Posted on 02/03/2009 10:44:06 AM PST by presidio9
A New York artist known for her colorful canvases of drag queens and gay pride parades gave $1,000 to help pass California's ban on same-sex marriage.
Maureen Mullarkey, 66, made her sizable contribution to the National Organization for Marriage's "Yes on 8" fund in June, a Daily News review of campaign records found.
The Westchester County woman was one of tens of thousands who poured a total of more than $83 million into the coffers of Proposition 8 support groups - money that helped convince California voters to overturn an earlier court decision granting gays the right to marry in the Golden State.
Questioned outside her home in tony Chappaqua - the same town where Bill and Hillary Clinton live - she refused to discuss her donation last night.
When asked how she could have donated money to fight gay marriage after making money from her depictions of gays, she just said, "So?"
"If you write that story, I'll sue you," she said.
On her Web site, Mullarkey says gay parades are a "marvelous spectacle" and "assertion of solidarity."
"It is an erotic celebration loosed for a day to keep us all mindful that Dionysus is alive, powerful and under our own porch," said Mullarkey, a former art critic for the now-defunct New York Sun.
Gay activists felt betrayed at word of Mullarkey's donation.
"If I were a buyer of her work, I wouldn't buy it anymore," said Charles Leslie, co-founder of Leslie/Lohman Gay Art Foundation in Manhattan.
Leslie stopped short of calling for a boycott of Mullarkey's work, but the threat of boycotts was part of the reason supporters of Proposition 8 asked a judge to keep secret the names of most donors.
The federal judge denied the request last Thursday.
With Edgar Sandoval
in Chappaqua, N.Y.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
“gay ire”
Isn’t that like saying “happy anger?”
Sorry - that’s about as much concern as I can muster for this story....
For some reason that comment made me laugh out loud.
So you weren't buying her art, but if you did, you wouldn't buy it.
Isn't that like saying your wouldn't marry her, IF she was available and IF she'd have you and IF you decided to marry someone of the opposite sex?
so she takes money from gays and gies it to help fund anti-gay marriage.
what’s the problem?
Best thing about them is shorter life spans. (Gives the gerbil a better chance. )
“Hypocrite” That’s a bunch of Mullarkey.
so... in America... if you support any cause other then the liberal causes... you will be vilified, ‘outed’, and your professional life will be destroyed.
i fail to see how this isn’t in direct conflict with the 1st amendment. the person voiced her political speech by backing the cause she felt right.
where is the ACLU to protect all these people? /s
One had supported it on principle, and changed his mind.
The other had been "married", and split up a year later without a "divorce". When I pointed out that he didn't really believe he had been married, any more than I did, he conceded the point, and admitted that it was all about insurance benefits.
What does taking money from homosexuals have to do with upholding traditional marriage?
If a teacher opposes teachers' unions, does that make him a hypocrite?
Agreed that this woman’s career as an artist is over.
Reporter are the laziest people on the planet. The article got the facts wrong. The Yes on 8 campaign did not spend $83M. Both sides combined did. Yes on 8 spent $40M and No on 8 spent $43M.
Ironic. That's the appropriate word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.