Here is a link to the database which will allow you to look up any and all individuals who donated to and against the Prop 8. Please be informed and shop accordingly. I, personally, will redirect my funds in this city based on who did what on this list.
Posted by Which hunt?, a resident of the Carriage Gardens neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Oh this has nothing to do with race or religion and everything to do with hate. Nobody, on either side, should be able to hide. Put it all out there. You hate or you don't. Then live with the repercussions.
I was really saddened with the huge amounts of money spent on the Support side, that money could go to much better causes. This prop 8 does nothing to improve the lives of anyone. But, then, haters don't care to help others do they?
Posted by Whatever, a resident of the Ironwood neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I do believe in boycotting business of people who chose to use the political system to strip the rights of other people. I certainly would not imagine boycotting a business just because of "participation in a political process". This prop 8 issue is not that light and if we remain so ignorant what other religiously motivated propositions will become law? Remember why our founding fathers came here? Anyone looked at the good ol' Declaration of Independence lately? These words have an eerie relevance right now.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2009 at 10:11 pm
The Founding Fathers were greatly concerned about tyranny of the majority which is why they didn't include direct democracy (i.e. the initiative process) in the structure of national government. It is in my mind a grave mistake to have such a process in California and we can see the results in Prop. 8. Hopefully the court will overturn this injustice. I do not wish to correct once injustice with another though.
Posted by Whatever, a resident of the Ironwood neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2009 at 10:18 pm
While I appreciate your not wanting to create another injustice, that is the exact passive attitude which allows this kind of hate to perpetuate. Boycotting businesses certainly does not fall under the category of an injustice. If you look at the $$ of donations you will see the highly paid business folks contributed much more of the money to Support prop 8 than the other side. The slanted media they were able to buy won this election for them. We need to hit them in the pocketbooks to overturn this assault on basic rights. I highly encourage everyone to take a long hard look at that list and make sure not a dollar of your money supports businesses that promote hate, and yes, if you contributed to support prop 8 you promoted hate.
Posted by IMSOSMART, a resident of the Castlewood Heights neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2009 at 10:31 pm
I so agree with the problems associated with the initiative process. We can see what a dangerous road it becomes when it's simply the rules of the majority (or in this case the wealthy, religious). Hmmmm, wealthy and religious - sounds like the folks our Founding Fathers were trying to escape.
Posted by PJ, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2009 at 11:56 pm
If you start attacking persons personally here then you do understand it's a two way street, right?
There are a lot of folks here with strong beliefs that might boycott and ostracize easily identifiable members of the community (sole proprietors, realtors, chiros, lawyers, computer techs, etc.) who voted and campaigned against prop 8 too if you go down this road.
Posted by which hunt, a resident of another community, on Feb 13, 2009 at 8:21 am
to "a resident of the Carriage Gardens neighborhood,"
You say this has nothing to do with hate but then you finish with
" But, then, haters don't care to help others do they?" Who are you talking about, those who gave money or the majority who voted for it?
Lets talk about hate for a moment! i followed the news regarding some of the events that took place after the vote and the jerks involved. Few "Americans" would speak up for fear of being targeted as well. You might want to think about this as well.
Also, right now, your gut should be telling you things about the person who started this hunt. Something about their quality and the type of person they are to be around -Don't ignore it.
As far as the cut and paste quotes from the constitution buff, Whatever, i have to wonder if they really read what they just pasted and what it is actually saying. There was a vote and the majority spoke. I think it should also be noted that anything at all can be called a "right" if the interpetation of the BoR(which i think is what they should have pasted to support their point) has the "right" wording.
I'm done with this thread, so don't write for/to me but for the others who have time to spare
Posted by IAMSOSMART, a resident of the Carriage Gardens neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 10:01 am
We can not allow the majority to make all the rules. Every person in this country will have the right to marry. Those who hate will lose this war, they may have won a small victory for now but will not be victorious in the end. Sorry, get used to it! You can not impose your religion derived rules on a free society.
Posted by PJ, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 10:43 am
IAMSOSMART wrote: "You can not impose your religion derived rules on a free society."
In the American context, historians use the term Judeo–Christian to refer to the influence of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament on Protestant thought and values, most especially the Puritan, Presbyterian and Evangelical heritage. These founding generations of Americans saw themselves as heirs to the Hebrew Bible, and its teachings on liberty, responsibility, hard work, ethics, justice, equality, a sense of choseness and an ethical mission to the world, which have become key components of the American character, what is called the “American Creed.” These ideas from the Hebrew Bible, brought into American history by Protestants, are seen as underpinning the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 12:16 pm
"These ideas from the Hebrew Bible, brought into American history by Protestants, are seen as underpinning the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution."
Yes, those ideas are seen as underpinning these things by people who choose to remain ignorant of these documents and history. The Age of Enlightenment (Web Link) had a lot more to do with the underpinnings of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights than religion. The only mention of religion in the Constitution is that religion cannot be used as a test for office (swearing an oath of office on the Bible or Koran is personal choice, not mandated). Additionally, in the First Amendment it prevents the government from making laws respecting a religion. If the Bible were such an important underpinning, why would it be LEFT OUT? In the beginning of this country religious groups were _running away_ from persecution. They were highly concerned about government imposing faith-based laws upon the populace because that's what they did back in Europe! Today certain religious groups do not have the benefit of this experience and therefore do not seem to understand that this government is not intended as a means by which to impose their own brand of religion upon the general populace.
Posted by Doo Doo, a resident of the Valley Trails neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Why did this thread turn into a religious conversation? Prop 8 isn't about religion. It's about who can marry who, and who can't, right? Wasn't most of the votes made by blacks and latinos, rather than religious groups anyways? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm still intrigued with this topic...
Posted by PJ, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Doo Doo, How did it start? Check IAMSOSMART.
The evolution of Judeo–Christian influence on America is most commonly the subject of historians looking at the development of republicanism in America.
The deep roots of Judeo–Christian values they explore go back to the Protestant Reformation, not the theological battles but the bloody struggle to win the right to translate the Bible into vernacular languages.
This led to a religious mandate for public education so that ordinary people could read the Bible. This development was CRUCIAL to the birth of the ENLIGHTENMENT and rebellion against divine right of kings.
Posted by IAMSOSMART, a resident of the Carriage Gardens neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Yes, prop 8 is about religion. The writers and major financial backers of this proposition are religious institutions. You are correct though that many who voted in favor were African-American and Latino-American. I believe we have seen this phenomenon before though, the historically persecuted looking for someone else to persecute. Not to mention that these populations tend to be very religious. I agree that the great history of our country is rooted in the bible, but, I strongly believe that the spirit of the documents of our founding fathers was to protect and defend equal rights for every man. The definition of man has slowly evolved, we all currently find it abhorrant that black people used to be counted as less than a person in this country. One day we will be just as disgusted by this treatment of homosexual people. No person should be denied any rights based on the way they were born. People do not chose to be gay - therefore they should have the right to marry under the law. If your church does not want to allow that right, so be it. But to be free and equal we must grant those rights.
Posted by IAMSOSMART, a resident of the Carriage Gardens neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Marriage is a legal entity and affords privildges, therefore my "belief" is that it is something that every citizen who pays taxes needs to have access to. Frankly, no, I don't give a crap who marries who. Wanna marry your son? Go for it. As long as every person has access to the institution they help pay for. Morals should be instilled by your family and your religion of choice - not the federal, state or local government.
Believe me, you would not really want me deciding who can marry and who cannot.
Posted by IAMSOSMART, a resident of the Carriage Gardens neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 2:12 pm
We are all taxpayers at some point. And, uh, yup! Be as immoral as you want as long as you do not infringe on me and my rights (laws generally prevent this). Cmon, really, lots of people are lots of times super immoral! Even when they are heterosexual and married! Gasp!!!
Immorality totally exists and prop 8 is not going to stop that!
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 2:18 pm
PJ wrote: "This development was CRUCIAL to the birth of the ENLIGHTENMENT"
I'm not understanding what point you're trying to make. The topic was "religion derived rules". This was followed by a citation which claimed that ideas in the Bible are the underpinnings of US legal documents. What do the circumstances that lead to the birth of the Age of Enlightenment have to do the citation? The implication of the citation is that legal ideas enshrined in US law have their origin in the Bible. The circumstances that lead to the Enlightenment do not appear to have anything to do with Biblical law. Please explain your reasoning.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 2:42 pm
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson
How is it that homosexuals marrying pick our pockets or breaks our legs?
Posted by PJ, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 2:56 pm
The circumstances that led to the Enlightenment have everything to do with the Protestant movements. The Enlightenment did not generate nor evolve in a bubble.
Furthermore and once again:
Founding generations of Americans saw themselves as heirs to the Hebrew Bible, and its teachings on liberty, responsibility, hard work, ethics, justice, equality, a sense of choseness and an ethical mission to the world, which have become KEY components of the American character, what is called the “American Creed.” These IDEAS from the Hebrew Bible, brought into American history by Protestants, are seen as underpinning the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
I speak in terms of applied beliefs and convictions as stated above while you seek proof of or lack of directly applied Biblical law in our national documents.
Posted by PJ, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 3:08 pm
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. God's in the mix." - Barack Obama
"I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriages are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view." - Barack Obama
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Yes, we seem to be talking past each other. Again, the subject is "religion derived rules". Therefore I've focused upon the influence of Biblical law on US law or the lack thereof.
"The deep roots of Judeo–Christian values they explore go back to the Protestant Reformation, not the theological battles but the bloody struggle to win the right to translate the Bible into vernacular languages."
I'm still not seeing how this fight to translate the Bible into vernacular languages can be equated with ideas actually in the Bible.
Posted by uh huh, a resident of another community, on Feb 13, 2009 at 3:34 pm
but iamsosmart, the point is, i am not imposing any morallity on you, if morallity is defined as right and wrong, nor am i denying rights(marriage) as explicitly defined in our laws.
if you are in school, you really need to get back to work. You too Stacey, though i'm happy you didn't use the all too familiar "tyranny of the majority" phrase.(guess that one got really stuck in your head it's ok, it happens.) I did like the quote, especially when considering the brilliant man vs the contraditions of his life.
so long -good luck.(and don't go out of your way to hurt people,who
have done you no harm iamsosmart - that would be, by your own standards as stated above,immoral)
Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Feb 18, 2009 at 7:53 pm PToWN94566 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Additionally to the saddeding of people calling themselves Christians, are those who like to compare gay and lesbian people to those who practice Beastiality. I don't think the hate comes out of the differences people have concerning marriage but more so the lies that continued on throughout the campaign of Prop 8.
What I find interesting on the provided web address are the people who donated money and their income is "None."