Brad Pitt donates $100k for gay marriage equality

[Guest lurkerspeaks]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Brad Pitt has agreed to donate $100,000 to help the Human Rights Campaign raise money for its efforts to support same-sex marriage initiatives in several states.

The nation's largest gay rights group announced Wednesday that Pitt agreed to match contributions from the group's members up to $100,000.

In an e-mail to members of the Human Rights Campaign, Pitt wrote that it's "unbelievable" that people's relationships will be put to a vote on Election Day.

Same-sex marriage will be on the ballot in Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington state.

The Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign says it has spent $8 million to push for marriage equality for gays and lesbians over the past two years, including $5 million in the four ballot measures this year.

[Guest FourAces]

I was thinking about these types of donations just last night. Its great that Brad sent some money off for one of many important causes. However, how do people of his level determine how much to donate? I mean he probably could have easily donated $500, 000 or as lirrlw as $25,000 and I believe public response would have been the same. What is the magic formula?

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well I am trying to tarnish Brad's good intention here and I do believe that he donated money without considering tax exemption. Donating that much money give you tax exemption so a lot of people plan and seek advice when they give such a large sum away.

I was thinking about these types of donations just last night. Its great that Brad sent some money off for one of many important causes. However, how do people of his level determine how much to donate? I mean he probably could have easily donated $500, 000 or as lirrlw as $25,000 and I believe public response would have been the same. What is the magic formula?

[AdamSmith]

Well I am trying to tarnish Brad's good intention here

One is curious how you would defend your own good intentions, in certain similar situations where there were dishonorable intrusions into personal information sources that one would have presumed inviolate?

If the situations are not commensurate, I can gladly be educated.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Oops I meant " not " tarnish ... Sorry for the typo..

As for your question... If we are talking about the same thing, I think I know what you are talking about... It can't be a dishonorable intrusion when one accidentally stumbles upon it. One decided to keep it to himself but with a good intention disclose it with trust to someone who cares.

One is curious how you would defend your own good intentions, in certain similar situations where there were dishonorable intrusions into personal information sources that one would have presumed inviolate?

If the situations are not commensurate, I can gladly be educated.

[AdamSmith]

"accidentally"

The sequence of actions is difficult to interpret as "accidental."

[Guest hitoallusa]

I'm not sure what sequence of actions you are talking about? Please elaborate?

The sequence of actions is difficult to interpret as "accidental."