Patterico's Pontifications

11/18/2008

Mob Anger and Violence by Proposition 8 Opponents

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:10 am

Via Michelle comes a description of an angry mob’s violence against Christians over Proposition 8:

At first, they just shouted at us, using crude, rude, and foul language and calling us names like “haters” and “bigots”. Since it was a long night, I can’t even begin to remember all of the things that were shouted and/or chanted at us. Then, they started throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us. Then, a group of guys surrounded us with whistles, and blasted them inches away from our ears continually. Then, they started getting violent and started shoving us. At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles. Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said “Hey, that’s not yours, can you please give it back?”. He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her. I called the cops, and when they got there, they pulled her out of the circle and asked her if she wanted to press charges. She said “No, tell him I forgive him.”

Afterwards, she didn’t rejoin us in the circle, but she made friends with one of the people in the crowd, and really connected heart to heart. Roger got death threats. As the leader of our group, people looked him in the eyes and said “I am going to kill you.”, and they were serious. A cop heard one of them, and confronted him. (This part is kinda graphic, so you should skip the paragraph if you don’t want to be offended.) It wasn’t long before the violence turned to perversion. They were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants – basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them.

Here’s the aftermath:

This is of a piece with other mob action (remember the cross-stomping?) and recent boycotts of businesses whose owners contributed to Proposition 8. As someone who supports gay marriage, I think this is a horrible way to go about convincing the opposition.

The left-wing blogs applaud it all. They admit of no possible principled support for Proposition 8. They agree that anyone who supported it or voted for it is a hater and a bigot.

And when you start demonizing the other side, sometimes angry mobs form. And when angry mobs form, it can get violent.

It all comes down to what you think is the best method of persuasion. Do you admit that there may be a principled basis for your opponent’s argument, but do your best to persuade him that he’s wrong? Or do you simply conclude that your opponent’s arguments are evil, and that you have to step up the rhetoric and general level of nastiness?

Proposition 8 opponents have decided on the confrontational route. They have decided that anyone who disagrees with them is not just wrong, but bad and evil. And they have decided to fight what they perceive as nasty and dishonest behavior with more of the same.

I think we can all agree that their demonization, boycotts, and mob anger is counterproductive.

I have always said that the most dangerous human emotion is self-righteousness. It’s on display in spades in the video above.

224 Responses to “Mob Anger and Violence by Proposition 8 Opponents”

  1. I am angry at the outcome of Proposition 8; I believe it has required the state to discriminate against me. On a deep level I do not accept it: Proposition 8 *will be* repealed within my lifetime.

    I don’t think boycotts are counterproductive; I think that boycotts – not of people who voted for the measure, but of people who worked to make it pass – are an entirely reasonable and peaceful way of expressing my displeasure. In a pluralistic capitalist society, refusing to do business with people who have displeased me is a legitimate, and downright common, form of political protest.

    But I agree that demonization is counterproductive. The people who disagree with me on this are wrong, not evil.

    But this distinction seems to be a hard one for many, on all sides of all political aisles, to make.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  2. They are intolerant of intolerance.

    JD (b96a9e)

  3. Brought to you by the party of:
    Tolerance!, Unity!, Diveristy!, Multiculturalism!, Moral Relativism!, Understanding!, Empathy!, Give Peace a Chance!, Inclusion!, Democracy!…

    O!

    Bob (99fc1b)

  4. It is unbelievable that the democratic process is only good and functioning when groups get their desired result. Prop 8 went to a vote and that is the end of that.

    The most intolerant and violence prone groups are those that portray themselves as the most liberal.

    Mike Haltman
    The Political and Financial Markets Commentator
    http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com

    Michael Haltman (a3de5e)

  5. I agree with aphrael on the boycott issue. Even if they wanted to boycott businesses of people who voted for it, that is a legitimate form of expression. How you could tell who voted for or against it without doing some kind of broad-brush approach is a different story.

    Resorting to violence, however, is one side conceding that they have lost the argument and must resort to coercion of a different form. This is a bad place to be, since we’re no longer discussing whether one side is right, but trying to shut the other side up by intimidation.

    Do you admit that there may be a principled basis for your opponent’s argument . . .

    Unfortunately, this requires a level of effort that a lot of people aren’t willing to give. Because then I have to go through the hassles of finding supporting evidence to refute the opposition’s arguments, often needing to string more than three words together. Or you have to be mature enough to gracefully bow out, even if you aren’t convinced of the validity of the opposition’s arguments.

    It’s easier to just categorically mark the other side as evil, and then we don’t need to refute their arguments. If they are evil, so are their arguments and can be ignored. Plus, as we see here, it leads to a loosening of the bounds of proper interpersonal behavior. If they’re evil, then we don’t have to treat them as civilly, etc.

    Until society gets to the point where we punish harshly this type of behavior on the ideological front, it will keep happening. It is an easy way to (I’d say improperly) claim the high ground.

    Joral (5ec61e)

  6. Michael Haltman, it’s a normal process in California that we vote on things repeatedly. We’ve voted on parental notification for abortion three times in the last five years. We’ve voted on gerrymandering reform twice in the last two years. A decade ago we imposed a tobacco tax in one election and then voted on it again in the next election.

    A single vote on an initiative often fails to settle controversial issues, especially if the vote is close.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  7. Resorting to violence, however, is one side conceding that they have lost the argument and must resort to coercion of a different form. This is a bad place to be, since we’re no longer discussing whether one side is right, but trying to shut the other side up by intimidation.

    I agree.

    I’m torn on the question of mob protests, because I think they have a galvanizing effect on the morale of gay marriage supporters, and I think that peaceful protests on this issue can help shift public opinion.

    But violence has no place in political debate.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  8. I think that peaceful protests on this issue can help shift public opinion.

    How have those anti-abortion protests been working lately?
    Protests annoy people.

    MayBee (4f6fae)

  9. Such tactics would no doubt be approved by the LAist website, which takes a great deal of glee in anything bad happening to Pro 8 supporters. The best approving quote is this (following the demand of Orange County Pro 8 that their civil rights are being violated by fear and intimidation):

    Executive director of UCLA’s Williams Institute, Harvard-educated attorney Brad Sears said “They do like to play the victim. The right to participate without fear is not a right that’s recognized by any state constitution, and certainly not in the United States’ Constitution. The right to vote is a recognized right, but it isn’t people who voted being targeted, but those who gave money.”

    So — the left says you have no right to support any political cause in this country without fear. Putting one’s political opposition in fear of life, limb, and livelihood is an acceptable political tactic in America now. And this is coming from the left, folks. Change we can believe in.

    Tragic Christian (28a938)

  10. But violence has no place in political debate.

    Sadly, it does. The mature realize that persuasion is the better course, but the immature will resort to violence quite readily.

    Not just because it works, but also because it’s been tolerated for decades. Anti-globalization, “peace” rallys, race riots masquerading as protests against police abuses…

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  11. Do you admit that there may be a principled basis for your opponent’s argument, but do your best to persuade him that he’s wrong?

    It should be so easy to imagine your opponent’s feelings in this case. The idea of gay marriage is really very new. 20 years ago, most people didn’t even imagine it, not even the people that now support it. Did they consider themselves homophobes then, or was it just not something they imagined happening in society? What changed your mind?
    The swing voters on this issue- the moderates- are the people that just can’t imagine it yet. Let them keep watching TLC and Bravo, and see the face of normal, loving gay couples.

    MayBee (4f6fae)

  12. Patrick,

    Proposition 8 supporters have decided on the confrontational route.

    Did I read this right? Do you mean the group being harassed were being confrontational and deserved what the mob gave them?

    [Patterico meant to say “Proposition 8 opponents have decided on the confrontational route” and he asked me to correct it. Thanks. — DRJ]

    On Lawn (04b503)

  13. I think that boycotts – not of people who voted for the measure, but of people who worked to make it pass

    Comment by aphrael

    With all due respect, aphrael, this approach that seems to be favored by many of your similar mindset, smacks of hypocrisy and an intellectual dishonesty, to thise of us on the other side of the divide…

    It’s easy to target, and demonize, the old woman at that restaurant that gave a paltry donation to the group that supported prop 8; likewise for the theater director. And, the church makes an easy target as well, especially since the vilification of religious conservatives is en vogue with the LGBT community, the MSM and the entire far left in general…

    Why don’t you folks go after Mr. Obama, the good man that himself stated that he didn’t support gay marriage? Or for that matter, the black community in Caifornia, of whom 70% seemed to vote for the proposition?

    My intuition is that after watching the feminists lose in the identity politics card game that was the Democrat’s primary, as a group you realized that as far as the identity politics game goes, the race card trumps all…

    I’m sorry that the LGBT community is not the grievence group-du-jour. Even though I am a staunch Catholic, I don’t personally believe in discrimination based on sexual preferences. And, as an American, I believe that we must all be equal under the law. But I can’t change the opinion of society as a whole, just those who I can directly interact with…

    And, as a group, suuporters of gay rights won’t be changing too many minds either with these atrocious displays of mob violence, and activist mass intimidation, against folks that simply don’t share your outlook…

    I suggest that you take this matter right to the top; to Mr. Obama directly. After all, as a group, supporters of gay rights overwhelmingly voted for him, just like the black community did. So, my suggestion is to get him to work a social miracle and do something about it…

    It would probably be more effective than cowardly mob insurrection. And while I realize you too spoke against these tactics, your comment indicated an implicit agreement with their targets…

    Many in the left-o-sphere who rail against the intolerance of religious folks are among the most close minded individuals one could ever meet. It’s up to us more rational people to convince them to open up their minds, accept the will of the electorate, and to live and let live. Oh and, I hope this demonstrates clearly the divisive nature of the risible ideology that is identity politics…

    Best Wishes…

    Bob (99fc1b)

  14. No, On Lawn, you did not read that right.

    JD (b96a9e)

  15. The right to participate without fear is not a right that’s recognized by any state constitution, and certainly not in the United States’ Constitution.

    Strictly speaking, that’s true. However, coming from a part of the political spectrum that considers requiring proof of identity to vote as oppressive and which tried to turn the presence of a police car most of a mile from a polling place into “intimidation”, this is rich.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  16. This is a preview of the Obama administration. Anything he proposes is right and anyone who objects is evil. The people who opposed Prop 8 had to know that the previous Prop 22 won by a large margin. This was not a close vote. The current tactics by the radical gay movement reenforces the suspicion that they had another agenda all along. Personally, I believed that this was an anti-church movement which intended to force churches, especially the Catholic Church, to perform these marriages or lose their tax exemption. There is right now in Canada a minister who has been told that he will go to prison if he continues to preach that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible.

    The present agitation is guaranteeing that, if the gay marriage advocates succeed in getting a repeal of this constitutional amendment on the ballot, it will lose by a bigger margin. They do not believe in democracy. This is the first appearance of fascism in the Obama coalition. It will not be the last.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  17. “Bigots out of the Castro,” they chanted

    Cuz, you know, they’re accepting of the broad diversity of every idea. Everybody is welcome.

    Unless you’re different from them.

    Robert C. J. Parry (50a453)

  18. The devil is unveiling himself in these people. It is clear from this story who is being homosexualism. The devil. He hates mankind and he hates everything that resembles God. The battle against gay-marriage is a battle for the soul of America. Do not submit to intimidation. Stand up against gay-marriage because it is the right thing to do. Marriage is and will always be a union between a man and a woman. Period. A man cannot marry a man. A woman cannot marry a woman. It is the worst form of perversion and delusion to even argue about it.

    love2008 (a54233)

  19. Bob, this is a California state issue; Pres-Elect Obama is not ‘the top’, the voters of the state of California are.

    Pres-Elect Obama *did* say both that he was opposed to gay marriage and that he was opposed to Proposition 8. I was disappointed in him for this;, and for not doing more to oppose it, but I also understand that becoming embroiled in a controversial issue in one of the most liberal states in the nation is not a good way to win election to the Presidency, and as a Californian I resent it when out-of-state politicians inject themselves into California politics.

    I’m far more irritated with Gov. Schwarzenegger, who opposed Proposition 8 but did not campaign against it.

    But at the end of the day, this was brought about by a popular democratic movement, not by politicians; and while I can and should hold my political allies accountable for their failure to participate, they were not the people who made this happen.

    The people who voted for it made it happen; and, given how close the election was, the people who funded the television ads made it happen … because those ads swayed enough of the people in the middle to make the difference. (A notion which the people running the Yes-on-8 campaign have themselves endorsed, I might ad).

    I don’t think it’s possible to have an enumerated list of people to boycott because they voted for it; and I don’t think it’s fair, because I know nothing of the motivations of those four million people, and any generalizations I make are guaranteed to be wrong as to some sizable number of them.

    But the list of donors is smaller, and the list of *large* doners is much smaller, and it seems much more reasonable to me to voice my displeasure at them.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  20. Love2008: Pardon me, but would I be correct in concluding that you just called me the Devil, or that I am working for him?

    It seems hard for me to derive any other conclusion from your words.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  21. The Left’s dogma proclaims that more and more freedom is always good. Some people in CA did not buy that. But are these present riots about gay rights or just plain anarchy and hate? They don’t seem to care about the long term political implications of their actions-they just want to punish someone. They are certainly making no effort to understand or convince their opponents.

    These might as well be the mobs in Beijing streets in the Cultural Revoltuion or Paris after the French Revolution. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. Who will be the first die here for such beautiful words?

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  22. California has lost it’s appeal to me and my family. We will avoid traveling through California as much as possible. 395 is more scenic and I can avoid buying gas/diesel in that state. I actively encourage my entrepreneurial friends and family to take their job creation skills elsewhere.

    California is not the state I was raised in. I freely abandon it to whatever fate awaits it. These anarchists deserve what they ask for good and hard.

    Note to gay anarchists; despite my Christian upbringing I don’t turn the other cheek. One of us goes to the hospital and the other goes to jail.

    The choice is yours!

    vet66 (56a0a8)

  23. Patricia: the protests are about gay rights, not about anarchy and hate. To the extent they are hateful, it is because the people protesting are angry: we wrongly believed that the voters of California would not ban gay marriage … and are angry that they did.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  24. Then what did Patrick mean when he said,

    Proposition 8 supporters have decided on the confrontational route.

    On Lawn (9a9967)

  25. Learn to live with disappointment.

    mojo (8096f2)

  26. aphrael- when you see anti-abortion protesters, what do you see? I don’t know how old you are, but do you remember the anti-abortion protests of the late 80’s/early 90’s?

    MayBee (4f6fae)

  27. MayBee: I remember the protests of the early 90s; I also remember that those protests were protests against something which could not be changed by the people and had been settled law for a decade and a half.

    I also know that protests *did* change people’s minds during the civil rights era, but they had a counterproductive effect during the Vietnam era.

    I think that peaceful protests today can be helpful. I think that violent protests will be harmful. I think that peaceful protests four years from now will just convince people that gay marriage supporters are like Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  28. On Lawn,

    Gack. Why is it so hard to get that right? You’re entirely correct. I mean “opponents.”

    Can someone with posting privileges fix that? DRJ?

    Patterico (0ff38e)

  29. Aphrael,

    “You get what you get and you don’t get upset.” Or haven’t you attended First Grade, recently?

    Also, I think these “Christians” Michelle is reporting about deliberately went there to provoke their “martyrdom” at the hands of the Ungodly.

    nk (2e727e)

  30. On Lawn: I think he misspoke, and meant either ‘Proposition 8 opponents’ or ‘gay marriage supporters’.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  31. On Lawn – That those that supported Proposition 8 have chosen the confrontational route. It is a pretty elementary construct.

    aphrael – Other than to mock or scorn, it is best to not pay much mind to lovie.

    JD (b96a9e)

  32. I misread. My bad. Aphrael, predictably, was much smarter and kinder than I.

    JD (b96a9e)

  33. Correction. on comment #18 “being homosexualism” should be “behind homosexualism”.
    Aphrael,
    Comment by aphrael — 11/18/2008 @ 8:14 am

    I did not call anyone a devil. I simply said that the spirit behind homosexuality is the devil. Evidenced by the resort to violence.

    love2008 (a54233)

  34. Funny that lovie supports Sen. Obama, whose position on this is exactly the same as George Bush’s.

    JD (b96a9e)

  35. So, you are not the devil aphrael, you are just inspired by the devil. Seems like a distinction without a difference to me, but then lovie is not so good with the nuance.

    JD (b96a9e)

  36. #11 MayBee
    The swing voters on this issue- the moderates- are the people that just can’t imagine it yet. Let them keep watching TLC and Bravo, and see the face of normal, loving gay couples.

    Or…as a moderate (and one who voted against Florida’s ant-gay marriage amendment)…I can watch this behavior (as opposed to the scripted network TV pap you’re suggesting) and decide that this issue is no longer worth my support.

    Kurt (5a6552)

  37. Proposition 8 supporters have decided on the confrontational route.
    .
    Some have, others have not. Both approaches can be effective, obviously in different ways. At some point, “opposition” has to be overcome with the force of law, which is just “confrontation” legitimized.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  38. The Devil does not “inspire”. People sin of their own free will and put themselves under Satan’s power.

    nk (2e727e)

  39. I just can not take a claim of “discrimination” by the government seriously.

    First, I don’t fall for the subversion of the English language with a distorted pejorative redefinition of discrimination – as if discrimination were always irrational, illegal, and unfair. A rational basis exists for state recognition and sponsorship of marriage between opposite sexes. The main reason is that male and female sexual union makes new people, and there are practical realities of protection of the interests of women and men as a result of this, and protections for society from abandoned dependents who would become charges of the state.

    Not all heterosexual unions produce children and it isn’t the governments business to pry into why unless it is petitioned to t anull the union. But as a matter of natural course this is how people are made, sexual union between male and female. There is a governmental interest in constraining such relationships as mentioned before. If not all heterosexual couples produce children, the relationship encomasses all that will.

    There is no rational basis for the government to recognize loving and companionate relationship bewteen same-sex couples, as they never under any circumstances engage in sexual behaviour with each other that produces children naturally.

    There is simply no reason for the government to sponsor same-zex relationships the way it does heterosexual relationships.
    And preference in sexual partner does not turn you into a different kind of human being. And you can still marry any opposite sex partner who will have you – you are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

    Gay people deserve equal treatment under the law, and they are not forbidden from marrying persons of the opposite sex, so long as they commit no fraud and maintain their obligations under the law of the state in which they reside.

    There are many people I cannot marry. That doesn’t mean the state is engaing in some sort of illegal discrimination

    SarahW (a6e80b)

  40. Further evidence that we have turned the streets over to the criminals and the anarchists, glaringly attested to with the WTO riots in Seattle, and now confirmed by the various “protestations” against the LDS and others re Prop-8.
    As long as we refuse to control the borders, and let criminal gangs and anarchists rule the streets, we will continue a long, slow descent into Hell!

    Another Drew (57c107)

  41. Do gay people believe in God and the devil? Do they believe that God exists?

    love2008 (a54233)

  42. It all comes down to what you think is the best method of persuasion.

    Not persuasion. Manipulation.

    Don’t underestimate people’s ability to sympathize with those expressing strong emotions.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  43. Patricia: the protests are about gay rights, not about anarchy and hate.

    Someone needs to tell the protesters this, because based on their actions, it’s about anarchy and hate.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  44. “…Let them keep watching TLC and Bravo, and see the face of normal, loving gay couples.…”

    Or, they can go on the Net, and view scenes fron the “Fulton Street Festival” –
    lots of normal, loving gay couples in evidence there.

    Another Drew (57c107)

  45. “A man cannot marry a man. A woman cannot marry a woman. It is the worst form of perversion …” If that’s the _worst_ form of perversion you are aware of, you must not read the news at all.

    gp (72be5d)

  46. Don’t underestimate people’s ability to sympathize with those expressing strong emotions.

    And the left, by-and-large, fetishizes those willing to resort to violence. They’re “more committed” and “authentic” than those who want to persuade.

    If you’re trying to convince people to let you live as you wish, attacking them for expressing their beliefs — the manner in which they wish to live — is counter-productive.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  47. I think that peaceful protests today can be helpful. I think that violent protests will be harmful. I think that peaceful protests four years from now will just convince people that gay marriage supporters are like Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

    Lyndon LaRouche. heh.
    Anti-free trade, PETA, Free Mumia, anti-war, anti-abortion. All active protests movements that are just so much noise on most people’s radar.
    I just don’t think protesting is helpful other than as an outlet for the people doing the protesting. We disagree.

    MayBee (4f6fae)

  48. Or, they can go on the Net, and view scenes fron the “Fulton Street Festival” –

    Well, that is a problem. Gay people are still having to battle with stereotypes that gay activists have helped create.
    Who ever would have thought the gay bath house lifestyle and Gay Pride Parade marchers would be asking to be treated just like boring straight couples 20 years later?

    MayBee (4f6fae)

  49. I was reading one of the blogspots that acted as a clearinghouse for protest related information.

    Lots of protests at LDS locations.

    Not a one at a mosque.

    I did a quick check and it turns out that there are twice as many Muslims in California as there are Mormons.

    Not to go all Moby here, but it might be instructive to organize a Prop 8 protest to take place at the King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles just to see what the reaction is of the protesters.

    BumperStickerist (ab63e8)

  50. Note to gay anarchists; despite my Christian upbringing I don’t turn the other cheek. One of us goes to the hospital and the other goes to jail.

    The choice is yours!

    It will be interesting to see how this progresses if No-8 activists suddenly end up on the wrong side of pepper spray or worse after harassing the wrong person(s).

    Horatio (55069c)

  51. Well, I for one am angry. And this emotion is self-authenticating. I am angry that all of you OTHERS (straight, gay, white, mexican, etc, blah blah blah) came illegally to my state and are ruining it. Failure to comply with my right to live here free from all of you may result in expressions of my free-floating rage. P.S. my right came from God, through the King of Spain – I can show you the land grant.

    [What? You mean reality tells me I should work with others to try to make life here tolerable? NEVER!!! I AM RIGHT!!!!!!!]

    Californio (4d3d98)

  52. organize a Prop 8 protest to take place at the King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles just to see what the reaction is of the protesters

    Heh. Suddenly it’ll be all “They’re just exercising their freedom of religion and we respect them for that becaseu that is what America is all about blah blah blah”.

    Doob (5a6552)

  53. I’d be more impressed with the Fabulous Brownshirts if they took their whistle-blowing bible-thwacking act down to Visitation Valley or East Potrero Hill. It’d get Real quickly.

    Only TWO cops with helmets? No sanitary gloves?

    furious (56af6d)

  54. Do gay people believe in God and the devil? Do they believe that God exists?

    “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” Matthew 5:22

    Do you believe that every time you have insulted anyone here you sinned worse than if you had had sex with the entire Greek navy?

    Please take your half-assed Christianity to Stormfront, love2008.

    nk (2e727e)

  55. #50 or will it be like the way the cops protected the codepinko skanks’ protests and property destruction against the Marine recruiting stations in Berkeley?
    I’ve found that liberals here in Wexler’s district have a litmus test. If you don’t support gay marriages, you are the scum of the earth. If you don’t hate Bush with a passion, ditto. Abortions on demand..ditto. Clinton was a good man who had the strong urges that powerful LIBERAL men need to release- to wit, getting bj’s from a young subordinate. Double standards abound. Look at the various sex scandals and compare the reactions to lib vs. rino/gop perpetrators. And check out how the ACLU stands up for some peoples’ rights. Got to support NAMBLA also.

    I don’t completely agree with hold rollers like Tokyo Rose here as far as God’s wrath being unleashed because I don’t buy fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. Hell, I don’t think any possible god is at all beneficent. But I do think, like Rome, deviant behavior, will catch up with us. That includes abortions on demand and Baraky’s lack of compassion for humans who survive abortion, only to set aside untreated to croak. I don’t care if gays live together lovingly as man and wife. It doesn’t not need martital confirmation by the state against tradition. I don’t want to see heterosexuals screwing in public so why would some gay pride ACT UP! in-your-face whackjob prancing around in public in a g string persuade me that he is special?
    Would be interesting to see how these fools who want change and more liberties feel about the state via Obama’s minions’ confiscation of guns. Afterall it works so fecking well in Chicago, Detroit and D.C., eh? And free speech for libtards is just fine, but forget the secret ballot for union membership crap? Funny how the Senate wants a secret ballot on chastising and punishing Joe Lieberman too?

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  56. I’m also against Prop 8, but this has gone too far.

    See what happened to a 70-year-old lady trying to explain her views:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHL9NZ1lQQ

    The last 30 seconds are particularly bad — protestesrs rip a cross out of her hands and stomp on it. Literally, a 70-year-old woman assaulted.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHL9NZ1lQQ#t=2m30s

    Had this been the other way around, you can guarantee it’d be front-page news.

    La denizen (cd1247)

  57. Literally, a 70-year-old woman assaulted.

    Doesn’t the physical aspect turn that into “battery”?

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  58. Please take your half-assed Christianity to Stormfront, love2008.

    Comment by nk — 11/18/2008 @ 9:09 am
    Look who’s talking. And how does the scripture you quoted relate to your tripe?

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  59. SarahW: let me give you a concrete example.

    In California, you have the right to use force to protect someone else if they have a reasonable fear of imminent death or severe bodily harm. You may even use deadly force, so long as your use of deadly force was ‘reasonable’. Because of the procedure involved in that determination, should you be prosecuted, the burden falls on you to demonstrate that the use of deadly force was reasonable.

    Except that if the person you were protecting was your “wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant”, you are not liable for the use of deadly force.

    So, in short: if a married couple is walking down the street and someone jumps them and threatens one of them with imminent bodily harm, and the other person in the couple pulls out a gun and shoots the robber and kills him, he is absolutely not guilty of any crime and cannot be prosecuted.

    But if two domestic partners are walking down the street and someone jumps them and threatens one of them with imminent bodily harm, and the other person in the couple pulls out a gun and shoots the robber and kills him, he can be prosecuted and will only get off if he can convince a jury that his response was reasonable.

    What’s the rational state interest in this?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  60. nk.
    Do you believe that every time you have insulted anyone here you sinned worse than if you had had sex with the entire Greek navy?
    No need sharing details of your sick life here. You are sick!

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  61. Somehow I can’t get the idea out of my head that these guys are cannon fodder.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  62. I did a quick check and it turns out that there are twice as many Muslims in California as there are Mormons

    And as far as we know there was no organized effort by a central Mosque to get practicing Muslims to organize, donate money, and participate in yes-on-8 rallies; nor did a substantial amount of the donations to the campaign come from Muslims; nor was there significant participation in the organization and financing by other Muslims from out of state.

    The two situations are not equivalent.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  63. but they had a counterproductive effect during the Vietnam era.

    That’s half – correct; the early part of the protests against the Vietnam war were gaining positive traction with a significant level of the populace, but once the nutjobs took over, that suppport mostly evaporated. This just looks like a prolonged hissy – fit, and only serves to confirm the worst stereoptypes that opponents may harbor. I saw the same unfortuate dymnamic occur with the Gay Pride Festival in my neighborhood – the early years were about acceptance and tolerance, while the more recent years have been all about the anger and freak show aspects.

    Dmac (e30284)

  64. Wow, my bad – “support,” “unfortunate,” and “dynamic.”

    Dmac (e30284)

  65. Love2008, if I didn’t think that it might annoy the other commenters and come close to violating the bounds of our host’s hospitality, I would be sorely tempted to take #60 as an invitation to share details of my love life with you.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  66. Reference your post: Please correct to ” opponents of prop 8 resorted to violence.”

    Barsinister (6c0215)

  67. nk.
    Do you believe that every time you have insulted anyone here you sinned worse than if you had had sex with the entire Greek navy?
    No need sharing details of your sick life here. You are sick!

    Comment by love2008 — 11/18/2008 @ 9:31 am

    So much for love2008’s Christianity. My job is done. (Although, to the oily little freak’s credit, she revealed what a hypocritical, lying, snake in the grass she is a lot earlier than usual.)

    nk (2e727e)

  68. I also remember that those protests were protests against something which could not be changed by the people and had been settled law for a decade and a half.

    This does not mean that protest should not continue if a citizen feels that innocent lives are being killed. That to me is a far more righteous cause and if anything would inspire outburts of anger, it would be abortion.

    However, because it is not fashionable and embraced by the left, any form of protest against the practice (whether its the law or not) and even the predominant form of protest at clinics – holding up signs at clinics and praying – is unacceptable and frowned upon.

    So when the Prop 8 folk become violent, abusive and hateful in their protest and the left remains silent, it only reveals their disingenuousness and dishonesty, and reinforces that agenda trumps all.

    *Pre-emptive strike: abortion clinic bombings justifies nothing.

    Dana (3a01f2)

  69. I have no problem with holding up signs at clinics and praying as long as the people doing so do not block access to parking at the clinic or entry to the clinic, and do not physically interfere with people getting into and out of the clinic.

    But I’m very close to being a free speech absolutist.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  70. (Addendum to #69) That said, I *do* find protesting at funerals and weddings to be obnoxious behavior, and I wish the handful of lunatics doing it would stop it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  71. They’re close to becoming another Code Pink – type of protestors if they keep this up.

    Dmac (e30284)

  72. I love it. Sarah Palin was the devil incarnate to the left and some on the right. Some reasons for the hatred were her guns and religion stance. Oh, she should have aborted that Down’s Syndrome drain on society. As someone here recently pointed out, why don’t liberals make any effort at all to protest against Muslims’ prejudices and hatreds? Sure, we know they’d crap in their panties at the mere thought. But gays can call blacks who voted against gay marriage by a wide margin N——! and that is just hunky dory. Imagine anyone even calling Baracky a shine? Got to love the hypocrisy.
    And had Mitt Romney been the GOP nominee, is there any doubt that the people now attacking the LDS church would attack him for his Mormonism with even more zeal than they attacked Palin for being a mere Christian? AND how many bible thumpers on the right would have joined in on the bigoted free for all? I don’t want religion supported by public tax money EXCEPT I’d have no problem giving parents and children school choice. Ok for all those pols to send their kids to private schools but god forbid regular taxpayers and the poorest have any choice. And why the double standards bowing to the Islamic faith on Holidays and such and yet disrespect and vilification of Christianity is tolerated?
    You extremists on the left and the right, can kiss this typical cracker’s ass. Years ago I was told that god might forgive me for being divorced but that the congregation I was attending at the time could not. Of course extramarital sex or even homosexual sex was not lacking among those loving religious folk, but it was not offically sanctioned so I guess it was fine.
    So can’t we all just get along? The liberal women I know see no double standards in their domestic feminazi stance and in how Muslimw eomen are treated. It seems if Muslim women want to change their “culture”, it is up to them to force change themselves.
    So if some enlightened gay person here, whose right to love whomever they want I do not question at all, could tell me why they don’t protest the treatment of homosexuals by Muslims and yet have no qualms about attacking Christians here in America? And if we ever do have sharia law law here, don’t gays and other liberals who seem to embrace the rights of terrorists know that they (gays) will be among the first to be enslaved or have their heads cut off by the religion of peace?
    I guess I can see that Tokyo Rose is a typical double standards liberal in some respects, but can’t fathom the religious zealotry that I surmise goes against Baracky’s actual beliefs. We know the dude said whatever he had to to appeal to moderates. And we know RINO Arnold went deeper into the tank for liberal beliefs once he got elected. How is his version of tax and spend much better than ex-guv Davis?

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  73. MadMax333: I’m reluctant in general to tell other people what to do; I don’t feel that it is my place to tell Arabs what the rules should be in Arab societies, but I do feel that it is my place to partake in the internal discussion within our society as to what our rules should be.

    That said, I find the treatment of gay people in the Arab and Persian worlds to be appalling, and it’s one of the reasons that I am reluctant to go there as a tourist, and would prefer that we as a country procure our energy needs elsewhere.

    But I would no more be right telling them how to order their societies than I would be telling the Catholic church that it should recognize my marriage; both are, in the end, really none of my business.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  74. Except that if the person you were protecting was your “wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant”, you are not liable for the use of deadly force.

    aphrael- that sounds like a law that needs changing.

    MayBee (4f6fae)

  75. aphrael- that sounds like a law that needs changing.
    .
    Methinks aphrael is misstating the law in certain regards. A determination to justify the use of deadly force doesn’t turn quite so starkly so as to permit a husband/wife hit team to roam the streets.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  76. But I’m very close to being a free speech absolutist.

    aphrael, you may certainly be but obviously the Prop 8 protesters and the media, not so much. Hypocrisy tends to rear its ugly head in situations like these so its no surprise. That said, I’ll be curious to see the reaction of the left when these same people are violent, abusive and hateful while protesting at black churches as well…

    Dana (3a01f2)

  77. Cboldt: where did the husband/wife hit team come from? My hypo involved two couples: (a) a husband/wife team walking down the street who are assaulted by a felon whom they reasonably believe threatens them with death or imminent bodily harm, and (b) a team of domestic partners walking down the street who are assault by a felon whom they reasonably believe threatens them with death or imminent bodily harm.

    Neither of them are a hit team.

    Unless a court has read “domestic partners” into the statute (which might be consistent with the legislative intent of the DP law), these two couples are treated differently under the law.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  78. Comment by aphrael — 11/18/2008 @ 9:30 am

    If your two “domestic partners” have consummated a “Civil Union”, does that change the relationship under the “use of deadly force” law?
    Many have posited that civil unions have all of the same legal advantages of marriage, why not this?

    Re: Mosques.
    It is my understanding that there is no heirarchial structure to Islam in the manner of the Roman Catholic Church, or LDS;
    each Imam is an “independent contractor” within his sect, and there is no way to impose a universal thought on the faithful from a level above the Imam.
    This is classically illustrated by the practice of condemning someone as “apostate” such as the poet/author Rushdie; or in declaring a jihad.
    Each Imam is free to endorse, or not, the words of other Imams, or Ayatollahs.

    Another Drew (57c107)

  79. Where is that law from, aphrael? You are entitled to come to the defense of any innocent third person, even a total stranger to you.

    nk (2e727e)

  80. Andrew Drew: the term for ‘civil unions’ in California is ‘domestic partnership’. The DP statute did not amend the Penal Code in this regard.

    That said, I would expect that:

    (a) few, if any, prosecutors would bring the case;
    (b) a competent lawyer for the member of the couple would argue that the clear intent of the DP statute was to provide all the benefits of marriage and that this was a drafting error, and would likely win;
    (c) any successful prosecution under such circumstances would lead to public outrage getting the law changed.

    So it’s mostly a hypothetical problem, a lacuna in the law … but it is a difference under the law until (b) or (c) happens.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  81. Cboldt: where did the husband/wife hit team come from?
    .
    From the notion “the other person in the couple pulls out a gun and shoots the robber and kills him, he is absolutely not guilty of any crime.” IOW, taking the “reasonable” qualifier as given, on account of the accosted pair being in a heterosexual union, but forcing the homosexual couple to explain why the use of deadly force was reasonable. I suspect anybody who uses deadly force has to justify the action .. but if they don’t, then they can operate as a hit team.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  82. NK: Pen. Code 197 is the statutory provision. My understanding is that courts have read into this that 197(3) provides an absolute exemption for the listed parties, whereas other people are only exempt if they can demonstrate that their intervention was reasonable.

    If I have time tonight I’ll see if I can dredge up some case citations.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  83. Well, if you’re right, I’m staying out of California regardless of whether a gay couple has the right to kill me and get away with it. Husband/wife, father/son, mother/daughter, employer/employee, or man/mistress are bad enough already.

    nk (2e727e)

  84. I understand that gay rights proponents went to the El Coyote Restaurant and demanded a “donation” to the gay rights movement/group.

    Why is that not extortion? People have a legal right to vote in accordance with their consciences, don’t they? So, we have extortion in response to an exercise of fundamental civil rights. Where is the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights?

    509th Bob (b6cc49)

  85. Except that if the person you were protecting was your “wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant”, you are not liable for the use of deadly force.

    I’m guessing this law was put in the books around 1830. Nobody has put RDPs in, but then nobody has taken master, mistress, or servant out.
    There’s no state interest in protecting the old master/servant relationship (except perhaps in San Francisco).

    MayBee (4f6fae)

  86. I wonder how the reaction to this would have differed had it been a Gay Pride celebration disrupted by Christians who then ran the celebrants out of town with a mob, screaming epithets at them and telling them they were not welcome in town.

    Imagine the breast beating and rending of garments that would ensue. Such hateful intolerance, a resort to violence, brown shirts in America.

    But instead we get Christians exercising their Constitutional rights to religion, peaceable assembly, and free speech run out of town by a mob and there is a debate over whether this is “counterproductive” to reaching the goals of the thugs involved. Was the Bill of Rights suspended in the Castro district?

    DaMav (e84050)

  87. Comment by aphrael — 11/18/2008 @ 10:20 am

    There is another aspect that I wonder whether or not you have factored into this scenario:
    CCW’s in CA are the exception, not the rule, particularly in urban areas.
    If your strolling couple are so armed, the chances are they are in violation of the laws against concealed-carry, or even open-carry which is proscribed in counties with populations exceeding 50K IIRC (but then why would any rational mugger – don’t start – accost someone who was openly carrying a deadly weapon?).

    It is interesting that the demonstrations in front of the Mormon Temple in SLC had no where near the derangement seen in this video from the Castro (or at other LDS sites in CA) – someone must have informed the demo leaders that Utah has wide-spread issuance of CCW licenses.

    Another Drew (57c107)

  88. 509th Bob: I agree; extortion is illegal, and this behavior is not appropriate.

    That said, the letter which went out to people who donated to the No-on-8 side suggesting that if they didn’t pony up money for the Yes-on-8 side, they would be publically identified as opponents of marriage was also extortion and inappropriate.

    The difference is that the latter act was an act carried out by the official political committee, while the former was not.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  89. addendum….

    An armed society is a civil society!”

    Another Drew (57c107)

  90. Maybee, I think it’s a fair bet it hasn’t been amended since 1870, yes.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  91. Comment by aphrael — 11/18/2008 @ 10:41 am

    Are you equating a letter threatening public disclosure of a political position (ie- campaign finance law disclosures), with the appearance of a mob at a business establishment demanding money?

    Another Drew (57c107)

  92. Comment by nk — 11/18/2008 @ 9:39 am
    When I say you are sick I say it in a Christian way. And I recommend seasons of extended fasting and prayer for you. The purge your sick mind. I will say a prayer for you, though.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  93. That makes it a pretty poor example, aphrael.
    Women aren’t allowed to drive cars in housecoats, you know. I’m not going to actually try to use that to make a women’s rights case.

    MayBee (4f6fae)

  94. Another Drew: public disclosure of a political position via campaign finance laws is not what the letter did.

    The letter said something equivalent to: “since you gave them money give us money or we will publically denounce you”.

    It’s the same kind of threat as the extortion the mob is engaged in: give us money or we’ll hurt you. The mechanism, and the immediacy, of the hurt is different – and there’s a strong argument that the mechanism of the hurt the mob would cause is per se illegitimate, whereas the mechanism of the hurt in the other case is not – but the nature of the demand, a demand for money backed by a threat of harm, is the same.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  95. nk…you should also enroll in an extensive regimen of introspection, hand-holding, and the singing of Kumbaya!

    Another Drew (57c107)

  96. MayBee: I don’t think a law with overt discrimination against gay people could get passed by the California legislature today, and with the exception of the ban on gay marriage, I think it would be difficult to get one passed by initiative, as well.

    But my point is that, because the California code and the California constitution are riddled with distinctions that turn on marital status (maost of which have been there for decades), and which were not amended by the DP statute, there are many situations in which domestic partners are treated differently by the plain language of the statute than married couples, at least until they persuade a judge that the intent of the DP law was to to override the statute.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  97. “But if two domestic partners are walking down the street and someone jumps them and threatens one of them with imminent bodily harm, and the other person in the couple pulls out a gun and shoots the robber and kills him, he can be prosecuted and will only get off if he can convince a jury that his response was reasonable.

    What’s the rational state interest in this?”

    I’m not sure what the “this” is. A presumption that a man or woman acting in defense of family has acted reasonably in the use of force? A rational interest in defining family relationships vs. companionate relationships? A rational interest in preserving the peace and limiting the use of force?

    SarahW (a6e80b)

  98. Race pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have perfected the shakedown racket of corporations, cities, individuals, and the like over the years by threatening boycotts, protests and other measures. It’s one of their primary fundraising tools.

    It’s “nice” to see gay marriage supporters have learned from these examples.

    Welcome to AmeriKKKa, where participating in the political process carries a potential personal reputational and business risk.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  99. The rational interest in presuming that a man acting on behalf of his wife has acted ressonably but not presuming that a man acting on behalf of his domestic partner has acted reasonably, in identical circumstances.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  100. People v. Daryl Randle (Cal. 2005) [MS Wrod Document]
    .
    I don’t know if that’s current, and I haven’t reviewed it in sufficient detail to discern what this purported “absolute defense” actually is, but the general proposition seems to be a distinction between self-defense, and defense-of-others. In this case, the determination results in the difference between murder and manslaughter, where the use of deadly force was based on a unreasonable, but real, apprehension of fear.
    .
    Interesting discussion of defense of others in relationships not listed, in the Travis case where the “other” was a blood brother.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  101. Women aren’t allowed to drive cars in housecoats, you know.

    Oh gosh. I thought it was rollers we aren’t allowed to wear while driving? Housecoats? Who knew!

    Dana (3a01f2)

  102. Where the hell is the Governator…the guy who likes to talk about “girly-men”…I remember when Ed Koch went to that Korean store where Al Sharpton and his thugs were protesting and threatening anyone who shopped there..he made a show of going to the store and leaving with a bag of groceries…after watching that poor woman shaking while she read her apology,surrounded by the new reeducators, I was half expecting her to start blinking her eyes like John McCain when reading his VC captors “message to America”…Arnold should have taken his pansy ass down to that restaurant and had dinner, no matter how he feels about Prop 8. But I guess we now know who’s the real “girly-man”

    Tom C (73bd8b)

  103. Patterico wrote: I think we can all agree that their demonization, boycotts, and mob anger is counterproductive.

    Living in S.F. my whole life, I can tell you that the most militant gay activists disagree.

    The N.Y. Stonewall riots were a milestone in homoactivism. The 1978 White Night riot (when crowds marched from the Castro and vandalized City Hall and torched police cars to protest the light sentence given Dan White, Harvey Milk’s assassin) is so revered an event that in the GLBT section of the Main Library across Civic Center, there is a display case containing rocks and bottles supposedly thrown that night. If it is only a matter of when gay marriage will be the law of the land, the intolerance and disrespect currently on display will be viewed in retrospect — rightly or wrongly — as being a catalyst.

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b)

  104. Still seems like rank hypocrisy to state that we should respect the rules of Islam when Islam itself respects no one else’s rules, free speech or culture. Ok, so we cannot even visit hold city of Mecca, but it is ok for mosques filled with Christian and Jew hating imams and true believers to advocate death to infidels. The left thinks we should all have no problem with our tax monies supporting “art” that protrays the Virgin Mary covered in cow dung of Jesus on the cross in a bottle of urine? That’s free speech and free supported with tax dollars. Imagine Aphreal being loco enough to run down the street naked in Teheran holding a sign saying Death to Allah! Or Love2008 carrying a bible anywhere in Saudi Arabia?
    So it seems that one of the liberal tenets may well be that minority desires should rule the day if they are desires that are politically correct? And the abortion issue is another situational ethics situation. An unborn child, or even one who survives abortion, has no rights. A total predator asshole stone killer like Mumia is glorified by the Hollywood left. Totally innocent Jewish victims of Pali/Hezbollah/assorted muslim pukes acts of violence deserve what they get and terrorists at Gitmo deserve all the rights of American citizens. Waterboarding is a despicable torture even though are own troops submit to it in training, but lopping off heads or feeding people into shredders is just Iraqi cultural amusement under the likes of Saddam?

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  105. Judicial Council of California, Criminal Jury Instructions – Jury Instructions dealing with Justifiable Homicide
    .
    The word “mistress” doesn’t appear in there. Obviously, this being a jury instruction in a criminal case, the legal proceeding is past the point of “not bringing a charge because the person was married to the robbery victim-to-be.”
    .
    At this point, unless I see a citation that makes the distinction aphrael asserts as flowing from Cal. Pen. 197(3), my conclusion is that the distinction is a figment of imagination.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  106. Women aren’t allowed to drive cars in housecoats, you know

    Unless you have a cite to the section of the vehicle code that prohibits this conduct, I would say that this ranks right up there with the myth about driving a car in your bare-feet being a citeable offense.

    Another Drew (57c107)

  107. REAL good commentary, Patterico! I agree wholeheartedly.

    Question: what kind of affect do you think this will have on the general public? Do you think they’ll recognize that the whole “love and tolerance” theme is a mask?

    Rich Bordner (ab3562)

  108. Another Drew- I got it off one of those “Stupid Laws of California” websites. I have no idea if it is true or not. Please do not rely on me for legal advice, and please do not shoot people that attack your servant thinking you’ll not be prosecuted.

    MayBee (4f6fae)

  109. From the description of the event, I see the Homosexuals committed hate crimes that aren’t being prosecuted.

    PCD (7fe637)

  110. Hmmm, which side is more intolerant of the other?

    Which side hates the other? Which side believes the other side to be not just wrong but evil?

    Which side believes less in the princple of democracy and the will of the people?

    Which side acts as if violence is a perfectly reasonable means to an end?

    And, more importantly . . .

    What does this say about the kind of reaction there would have been, had John McCain won the presidency?

    Icy Truth (aedb2f)

  111. Well, everyone knows that Bible-thumping, Rethuglicans are the personification of EVIL!

    Can’t we all just get along?

    Another Drew (57c107)

  112. Isn’t that what the cops were telling the protesters?

    “Get along. Get along now.”

    Icy Truth (aedb2f)

  113. Hello?

    What . . . am I the only one here that works nights?

    Icy Truth (aedb2f)

  114. In Sacramento, it is still unlawful to ride your horse into a saloon.

    So don’t.

    mojo (8096f2)

  115. There is no right to marriage. Period. It is licensed by the state. You do not have the right to drive a car nor do you have a right to marry. The people of the state have the right to decide what the qualifications are to both drive and marry. In the State of California, the voters decided homosexuals can not exercise the privilege of marriage

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (e18128)

  116. 114 Zelsdorf, the voters decided homosexuals can not exercise the privilege of marriage

    This is untrue. Of course there is a right to marriage by homosexuals ! It is the same as for heterosexuals. They cannot marry another of the same sex. That’s all.

    Another Drew: public disclosure of a political position via campaign finance laws is not what the letter did.

    The letter said something equivalent to: “since you gave them money give us money or we will publically denounce you”.

    Did I miss a cite somewhere for this statement ? What letter ?

    Sounds like a myth.

    Mike K (531ff4)

  117. Judging by the company we’re keeping, it’s time to reconsider my support for (or at least my disinterest in opposing) gay marriage. Until this stuff ends, I’m now officially “NO”.

    MTF (17058c)

  118. It’s important to note that at one point in it’s history the US very nearly went to war over the definition of marriage. One religious group in particular probably remembers this quite well. While I believe that some of the rights traditionally associated with marriage should be expanded to alternative lifestyles, that doesn’t change the fact that no group should have the power to overrule the majority on something like this.

    Civilis (4083aa)

  119. Framing the “gay marriage” argument in terms of discrimination is nonsense.

    Marriage is a religious ritual in which the STATE has piggy backed a legal framework. Nothing prevents gays in many states from having basically the same legal framework, they just cant have the term marriage.

    Let’s be honest here, gays want to hi-jack the term marriage as a tool to legitimize their lifestyle in the eyes of society at large.

    james conrad (6bb6e6)

  120. As a PROPONENT of Gay marriage, if I were living in California, I would have a sign on my lawn saying “Want to see a NATIONAL constitutional amendment against Gay marriage? Keep attacking people who voted for Proposition 8!”

    I always wonder what part of “If you act like an ass, people aren’t going to want to give you what you ask for.” is beyond certain kinds of political activist.

    C. S. P. Schofield (2f879a)

  121. There is no such thing as “gay” marriage or “same-sex marriage”. If a man wants to “love” a man or a woman wants to “love” a woman, you are given free choice. But the overwhelming majority of Americans have repeatedly voted time and again that a marriage is between a man and a women.

    Noone’s civil rights are being violated as every person is given the exact same right to enter into a marriage between a man and a women.

    Just as the right to Freedom of Speech doesn’t give a person the right to slander others, their are limitations on a person;s right to change the meaning of marriage to their own whims.

    LogicalUS (742bd0)

  122. I’m with MTF. I voted against 8 this year because that’s where my beliefs lie, marginally (more accurately I’m agnostic on the issue). But next time I’m voting on the process. Courts overiding the people and 48%ers not accepting the decision of the majority = I’m switching to against gay marriage. No greater political crime in my book than not accepting democratic results.

    Bel Air (2fd7f7)

  123. Why can’t gay people leave marriage as it is and invent a name for their union. After all, no one stops them from leaving together. Let them call it whatever they choose to. They should just leave “marriage” out of it. You can’t have it both ways. Marriage was invented by God to mean the joining together of a man and a woman in holy matrimony. One of the purposes of marriage is procreation. It takes a man and a woman to make babies. Gay couples can’t do that. They can adopt a child and play “mum” and “dad” but they can’t produce out of their union. Why? That is not the way it was meant to be.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  124. Comment by Mike K — 11/18/2008 @ 1:55 pm
    I was referring to the letter accessed by the link in the Comment by aphrael — 11/18/2008 @ 10:41 am.

    Comment by mojo — 11/18/2008 @ 1:23 pm
    If you rode a horse into Fat Frank’s, your horse would be the one with the highest level of integrity within the bar.

    Another Drew (57c107)

  125. Bel Air, I have two questions: (1) did you, then, vote against Propositions 1A, 4, and 11, on the grounds that all of them were things the majority had already decided?

    As far as I can tell, voting on the same things repeatedly is a normal part of the political process in California.

    (2) what is, in your mind, the correct mechanism for those of us who disagree with these results to use to get the law changed? Your stated position seems to object to both using the courts and using the initiative process. Is there no legitimate means to go back to the voters and ask them to change their minds?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  126. Didn’t Jesus have two fathers?

    Oiram (983921)

  127. Let the gays be as miserable as the rest of us!

    (All I have today is comedian talking points)

    Oiram (983921)

  128. God made Adam and Eve………. not Adam and Steve!

    Alright I’m done now (had to get them out of my system)

    Oiram (983921)

  129. Comment by Oiram — 11/18/2008 @ 3:51 pm
    What’s your position? Are you for or against gay marriage?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  130. I voted No on Prop 8. I’m personally against gay marriage though. Not much different than my feelings on abortion.

    My religion doesn’t allow gay marriage as many of them don’t. That’s good enough for me.

    I don’t think the state should take away rights from people.

    Sorry to disagree love2008.

    Oiram (983921)

  131. Lovey – I wouldn’t recommend getting so righteous on this thread. Remember, it’s your President who wants to teach children about gay sex in kindergarten. That’s already been proved to you, you lying potty-mouthed mommy.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  132. Michael Haltman, it’s a normal process in California that we vote on things repeatedly.

    Isn’t that because the liberal courts refuse to heed the laws passed by the citizens?

    Subotai (b0286f)

  133. Subotai, no.

    Each of the other three examples I cited in my comments – Propositions 1A, 4, and 11 on the November 2008 ballot – were there because people were displeased with the results of previous votes on the same issue and so made minor changes and then put the issue up for a vote again, with no court intervention whatsoever.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  134. The Right uses the ballot to undo the damage done by the Courts, and the Legislature.

    Another Drew (57c107)

  135. Please take your half-assed Christianity to Stormfront, love2008.

    More tightly reasoned arguments from nk.

    Subotai (b0286f)

  136. Oiram wrote: (All I have today is comedian talking points)

    When are you going to get around to using them?

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  137. Comment by daleyrocks — 11/18/2008 @ 4:27 pm
    Hey assh*le. Now get lost you shitty brained son-of-a-bitch. And take your boyfriend with you poof!

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  138. Lovey – That’s just not nice.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  139. Sorry to disagree love2008.

    Comment by Oiram — 11/18/2008 @ 4:26 pm
    Oh I don’t think there is a disagreement about that. I only stated what I felt was the morality of this issue.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  140. If you’re opposed to gay marriage, then you must vote against it. You can be sure all those in favor of gay marriage will vote for it, as well as all the judges who’d like to change the law to allow gay marriage.

    So, what do you think you’re proving? Do you think your friends will still like you if you say you voted for gay marriage, even though you personally oppose it? That makes no sense, and it has never made sense.

    Official Internet Data Office (777bfc)

  141. Lovey – I am truly sorry you are unable to accept the truth. There is help available is you are willing to ask for it. Meanwhile, I am still waiting for your apologies.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  142. It’s literally impossible to pass an initiative in California without broad liberal support. Moderate democrats pushed this over the goal line and the No8 crowd blames the easy target groups.

    Hollywood dumped truckloads of cash into the N8 campaign yet the “old left” still voted yes.

    Of course it could have been the oft-unaccounted for Compton voter “backlash” and the huge Bay Area Mormon population. Yes?

    13times (a51fd9)

  143. “I only stated what I felt was the morality of this issue.”

    Lovey – You could have fooled me with what you said in comment 18. I pasted some of it below:

    “The battle against gay-marriage is a battle for the soul of America. Do not submit to intimidation. Stand up against gay-marriage because it is the right thing to do. Marriage is and will always be a union between a man and a woman. Period. A man cannot marry a man. A woman cannot marry a woman. It is the worst form of perversion and delusion to even argue about it.”

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  144. Lovey – That’s just not nice.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 11/18/2008 @ 5:02 pm
    You want nice? Behave yourself and you won’t have your behind whipped like that. I can be nice. Just stop with the insults.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  145. Daleyrocks,

    love2008 is the clerk at the 7-11 who tries to short-change you and when you catch her at it apologizes profusely, offers you a free a cup of coffee and spits in it when you’re not looking, and gives the finger to your back as you’re walking out. Better to stay out of that “store” altogether.

    nk (2e727e)

  146. aphrael

    Why was Prop 8 on the ballot this year? Was it not due to the actions of the court in overturning the will of the people?

    Subotai (debe06)

  147. Comment by daleyrocks — 11/18/2008 @ 5:13 pm
    Are you drunk or something? What is wrong with my comment? It is my comment and I stand by it. Why don’t you make some of yours, instead of waiting for someone’s to pick on?

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  148. 144 nk- I thought Biden asserted that all 7-11 clerks were Pakistanis? Is Tokyo Rose even American? Geez, you bring back memories of disgusting confessions from morons I used to work with at the state years ago. One dude had worked at the Philly Navy Yard mess and would come in drunk and then proceed to vomit in those big cooking vats. I won’t say more. Oh, you’ve seen those videos of disgruntled clerks urinating into liquid refreshments. Knew one guy who would spit in peoples’ sandwiches.

    The gays I know seem to have better and more stable relationships than heteros. Don’t know why they’d want to be bothered with the marital yoke. And it might be a stereotype, but they all seem sexually fulfilled. Well, some I knew died rather young from excesses, but that applies to plenty of straights who overdid the heavy drugs and booze too. Still, it seems there are double standards for some people and their bad behavior. The police don’t seem to give a rat’s ass what the boys do in public at that heinous Fulton Street festival as seen at http://www.zombietime.com and too bad if little children get an early sex education while strolling through town.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  149. nk – She’s just a hater who tries to disguise what she really thinks with all those flowery faux Christian rhetorical flourishes.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  150. #39 nk

    I’m skipping down here so I apologize if someone already addressed this:

    Also, I think these “Christians” Michelle is reporting about deliberately went there to provoke their “martyrdom” at the hands of the Ungodly.

    This particular group holds a prayer circle on the same spot on the same day of the week and have done so for some time.

    EVEN if they were there for the first time, it does not excuse the criminal behavior of the anti-religious bigots that attacked them.

    Unless, of course, you believe someone deserves to be raped because her dress was too short (and since the one man was describing sexual assault, the analogy is apt.)

    Darleen (187edc)

  151. whoops #39 really is #29

    Darleen (187edc)

  152. You Californians are so screwed, you know that? You might have held the angry gay tide back this time, but your future looks pretty bleak. Prepare to be boarded.

    Richard (adfcb0)

  153. I admit to being completely unlawyerly. So here are a couple of questions on Prop 8 passing for someone to take a shot at. Did not Prop 8 create an amendment to the State Constitution, thus making it part of the CA Constitution now? Am I missing something here? I keep reading how there’s a fear that some judge at some level will rule this new Constitutional amendment unconstitutional. It’s the damn constitution now, is it not? So how can the Constitution be unconstitutional? Or is the catching point that no amendment can “really” be created by voters? Then why were we asked to vote on it becoming an “amendment” in the first place?

    If that is the case, which won’t surprise me, no wonder the public’s respect for the law and lawyers keeps tanking right along with the politicians, the Fed, and Wall Street.

    allan (7bd60f)

  154. nk – I would not be surprised if Lovey is actually a Muslim and using the trappings of Christianity as a ruse. – taqiyya

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  155. aphrael said:

    The letter said something equivalent to: “since you gave them money give us money or we will publically denounce you”.

    Not quite.

    1. The No side had advertized the big financial contribution made to the No side by the company.

    2. The letter outlined how the company could demonstrate that it either had chosen sides on the ballot issue or had chosen to remain neutral.

    3. Withdraw the contribution = neutrality. Don’t withdraw, but make a like contribution (even a little smaller amount probably would have sufficed) = neutrality.

    4. Or stay with the one-sided contribution = decision to show support only for the No side. Or withdraw that contribution and instead contribute to the Yes side = decision to show support only for the Yes side.

    5. The letter was to be followed-up for more direct confirmation of neutrality or chosen side.

    6. The confirmation would be published. If the contribution to No stood, without neutrality, then, the Yes side would underline that the company had chosen sides.

    7. The No side already advertised the company’s support. This was done with the company’s consent. The rep for the company has already confirmed that the company policy was to take sides by making this contribution to the No side.

    No threat was made. No extortion and no blackmail.

    As far as I have read, and please correct me if I am mistaken, but no other company has pressed for negative publicity agains the Yes side because of that letter. Only Abbot & Associates did so — as an ally of the No side.

    Also, no criminal charges have been made by the proper authorities. Neither the No side nor the company have pressed for criminal charges. This points to their acknowledgement that there was no criminal behavior.

    It comes down to a political judgement call.

    The letter was blunt. It outlined the basis for a reasonable person — on either side of the issue — to assume that the company had chosen sides. That assumption would be confirmed prior to re-publicizing what the company and the No side had already publicized.

    The letter did not have the effect on the company that it was intended to have. No change in contributions and the company used it to create negative publicity for the Yes side.

    But given the electorate was evenly divided, and that the company’s clientle would likely also be split, there is no harm in saying so — in a letter or otherwise. The company rep conceded this point when he said that the company policy was based on the presence of gays and lesbians in its employ. They were proud to take the No stand.

    They publicized it. And later confirmed it to the newsmedia with defiance. Good for them. The democratic process is about taking sides.

    And the company had to have calculated that the supporters of Yes would not crowd into the company’s head office and demand that the company, or its employees, pay tribut to buy peace.

    To the credit of the Yes side, this norm prevails and the company has not been under seige.

    It is a false equivalency to say this scenario, with the letter, is the same as the No side bullying an indvidual in her place of work for her individual and small financial contribution to the Yes side. The protestors were there because of her choosing sides; they put pressure on her at work; they pressured her employer to put pressure on her. The goal was to make her neutral — not just in contributions but also in recanting her deeply held beliefs and denouncing her church — publicly.

    The company was forced — coerced — to pay tribute for peace. Not because the company policy was to choose sides. But because an employee had exercised her democratic liberty. The company, and some employees, pooled funds for the No side. And that happened ONLY because the No side lost and had crowded into the restaurant to complain and to demand retribution. YEt the crowd still protested — and still pushed for a boycott — and still insisted that the targeted individual be ostracized.

    The letter was sent during the campaign. The restaurant employee and her employer where assailed after the No side was defeated.

    But where are the leaders of the NO side? They squandered a very large lead which had seemed insurmountable.

    I think THAT more than anything else shouldbe the target of the anger of the No side supporters. Their own leadership lost a contest that was theirs to win handily.

    It’s the same kind of threat as the extortion the mob is engaged in: give us money or we’ll hurt you. The mechanism, and the immediacy, of the hurt is different – and there’s a strong argument that the mechanism of the hurt the mob would cause is per se illegitimate, whereas the mechanism of the hurt in the other case is not – but the nature of the demand, a demand for money backed by a threat of harm, is the same.

    The nature of the demand is not the same.

    The threat of harm is not the same.

    Proportionality is an important factor, also. The individual is far more vulnerable to the mob than is the company.

    For example, the company is also comprised of people who are both Yes and No. It also has a clientle that is split on the issue. Choosing sides is itself a split decision from within the context of the company. Neutral contributions would have been reasonable, except for a company policy to which individuals could adhere or stand against on their own individual basis.

    The old woman in the restaurant was singled out. The company was pressured by association with the choice of one employee.

    The difference is huge. It is significant. It is destroys the equivalence you suggested.

    Chairm (7b607c)

  156. its all about the annuities

    Its nothing about free rights for all etc.

    Its all about money

    EricPWJohnson (cc9286)

  157. I will add that the negative pulbicity that the company and the NO side produced for the Yes side, based on that letter, probably had a contrary influence on some of the clientle and employees of that company.

    There probably were contributions made to the Yes side — as individuals stepped up to stand against the company’s choosing sides.

    I know that would happen on other ballot issues. The advocates of SSM really ought to stop acting like they are a special exception to the norms of our democratic process. It makes dealing with them almost impossible at worst, and impractical at best.

    They demand submission, not engagement. The don’t stand for justice, but rather “just us”.

    And in the aftermath of their defeat on this ballot measure the supporters of No have shown the Yes side was right.

    Chairm (7b607c)

  158. madmax333 — it’s not the FULTON Street Fair, it’s the FOLSOM Street Fair.

    Pre-AIDS Folsom Street and its many bathhouses and anonymous sex clubs (“glory holes”) are immortalized in the 1978 Village People song “San Francisco” (“Bright neon lights tell the glory story…”) Fulton Street is the northern border of Golden Gate Park. Big diff for S.F. residents. I’m sure there’s sex going on in the park, but nobody has written a song about it yet.

    L.N. Smithee (123231)

  159. This is the kind of conduct by same-sex marriage supporters that caused them to lose the balloting.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  160. …the protests are about gay rights, not about anarchy and hate. To the extent they are hateful, it is because the people protesting are angry: we wrongly believed that the voters of California would not ban gay marriage … and are angry that they did.

    Pure twaddle.

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  161. The video didn’t do much to change the stereotype that gay males are of the feminine sort. Sheesh, I’ve seen middle school girls that were more menacing.

    RW (96ec19)

  162. Unless, of course, you believe someone deserves to be raped because her dress was too short (and since the one man was describing sexual assault, the analogy is apt.)

    If she wore it on the prison farm at Pontiac, sure.

    Get serious, Darleen. Did you think these guys were really praying? God would not hear their prayers from any place else? They went there with police and an in-your-face-______s attitude and got the same thing back. I don’t know all that much about them but I think an analogy to Phelps’s kooks is more apt.

    nk (2e727e)

  163. This kind of thing needs to be covered by the mainstream media, though I don’t really expect that to happen. But consider: if that was a Koran ripped from someone’s hands; if it was a headscarf torn from a Muslim woman’s head; what would be the reaction, then? Islam isn’t exactly supportive of same sex marriage, either – would the activists even think of bullying Muslims?

    Something not being considered by the leftist illuminati is that even though proponents of same sex marriage argue it’s a civil rights issue, they’re not at all following the non-violent resistance principles of the original civil rights movement.

    MLK never would’ve acted this way.

    Conservativechic (ecaefa)

  164. nk

    Did you think these guys were really praying? God would not hear their prayers from any place else? They went there with police and an in-your-face-______s attitude and got the same thing back. I don’t know all that much about them but I think an analogy to Phelps’s kooks is more apt.

    Good god, man, you make assumptions. As I said, this group was doing something they had done previously and THEY were NOT the ones that called (or brought) police.

    Nice to know you only support the First Amendment when your own sensibilities and assumptions are being offended.

    BTW, don’t you find it interesting that when same-sex advocate thugs invaded a church (with a “reporter” in tow), harassed parishoners, descrated the church that NOT ONE PARISHONER scream, assaulted or confronted the invaders?

    It is quite simple… the anti-8 advocates are hate-filled, irrational, anti-religious bigots.

    Darleen (187edc)

  165. Nice to know you only support the First Amendment when your own sensibilities and assumptions are not being offended.

    Darleen (187edc)

  166. “As I said, this group was doing something they had done previously and THEY were NOT the ones that called (or brought) police.”

    Darleen – Actually according to the account of a member of the Christian group, they did call the police when things started to get very ugly.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  167. “It is quite simple… the anti-8 advocates are hate-filled, irrational, anti-religious bigots.”

    Darleen – Insert the word progressive somewhere in there and I think you’ve got it.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  168. So…if I’m being assaulted, and I punch one of these fags in the face, is that a hate crime?

    Plus! Blow your whistle in my ear, can I sue you for my hearing loss?

    rick (de9292)

  169. I think people should more peacefully accept the majority erasing the minorities rights.

    imdw (87fe55)

  170. Oh, yeah…and if a bunch of Muslims, who have this whole religious thing against homosexuality? Object to being bullied? And fight back against the gays?

    Who gets charged with the hate crime?

    rick (de9292)

  171. I didn’t like Illinois Nazis marching through downtown Skokie, either.

    nk (2e727e)

  172. Comment by L.N. Smithee — 11/18/2008 @ 7:12 pm

    L.N., I first posted about “Fulton” Street, it was my error – I confused the two streets.
    I would suppose that max just picked-up on it from my comment.

    Correction noted.

    Another Drew (57c107)

  173. “So…if I’m being assaulted, and I punch one of these fags in the face, is that a hate crime?”

    Do people still say this unironically? I guess I’ve been in la-la land since the Obama victory.

    imdw (bab994)

  174. ___________________________________

    All this big-mouth and martyr-like anger over the passage of Proposition 8 reminds me of the guilt trip that the same crowd (the “GLBT” one) has tried to foist upon society in general since the 1980s regarding HIV and AIDS. In that case, they’ve insisted that everyone wear their little red ribbons and demonize Ronald Reagan for not treating AIDS as though it were a national catastrophe.

    At the same time, they’ve excused the anything-goes, promiscuous behavior of far too many male homosexuals, or promoted the idea that “well, it’s in their nature to be that way! They can’t help but be who they are!! How dare you criticize them for something coded in their genetics!!”

    And all this propaganda and dumbing down of society’s standards merely to accomodate the whims of such a small fraction of society, per below.

    Moreover, a high percentage of gays in particular, and anti-Proposition-8 activists in general, are leftists (or “progressives”) as much as they’re homosexual, or bisexual, or heterosexual, or anything else. So they’re trying to satisfy their liberal urges as much as they’re trying to satisfy their legal rights. IOW, they really want society at large to start embracing them, welcoming them with open arms, allowing “The Prince Marries the Prince” or “Heather Has Two Mommies” to be found in the children’s section of the local public and/or school library.

    And if for some reason the opposite of such acceptance would happen once legal recognition were given to same-sex couples, they’d start yelling, “who the hell needs to be married??!!! Screw it!! Besides, the symbolism of marriage is old fashioned and reactionary!”

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdfTen

    Places of 100,000 or More Population With the Highest Percentage of Married-Couple
    and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000

    Same-sex partners

    Total households…Same-sex households…Percentage

    329,700…8,902…2.7%….San Francisco, CA
    68,468…1,418…2.1%…..Fort Lauderdale, FL
    258,499…4,965…1.9%…..Seattle, WA
    150,790…2,650…1.8%….Oakland, CA
    44,955…788…1.8%…..Berkeley, CA
    168,147…2,833…1.7%….Atlanta, GA
    162,352…2,622…1.6%….Minneapolis, MN
    248,338…3,678…1.5%….Washington, DC
    163,088…2,266…1.4%….Long Beach, CA
    223,737…3,017…1.3%….Portland, OR

    ___________________________________

    Mark (411533)

  175. “allowing “The Prince Marries the Prince” or “Heather Has Two Mommies” to be found in the children’s section of the local public and/or school library.”

    Why would it not be allowed in the government library?

    imdw (3bf1a8)

  176. L.N. Smithee & Another Drew-
    Thanks for the correction. I should have looked at my own link to zombietime. Didn’t really want nightmares about those freaks though. You guys are a credit to your gender and race (Human). Smithee is so sharp he even spells Stephanie Kramer correctly.
    Other than the gays paying more attention to me than my wife on a visit to Provincetown, the only two incidents I’ve had with gays were coworkers who were unhappy about being turned down. One threatened to sic the Jewish mafia on me and the other promised me he’d stop if it hurt my butt . I suspect the general populace has more to fear from “straight” professionals who manipulate parishioners, legal clients or patients. My wife’s gynecologist would dope the women and rape them.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  177. Here’s a completely unrelated hypothetical.

    Imagine if Prop. 8 had been defeated, and immediately thereafter, groups of gay and lesbian couples gathered right outside churches (on public property) and held marriage ceremonies during and after Sunday church services. I’ll bet some church goers – not all, but some – would confront the gay folks and try to get them to leave. Many would find the actual gay marriage ceremonies revolting enough, but others would simply find it highly insensitive that even after winning the political battle, the gays would come rub their noses in it. I imagine some Christians would become quite angry, and engage in shouting, possibly even mob intimidation, necessitating police intervention to usher the gay folks safely away.

    I wonder whether most people on this site would criticize the angry church folks for their unruly behavior if that were the case. Seems to me, some around here would think that maybe the gay people shouldn’t have gone out of their way to antagonize the Christians on their own front lawn after this highly contentious political defeat.

    Also, if one of the gay antagonizers wrote an anonymous comment about the experience, noting that he had suffered sexual assault from one of the Christians, I doubt Michelle Malkin and Patterico would automatically assume it to be absolutely true and report on it without any independent verification.

    Tom (008032)

  178. This is why we have the 2nd amendment. Douchebag physically assaults you, you end him. The rest of the cowards will stop their bullshite pretty darn fast.

    Ray (8cfb7a)

  179. Riot on my property or church and you get your ass kicked. Gay or not.

    Gary marriage is not a right. If it was normal then gay people would be able to conceive children.

    Nuff said. Gay wackos you only scare old people who cannot protect themselves. Way to got.

    yogi (310603)

  180. #178 Tom
    On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California overturned Prop 22.

    There was one(1) organized prop 22 protest in SF. Not one gay was assaulted nor shouted down. No one attacked or defaced LGBT bath houses in SF. Not one hate crime prosecution. Can you say the same for P8 supporters?

    No need for hypothetical scenarios. One side has shown itself to be tolerant of democracy and the judicial process and the other hasn’t.

    13times (102c7f)

  181. Voted “Yes” on 8.

    Why?

    Don’t much care for a judge “discovering” something in the State constitution that no one, up til now, has been able to discern.

    Should someone come up with a constitutional amendment to allow Gay unions (marriages, whatever word works), I’ll vote “yes” on that too.

    Why?

    Because I believe that it is in society’s best interests to have as many stable couples as it can produce. Stable couples are the mainstay of a solid and responsible citizenry; and committed relationships tend to obviate anti-social behavior on the part of those involved in those relationships. Look at those fabulously dressed thugs in the video – I’ll bet none of *them* are married.

    I also believe that citizens should have a voice in determining whether or not to allow something heretofore *not* allowed by the laws under which they are living.

    Also, because, while I believe that the State has NO business putting it’s filthy fingers on the institution of marriage, it seems intent on doing so – so we may as well force the State to recognize, in a non-discriminatory way, those consenting adult unions which benefit the State.

    ———

    By the way, um …“Love”2008, I don’t think “the gays” have a problem with not believing in God – I think they have a problem with believing your brand of religion blows.

    Just a guess, though – I could be wrong … If I am, well … I’ll still pray for you. How’s that?

    And Tom – that’s a great thought experiment – what would advocates of a legal action or behavior do to those who both thought that action or behavior was immoral or evil and demonstrated just outside the place where those advocates gathered? Would those advocates let them have their say unmolested by violence or court orders?

    Hmmm … I know – let’s try that experiment with abortion clinic protestors!

    Oh, wait …

    Abraxas (6cd552)

  182. @181 – That analogy doesn’t work. It fails to take into account the dynamic of the winning side (this Christian group) going into the space of those who were defeated (the gay folks) and protesting them anyway. That seems highly rude and unnecessary. No surprise to me that people became upset and shouted “Shame on you.”

    Tom (008032)

  183. #170

    I think people should more peacefully accept the majority erasing the minorities rights.

    Perfect example of a bad faith argument that refuses to accept that the pro-8 side is not about “rights”.

    Indeed, the anti-8 bigots are very clear that they don’t feel anyone that disagrees with them deserve any First Amendment rights.

    Either the state, through the people, can define a standard for a contractual public institution, or it cannot.

    If it can, then it is not a “right” and only from The People can that standard change.

    If it cannot, then the state cannot bar people from marriage not only according to the sex of the participants but also to the number of the participants.

    The anti-8 bigots refuse to explain how sex of participants is an irrelevant standard but number is, especially in view that the historical record shows that there is a great deal of traditional legal polygamy (even today) but there has never, ever been SSM, even in those societies where homosexual behavior was celebrated.

    Darleen (187edc)

  184. #167

    Daley, I took nk’s line to mean the group showed up with the police (ie had them in tow like akin to the gay anarchists that invaded the church had a reporter in tow).

    If someone is trying to rape me, I’d call the police, too.

    Darleen (187edc)

  185. Tom

    When gay anarchists invaded the church, no parishoner started assaulting them. Not one.

    Does “upset” excuse the residents of Castro from trying to sexually assault these people who were gathered on a public street?

    Darleen (187edc)

  186. @184 – If my religion taught me that Christians shouldn’t be allowed to vote, the fact that I was trying to simply follow my religion in good faith by trying to implement a ban on Christian voting would not mean that the civil Christians weren’t at stake.

    I have been arguing for restraint and civility on the part of the anti-8 folks for a while now, but I think efforts like that of these particular Christians are highly disrespectful and counter-productive. The fact that they have the right to be gather in perhaps the gayest neighborhood in California and pray for gay redemption doesn’t mean nobody else has the right to gather and chant “Shame on you.”

    Tom (008032)

  187. Darleen, sexual assault is inexcusable always. But I’m suspicious of this particular account which is anonymous and can be verified nowhere else.

    As to what can be seen from the video, “upset” certainly excuses “Shame on you.”

    Tom (008032)

  188. @187 – Sorry, a fix: “If my religion taught me that Christians shouldn’t be allowed to vote, the fact that I was trying to simply follow my religion in good faith by trying to implement a ban on Christian voting would not mean that the civil rights of Christians weren’t at stake.”

    Tom (008032)

  189. The homosexuals here in California are not looking for equal rights, they all ready have them.
    Its about forcing their gay agenda upon the rest of society.

    California Family Code
    Section 297-297.5
    297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.

    297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

    They have the same rights, its just not called marriage.

    ML (14488c)

  190. ML – Separate but equal, right? We’ve heard that before. The problems go beyond what’s on paper, into psychological effects and actual application of said rights.

    Interestingly, desegregation of schools also had to be brought on by the courts, because a simple majority of voters couldn’t bring themselves to support equal rights for black people. It was a tyrannical display of unbridled judicial activism (that just happened to be, um, the right thing to do). Interesting.

    Tom (008032)

  191. @186 –

    When gay anarchists invaded the church, no parishoner started assaulting them. Not one.

    That’s because the parishioners in this instance are being good winners, unlike those who came to protest the gay people even after winning the political battle. It’s a lot easier to show restraint when you’re on the side that has already won.

    Tom (008032)

  192. Tom

    What the hell is wrong with separate but equal?

    I am a straight male, my wife is a straight female, we are separate but equal.
    Should women complain that they are separate but equal which is not fair and lobby to be called men or males?

    Tom don’t compare the homosexual agenda with black civil rights, they are not even in the same universe. Homosexuals have never been treated like blacks have and comparing them degrades black civil rights.

    The Declaration of Independence

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    Separate but equal enshrined in a great American document.
    So please explain how separate but equal was un-American again?

    ML (14488c)

  193. N8 people did more than shout “shame on you”. How can you so casually gloss over the woman’s account of what happened? They were showered with hot coffee, soda, urine, spit on and physically attacked with their own bibles.

    Do you think Mormons will pull at newlyweds trousers and shove crucifixes into bums? Will Catholic men in-drag attempt to wrap same sex newlyweds in “sin sheets”? Will blacks target gay bathhouses with anti-homosexual graffiti? Will they all whisper death threats?

    Can you not condemn these acts when perpetrated on the opposition?

    13times (047d9d)

  194. 13times

    If that happened it would be a hate crime.
    But when homosexuals do it, its ok they have a good reason for their hate.

    Typical illiberal double standards.

    ML (14488c)

  195. Tom,

    It has been said already in the comments starting at #151.

    This particular group holds a prayer circle on the same spot on the same day of the week and have done so for some time.

    This is not about the winners going to Castro to make trouble. This is about the Biblical call to evangelize which they have been doing for some time. No matter what the case the reaction was not warranted and was inappropriate if not illegal.

    As far as some comments saying that the no on 8 people should not boycott, I disagree. As lone as their boycott in non-violent and there is not attempt at intimidation, they have a right to boycott. However, once they become violent or attempt extortion then they are in violation of the law and do not have that right.

    I had two experiences at the polls November 4, 2008, one in the morning and one in the evening. When I went to vote Tuesday morning I noticed that there were two men holding no on 8 signs and that they were within 100 feet of the polling place. After voting I complained, but since the person in charge of the polling place was not there, they didn’t do anything. A man dressed in a suit in line a couple of people behind me said he was a “cop” and that the protesters were at a legal distance. I said, “no there is a sign at the gate that says they have to be over a 100 feet away and they are within 100 feet of the door.” He went out and talked to them and when I left the building he pointed me out to them. I was surprised and wondered if this really was a policeman. I have an older British sports car which is easily recognizable and when I drove out of the parking lot, the two men shouted “no on 8, f’ing bigot” (I shortened the word they used). I called the police and reported the incident.

    When I arrived that evening to bring my wife to vote, around ten people stood in the street blocking my way shouting “no on 8″, a number of profanities and of course “bigot”. They were within a foot or two of my car and held their signs at the sides shaking the signs and some of them hit my car with the signs. I went into the polling place and while my wife voted with the protesters outside shouting “no on 8″, profanities and “bigot” making it difficult for her and others to vote (others complained), I complained again. This time the person in charge of the polling place was there. He showed me a yellow rolled up string that he said was exactly 100 feet but didn’t want to go out and measure the distance. With the help of a little old lady holding the string at the doorway, I took the string and unrolled it to where the people were protesting. When I got out to the street they surrounded me, shouting “no on 8″, profanities and “bigot”. I showed them the string, told them that it was 100 feet long and that it wasn’t unrolled all the way and that I wasn’t against them protesting, they just had to move back so that they were over a 100 feet away. That seemed to just make them angrier, so I held up the unrolled portion of the string so that the person in charge of the polling place (don’t know what to call him) could see it and went back inside. I asked him if he would do anything about it and he said since it was so close to eight (20 till 8) that he wouldn’t do anything.

    When my wife and I drove out of the parking lot, the protesters stood in the street, blocking my way, again shouting “no on 8″, profanities and “bigot” so that I couldn’t turn left to go home, so I turned right and one person threw something at my car, though they missed. I again reported this to the police and got nowhere.

    So much for tolerance. Now apparently there are three lawsuits, not challenging the text of proposition 8, but challenging whether the people of California can amend the state constitution through the proposition process.

    Tanny O'Haley (36baa6)

  196. lone = long
    20 till happy face = 20 till 8

    Tanny O'Haley (36baa6)

  197. Mr. O’Haley, these people are of the same mindset of the people who killed Mathew Sheppard. Same ugliness and selfjustification.

    PCD (7fe637)

  198. PCD,

    I thought that the Mathew Sheppard murder was because of McKinney’s drug problem and robbery of Mathew Sheppard for drug money. At least according to ABC’s 20/20. Even the Wikipedia entry on Mathew Sheppard seems to say it was about robbery.

    Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die. McKinney and Henderson also found out his address and intended to rob his home.

    Not sure where they got the tortured part as the article did not give attribution for torture.

    Let’s get back on the topic. The behavior of this no on 8 crowd seems to me to be an “ends justify the means” type of behavior. They are angry so that gives them the “right” to act like thugs. Of course that’s just my personal opinion. I’m not a mind reader so I really don’t know.

    Tanny O'Haley (36baa6)

  199. Tanny O’Haley wrote:

    I thought that the Mathew Sheppard murder was because of McKinney’s drug problem and robbery of Mathew Sheppard for drug money. At least according to ABC’s 20/20.

    You are correct. Despite the common perception that Matthew Shepard was singled out simply because he was gay, a full account of McKinney & Henderson’s activities that night shows that Shepard was only one victim of a two-man crime wave.

    From CNN.com, “New details emerge about suspects in gay attack,” October 13, 1998:

    Hours after Shepard was lured from a campus hangout in Laramie, two Hispanic teen-agers say they, too, were assaulted by Henderson and McKinney, who ambushed them early Wednesday, cutting the scalp of one before the other retaliated.

    Police confirmed that Henderson and McKinney were involved in an altercation with Emiliano Morales III, 19, and Jeremy Herrera, 18, both of Laramie.

    The teens said they were walking to a park just after midnight — about an hour after investigators believe Shepard was assaulted — when two men suddenly appeared.

    Both Morales and Herrera, who said they are not gay, did not hear any anti-Hispanic or anti-gay slurs, only cussing and what Herrera called “talking smack.”

    “Jeremy yelled, ‘He’s got a gun,’ and he hit me in the head,” Morales said. “Jeremy ran up and hit him with a stick and we took off.”

    Morales needed 21 staples to repair his scalp. Police are investigating whether his injuries were caused by the same gun used to pistol-whip Shepard. A bloody gun was found in McKinney’s truck.

    Hospital officials at Poudre Valley Hospital — the same hospital where Shepard died Monday — said McKinney was treated for a head injury there last Wednesday.

    Despite the attempt by one of the killers’ attorneys to employ the “gay panic” defense, the timeline, witness accounts (including the killers’ girlfriends, indicted as accessories after the fact) and all available physical evidence points to their motive being the robbing of Shepard, not punishing him for being a homosexual.

    I would venture to guess that most people — hetero or otherwise — know better than to jump into a stranger’s truck. Shepard didn’t know better, and paid the price.

    Stop wincing. It’s the truth.

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  200. PCD #198 name calling based on mythology is so much more comforting than fact to you, I guess.

    SPQR (72771e)

  201. Tanny O’Haley, at 196:

    When I went to vote Tuesday morning I noticed that there were two men holding no on 8 signs and that they were within 100 feet of the polling place.

    Those people should have left when asked and should have been removed by the sheriff if they refused.

    Now, let me counter your anecdote with my anecdote: a woman parked her SUV, covered in yes-on-8 signs, twenty feet from the entrance to the polling place where I was the officer in charge of the election and refused to remove it to the other end of hte parking lot (outside of 100 feet) until she had gone into the school office, talked to the staff, and retrieved her son. I had to threaten her with the sheriff to get her to move.

    He showed me a yellow rolled up string that he said was exactly 100 feet but didn’t want to go out and measure the distance.

    You should report him to the county elections office. His job is to prevent electioneering, and to the extent that he failed to do so, he should be prosecuted as an aider and abetter.

    (Note that I voted ‘No’ on Proposition 8, but I’m an election officer: electioneering is NOT OK, regardless of the cause, and failure to enforce that rule makes you unfit for the job and, I would argue, a criminal).

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  202. Darleen:
    Perfect example of a bad faith argument that refuses to accept that the pro-8 side is not about “rights”.

    Isn’t this the crux of the debate?

    Many of the people who are pro-gay-marriage, myself included, think that it is about rights. Many of those who are anti-gay-marriage think that it isn’t.

    But certainly if I believe it’s about rights, it’s fair to characterize the *effect* of the amendment as taking away my rights … regardless of whether the people who supported it believed that’s what it’s about. I’m not characterizing their intent; I’m explaining what I believe the effect of their actions to be.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  203. Patricia, at 161:
    Pure twaddle.

    Are you saying here that I am wrong about my own feelings beliefs, or that I’m wrong about the feelings and beliefs of the people that I know who are protesting?

    I suppose there’s no particular reason for you to believe me; but I believe I’ve had a history here of being honest; and since I (a) am gay, and (b) know and have talked to many people who have been to one or more of these protests, I think I have reason to believe I understand the motivations of the people involved.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  204. Chairm, at 156:

    the Yes side would underline that the company had chosen sides

    Depending on what form this underlining takes, it’s a threat: we will use our clout with our supporters to get them to boycott you, for example. I’ve not been able to see a copy of the letter, but the reportage on it has implied that it was something like this.

    But where are the leaders of the NO side? They squandered a very large lead which had seemed insurmountable.

    Yes, absolutely. The No campaign was horribly run; and, more importantly than that, many of the people on my side were complacent because they believed that Prop 8 was going to fail so they didn’t need to work for it.

    I think THAT more than anything else shouldbe the target of the anger of the No side supporters. Their own leadership lost a contest that was theirs to win handily.

    And this has point has been repeatedly made in discussions I’ve seen of this on progressive and gay blogs. Nobody is happy with the leadership of the no campaign.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  205. Allen, at 154:

    Proposition 8 created an amendment. The issue is that while an ‘amendment’ can be created by initiative, an amendment which is sufficiently far-reaching to be a ‘revision’ has to go through a different process, which was not followed here. What the rule is for when it’s a revision, and when it isn’t, are utterly unclear.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  206. Darleen, a bit stronger of a point:

    Let us presume for the moment that opponents of gay marriage believe that gay marriage will hurt marriage, and that proponents of gay marriage believe that it is a fundamental right.

    For the gay marriage proponent to say that Proposition 8 was about the majority taking the rights of the minority away shows exactly the same level of bad faith as for the gay marriage opponent to say that opposition to Proposition 8 was about a minority trying to destroy marriage.

    Neither is an argument in bad faith.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  207. Subotai, at 146:

    Why was Prop 8 on the ballot this year? Was it not due to the actions of the court in overturning the will of the people?

    No. The petitions to qualify it were turned in three weeks before the decision was handed down, which means the papers were taken out six months or so before the decision was handed down.

    13times, at 142: do you have any source for your claim that Proposition 8 got significant left wing support? Note that the bay area voted against it overwhelmingly, and that LA county was closely divided, as shown by the Secretary of State’s website.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  208. @194:

    N8 people did more than shout “shame on you”.

    Not in the video, which is the only verifiable available source so far.

    How can you so casually gloss over the woman’s account of what happened? They were showered with hot coffee, soda, urine, spit on and physically attacked with their own bibles.

    Since I can’t determine for sure what in this account is true, I’ll just say categorically that all such violence, hypothetical or not, is deplorable, no matter whom it is directed towards.

    Do you think Mormons will pull at newlyweds trousers and shove crucifixes into bums? Will Catholic men in-drag attempt to wrap same sex newlyweds in “sin sheets”? Will blacks target gay bathhouses with anti-homosexual graffiti? Will they all whisper death threats?

    On the whole, no. But on occasion, a small percentage of individuals of all persuasions and skin tones engage in violence. This, of course, works both ways. I also don’t think all or most gay people generally act in the ways depicted in that awful vignette. Do you?

    Can you not condemn these acts when perpetrated on the opposition?

    Sure. Can and did, here and above.

    Tom (79a87e)

  209. Tom wrote:

    But on occasion, a small percentage of individuals of all persuasions and skin tones engage in violence. This, of course, works both ways. I also don’t think all or most gay people generally act in the ways depicted in that awful vignette. Do you?

    Of course I don’t, but when ONE gay person is harassed, hurt, injured, or killed, all of society is tarred with the “bigot” brush if we don’t rush to react by changing our own standards of decency. Here, we have video evidence of intolerance at the least and violence at the most by gays upon people who were just expressing their free speech rights, and the reaction of everyone but “right-wingers” is either “Go get ’em” or “You’ve got it coming!”

    To paraphrase Orwell: Some victims are more equal than others.

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  210. @196:

    It has been said already in the comments starting at #151.

    This particular group holds a prayer circle on the same spot on the same day of the week and have done so for some time.

    This is not about the winners going to Castro to make trouble. This is about the Biblical call to evangelize which they have been doing for some time. No matter what the case the reaction was not warranted and was inappropriate if not illegal.

    Tanny, the fact that this group has previously engaged in this form of evangelism doesn’t make it any less tasteless this time, given the timing and reality of recent events. I’m surprised that this particular evangelical outreach places so little emphasis on whether their message is actually effectively being transmitted. What is the point of going into a community to evangelize without regard for how your words and acts will be received?

    Tom (79a87e)

  211. Why was Prop 8 on the ballot this year? Was it not due to the actions of the court in overturning the will of the people?

    No. The petitions to qualify it were turned in three weeks before the decision was handed down, which means the papers were taken out six months or so before the decision was handed down.

    This is standard when the court is expected to overturn the previous law. Had the court not overturned Prop 22, the Prop 8 people would not have spent the money when it was not necessary.

    Life is not a conspiracy; against gays or otherwise.

    Mike K (531ff4)

  212. @210:

    “…the reaction of everyone but “right-wingers” is either “Go get ‘em” or “You’ve got it coming!”

    Who reacts that way? Are they reacting to the alleged violence, the “intolerance,” or the “shame on you” counter-protest? (For example, having no sympathy for a divisive prayer-protest that needlessly biases people against my faith, I’m personally fine with the “shame on you” counter-protest.)

    Tom (79a87e)

  213. Had the court not overturned Prop 22, the Prop 8 people would not have spent the money when it was not necessary.

    Since the Prop 8 people did spend the money to qualify the petition for the ballot before the court issued a decision, this statement is false.

    The amended “Had they not expected the court to overturn Prop 22, the Prop 8 people would not have spent the money” is probably true, but it is a different, and somewhat weaker, statement.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  214. Comment by aphrael — 11/19/2008 @ 3:27 pm

    No, I think you will find that the circulating of the petitions was in response to the Court taking the issue.
    The Pro-8 groups felt that it would be good insurance to have the petitions in hand to put on the ballot when the Court invalidated P-22
    Yes, they had already turned in the petitions prior to the Court ruling; however, if the Court had ruled the other way (upholding 22), they could have withdrawn the petitions, and the matter would have been moot.

    Another Drew (a9b92d)

  215. aphrael @ 202,

    I called the Los Angeles County Registrar’s office and left a message. I have not been called back.

    Tom @ 211,

    Whether it’s “effectively being transmitted” or not, it is still their calling to evangelize. Wilberforce petitioned to end slavery for decades before he was finally successful, should he have stopped just because his message wasn’t “effectively being transmitted”?

    Tanny O'Haley (36baa6)

  216. aphrael said of the Yes campaign’s letter to the 30 or so companies which had contributed to the No side only:

    “Depending on what form this underlining takes, it’s a threat: we will use our clout with our supporters to get them to boycott you, for example.”

    The letter referred to the company’s clientle being split on the ballot measure.

    It was not a threat but an accurate statement of the political reality. The electorate was evenly divided so a company could show it was even-handed — and neutral — by withdrawing a one-sided contribution or making a like contribution to the other side.

    As I said, this was about fundraising, sure, but there was no extortion threatened in the letter.

    The NO side had already publicized the company’s donation. So a “reveal” could pose no threat.

    The company had openly chosen one side and did so for reasons it defended quite openly. So, again, they were not threatened with the use of the Yes side’s clout.

    A boycot is not a threat, per se. But no boycott was threatened, anyway, by the letter.

    A reasonable person might, at worst, conclude that the Yes side was going to draw attention to the one-sided pro-No companies. But both sides were doing that, anyway, in terms of the support they got from companies who had chosen sides.

    You’d have to substantiate an actual looming threat in the letter to keep to your last stated opinion. Or else you don’t rely on the evidence that is available.

    Remember, the only company to have complained was an open ally of the NO campaign. That certainly colors the very public complaint the company rep voiced. And there have been no criminal charges by the proper authorities; and neither the No campaign nor their company ally has pressed for charges.

    It was a political gamesmanship — on both sides. I think the Yes side’s letter was blunt and although they recieved negative publicity, it was publicity that both the No campaign and the company relished because it played to their own fundraising efforts. The Yes side, as I said, probably found a way to benefit form the publicity over the letter — it may have prompted people to try to match Abbot & Associates.

    We just need to cool down the rhetoric, especially in the wake of these angry protests.

    The story that Michelle brought to the attention of her readers is a legit news story that has not been reported very well in the larger news outlets. She has done a service by blogging about.

    The evangelical group did nothing wrong or tasteless. Castro district is NOT gay turf and there is NO law barring nongay people from using the public space there.

    On the other hand, gay activists have pushed for a Methodist organization in New Jersey to lose tax exempt status for not giving a permit for same-sex “civil union ceremonies” on their own property.

    Chairm (7b607c)

  217. I have always been a supporter of gay marriage. My understanding is that ‘marriage’ itself is a benefit to society with regards to raising future citizens, not just merely producing offspring. But, people like these gay ‘activists’ end up pushing otherwise moderate thinking people into one camp or another. Now I feel like I can no longer support gay marriage for the same reason I would not give my 3 yr old a lollipop to stop her tantrum. That’s what these people are doing, they’re having a tantrum and it should not be rewarded now. Maybe they need a few years in time out, then they can come back and calmly negogiate to get what they want. We’ll approve gay marriage if they stop things like the fulton street festival (which again, drives moderates away from their cause).

    Sherri (a517f3)

  218. araphael,
    When your side, the left, acts in a hateful manner, they excuse it as anger. After all your “feelings” and “beliefs” are so passionate. It’s a semantics trick and it doesn’t wash. If it walks like a duck…it’s a duck.

    Why don’t activists try the democratic way of convincing the electorate instead of intimidating everyone?

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  219. 201, care to explain yourself? Just how did I call names?

    PCD (7fe637)

  220. Patricia: I think the leftists here have been fairly consistent in not excusing it as anger. Note, for example, my remark in comment #7 about violence having no place in political debate.

    What I *am* disagreeing with is the characterization of the motivation. The motivation of the protestors is not anarchy and hate; the motivation is anger. People who are motivated by anger are expressing their anger in a way which is probably harmful to their cause, and some of them are expressing their anger in a way which is illegal.

    They’re doing bad things because they are angry. This doesn’t excuse their bad things, but it does make the statement “they’re doing bad things because they are anarchic and hateful” untrue.

    You called my response “pure twaddle”, which it is not; as I said before, I know people who have protested, and I know why they are protesting because we’ve talked about it.

    Also note: not everyone who is protesting is engaging in violent acts; only a minority are.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  221. Sorry, I believe their motivation is irrelevant, and that you are splitting hairs.

    So we disagree.

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  222. Sorry, if this is only tangentially related, but what was the same-sex coupling lawsuit against Eharmony?

    JD (b96a9e)

  223. I think what the Same sex community has gotten used to is pandering, because of the sensitive nature of the issue, the gay community has gotten off on things that would normally put a heterasexual in so deep legal waters. Gay Pride parades with revealing clothing and displays others find digusting, showing open relationship that most would keep behind closed doors, they have gotten used to getting their way on principle.

    Now, when someone actually does say no that’s too far, they act like spoiled children, lashing out at everyone around them because they dared not let them have their new toy. They have no interest in the community as a whole, only what satisfies them. They do not care how it effects religious liberties, they do not care how it will effect schools, laws, and adoption agencies. They do not care that they have the same rights under a different name, they want marriage on principle. Why, because it’s there. How long are we going to pander these people who obviously are taking advantage of the tolerance of others?

    Daioni (c0a5be)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.8498 secs.