‘Yes on 8’ supporters and religious leaders unite against vicious post-election attac

[skepticalbeliever]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14350

Where is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger while churches are being attacked? And where is Senator Dianne Feinstein while people are losing their jobs and grandmothers are being bullied by an angry mob?" he asked.

Schubert spoke at the first press conference of the Protect Marriage coalition since the election, which saw Proposition 8 pass with 52.5% of the vote. Since then, hostility has dramatically increased against those who supported the measure.

Another leader, Pastor Jim Garlow recalled that, "For 14 months, we have been called bigots and hatemongers and we have not retaliated against these unprecedented attacks. But we will not be silenced."

Around California, supporters of Prop. 8 have been targeted by their opponents. According to a press release, in addition to church vandalism across the state, in Sacramento, a musical theater director was forced to resign after he was blacklisted for contributing $1000 to the initiative. In Los Angeles, a Mexican restaurant owner was boycotted after a relative donated to the coalition.

The most recent attack occurred yesterday when the headquarters of the Knights of Columbus and several LDS temples were mailed an unknown white powder, reminiscent of the Anthrax scare in 2001

I would like to see GLAD come out and denounce these hate crimes commited by the gay community. I didn't expect there to be such a violent reaction by the gay community to the passage of these ammendments. I'm sure conservatives wouldn't act like this is these ammendments were not passed.

[Gate2501]

I went to the nationwide version of the protests against this proposition passing (Cleveland OH).

This was passed using an advertising campaign (much of it completely false) that was completely based upon religion. Quite disturbing.

Vandalism and mailing white powder is inexcusable, and should be denounced, however... Boycotting a resturaunt does not fall into any sort of "hate crime" category. I can understand why the gay community is angry. In a land where church and state are supposed to be separate, they have been denied the same rights (by the state) that straight couples receive, based upon a campaign of religious intolorance in regards to their sexual preference.

I am straight by the way.

[Terry]

I'm sure conservatives wouldn't act like this is these ammendments were not passed.

No-one has ever in the whole history of the world roughed up a gay person or threatened them, of course. </sarcasm>

ETA: and of course such behavior is deplorable from either side.

[tyr_13]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14350



I would like to see GLAD come out and denounce these hate crimes commited by the gay community. I didn't expect there to be such a violent reaction by the gay community to the passage of these ammendments. I'm sure conservatives wouldn't act like this is these ammendments were not passed.

Funny, CNN said that protesters did denounce this.

You're right, the conservatives would have actually attacked people, not used white powder to scare. *obviously this is completely an opinion based on experience, but also history*

[skepticalbeliever]

I went to the nationwide version of the protests against this proposition passing (Cleveland OH).

This was passed using an advertising campaign (much of it completely false) that was completely based upon religion. Quite disturbing.

Vandalism and mailing white powder is inexcusable, and should be denounced, however... Boycotting a resturaunt does not fall into any sort of "hate crime" category. I can understand why the gay community is angry. In a land where church and state are supposed to be separate, they have been denied the same rights (by the state) that straight couples receive, based upon a campaign of religious intolorance in regards to their sexual preference.

I am straight by the way.

I'm concerned about the violence getting out of hand. One thing leads to another and before you know it, someone dies. I have come to support hate crimes for attacks against gay people. I don't think they should face descrimination.

I don't think the seperation of church and state applies to prop 8. There are reasions why I can oppose gay marriage or the way it was imposed on states, with out going in to religion. It's like the abortion debate, there are many reasons why a person could oppose it, despite the fact that religious people have a tendancy to support restrictions.

[Gate2501]

I don't think the seperation of church and state applies to prop 8. There are reasions why I can oppose gay marriage or the way it was imposed on states, with out going in to religion. It's like the abortion debate, there are many reasons why a person could oppose it, despite the fact that religious people have a tendancy to support restrictions.


Right, I mean, you could just think that it is... Yucky? I mean, that is a good reason to deny rights to people in the US, right? Or maybe you subscribe to the slippery slope and think that people will be marrying cats and iguanas?

The point remains that religious baiting/fear was used to fuel the entire campaign for this proposition passing.

[Khalid01]

denounce these hate crimes commited by the gay community... a violent reaction by the gay community
Do you have any evidence that it's the "gay community" that is opposed to prop 8 and has committed these crimes by themselves?

I can tell you a lot of straight people like myself were vehemently opposed to Prop 8, and I know some of my more vigilant friends were pulling up and trashing "yes on prop 8" signs (something which I don't approve of). Your (and the article's) painting of all those against prop 8 as members of the "gay community" likely reflects your own biases and succumbing to "yes on 8's" many lies and misleading claims.

In regards to actual crimes such as vandalising churchs and mailing white substances in the mail, an official denouncement should be made. But boycotts are far from illegal, and if that musical director was "blacklisted" by the public for rejecting his bigotry, then so be it.

[skepticalbeliever]

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81310

Here is a story with a youtube video of how the gays treated christians that entered San Fran and prayed for them. Quite unbelievable.

[quixotecoyote]

I pray that you realize the error of your stupid, sinful ways and enter the enlightened fellowship of we superior posters and that you humbly take your place as an unbigoted member of our society.

[tyr_13]

It's unbelievable that angry people do stupid things?

Seems believable to me.

However, not that it makes it ok to treat them badly, it does seem like a passive-aggressive dick move to go to San Fran to 'pray' for them (I believe there were actually there for publicity and oppose the civil rights protesters). Why couldn't they pray from where they were and save the freaking gas? Was God too focused on all the angry gay (and gay supporting) people?

[Skeptic Guy]

I don't think it inaccurate to call those who supported Prop 8 "bigots". And I was going to question the accuracy (given the above referenced source) of the rest of the claims, the "black listing", the restaurant boycott, and the white powder mailed to the Knights of Columbus, but it seems that other forumites have heard about these.

Acts of hate should be deplored on both sides of the issue and, if discovered, prosecuted, but I have to say that I understand the anger felt within the gay community and I hope that someday they get the rights they deserve. I really don't see any argument against the right of gay marriage that does not have its genesis (pun intended) in religious bigotry.

[Cleon]

So these guys orchestrate a campaign to take rights away from people, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them because some people are getting a little extreme with their displays of anger?

Yeah...Not happening here.

Hey, Garlow, here's an idea: If you don't want people to call you "hatemongers" and "bigots," don't act like hatemongers and bigots!

[tyr_13]

Hey, Garlow, here's an idea: If you don't want people to call you "hatemongers" and "bigots," don't act like hatemongers and bigots!

Or at least don't raise millions of dollars that could have been used to feed the hungry, get medicine to sick children, or get homeless in shelters to advance your hate mongering and bigotry.

[quixotecoyote]

Or at least don't raise millions of dollars that could have been used to feed the hungry, get medicine to sick children, or get homeless in shelters to advance your hate mongering and bigotry.

Probably a poor argument to use, since any ad campaign for any purpose could be put towards a more 'noble' purpose.

[Foolmewunz]

Probably a poor argument to use, since any ad campaign for any purpose could be put towards a more 'noble' purpose.

False logic. Most ad campaigns are sponsored for commercial reasons and the companies paying for them and/or putting them together are in it as a commercial venture. Whether or not Mother Theresa could've used the money to feed orphans is not really part of the discussion when Gillette wants to launch the new Quintuple Track.

But right now we're talking about an ad campaign run by purportedly decent upstanding Christians and sponsored by a church and some service organizations, and their entire purpose was to limit the rights of a group of their fellow citizens.

Hateful narrow-minded bigoted pointy heads are uncomfortable when their same hateful narrow-minded bigoted pointy-headed tactics are used on them? Awwww! I'm sure baby jeebus weeps for them.

[Gazpacho]

I would like to see GLAD come out and denounce these hate crimes commited by the gay community. I didn't expect there to be such a violent reaction by the gay community to the passage of these ammendments. I'm sure conservatives wouldn't act like this is these ammendments were not passed.
I was at the Seattle anti-Prop 8 march this weekend and there was such a denunciation. If you wanted to hear one, maybe you should have gone to the nearest march event.

Also during the Seattle event, street preachers who showed up to call the protesters sodomites and perverts were shouted down and taunted to the fullest degree permitted by law, and they deserved it.

[TragicMonkey]

I've often thought the most effective way to achieve gay rights would be for a violent bloodbath. Remember, we're like Cylons--we live among you. Look around right now. Can you tell for sure who is and who isn't gay? Heh heh heh. Watch your backs. Just kidding! Or am I? Heh heh heh. The motherships are coming.

[Darth Rotor]

[url]Around California, supporters of Prop. 8 have been targeted by their opponents. According to a press release, in addition to church vandalism across the state, in Sacramento, a musical theater director was forced to resign after he was blacklisted for contributing $1000 to the initiative.
How sadly ironic: gay McCarthyism. Sounds a bit like the committee for public safety after the French Revolution, not to mention The Terror.

Lynch mob by another name is still a lynch mob. This is not doing the cause any good.
Boycotting a resturaunt does not fall into any sort of "hate crime" category.
Indeed, sort of like a boycott of busses in Alabama, fifty years ago . . .
I can understand why the gay community is angry.
As can I. This activity reminds of the tree spiking.
Also during the Seattle event, street preachers who showed up to call the protesters sodomites and perverts were shouted down and taunted to the fullest degree permitted by law, and they deserved it.
Seems a fair quid pro quo to me, and it's a bad sign that name calling and screaming at one another is where this has gotten to. *sigh*
So these guys orchestrate a campaign to take rights away from people, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them because some people are getting a little extreme with their displays of anger? Yeah...Not happening here. Hey, Garlow, here's an idea: If you don't want people to call you "hatemongers" and "bigots," don't act like hatemongers and bigots
@ Cleon: can I infer from your remarks that you also agreed with the 1992 riots after the Simi Valley jury result? I note a hint of apolgist for street violence in your post. Vacating the moral high ground doesn't sell the message. Killing 'em with civility does. Hell, why do I say that, it's something Ghandi (or Jesus) might do.

DR

[Cleon]

How sadly ironic: gay McCarthyism. Sounds a bit like the committee for public safety after the French Revolution, not to mention The Terror.

Are you *********** kidding? "The Terror?!" Get back to me when the rainbow guillotines are in the streets.


Lynch mob by another name is still a lynch mob.Who has gotten lynched?!


This is not doing the cause any good. As opposed to hyperbole and exaggeration. That's doing a world of good.


@ Cleon: can I infer from your remarks that you also agreed with the 1992 riots after the Simi Valley jury result? I note a hint of apolgist for street violence in your post.You seem inclined to infer all sorts of things that have no basis in reality. Why ask me for permission to do so again?

[Darth Rotor]

Are you *********** kidding? "The Terror?!" Get back to me when the rainbow guillotines are in the streets.
OK, I will.
Who has gotten lynched?!
Nobody, it is merely a mob.
As opposed to hyperbole and exaggeration. That's doing a world of good.
I guess you don't read the news, do you? Do you read the JREF forums?
The lunacy of the American Right and what it means for Obama's safety
You seem inclined to infer all sorts of things that have no basis in reality. Why ask me for permission to do so again?
Given your post, the tone was a sarcastic presentation of Cleon's endorsement of street violence as a solution. Is that your position? Please clarify.

DR

[LawnOven]

Yeah, I dunno, let a slim majority of society take away some other minority's right to get married and see how well they behave as a group.

[Cleon]

OK, I will.

Nobody, it is merely a mob.

So, no "Terror," no "lynching."

You're just making stuff up, then.


I guess you don't read the news, do you? Do you read the JREF forums?
The lunacy of the American Right and what it means for Obama's safety


What has that to do with the price of sushi in Tokyo?


Given your post, the tone was a sarcastic presentation of Cleon's endorsement of street violence as a solution.

In no way, shape, or form, did I give an "endorsement of street violence as a solution." That's a blatant lie on your part, and it's really disgusting.


Is that your position? Please clarify.

So you accuse me of endorsing street violence, then ask for me to "clarify?"

Do you seriously not see anything wrong with that?

I'd call it "dishonest," but it needs to work its way up to dishonesty.

[Darth Rotor]

So, no "Terror," no "lynching."

You're just making stuff up, then.
No, you will note that my comment begins with the reference to the blacklisting tactic. With McCarthyism as summoned so often on this forum as a bogey man, I figured you'd get it.
In no way, shape, or form, did I give an "endorsement of street violence as a solution." That's a blatant lie on your part, and it's really disgusting.
You may not grasp how your post came off, and your over reaction to my request for clarification hints at "protests too much," but may just be emotion.
So these guys orchestrate a campaign to take rights away from people, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them because some people are getting a little extreme with their displays of anger?
Not an endorsement? OK, if you say do. Perhaps an expression of empathy/sympathy. Did you read the OP? What is that white powder gambit supposed to be, if not a form of inciting fear, or even terror.
According to a press release, in addition to church vandalism across the state, in Sacramento, a musical theater director was forced to resign after he was blacklisted for contributing $1000 to the initiative. In Los Angeles, a Mexican restaurant owner was boycotted after a relative donated to the coalition.
The boycott makes sense.
The most recent attack occurred yesterday when the headquarters of the Knights of Columbus and several LDS temples were mailed an unknown white powder, reminiscent of the Anthrax scare in 2001
How is that not at least mildly terroristic, Cleon? It's not the same as firebombing, sure, but not all extortion or terror is so blatant: the message is the threat.

Did you bother to read the OP? I am not making this stuff up, Cleon. Of course, if the press report is inaccurate, then fine. Now, let's see if you can find the parallel between the outrage over a noose hung over a tree in Louisiana and this white powder thing. Terror? Extortion? Threat?

DR

[ScottGPDX]

I'm quite surprised to see such terms as "hate crime" being bandied about on a skeptic forum, what a ridiculous notion. Also, what's with the extreme generalizations?
But I am curious, skepticalbeliever, you claim to have reasons unrelated to your religious fantasies to support Prop 8, care to name one or two?

[Darth Rotor]

Also, what's with the extreme generalizations?
Some social and political issues evoke strong emotions, and then you get what you mentioned.
But I am curious, skepticalbeliever, you claim to have reasons unrelated to your religious fantasies to support Prop 8, care to name one or two?
While I am curious as well, here is a pro tip:

unrelated to your religious fantasies

Great way to engage someone in a conversation? No.

Welcome, by the way, to the scrum. :)

DR

[Edges]

Here is a story with a youtube video of how the gays treated christians that entered San Fran and prayed for them. Quite unbelievable.

Emphasis mine.

Your bias is showing. Some gay people and their supporters may have mistreated these poor (:rolleyes:) Christians. Unless you have some secret information that all the gay people in San Francisco were in on this and *only* gay people were in on this, your statement is false and rather inappropriate.

And why is it not equally unbelievable that someone would go out of their way to make someone feel bad about themselves and their lifestyle by travelling to where they live to pray for them? That is beyond insulting. It really is quite hateful.

[ponderingturtle]

This was passed using an advertising campaign (much of it completely false) that was completely based upon religion

But never forget that religions have a sacred right to lie.

[ScottGPDX]

Thanks DR. You're right, I could have phrased that more politely, I suppose. Oh well, I am here to learn. Let the civil discourse begin!

[Cleon]

No, you will note that my comment begins with the reference to the blacklisting tactic. With McCarthyism as summoned so often on this forum as a bogey man, I figured you'd get it.

...So, no "Terror," no lynching. You just made that up.


You may not grasp how your post came off,

No, you just made **** up.


Not an endorsement? OK, if you say do. Perhaps an expression of empathy/sympathy.

...No. Merely a lack of sympathy for hatemongers and bigots.


How is that not at least mildly terroristic, Cleon? It's not the same as firebombing, sure, but not all extortion or terror is so blatant: the message is the threat.

Did you bother to read the OP? I am not making this stuff up, Cleon.

The bit about "the Terror" and lynching and so forth? That stuff you made up. Completely.

Of course, if the press report is inaccurate, then fine. Now, let's see if you can find the parallel between the outrage over a noose hung over a tree in Louisiana and this white powder thing. Terror? Extortion? Threat?


Riiight. One minute it's powdered sugar, and the next, Castro street is being lined with crucified Christians. :rolleyes:


Since you seem intent on assigning me motives I do not hold, I will summarize my position:

1. The outrage on my end is at the bigots who voted to deny same-sex couples their rights.
2. I do not condone some of the actions aimed at those who supported Prop 8, but even the most "extreme" examples of these don't seem particularly serious to me--certainly nowhere near the level of "The Terror" or lynching, as you claimed.
3. Similarly, the use of the phrase "hate crime" by the OP is stupid.

[ScottGPDX]

I agree with that. But to go still further afield, I think anyone's use of that phrase is stupid, ah, excuse me, ill-considered. (That better DR?) I reject the concept of "hate crimes" in general. Crimes are crimes, acts are acts. If actions are intentional, a person's motivations for performing them may interest us, but they have no bearing on the resulting effect of the action. Accordingly, they should have no bearing on any resulting penal action. The "why" is irrelevant. This is not to say that I support discrimination, or that we should not continue to try to protect society's minorities from it however we can, at the moment anti-discrimination laws are an imperfect solution but that's what we've got. Denying anyone's civil rights (whatever the motivation) is not good. Protecting people's civil rights is a nice thing to try, and I certainly don't advocate abandoning that noble goal.
My problem with terminology like "hate crime" or "violence against women" or "black-on-black violence" is that they diminish similar violent acts that don't have that stigma.

[Cleon]

I agree with that. But to go still further afield, I think anyone's use of that phrase is stupid, ah, excuse me, ill-considered. (That better DR?) I reject the concept of "hate crimes" in general. Crimes are crimes, acts are acts. If actions are intentional, a person's motivations for performing them may interest us, but they have no bearing on the resulting effect of the action. Accordingly, they should have no bearing on any resulting penal action. The "why" is irrelevant. This is not to say that I support discrimination, or that we should not continue to try to protect society's minorities from it however we can, at the moment anti-discrimination laws are an imperfect solution but that's what we've got. Denying anyone's civil rights (whatever the motivation) is not good. Protecting people's civil rights is a nice thing to try, and I certainly don't advocate abandoning that noble goal.
My problem with terminology like "hate crime" or "violence against women" or "black-on-black violence" is that they diminish similar violent acts that don't have that stigma.

Perhaps starting a different thread on whether "hate crimes" exist is in order, here.

[rwguinn]

Perhaps starting a different thread on whether "hate crimes" exist is in order, here.
Getting a little too close to home, Cleon?
I detest the way that election came out, and the tactics used by the people who were for it--but:
I read your statements as apologetic toward the "protesters", and the attitude to be that "Hate crimes" can only be perpetrated against racial and/or homosexual targets--that black against white or gay against straight cannot be hate crimes.
I don't buy that. "In-kind" response, ok. Physical assault, threats, violence are not excuseable in this case.

[Silly Green Monkey]

I disagree, rwguinn, a discussion of whether or not any crimes should be called 'hate crimes' does not belong in this thread.

[KodeBlue]

I watched the coverage of the protests and the reaction of the LGBT community to the "Christian" activists who showed up to "pray" for them. Yeah the religious groups started out peaceful and well behaved and predictably the crowd began to verbally attack them. Know what it reminded me of? Have you ever seen coverage of a KKK public march or rally? Same scenario.

If you stand in front of synagogue on Yom Kippur wearign a swastika, bet you'll get the same reaction.

[Cleon]

Getting a little too close to home, Cleon?

Huh? :confused:


I detest the way that election came out, and the tactics used by the people who were for it--but:
I read your statements as apologetic toward the "protesters",Apologetic in what sense?

If you read my statements as an endorsement of violence, as Darth did, then that's your problem, not mine. Because no endorsement is there. At all. In any way.


and the attitude to be that "Hate crimes" can only be perpetrated against racial and/or homosexual targets--that black against white or gay against straight cannot be hate crimes.I didn't say anything about "hate crimes."

The idea of "hate crimes" as a general concept is a different topic, for a different thread.


I don't buy that. "In-kind" response, ok. Physical assault, threats, violence are not excuseable in this case.Well, fortunately, I didn't say it was.

[quarky]

If homosexuals weren't so gay, they'd be killing christians in the street. This would be healthier than the random killing of peasant/terrorist/muslim/commies or other forms of sanctioned, righteous murder.

Oops. Stuff we don't like to address doesn't really exist. I almost forgot.

[Gazpacho]

Stuff we don't like to address doesn't really exist. I almost forgot.
More like stuff that isn't the subject of this thread, isn't the subject of this thread.

[Darth Rotor]

1. The outrage on my end is at the bigots who voted to deny same-sex couples their rights.
2. I do not condone some of the actions aimed at those who supported Prop 8, but even the most "extreme" examples of these don't seem particularly serious to me--certainly nowhere near the level of "The Terror" or lynching, as you claimed.
We will disagree on the terror issue, given the white powder episode, but I already noted and agreed with your objection that no, nobody was lynched yet.
3. Similarly, the use of the phrase "hate crime" by the OP is stupid.
We agree.

Thanks for clarifying your position. It was not obvious from the tone of the post to which I originally responded. How nice that use of hyperbole can now and again result in communicating effectively, in the end.
But to go still further afield, I think anyone's use of that phrase is stupid, ah, excuse me, ill-considered. (That better DR?)

My problem with terminology like "hate crime" or "violence against women" or "black-on-black violence" is that they diminish similar violent acts that don't have that stigma.
Scott, thanks so much for the reply, and while I agree with your last bit, I also agree with Cleon that it is its own topic.

DR

[dudalb]

So name calling and intimidation and hate is OK if it is done by the side I support. Nice.
Just more proof that some seclularist and athiests can be a close minded and over the top as the Christian Fundies can.

But the real fact is the anti religious tone is STUPID. It makes you look to a lot of people like you are as bigoted as the people you are fighting. It becomes a case of "they are both nuts" to a lot of people, and you have just lost the case.

[dudalb]

Some social and political issues evoke strong emotions, and then you get what you mentioned.

While I am curious as well, here is a pro tip:

unrelated to your religious fantasies

Great way to engage someone in a conversation? No.

Welcome, by the way, to the scrum. :)

DR


ANd this is why I like to call myself a "Non Thiest" rather then an Athiest or a Secularist because I do not want to be associated with some of the Religion Bashing you see on the Internet.

[dudalb]

Hateful narrow-minded bigoted pointy heads are uncomfortable when their same hateful narrow-minded bigoted pointy-headed tactics are used on them? Awwww! I'm sure baby jeebus weeps for them.

Ever stop and think how it looks to those not involved? Like one bunch of bigots fighting another bunch of bigots. Not good for your cause at all.

[Cleon]

So name calling and intimidation and hate is OK if it is done by the side I support. Nice.

Who said that?

[rwguinn]

Who said that?

you did.
So these guys orchestrate a campaign to take rights away from people, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them because some people are getting a little extreme with their displays of anger?

Yeah...Not happening here.

Hey, Garlow, here's an idea: If you don't want people to call you "hatemongers" and "bigots," don't act like hatemongers and bigots!

[dudalb]

Ain't double standards a beautiful thing?

[Cleon]

you did.

Nope.

Calling them "hatemongers" and "bigots" is no more "name calling and intimidation and hate" than calling the LDS church "Mormons."


I'm rather disappointed by how many people here think the bigots are the ones who've been wronged.

Those poor, unfortunate bigots. How they have to suffer because they chose to take rights away from people because they were different. The shame, the horror!

[Cleon]

Like one bunch of bigots fighting another bunch of bigots.

Wow....Just wow.

[dudalb]

Wow....Just wow.

Well,that is the way it looks to a lot of people. regardless of whether it is true or not.
It's a stupid tactic, period.

[ravdin]

I live in CA and I voted against Prop 8. For the most part, the post-election demonstrations have been peaceful- as they should be.

It's unfortunate that a few bad apples have decided to respond by throwing a temper tantrum. I couldn't disagree more with the proponents of Prop 8, but they are well within their rights as individuals to spend their money, speak out, and vote as they see fit. Lashing out like spoiled three year olds because you lost an election is not the way to gain public sympathy for the cause.

[dudalb]

Those poor, unfortunate bigots. How they have to suffer because they chose to take rights away from people because they were different. The shame, the horror!


So you approve of the tactics used by some of the Anti 8 people ?
Yes or No?

[dudalb]

I live in CA and I voted against Prop 8. For the most part, the post-election demonstrations have been peaceful- as they should be.

It's unfortunate that a few bad apples have decided to respond by throwing a temper tantrum. I couldn't disagree more with the proponents of Prop 8, but they are well within their rights as individuals to spend their money, speak out, and vote as they see fit. Lashing out like spoiled three year olds because you lost an election is not the way to gain public sympathy for the cause.


It also makes church members who voted against 8 feel stabbed in the back.
yeah, I can see the "taste of your own Medicine" might sound attractive,but it is lousy politics. It reduces it in the eyes of the average voter to one bunch of idiots shouting at another bunch of idiots.
Frankly, the failure of the Anti 8 people to appeal to the undecided voters was a major reason that 8 passed. To look as if you are in some kind of crusade against religon in general and the Mormon and Catholic churches in partcular will not help matters.

For the record, I voted against and strongly opposed Prop 8,and am sad that the good guys in this are shooting themselved in the foot so badly by making religon the center of the fight..when they should be doing the opposite.

[Cleon]

So you approve of the tactics used by some of the Anti 8 people ?
Yes or No?

You know, I could swear I already answered that...


I do not condone some of the actions aimed at those who supported Prop 8

If the words "do not" aren't sufficiently negative for you, you're just going to have to find some way to cope.

[rwguinn]

Nope.

Calling them "hatemongers" and "bigots" is no more "name calling and intimidation and hate" than calling the LDS church "Mormons."


I'm rather disappointed by how many people here think the bigots are the ones who've been wronged.

Those poor, unfortunate bigots. How they have to suffer because they chose to take rights away from people because they were different. The shame, the horror!

Never said that"bigots are the ones who've been wronged."
said 2 wrongs don't make a right, and you seem to support the 2nd wrong...

[Cleon]

Never said that"bigots are the ones who've been wronged."
said 2 wrongs don't make a right, and you seem to support the 2nd wrong...

Nope.

[Cleon]

Just more proof that some seclularist and athiests can be a close minded and over the top as the Christian Fundies can.

But the real fact is the anti religious tone is STUPID. It makes you look to a lot of people like you are as bigoted as the people you are fighting. It becomes a case of "they are both nuts" to a lot of people, and you have just lost the case.

ANd this is why I like to call myself a "Non Thiest" rather then an Athiest or a Secularist because I do not want to be associated with some of the Religion Bashing you see on the Internet.

Incidentally, I challenge you to find any anti-religious sentiment that I've expressed here. Any at all.

You're not only barking up the wrong tree with this "closed-minded atheist" crap, you're not even in the right forest.

[Gazpacho]

So you approve of the tactics used by some of the Anti 8 people ?
I understand the locals frustration in trying to get through to these brainwashed fundie idiots that (1) they were not welcome and (2) calling their message one of love does not make it so.

[Matthew Best]

So you approve of the tactics used by some of the Anti 8 people ?
Yes or No?

Yes.

I approve of the tactics used by some of the Anti 8 people.

I trust that makes everything clear. :D

[kerikiwi]

I approve of the tactics used by some of the Anti 8 people.

[Foolmewunz]

Yes.

I approve (etc...)


And now that they've all had their little tantrums, like every other group that's ever lost an election or ballot initiative,... they should STFU and get organized to do things to counter it. It wasn't just in California, nor just the CLDS, there were several such initiatives that passed.

Hard to support boycotts, especially if the apocryphal sounding story of the restaurant is accurate (c'mon... boycotting a restaurant because A RELATIVE supported the Prop... I'm open to correction, but that sounds like hyperbole),... I don't know a lot of gays in the CLDS so a boycott wouldn't do anything. And Kiwanis or Knights of Columbus, or whatever... I don't think any have any Gay/Lesbian/Bi auxilliaries, so direct boycotts obviously make no sense. But if the church's elders and/or the local heads of those services clubs are involved in commercial ventures or corporations? Sure, boycotting is fair game.

[Gazpacho]

Hard to support boycotts, especially if the apocryphal sounding story of the restaurant is accurate (c'mon... boycotting a restaurant because A RELATIVE supported the Prop... I'm open to correction, but that sounds like hyperbole)
News flash: Gossip loses its accuracy in the retelling.

"relative of the owner" -> "the owner" -> "president of the franchise" -> "Oprah Winfrey"

[linusrichard]

Yes.

I approve of the tactics used by some of the Anti 8 people.



The white powder was a crime. I don't support that. I don't see any other crimes in this thread. A boycott is simply people using their right to decide where (not) to spend their money, and encouraging others to do the same. A blacklist by private citizens isn't McCarthyism - let's remember that McCarthy was a United States senator. Let's also remember that McCarthy was largely (although not entirely wrong). If McCarthy's targets had all been known anti-Americans, I don't think he'd "enjoy" the reputation he has today. The targets of the blacklist are known supporters of Prop H8 - I don't see the problem.

To the extent that any anti-8ers are anti-Christian (or anti-black, something that's been seen although I haven't noticed it mentioned in this thread), they're bigots, and I don't agree with that. But I think that's a minority of anti-8ers - I would guess most anti-8ers are themselves Christian, and thus not likely to be anti-Christian. What they really are is anti-bigot, and "bigotry" against bigotry isn't bigotry at all.

Let's also remember, when looking at the anger here, that this is (unlike in Florida and Michigan and elsewhere that these awful laws have passed) actually taking away people's rights. In other states, the bigots have refused to expand rights. They used to like to say that they didn't want to redefine marriage. In California, they flip-flopped on that, and revealed themselves as hypocrites who don't mind redefining marriage at all, as long as they're redefining it in the "right" direction.


Also, someone above said acts of hate should be prosecuted. (ETA: Skeptic Guy said it.) Crimes of hate should be prosecuted. Crimes not of hate should be prosecuted. Acts of hate other than crimes should obviously not be prosecuted. (ETA: I'm guessing that's what he meant, but I wanted to respond to clarify.) Can you blame people for hating in this situation? I sure can't.

You have to take the bad with the good. You can't organize a hate-filled campaign to take away people's rights, and then expect to not have those people pissed off at you. The H8ers have made their bed, and they can't be heard to complain about having to lie in it. (Crime victims aside, obviously.)

[Darth Rotor]

And now that they've all had their little tantrums, like every other group that's ever lost an election or ballot initiative,... they should STFU and get organized to do things to counter it. It wasn't just in California, nor just the CLDS, there were several such initiatives that passed. [/quote}
Yep. Of course, that actually takes working within the system. It's easier and more cathartic to play the drama queen, albeit a public demonstration or march in advocacy of the preferred position is most appropriate. Speak up for what you want.
[QUOTE]Hard to support boycotts,
Boycotts are hard, but can work. The embargo on South Africa took about twenty years to have a result. The Arab League Trade Embargo against Israel not as effective. The embargo against Haiti, UN sanctioned, in the early 90's was a form of trade boycott, and it had quite the unintended effect of not bothering the ruling class all that much, but screwing the average Joe on the streets of Haiti rather badly.

DR

[Beerina]

For some reason, I can't imagine Jesus out campaigning for this.

On the other hand, his dad did tell people to kill gay men.

[applecorped]

So these guys orchestrate a campaign to take rights away from people, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them because some people are getting a little extreme with their displays of anger?

Yeah...Not happening here.

Hey, Garlow, here's an idea: If you don't want people to call you "hatemongers" and "bigots," don't act like hatemongers and bigots!


So you know how everyone voted on Prop 8? How are you able to tell?

[linusrichard]

For some reason, I can't imagine Jesus out campaigning for this.

On the other hand, his dad did tell people to kill gay men.

Hey, California's governor opposed Prop H8, and his dad was a Nazi!

(Have I Godwinned the thread, or does this fall under some exception?)

[Thanz]

Nope.

Calling them "hatemongers" and "bigots" is no more "name calling and intimidation and hate" than calling the LDS church "Mormons."
At best, this is disingenuous. The church of LDS calls themselves Mormons. They don't call themselves "hatemongers and bigots". However much you feel the description fits, it is still name calling at the very least.

I'm rather disappointed by how many people here think the bigots are the ones who've been wronged.
I'm disappointed that you seem to think that the victims of assault somehow had it coming because of their views.

Now I know that you are going to say "No, I didn't say that!". But seriously, there is no other way to take this type of comment. The expressions of sympathy here are for those people who were assaulted. If the story was just about a bunch of yelling back and forth, no one would care much. But the anti-prop 8 side took it too far in this encounter. Physical assaults and death threats are way over the line - and the recipients of that treatment were indeed wronged.

[Gazpacho]

So you know how everyone voted on Prop 8? How are you able to tell?
You can tell whether someone is acting a certain way by their actions.

[Travis]

While I won't support illegal actions I am glad that vocal action is being taken against the idiots that supported prop 8. For too long those striving for gay rights have just sat back and politely taken all the blathering vitriol that the religious community sprays at them. They have for too long sat safe from all contravening opinions in their cozy churches where they plan to strip citizens of rights to appease their irrational superstitions all the while thinking they are the moral and ethically correct ones for doing so.

Screw these people!

Yell in their faces. Let them know that their actions are not only reprehensible but are no longer tolerable.

I found out my mom lied to me and voted yes on 8. I called her a bigot and slammed the phone down. She is dead to me. I changed my answering machine to let everyone know that I only return calls to honorable non-bigots yet she keeps leaving messages.

Stand up to these hate-mongers wherever they are. Retaliate against them no matter who they are. Let them know that their intimidation works no more.