California Boycott -- Fighting Back Against Hate

As gay and lesbian couples express their love and commitment through weddings, an extremely well funded campaign has placed an initiative constitutional amendment on the November 4th ballot to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. They spent millions to qualify this amendment, and have vowed to raise in excess of $20 million to remove marriage equality in California.

Much of the money to qualify the initiative constitutional amendment came from within our own San Diego County. We feel that if these individuals, businesses, and organizations so adamantly desire to take away our right to marry, then the LGBT community, our families and our friends should fight back against these purveyors of hate.

Therefore, we will wage a campaign to disseminate the truth about who funded the qualification of the initiative and who is funding the campaign itself. We propose to take action against the businesses of those who fund the effort to harm us. We will identify these individuals and companies on our web site: www.CaliforniansAgainstHate.com as soon as their names become available to us. We will broadcast the information all over the country to make sure that our friends and allies throughout the United States know the identity of those who have contributed vast sums of money to oppose our freedom to marry.

Californians Against Hate is organized as a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is completely independent and not affiliated with Equality for All, which is the official campaign committee opposing the amendment in November. Our funding will come from individuals who believe that the truth should be known about those funding the campaign of hate.

Our effort will kick off on Friday, July 18, 2008 at 1:00 pm in San Diego with a demonstration and boycott announcement against one of the largest donors to qualify this Amendment, Doug Manchester, CEO of the Manchester Financial Group of San Diego dougmanchester.com. Mr. Manchester saw fit to contribute $125,000.00 this year to take away marriage equality in California.

We will launch our web site BoycottManchesterHotels.com at that time, and begin our effort to persuade fair minded people not to patronize Mr. Manchester's two hotels in San Diego County, the Manchester Grand Hyatt in downtown San Diego and The Grand Del Mar Golf Resort & Spain Del Mar.

If our opponents are steadfast in their desire to take away our freedom to marry, then we will fight back. We do not want to financially support any business owned by supporters of this hateful initiative constitutional amendment that would then be used against us.

This country was founded on the principle of liberty and justice for all. Our opponents have every right to contribute vast sums of money to take away our rights, and we have every right to fight back, and we will.

Comments

[LAJonathan]

EXCELLENT, great idea!!

[vladseventysix]

Why not use a marital paradigm that can include both heterosexual relations as well as homosexual relations both at the same time? Wouldn't that be equality of human relations at least as far as marriage is concerned? Why is it that marriage can include one OR the other but not both at the same time? Do you understand why? Can you explain why?

[vladseventysix]

If the Institution of Marriage has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the human species then the Institution of Marriage must be abolished for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. If the Institution of Marriage does have something to do with the perpetuation of the human species then a human being can only marry a human being of the opposite sex--just like everybody else! Either way there is no case for same sex marriage. With the Institution of Marriage a man and a woman ARE ALWAYS married as being heterosexual relations. With same sex marriage a man and a woman CAN ONLY be married as being matingless, genderless, partner A and partner B homosexual relations. So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

[LAJonathan]

Interesting argument here...hmmm. Put the glue down....

[Researchguy66]

Hmmm...sounds like a trial-balloon for O*bam'as next flip-flop.

[BADEN]

YES - Let's do this.

"You want my business? Stay out of my private affairs!"

YES - it's time to name names and put them out there for the public to do the right thing.

And, it would be very informative if EMPLOYEES in these companies COME FORWARD and denounce their employer's role in social engineering and exclusion.

Yeah.."Let's git 'er done".

[rmajh5]

More often than not, when I learn of the death of a person, I tend to want to look for a reason to offer sympathy for the family of that person.

But when former United States Senator Jesse Helms departed this life, I had no such feelings. Rather, I could only recall his racist views, his homophobic beliefs and the very nasty prejudices that he harbored and spewed out to the public for most of his life.

I am sure Helms claimed to have been a religious man, but his words and deeds seemed always to prove otherwise.

Christopher Hitchens has captured the truth of Helms (Philadelphia Inquirer, “Jesse Helms' legacy” 7/9/08). My hope is others will take heed and avoid the irrationality that led Helms down a terrible path. Should this be the case, then at least I will be able to say that Helms did not live in vain.