Prop 8 – Why our Reaction to Defeat may signal a Longer War

[opinterph]

One thing this thread demonstrates is that we do not all share the same approach in achieving recognition of GLBT rights. Some of us seem to support a committed effort to win the hearts and minds of fellow citizens, while others want to stigmatize groups that we perceive as trying to curtail our rights and then focus upon demonstrating our discontent toward them directly. It should be no surprise that different opinions and approaches will emerge from a segment of society that is itself a patchwork coalition of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender individuals working in concert with other people of the more “traditional” sexual orientation who support our effort to achieve equality in society-at-large.

Though the tone of the article in the opening post and some of the incidents it brings into the discussion creates an impression that is arguably exaggerated, we should recognize that it accurately reflects a very real sentiment that is being actively cultivated among some religious groups and political factions. The spin that is facilitated by various reports of “excessive behavior” following the passage of Prop 8 enables our opposition to fortify its position by creating an impression that will prove difficult to erase from the minds of persons who are likely to encounter its presentation. Consider this statement by Contract with America architect and former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich:

GINGRICH: Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school. [Link]

It is my personal opinion that we should be vigilant to renounce inappropriate actions that may otherwise be attributed to our community-at-large. In various degrees of magnitude, these might include defacing property, issuing death threats, undue interference targeting business or religious enterprise, and fomenting violence or other illegal activities.

Even comments left on blogs can become ammunition in the spin wars:

Meanwhile, over at JoeMyGod.blogspot.com, “World O Jeff,” said, “Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” While, “Tread,” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.” “Joe,” stated, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”

Please refrain from any possibly actionable calls to violence against our foul enemies and their property. There have been over 1000 comments today already, but I will go slog through them and remove any comments that might cause you legal repercussions, as remote as that prospect probably may be.

UPDATE: Barber's press release has been picked up by the wingnut/Christianist site World Net Daily and they have added numerous quotes from JMG readers.

[Joe.My.God blog]

In the face of this [apparent] widespread exchange of hatred, I think chatolandia offers an optimistic view of one possible outcome:

I think [Mollie Ziegler] is wrong

the protests scared a few people, true

but most of those people are the ones that have their mind made up, the 'believers'

I think it also added a human factor to this situation, especially to the ones that were on the fence about it, and may have voted against it. They could have seen the frustration and identified with it... Especially in the African American and Latino communities...


but most importantly it galvanized the gay rights movement nationally, strengthened the resolve of the community and moved many to action. Many of whom thought that [Prop 8 was going to fail], that there was no need to do much....


so it really did the opposite, in my opinion...

At the same time, I must concur with ICO7’s remarks about the overly aggressive tactics some activists have employed:

… Of course, as already been revealed, true equality isn't the goal of these so-called equal rights activists, marching and clanging pots and pans from the womb. Prop 8 happened because the opposition was better organized and had the easier argument to win---ingrained bigotry and fallacious appeals to tradition are easy to capitalize on.

It seems unfortunate that we, as a community, have not directed a relevant portion of our disgust toward the people who took massive financial donations from us to defeat Prop 8 and then squandered a perfect opportunity.

Having accumulated such extensive financial resources, it is a shame that the campaign to defeat Prop 8 failed to tap into the gay community’s many grassroots organizations, ran a lousy media effort, and failed to get out votes that were critical to achieve the desired outcome. We can try to blame the Mormons, the African American voters, or people of some age demographic – A more realistic truth is that the gay community entrusted an organization to act as a centralized proxy, rather than seizing the effort of the campaign at multiple levels through a variety of organizations and thereby more effectively countering the presentation by the Prop 8 proponents, engaging voters, and influencing public opinion.

[Mollie Ziegler] simply points out things that some opponents of Prop 8 have done to hurt their cause. If anything, her piece (should be) a wake up call to remind gay rights supporters of how not to win people's votes.

… You can disagree with what they believe (as most, including myself, do), but showing such hate towards those beliefs doesn't help our argument. Protesting against what they did is fine, and warranted. Protesting against their beliefs as wrong does not do our cause any good. It shows us to be hypocrites; They believe marriage is between a man and woman, and that our lives are sinful. We respond by reacting the exact same way, but in regards to their beliefs.

Think about it; by reacting the way we did, we sink to their level. Morally, we have the upper hand, so why sink to their level?

The true consequence of this whole Proposition 8 ordeal is that few people really understand tolerance and what it is meant for. Tolerance works both ways and, while I hate to generalize about the entire against-Prop 8 group, a few bad apples ruined the message and fight for gay rights. There was immediate prejudice against religious groups, with the Church of Latter-Day Saints in particular. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't prejudice the chief enemy of tolerance? [Tan The Man]

Be sure to check out Prop 8: The Musical! ​

 

[Kulindahr]

But since you advocate carrying guns to protect yourself, why are you against a boycott of anti-gay businesses? I mean, it's also a way to counter people who hate you.

Follow the thread better -- in my last post I seconded the applause for boycotts.

Then we agree. And if Christians are scared into not donating money to hurt me... it's good for them. Builds character.

Sure.

But most of the rightwingers will just buckle down and come up with more money the next time.

 

[Kulindahr]

Speaking of boycotts, here are some businesses owned by the Mormon church:

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon410.htm

Another listing:

http://www.democraticunderground.co...sg&forum=389&topic_id=4416382&mesg_id=4416382

 

[JB3]

You guys need to look at the LGBT equality movement in comparison with the civil rights movement. The parallels are there, and there is instructive history that we all must be aware of.

One of the critical pieces of information is that violent push-back on our part does not work. It will galvanize public opinion against us, and does not support our cause. Militant push-back by our movement will only serve to prolong the battle for equality.

As backwards as it sounds; let them abuse us. Let them show themselves to be the zealots they are. If we respond with peaceful protests, peaceful action, and sound arguments, opinion will turn to our side. What turned the tide in the civil rights movement was not the violent protests and riots that marked one of the most turbulent periods of american history.

No, what turned the tide were images indelibly inked onto the american consciousness of black men, women, and children being abused by police officers, packed into jails by the hundreds, and being treated like sub-humans.

Much of what was inflicted on those men and women then cannot occur now; that type of violence is unthinkable in this 'connected' day and age. But we can still use similar treatment to our advantage. The best strategy, instead of violence and visible anger, is to blanket this nation from San Francisco to New York with images of LGBT couples that are being denied a right based solely on who they would like to marry. Humanize this movement. Humanize the people that Prop 8 and other measures hurts.

When america sees that LGBT couples are no different than their own, that we love as they love, and seek the happiness that straight couples seek, the battle will be over and we will have won.

 

[construct]

I think you are referring to the fourth one. According to at least one source reporting the incident, the perpetrators allegedly scattered buckets of glitter in the sanctuary, along with condoms and pieces of pink fabric.

That's right. I was referring to the fourth one. I had conflated the first and third ones. (They both referred to painting.)

Make no mistake. I fully approve of direct action. I fully approve of boycotts. I fully approve of hounding people out of their jobs. I'm for all that. That can be done without violating any laws. That's where I draw the line.

 

[Kulindahr]

Um, and you support that? You think it's OK for a "religion" to demand a private company take away rights or benefits?

Absolutely -- it's called FREE SPEECH.

And if they're out there protesting, making such demands, it's my right to get a bar stool to stand on, and climb up and preach against them out of my Greek New Testament.

And it's your right to bring in a couple of dozen of your biker friends (with bikes), and sit there all holding hands and singing "Kum Ba Ya".

Hm.. Like the Christians protesting, threatening and murdering people outside abortion clinics? You ever heard of Fred Phelps?

Oh, here we go with the "we're not all like that" bullshit. Sorry.. maybe you're not ALL like that... but most of them are.

Ah, the joys of reverse bigotry!

Most Christians live quietly, treating their neighbors with dignity and care, and never make the news. It's the oddball wingnuts who make the news, who get apoplectic over the thought of people not conforming to a covenant set on the shelf a couple of millennia ago.
They're no more typical of Christians than are the gays who want to get naked and have sex in public places where they get the thrill of maybe someone finding them and being shocked.

So wait... gay people should not have rights because Christians don't believe we should? Why do they get to trump us?

Go to Reading Comprehension 101; do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

He didn't say that -- he didn't say anything remotely like that.

You are 100% wrong in all of this. Sorry.

Actually he's fairly on-target. The problem is that he grasps the concepts of liberty and equality, and is willing to consider all the facts available, while you're operating out of a simplistic black/white, us/them, gonna-kick-their-ass worldview.

 

[Kulindahr]

We don't have to make nice with those who want to discriminate against us.

Define "make nice".
If Ghandi's march to the sea to make salt qualifies as not "making nice" to the British, then I'm with you here.

Again, there is a misperception among some gay people that our equality is something that other people have a right to vote on.

Abso.
Rights are; they belong to us. Equality is what comes when rights are honored. When the supreme law of the land (God-ordained, if you want to go the Christian route) says we're all to have equality, there is no right to vote on it.

There's only what I would call the right to get out of the way.

Assuming this photographer was self-employed and working as a private contractor, than it should be their right to refuse to participate in a ceremony that violates their firmly held religious or moral beliefs. If the photographer were an atheist and they were being asked to shoot a Church baptism, it should be their right to refuse.

I do side work as a private tutor. If a parent wanted me to help their child in a Bible class at The First Academy here at First Baptist Church: Orlando or at Bishop Moore Catholic High School, I should have the right to turn down that client (I wouldn't only because of the $).

If they are employed by an agency and are sent there by their employer that's a different story, but even then its between them and the employer, not the client.

Quite right. It's no different than a photographer being asked to shoot pornography, or another being asked to shoot a 'documentary' portraying Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection: if to you the subject matter is offensive, then you should not be required or forced to deal with it.
This is called freedom of conscience, and it used to be a serious principle. These days, it's out the window (along with many consciences) as people would rather win and put others down.

If it's not a matter of conscience, that's another matter. Should a contractor refuse to do work on someone's property -- having arrived and just learned this -- because the owners are a gay couple, that's objectionable; by showing up, the contractor has implicitly accepted the job. Or if a gay house decorator showed up to redo someone's living room, and then changed his mind on seeing a crucifix on the wall and a Bible on the coffee table, that would be objectionable. It's hard to see, in those instances, how a matter of conscience could be involved.

It may not be stated, but there is a right to not have to violate one's conscience. It's a principle that helped mankind pull out of the Dark Ages, and it needs to be honored.

 

[Kulindahr]

The starting of the war in Iraq (history repeating itself) when the older folks lived through Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin lie and Iraq's WMD lie).

The steadfast support of Israel no matter what Israel does.

The steadfast support of the Apartheid no matter how ugly it was.

Giving Saddam WMDs and then complaining that he had them.

Denying science. Denying global warming.

Denying those that can't access health care, health care.

Shit, they tried voting for McSame in 2008 after 8 years of a miserable presidency.

The black man was scarier than continuing Bush's failures.

A classmate of mine died in the war on terror a few months ago. Guess, which group STILL supports this made up war?

Guess who voted against gays wanting to marry?

Thanks for the list of things that young people all across the country believe in and do.

 

[Kulindahr]

You keep avoiding my question. If the doctor doesn't think that races should mix.. should he be able to refuse to "create" a mixed-race child? If he thinks that short people can't make good parents, should he be able to refuse on moral grounds?

Should he be able to refuse to help Jews since it's against his "faith?"

I mean.. you keep saying that a doctor should be able to be a sort of Moral Judge Dredd... how far are you willing to let him go?

Jasun, your position here boils down to your belief that you should be able to make the doctor a slave to what you think is right. That's pretty much the core of tyranny!

If you were a doctor, I would fully support your right to tell the author of that article to go somewhere else for treatment, because treating people like her is against your conscience. Why? Because every person owns himself and has the right -- no, the responsibility -- to be a "Moral Judge Dredd" over his own life. If we do not have that much, then all our liberties are illusion, subject to the latest moral whim of whoever can get power.

 

[Kulindahr]

Quoted for superb quality:

You guys need to look at the LGBT equality movement in comparison with the civil rights movement. The parallels are there, and there is instructive history that we all must be aware of.

One of the critical pieces of information is that violent push-back on our part does not work. It will galvanize public opinion against us, and does not support our cause. Militant push-back by our movement will only serve to prolong the battle for equality.

As backwards as it sounds; let them abuse us. Let them show themselves to be the zealots they are. If we respond with peaceful protests, peaceful action, and sound arguments, opinion will turn to our side. What turned the tide in the civil rights movement was not the violent protests and riots that marked one of the most turbulent periods of american history.

No, what turned the tide were images indelibly inked onto the american consciousness of black men, women, and children being abused by police officers, packed into jails by the hundreds, and being treated like sub-humans.

Much of what was inflicted on those men and women then cannot occur now; that type of violence is unthinkable in this 'connected' day and age. But we can still use similar treatment to our advantage. The best strategy, instead of violence and visible anger, is to blanket this nation from San Francisco to New York with images of LGBT couples that are being denied a right based solely on who they would like to marry. Humanize this movement. Humanize the people that Prop 8 and other measures hurts.

When america sees that LGBT couples are no different than their own, that we love as they love, and seek the happiness that straight couples seek, the battle will be over and we will have won.

That's how Ghandi won in India, and it's a model that has worked elsewhere. It's when people realize two things: (1) we're not going to give up, and (2) we aren't a threat, that they won't be motivated to vote against us.

Power to the peaceful!

 

[construct]

I fully support civil unions which would should have at least handled the pension part ( I don't know the full story on the basis for the deportation but assuming his lacking a legal partner was the only thing stopping it than yes a civil union is suitable here as well). Just curious (asking because I don't honestly know), California's domestic partnerships don't help in any of these areas?

I notice that this went unanswered.

Short answer: No, they do not. Civil unions cannot be the basis for pensions or other benefits governed by ERISA to partners and cannot provide for expedited immigration. These are governed by federal law and prohibited under DOMA coupled with the specific provisions for those benefits. Thus, not even same-sex marriage could provide those benefits as the law now stands.

 

[White Eagle]

I found some claims to the contrary …

What I'm seeing in the Sacramento Bee article is the sheriff has not decided it was done by those opposed to the Prop 8.

Sheriff's officials say they have not characterized the crime as the work of those opposed to Proposition 8, an amendment to the California constitution that limits marriage to between a man and a woman.

And what I see in this para is the Mormon Church admitting that it illegaly participated in the election.

"While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it's wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process," said the church's statement. "No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information."

I still don't understand why they have not been brought down for their participation in the election.

and in correction to the post, They say "No one on either side of the question, etc. " should not be subject to erroneous information. What the fuck were they doing the whole time before the election. Bullshit, I say.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Jasun, your position here boils down to your belief that you should be able to make the doctor a slave to what you think is right. That's pretty much the core of tyranny!

I just don't think I want to live in a world where I can only get medical care if the doctor likes me.

But hey.. I guess we're going to see very many things very differently.

 

[Kulindahr]

I just don't think I want to live in a world where I can only get medical care if the doctor likes me.

But hey.. I guess we're going to see very many things very differently.

Once again you misread.

Please follow the discussion: "doesn't like you" isn't sufficient; freedom of conscience is the issue. If a doctor believes it's immoral to assist a gay couple in the adoption process, it's his right to not help them. OTOH, if he's serving in the emergency room, he has voluntarily entered into a contract to treat anyone and everyone who comes his way.

It has to be a moral issue, a matter of conscience, or service has to be provided. I can't think of any situation where a doctor could say he won't treat you, unless he's in a private practice -- and then he would have to warn everyone up front.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

You're probably right on that... but it's not really the topic of the thread so I won't pursue that any further here.

My original thoughts on the subject remain... Christians making up stories (or extremely exaggerating them) about "Violent Mobs" or "Destruction of property" when all they can produce is a couple people spray painted walls and one service that was disrupted. Oh, they try to tie in BB Guns shooting out windows, but there's no indication at all that it was an angry mob of Pink Pistols. And let's not forget how countless "No on 8" signs were destroyed, stolen or vandalized... she doesn't seem to have a problem with that, not does she have a problem with the angry Christians who show up at Gay Pride day to yell about hell and sin and abominations through their loudspeakers. No no.. it's just the homos who need to be polite.

Her article smacked of absolving Christians from any wrong doing as they donate millions of dollars to keep the GLBT community second-class... her opinion is that since we're all angry, she feels we just haven't earned a place at her table just yet.

And I go back to what I said. Fuck her.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're probably right on that... but it's not really the topic of the thread so I won't pursue that any further here.

My original thoughts on the subject remain... Christians making up stories (or extremely exaggerating them) about "Violent Mobs" or "Destruction of property" when all they can produce is a couple people spray painted walls and one service that was disrupted. Oh, they try to tie in BB Guns shooting out windows, but there's no indication at all that it was an angry mob of Pink Pistols. And let's not forget how countless "No on 8" signs were destroyed, stolen or vandalized... she doesn't seem to have a problem with that, not does she have a problem with the angry Christians who show up at Gay Pride day to yell about hell and sin and abominations through their loudspeakers. No no.. it's just the homos who need to be polite.

Her article smacked of absolving Christians from any wrong doing as they donate millions of dollars to keep the GLBT community second-class... her opinion is that since we're all angry, she feels we just haven't earned a place at her table just yet.

And I go back to what I said. Fuck her.

I don't know what you read, but what you're stating isn't in that article. She was addressing a single issue -- not all the ones you think she maybe ought to have addressed. What you're seeing isn't in her article, it's in you.

Interestingly, you didn't pounce on the one item -- indeed, a single word -- that can't be justified at all, and that is so ridiculous that I can't believe any editor who knew where to put his lips to drink his morning coffee let by: "coordinated".

She calls the outbursts a "temper tantrum", but who's ever heard of a temper tantrum that was "coordinated"? The notion is ludicrous on the face of it; the word says she believes that some group of gays sat down and planned to have groups vandalize not just churches, but specific ones, on some schedule with other groups doing the intimidating, hounding, and so on.

Just the presence of that word tells me that Christianity Today has slipped from its standards since Billy Graham died; while he believed homosexuality was a sin, he would never have tolerated such a mendacious claim in a publication that was essentially his.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

I don't know what you read, but what you're stating isn't in that article. She was addressing a single issue -- not all the ones you think she maybe ought to have addressed. What you're seeing isn't in her article, it's in you.

In her article are statements about violent mobs and vandalism... lots of stuff like that.

The rest of the things I talked about were all mentioned in this thread by other posters.

I'm not sure what you mean by it's "in me." I think it's pretty clear that she tries to paint herself and Christians against gays as the poor victims of those mean, angry faggot mobs who attack her for no reason.

 

[Spensed]

Once again you misread.

Please follow the discussion: "doesn't like you" isn't sufficient; freedom of conscience is the issue. If a doctor believes it's immoral to assist a gay couple in the adoption process, it's his right to not help them. OTOH, if he's serving in the emergency room, he has voluntarily entered into a contract to treat anyone and everyone who comes his way.

It has to be a moral issue, a matter of conscience, or service has to be provided. I can't think of any situation where a doctor could say he won't treat you, unless he's in a private practice -- and then he would have to warn everyone up front.

Gee you're still being misread? LOL.

Just as a bigoted doctor, pharmacist, landlord, employer, etc. can't use conscience to discriminate who he, or she, will or won't accommodate based on skin color, so.....

 

[Kulindahr]

In her article are statements about violent mobs and vandalism... lots of stuff like that.

The rest of the things I talked about were all mentioned in this thread by other posters.

I'm not sure what you mean by it's "in me." I think it's pretty clear that she tries to paint herself and Christians against gays as the poor victims of those mean, angry faggot mobs who attack her for no reason.

You show right there what I meant: none of what you said right there is in the article. She says nothing about victims; she doesn't even allege it. All she's talking about is how gays screwed up when these things were done.

Who else is talking about what Christians have done? I don't recall anyone, but even if there were any, that's a different issue entirely. Asking that she write about that is like asking someone to write about German chocolate cake where her article is on baklava. Sure, they both have to do with baking, but they have no bearing on each other.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just as a bigoted doctor, pharmacist, landlord, employer, etc. can't use conscience to discriminate who he, or she, will or won't accommodate based on skin color, so.....
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

If you really mean that, you're a total enemy of freedom: without freedom of conscience, nothing else is meaningful.