You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘campaign contributions’ category.
The NO on Prop 8 Campaign has put together some great informational television ads, and has the endorsement of logical and forward-thinking groups, businesses, and individuals from all walks of life, but is now in DIRE NEED OF MONEY in order to push back against the massive influx of finances from those who are supporting discrimination: the backers of Prop 8, led in large numbers by Mormons. Please donate as much as you can afford (and as quickly as you can) to help make a bold and powerful statement on November 4th that California will NOT go back in time and tolerate discrimination of ANY of her citizens. Thank you! (ADDED: Shout-out to my friend Jeanne who read this blog, then donated to the NO on Prop 8 campaign–and she doesn’t even live in California! WTG, my friend, wtg! :))
New No on Prop 8 Ad Calls Upon Californians to Reject Discrimination
Ad is Narrated by Samuel Jackson
SACRAMENTO – The NO on Prop 8 campaign today announced a dramatic new television ad, narrated by actor Samuel L. Jackson. The ad calls upon Californians to reject discrimination, and Vote NO on Prop 8.
The full text of the ad follows:
“It wasn’t that long ago that discrimination was legal in California.
“Japanese Americans were confined in internment camps.
“Armenians couldn’t buy a house in the Central Valley.
“Latinos and African Americans were told who they could and could not marry.
“It was a sorry time in our history.
“Today the sponsors of Prop 8 want to eliminate fundamental rights.
“We have an obligation to pass along to our children a more tolerant, more decent society.
“Vote No on Prop 8 it’s unfair and it’s wrong.”
The ad places Prop 8 in its appropriate historical context as a measure that would discriminate against certain Californians and treat people differently under the law.
“We believe it is important in the final days of an unfair initiative attacking individual rights, to remind voters that there have been other times in our history when we stood at this threshold of fairness,” said Patrick Guerriero, NO on 8 Campaign Director. “We know that most California voters do not want to wake up Wednesday morning to learn that we’ve taken a step back to a darker time. That’s why we believe on Tuesday, voters will resoundingly reject Prop 8.”
“Proposition 8 would take away fundamental individual rights, and I believe the historical analogies presented by the NO on Prop 8 campaign are completely appropriate,” said Congressman Mike Honda (D-Campbell). “I am opposed to Prop 8, and I hope my fellow Californians will reject it.”
“California used to ban people of different races from getting married under the law. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now,” said Fabian Nuñez, Former Speaker of the California Assembly. “Proposition 8 is a lot like that unfair ban on interracial marriage. And even though people may feel differently about marriage, everyone ought to agree unequal treatment under the law is a bad thing.”
“Proposition 8 eliminates equal rights for one segment of the population while continuing to grant that right to others,” said Maria Armoudian, an Armenian-American radio personality on KPFK in Los Angeles. “We Armenians have had to endure a century of discrimination. Let us now stand together calling for an end to discrimination for all people. Vote NO on Prop 8.”
Using historical footage, the ad reminds voters of three particularly bleak periods in state history:
— Japanese American Internment: Authorized by President Roosevelt in 1942, the Army ordered all people of Japanese descent, whether citizens or non-citizens, living in CA to be interned in permanent “relocation centers.” Those centers remained operational until the end of the war. Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, who was California Attorney General at that time, later wrote that the internment was “not in keeping with our American concepts of freedoms and rights of citizens.”
— California’s Ban on Interracial Marriage: In 1948, California became the first state in the nation to wipe away a state law banning interracial marriages. In the 1967 case of Loving vs. Virginia dealing with the remaining state bans, the United State Supreme Court ruled that: [T]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
— Racially Restrictive Covenants: These covenants were widely enforced in the early 20th century to discriminate against African Americans, Jews and other ethnic groups by prohibiting the lease or sale of property. The covenants were widely used in the Central Valley against Armenians. They were declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1948.
In 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia decision, Mildred Loving wrote: “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving and loving, are all about.”