I don't understand why people can not respect the rights of others. I don't much care for the religious right because they feel that everyone should act like them, and if they do not act just like them, then they are sinners (and not worthy of being friends). The religious right does not tolerate diversity or respect others with differing beliefs, whether you support abortion rights or the rights of any two consenting adults to marry. The religious right is just wrong to cram their own religious beliefs down everyone else's throats. That's not the Christianity I know and it certainly is not the America the Founding Fathers created.

It's for that reason the Prop 8 supporters are wrong…. it's their religion and beliefs they are forcing upon others, to the point of even taking away rights under the CA Constitution of those they do not like.

Well….. to begin with Prop 8 was not about INCREASING existing marriage laws to include other types of relationships. Prop 8 was about taking away rights of citizens to marry who they wanted to marry. Assuming you're heterosexual, how would you feel if someone told you that you could not marry the man (or woman) you wanted to? That's all Prop 8 did…. take away the existing right for people to marry, simply because one (the Prop 8 supporters) don't agree with them.

Second of all, as a hypothetical question, since it doesn't apply here…. what IS so wrong about changing existing law to “catch up” to a changing culture? I mean a few years ago blacks could not marry whites…. are you saying that was a wrong decision because it changed existing law?

If I were a betting man, I'd stake somebody arguing that “legalizing” gay “marriage” is *creating* a right, rather than one who argues that a public referendum excluding it is revoking one that never has existed, you know, since that supposed “right” is nowhere mentioned much less enumerated in the Constitution, federal or state.

The issue has been put to referendum, what?, *twice* in recent years, lost both times, overturned previously by the courts (without any clear Constitutional guidance or precedent).

Now, after ignoring the will of the people, twice, the activists start printing “hit lists” of those who won't “see the light”….hmmm…..

Here's a thought experiment:

Imagine a referendum on banning guns (hand/assault/any…take your pick) passes in CA. Since, you know, that right is actually *in* the Constitution, those that donated to pass it, or any gun-control groups *must* be evil creatures trying to revoke existing rights. So, why not put together a map of them?

I'm sure all of you “it's just a map, and it's public information, why creepy?!” people would have a much different outlook…

Next, waterboarding OK for Prop 8 supporters, says Sully.

Let's go over your evidence one at a time

1) The OC Register story that seem to think makes your point led their story with: “The battles are taking place in the front yards and public right-of-ways from Buena Park to Mission Viejo, where those on both sides are reporting a multitude of Prop. 8 signs slashed, stolen, and tagged.” This is followed by “he said… she said” quotes from both sides. Surprisingly the OC Register Reader Poll shows 49% opposed to Prop * and 48% for. My point… The OC Register DOES NOT prove, or even agree with, your position.

2) The religiously bigoted anti-Mormon commercials aired by the anti-8ers before the election. I agree, the “ad” was lame, just shows there are kooks on all sides BUT it was a 15 minute YouTube wonder NOT a prime time, in your face TV ad. Your attempt to give it credence doesn't help your argument.

3) Dr. Richard Epstein's editorial, too, does not say what you think it does. He concludes his opinion (not news… opinion) with, “So, my love, as you can see, I'm not really opposed to gay marriage. What I'm opposed to is narrow thinking. The world is changing fast, and one change we need to consider is to have governments recognize a wide variety of legitimate, caring relationships. Gays have pushed us toward greater tolerance of the unfamiliar, but we have a long way to go.“

4) My “theory of jack-booted Tongan Mormons”… “screaming angrily at the patrons inside were more likely terrifying the elderly…” “My theory”? “most likely elderly”? I don't think I need reply to that one… thanks.

5) Your LA Times link seems to have tried hard to give both sides of the story. They even shot down your “anti-Mormon commercials aired by the anti-8ers” theory by reporting “The ad was produced by an independent group not affiliated with the official No-on-8 campaign and was shown on MSNBC and Comedy Central…”

Maybe you should reread the links you provided and the… believe what you want. I don't have a horse in this race but I did learn a long time ago that fear, hate and negativism are much easier to sell to the masses when you add God to the mix.

That is simply not correct. From the inception of the campaign there has been a marked intolerance on the anti-8 side. My neighbor had over 30 “Yes on 8″ signs stolen from his yard during the campaign (he had a garage full of signs and would put one up each morning.)

The OC Register ran a story on the sign vandalism http://www.ocregister.com/articles/signs-sign-b…. I have seen many heated campaigns, but I have never seen the “tolerant” side so anxious to stand up for civil rights by censoring the political speech of the “intolerant” side.

This also ignores the religiously bigoted anti-Mormon commercials aired by the anti-8ers before the election. The commercial showed two white shirted “missionaries” violently assaulting a lesbian couple. A real appeal to the intellect there.

The entire anti-8 campaign assumed homophobia and intolerance on the opposing side, and worked from that assumption. They did not pause to think that there may be reasons to oppose gay marriage that were not linked to being in favor of the murder of Matthew Sheppard. I think Richard Epstein's editorial in the LA Times makes a fairly persuasive case that there is no reason to increase existing marriage laws to fit a type of relationship not originally contemplated by those laws. http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-oe-ep…. It is also instructive to look at the effect the Massachusetts court ruling had on organizations like Catholic charities.

After the election, the Los Angeles LDS temple was closed down due to white powder being sent in the mail. There was a surprising lack of white powder being sent to leaders in the gay community. I don't mean to discount your theory of jack-booted Tongan Mormons roaming the streets to roll protestors, but, despite the racism implicit in such a statement, it seems much more likely that the fellows shown in the LA Times standing at the fence of the LDS Temple, and screaming angrily at the patrons inside were more likely terrifying the elderly than protecting themselves from South Pacific violence. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest…. But hey, believe what you want.

You seem to be misinformed as to which side of this issue is using “intimidation, vandalism, racial slurs, and violence” as a tool. Non-violent protest marches by *anti 8* groups are the ones who have been physically and emotionally attacked.

Google “prop 8 violence” and check the stories coming out of 'real news' sources. (I realize that you'll have to search as most links are to sites either pro or anti) All I've found are reports that the actual violence was mostly started by *pro 8* groups and video I've seen regarding the violence in L.A. clearly shows LDS Tongans and other pro 8 supporters tearing down 'No on 8' posters, jumping anti 8 protesters and starting the fights.

Some points that have gone missed here:
1) This is public information. There's a reason donor rolls are public, and we can debate whether or not they should be, I suppose, but it seems a bit silly to be complaining about someone putting this into a more accessable format.

2) Anti-gay groups have been targeting groups that give money to gay organizations for a long time. From big companies like Disneyland (boycotted for having gay days) and Toyota (boycotted for advertising in gay publications), to businesses and business owners/employees who were targeted from these SAME donor lists, threatened that they better give to Yes on 8 in equal or larger amounts, or these groups would boycott their businesses. Sucks when the shoe's on the other foot, don't it?

3) These aren't mere voters, they are people who are so adamant about their panty-sniffing bigotry that they gave money to break apart gay marriages, presumably knowing that donor information is public. So where’s the “public humiliation”? If gays are really evil and dirty and going to hell and shouldn’t have rights, then where’s the embarassment in saying so? If not, then maybe there should be some self-examination on the part of these donors about why they should feel shame about giving to this campaign. That, I think, is why this map could be valuable.

4) I truly hope that nobody responds to this map with violence, threats, or vandalism. It hurts my heart to see things like death threats or violence against those who have different views of things. On the other hand, I’d love to see the reaction of some of the people who fear this sort of retribution, if they were to actually talk to any gay or trans person about the death threats and killing, the constant fear of physical or sexual violence, the constant marginalization, the fear of losing their job if “outed”, the shunning by their families, the having to fight and beg for rights that straight people take for granted. I just don’t see anything even approaching the same level of discrimination against those who have given to Yes on 8 as we see every day against those who actually fall into one of the sexual minorities.

Would you support the Mormons using this mashup to look up your address and send a couple of missionaries to your doorstep?

Is that creepy, and if not, why not?

For the record, I'm a non-Mormon conservative Christian who thinks that the government could define marriage as being between an adult and consenting lawn furniture and it wouldn't affect me one bit.

But this creeps me out. Severely.

But I don't think it's a stretch to say this is a map of votes. In a sense, I think that's what's so upsetting about the issue as a whole. Unless some of these guys were willing to put forth $10,000 toward the “yes” campaign to then vote “no.” Campaign contributions to elected officials are publicly posted in many places, as someone alluded to earlier, nothing new or special about that. I can look up my friend in Odessa Texas and see how much he has contributed to the Republican primaries, and local elections, for several years running. He's not crying “foul,” but I get a pretty clear picture of who he has voted for.

There has to be something fundamentally different about this issue specifically that has us all up in arms about it. Maybe because of claims of “unfairness” or even “deception” on the part of the advertisers who directly benefited from contributions. Also, this has a fair mix of religion in politics.

There is a lot of tension across the spectrum. No-one advocates violence on this forum as far as I can tell (unless we disregard briko's “AK” readiness, but I concede his point.)

To all: have a great weekend, signing off.

Please give me his address so that I can go discuss it with him.

So yeah, Sully, as usual, is full of it.

I love the sound of THUD in the morning.

Let's not muddle the issue. This is not a map of votes – that would be VERY illegal. It is a map of donations. Doesn't make it right, but in a real sense better. I don't like it, but I would like it WAY less if it was actual votes.

I don't see much of a difference in this case.

On the one hand, I'm a privacy advocate, so stuff like this map sets off alarm bells in my head. I definitely don't want to see anyone physically hurt or intimidated because of their political views.

On the other hand, it's probably a net good that we can better trace the flow of money in politics. We would lose that ability if donations were kept truly private, and that's the only way to keep maps like this from popping up.

Perhaps we should just accept that political donations are a form of speech in the truest sense of the word. And with speech there is always an author or a speaker.