Legal
- 34% Immediately Annulled
- 6% Do Not Know Enough
- 1% Not Sure
However, look at the cross-tabs of the poll and particularly the sample (which is small) of minority voters (majority of African-American and Latino voters opposed Proposition 8 whereas in the California election approved the measure) – Question 3 and page 2 of the Pdf.
This poll with an error margin of +/- 4.5% may be an outlier.
An earlier poll, however, conducted in San Diego on November 14, 2008 leads to similar results:
- 56% Remain Legal
- 37% Immediately Annulled
- 6% Do Not Know Enough
- 1% Not Sure
Regardless, the California Supreme Court will likely decide the issue sometime early next year since the disposition of these marriages should Proposition 8 be found constituional is at issue: “If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?”
What are the options before the court?
UCLA Law School Professor Eugene Volokh outlines:
- One option is that they may remain valid, whether because the initiative is construed as not applying to existing marriages, or because the courts conclude such an interpretation is constitutionally mandated by the Contracts Clause (“No state shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts ….”).
- Another is that pre-initiative same-sex marriages will become domestic partnerships, which under California statutes give most of the rights of marriage.
- A third option is that same-sex marriages will be eliminated altogether, and that married couples will remain domestic partners only if they had entered both into a marriage and into a domestic partnership.
- Finally, it’s possible that the legislature will step in, specifically providing that any invalidated same-sex marriage will become a domestic partnership.
Flap bets 3 or 4 of the above should Propositon 8 be ruled consitutional – which I think it will. The new California Legislature is set to meet the first week of December and watch to see if such legisation is introduced.
Of course, the anti-proposition 8 folks could circulate an initiative, but it would leave the same sex married couples hanging until June 2010. Flap’s guess is that they would wait a ruling by the California Supreme Court due sometime late Spring or early summer next year before any such action.
Stay tuned…..
Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage
-
California Proposition 8 Proponents “Profoundly Gratified” in California Supreme Court Rulings
Protect Marriage.ComAnd, the proponents are confident that Proposition 8 wll be upheld.The official proponents of Proposition 8 and ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, the campaign committee responsible for its enactment by voters today said it is “profoundly gratified†that the California Supreme Court granted all their requests by agreeing to accept original jurisdiction of three cases challenging the measure’s validity, granted their request to intervene in the cases as Real Parties in Interest, denied the request of others to delay implementation of Proposition 8, and refused to allow outside groups to directly participate in the litigation.
Flap can count as well. Three California Supreme Court Justices that opposed gay marriage plus Justice Kennard (who refused to sign the order and voted to deny the petitions) equals four votes upholding the Proposition and the traditional definition of marriage.
Flap bets the final vote will be 6-1 with Moreno dissenting to uphold Proposition 8 simply because a MORON would have to rule this is a revision of the Constitution and not an amendment.
Stay tuned as the briefs are prepared.
Technorati Tags: California Supreme Court, California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage
-
California Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Proposition 8 But Denies Stay in Gay Marriage Ban
The California Supreme Court agreed to decide today the legality of California’s Proposition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) to the California Constitution.At the urging of both sponsors and opponents of Proposition 8, the justices granted review of lawsuits challenging the Nov. 4 initiative. Approved by 52 percent of the voters, Prop. 8 restored the definition of marriage – a union of a man and a woman – that the court had overturned May 15.
In today’s order, the justices let Prop. 8 remain in effect, denying a stay that would have allowed county clerks to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the case was decided. No hearing has been scheduled.
But, a stay was DENIED, meaning gay marriage in California remains banned.
The order is here. (Pdf)In other items of interest in the order:
- The motions to intervene in the cases by Proposition 8 Official Proponents et. al. are GRANTED.
- Briefs are due on or before December 19, 2008. Replies by January 5, 2009.
- The issues to be argued and briefed:
- Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to the California Constitution? (see Cal. Const.,art.XVIII, §§ 1-4.)
- Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
- If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
- Amicus curiae brief application and brief are due on or before January 15, 2009. Reply to amicus curae brief is due January 21, 2009.
- Justice Moreno joins the order but voted to stay proposition 8.
- Justice Kennard would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in this court of an appropriate action to determine Proposition 8’s effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before Proposition 8’s adoption.
California Supreme Court Justices, from top left, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin Baxter and from lower left, Ming Chin, Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Carol Corrigan
Justices supporting the overturn of the original gay marriage ban are:- Chief Justice Ronald George
- Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar
- Justice Joyce L. Kennard
- Justice Carlos R. Moreno
Chief Justice George and Justice Moreno stand for reconfirmation to another twelve year term of office in November 2010.
Justices dissenting from the original decision to end the gay marriage ban are:
- Justice Marvin Baxter
- Justice Carol Corrigan
- Justice Ming Chin
The original May 2008 decision which California Propsoition 8 overturned by Constitutional amendment is here.(Pdf)
Stay tuned…..
Technorati Tags: California Supreme Court, Gay Marriage, California Proposition 8