# A public service: Names of Proposition 8 supporters **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 4, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362 "2009-02-04T03:12:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/101 "2009-02-04T20:12:48Z")
Let’s remember that Prop 8 was an after-the-fact taking-away of existing rights. Spiritually, it’s more akin to forcible property seizure through public domain than it is to a normal referendum. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/102 "2009-02-04T20:17:17Z")
> [@yojimbo](#): > > This guy helped push a law through that directly effected lives. The Grammar Nazi in me compels me to point out that this guy directly **affected** (changed/impacted) lives with Prop 8. He might also have **effected** (made/created) lives, assuming he’s heterosexual, but I have no evidence for or against that. Sorry, I can’t help it. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/103 "2009-02-04T20:31:03Z")
> [@furt](#): > > The point of a hypothetical such as mine is to extend someone else’s argument to an extreme example. I will do the same for you, in the opposite direction, that is not so hypothetical. Obama out-fundraises McCain during a hypothetical political campaign. We are electing the President of the United States, surely a move that affects not only America but most of the world. Would you be sanguine with saying, “Sorry, we cannot tell who contributed to the campaigns”? Would you accept not knowing whether foreign nationals, world governments, or overseas investors were backing one of the horses in the Presidential race? A hypothetical governor of Illinois is handing out political favors to unlikely recipients. Are you okay with the idea of saying, “Gee, I’d love to impeach that governor for corruption, but dang it all, we’re not allowed to investigate the names of political contributors. We must keep that information sacrosanct just in case any people _might_ possibly use it to commit a crime.” Do you accept the consequences of laws for totally invisible and unknowable campaign donations? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/104 "2009-02-04T20:34:07Z")
I assumed that the purpose of “freedom of information” type laws in campaign donations is to ensure that corruption of our politicians is kept to a minimum. Is that the goal of the lists in the OP’s link? I don’t think so. The link seems to make it clear that it is to inform the general public about those indentities of people and buisnesses that only supported one particular position on a (contentious) ballot measure. There are no allogations of foul play vis-a-vis the donation laws here. Why do that? Presumadely, it is so that the people who feel strongly opposed to prop 8 can choose not to associate (privately or commercially) with those who supported prop 8. I have no problem with “boycotting” a buisness for this reason. However, is there a reasonable expectation that people can use this info to commit violence or vandalism? If so, how much accountability lies with those who provide this info, legally or otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Claptree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/58f4c7/32.png) [@Claptree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claptree)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/105 "2009-02-04T20:36:01Z")
ETA:D’oh! ---
**Author:** ![Jane\_D\_oh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/839c29/32.png) [@Jane\_D\_oh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jane_D_oh)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/106 "2009-02-04T20:47:12Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > There are no legitimate arguments for opposing gay marriage. The history argument is bullshit. Marriage used to be limited to people of the same race. It used to be a contract where women didn’t get a say. > > If you are against gay marriage you’re a fucking prejudiced piece of shit. I’d be happy to see an argument that actually had a single glob of merit if you have one. Religious beliefs are matters of faith and are highly personal. The guy in question worked with the Sacramento Theatre company for 25 years. In 25 years no one guessed he was a _fucking prejudiced piece of shit_. How do you think he managed to keep that a secret? I know pieces of shit and they usually tip their hand pretty quickly. 25 years is a long time to hold a full house and keep your poker face. I can’t think of a single piece of shit that could do that. If you look back at what I’m saying, you’ll see that I am not against gay marriage, I am against the attacks on people who have exercised their rights as citizens and supported causes they believe, causes which they have a right to believe, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else agrees with them. You aren’t saying they don’t have the right to their beliefs, are you? ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/107 "2009-02-04T20:48:06Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > However, is there a reasonable expectation that people can use this info to commit violence or vandalism? If so, how much accountability lies with those who provide this info, legally or otherwise? The damned phone book can do that. So can the Internet. So can the post office. If we choose to ban ordinary things because _they might be used to commit a crime_, then that’s just stupid. You could commit a crime with a piece of paper and a pencil. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/108 "2009-02-04T20:48:38Z")
Weren’t the Federalist Papers published anonymously? ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/109 "2009-02-04T20:51:35Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > The Grammar Nazi in me compels me to point out that this guy directly **affected** (changed/impacted) lives with Prop 8. > > He might also have **effected** (made/created) lives, assuming he’s heterosexual, but I have no evidence for or against that. > > Sorry, I can’t help it. All good. I always make that mistake and need to be told. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/110 "2009-02-04T20:56:09Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > The damned phone book can do that. So can the Internet. So can the post office. > > If we choose to ban ordinary things because _they might be used to commit a crime_, then that’s just stupid. You could commit a crime with a piece of paper and a pencil. The phone book doesn’t tell me who supported prop 8. I am talking about motives, here. Lets flip this around. KKK supporter wants to overturn Affirmative Action policys/laws. He prints the names and addresses of individuals and buisnesses that oppose him, expecting (but without outright directing) that fellow KKK members will decide to go burn some crosses on thier neighbors lawns, and slash car tires. How much of an accomplice is he? (Granted, _proving_ such motives in a court of law would be rather difficult.) ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/111 "2009-02-04T21:03:40Z")
A phone book would tell you all the people named “Cohen” and might be used by anti-Semites to commit crimes. I fail to see why it should be about Prop 8 specifically. A phone book could give you the addresses of all the mosques and might be used to commit anti-Muslim crimes. What’s the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/112 "2009-02-04T21:05:30Z")
> [@Jane\_D\_oh](#): > > Religious beliefs are matters of faith and are highly personal. The guy in question worked with the Sacramento Theatre company for 25 years. In 25 years no one guessed he was a _fucking prejudiced piece of shit_. How do you think he managed to keep that a secret? I know pieces of shit and they usually tip their hand pretty quickly. 25 years is a long time to hold a full house and keep your poker face. I can’t think of a single piece of shit that could do that. > > If you look back at what I’m saying, you’ll see that I am not against gay marriage, I am against the attacks on people who have exercised their rights as citizens and supported causes they believe, causes which they have a right to believe, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else agrees with them. You aren’t saying they don’t have the right to their beliefs, are you? Racists have the rights to their deeply held beliefs, it doesn’t mean they aren’t racists. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/113 "2009-02-04T21:14:01Z")
> [@furt](#): > > :rolleyes: Sigh. > > The point of a hypothetical such as mine is to extend someone else’s argument to an extreme example. If they maintain their argument, then you know you’re dealing with a basic difference in principles (such as **Gangster Octopus** and I have just concluded). From there, the conversation can proceed along general philosophical lines. If they don’t, then the difference is not one of principle, but of application. Whether or not there are any partial-birth-abortion-specific PAC is missing the point; it’s a controversial issue that one can easily imagine coming up on a ballot, and can easily imagine PACs being formed on both sides. > > Unless you’re contending that the issue would never be on a referendum, and no organizations would ever be formed to oppose it, you’re not moving the conversation forward. > > Fine then: pick any issue that social conservatives feel strongly about – abortion, gay adoption, whatever. Imagine them putting up billboards (or, hell, taking out TV ads) in which they frame the issue in the worst possible way (without technically lying) and then give the name and as much identifying information as the law permits of a person that advocated the progressive point of view on the topic (employer, address, children’s names … whatever the strictest reading of the law allows them to put out there). For maximum shaming effect, the idea is to make sure the person’s friends and family all know. And you don’t go after the biggest contributors: the idea is to pick on a few small-time nobodies. The rest will get the message. > > Oooh – here’s an idea. Find someone in a small rural town, preferrably a single adult male who holds a job working with children, and who has quietly given money over the years to a variety of gay-rights causes. Put his name on that billboard along with the causes he’s supported, and encourage his neighbors to ask him about it. > > I’m sure \*\*Miller \*\*would say that that goddamned pussy can man up and stand behind his beliefs. **Gangster Octopus** the same, though I think he’d express it more civilly. Do you agree? I’m saying that your examples are not equivalent. I’m not sure where we got from posting a list of names on a website that one must seek out to read to singling out one private citizen in gigantically public and misleading ways - oh, looking back it was you who brought up that idea - because they are not equivalent. The information of Mr. Hypothetical Rural Gay Rights Donor is already every bit as public as the names of the people on the existing Prop 8 donors list. If his neighbors, family, friends and everyone who knows him are rabidly anti-gay and seek out local pro-gay people to harass, it’s there for the finding. Anything they do with that information is on them. “Framing the issue in the worst possible way” once again is opens the billboard owner/flyer distributer/Goodyear blimp hirer to a lawsuit over libel and/or slander. It is not the same as the simple statement that “Mr. HRGRD donated to Citizens Against Prop 8.” I’ve already said that I think the website is douchebaggy, and suggested that perhaps the laws regarding harassment should be changed to reflect internet campaigns. If enough people think that’s important, they will. Why you’re trying to pinpoint me further, I’m not sure. I also think paparazzi who harass celebrities and the extreme interest in the octuplet mom are examples of douchbaggery as well FWIW. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/114 "2009-02-04T21:14:43Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > A phone book would tell you all the people named “Cohen” and might be used by anti-Semites to commit crimes. I fail to see why it should be about Prop 8 specifically. > > A phone book could give you the addresses of all the mosques and might be used to commit anti-Muslim crimes. > > What’s the difference? If the info was already out there, then why did this group feel the need to put together their list? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/115 "2009-02-04T21:20:06Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > Do you accept the consequences of laws for totally invisible and unknowable campaign donations? No, which is why I’ve already said [QUOTE=me] I don’t think anyone here is disputing the legality of the action; given the law, I don’t think the judge had any choice. It may be advisable to change the law, but that would have other complications. What we’re questioning is whether or not this practice is a good direction to take our political discourse. Whether it is advisable, both for the country as a whole and even for progressive social causes themselves. [/QUOTE] The “complications” I had in mind were exactly as you bring up. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/116 "2009-02-04T21:21:09Z")
> [@furt](#): > > :rolleyes: Sigh. > Oooh – here’s an idea. Find someone in a small rural town, preferrably a single adult male who holds a job working with children, and who has quietly given money over the years to a variety of gay-rights causes. Put his name on that billboard along with the causes he’s supported, and encourage his neighbors to ask him about it. > > I’m sure \*\*Miller \*\*would say that that goddamned pussy can man up and stand behind his beliefs. **Gangster Octopus** the same, though I think he’d express it more civilly. Do you agree? Do you not see that publicizing something about a resident of some hick town _on a billboard in that very town_ is entirely different than posting information about campaign contributors on the internet, where those contributors’ friends and neighbors would have to actively seek out such information in the first place? Not really the same thing at all. And I agree with **Miller** - those people felt strongly enough about it to donate huge sums of cash, but then wanted to pussy out when they found out it was public record (which they should have already known) and tried to get the law changed just to hide their shameful deeds? No fucking sympathy. If I donate money to whatever cause (and I do donate money), I have no problem with my name being available to the public. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/117 "2009-02-04T21:32:15Z")
> [@Jane\_D\_oh](#): > > Religious beliefs are matters of faith and are highly personal. The guy in question worked with the Sacramento Theatre company for 25 years. In 25 years no one guessed he was a _fucking prejudiced piece of shit_. How do you think he managed to keep that a secret? I know pieces of shit and they usually tip their hand pretty quickly. 25 years is a long time to hold a full house and keep your poker face. I can’t think of a single piece of shit that could do that. Could be that he only recently became a fucking prejudiced piece of shit. Maybe he used to be okay with gays, but got religion a year back, changed his mind about gays, and this was the first anyone knew about it. That said, not all bigots are equal. A lot of, say, racists, are perfectly capable of working amicably with people of different races for years, and only reveal their prejudices when certain lines are crossed. “I don’t have anything against black people, but I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry one,” is not an uncommon racist sentiment. It is not nearly _as_ racist as attending a Klan rally, obviously, but is still undeniably racist. So, to, with gay marriage opposition: many people who supported Prop. 8 do not have a problem interacting with gays in a day-to-day context. However, they still beleive that gays should have fewer civil rights than straights, and that’s an undeniably bigotted position. A lot of people who hold that position would like to believe that they are not, in fact, bigots. I think that they should be disabused of that belief. If they can be shown that one cannot simultaneous be “not a bigot” and “opposed to gay marriage,” they’re going to eventually have to discard one of these notions. Given the stigma attached to the concept of bigotry in contemporary society, I suspect that most people, confronted with this dissonance, will choose to discard opposition to gay marriage, so that they may fully embrace not being a bigot. A necessary part of this process is reacting to people who hold patently homophobic positions just as one would react to a person holding an equivalent racist position. A lot of Prop. 8 supporters think that there’s a moral difference between discriminating on the basis of race, and discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. This is not the case, and if we let people skate on the latter while fiercely condemning people who do the former, we send the message that one is, in fact, more acceptable than the other. > [@](#): > > If you look back at what I’m saying, you’ll see that I am not against gay marriage, I am against the attacks on people who have exercised their rights as citizens and supported causes they believe, causes which they have a right to believe, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else agrees with them. You aren’t saying they don’t have the right to their beliefs, are you? I, too, am against anyone being attacked for exercizing their rights as citizens. But a boycott is not an attack. Being punched in the face for having a sign in your yard is an attack. Being gang-raped because of a bumpersticker on your car is an attack. These are acts that need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Having people not give you money, on the other hand, is not an attack. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/118 "2009-02-04T21:33:54Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Weren’t the Federalist Papers published anonymously? Yes and they broke the law in doing so. If England had the ability hold them accountable for their crimes they’d be in some pretty tough shape. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/119 "2009-02-04T21:37:11Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Having people not give you money, on the other hand, is not an attack. If it is, then a _lot_ of people owe me a _lot_ of money. Mwahahaha. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/120 "2009-02-04T21:43:08Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Yes and they broke the law in doing so. If England had the ability hold them accountable for their crimes they’d be in some pretty tough shape. At the time of their publication we hadn’t been a colony of Great Britain for more than four years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362.md?page=7)