Their website asked anybody who recognized the list members as Mormons and send the information to a particular email. That information was then used to say "Yes" on the Mormon column on their table.
Several left-wing and gay blog sites then advocated contacted and threatening the employers of the Mormon contributors, and pointed directly to mormonsfor8.com.
At some point in time, and very recently, mormonsfor8 dropped the last names of identified Mormon donors as well as the employers. (However, I recognized many donors on the list with last names who are Mormons; nobody has outed them yet. They include a 22-year-old married woman, a 65-year-old widow and others I know.) But, as I pointed out, their list has been mirrored and the mirrors are up.
Here are some quotes from some better known liberal blogs (and these are the reason I switched m affiliation yesterday from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, after a life-long affiliation with the former):
americablog.com: Prop. 8 opponents are increasingly narrowing their focus on Mormons, harnessing technology and open-records laws in their efforts. One Web site run by a Prop. 8 opponent, Mormonsfor8.com, identifies the name and hometown of every Mormon donor. On the Daily Kos, the nation's most popular liberal blog, there is a campaign to use that information to look into the lives of Mormons who financially support Prop. 8.
americablog.com: One Web site run by a Prop. 8 opponent, Mormonsfor8.com, identifies the name and hometown of every Mormon donor... in response, two women parked an SUV in front of their home, with the words "Bigots live here" painted on the windshield.
americablog.com: I am looking forward to marginalizing people who support proposition 8 and bankrupting their businesses.
San Francisco Chronicle, November 26, 2008
See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 13OIRD.DTL : Nadine Hansen, who runs Mormonsfor8.com, said the church decided to enter politics and can't excuse itself for the ramifications.
"Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee," said Hansen, 61, a Mormon who lives in Cedar City, Utah, and has stopped going to church. "You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.' "Hansen said she focused on Mormons because she is one. She said Mormons have contacted her to shut the site, saying it was being used by the Daily Kos campaign in a "witch hunt."
"I didn't think there were any witches on the list, so I wasn't worried," said Hansen, whose site is "neutral" on its views, though she is opposed because she views it as "divisive."
The person who initiated the Daily Kos campaign to look into the lives of Mormon donors is Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention who said he's the vice president of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats.
Atkins said his goal was to "embarrass the opposition by pointing out and publicizing any contributors they may have." He said focusing on Mormons made sense. "If one religious group is putting close to the majority of the money and the effort into passing this proposition, it is fair to single them out."
I complained to mormonsfor8 and was specifically told quite disingenuously that the list was not created to embarrass anybody. Somebody who claimed to be one of the site's organizers, with the email Captain Moroni [lds4gaymarriage@hotmail.com], told me: "I didn't see personal attacks by the site. They just simply post names and amounts without commentary. They seem to be focusing on the LDS contribution % of the total."
The particular issue I have is not the use of public information, but the use of private information. As I told "Captain Moroni", who was obviously a lawyer: "I don't really care myself, but there are many folks who resent being "outed" religion-wise for exercising their constitutional right to contribute political funds. Disclosure of religious association is a matter of constitutional protection and a privilege held by the congregant (Church of Hakeem v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. App. 3d 184 (1980)) against disclosure, and your forced outing to intimidate others us would be a violation of civil rights if committed with the color of authority. That you're private and anonymous doesn't make what you are doing any more commendable."