Proposition 8 Has Officially Passed

[Spensed]

That's called immaturity and insecurity. Someone carrying something isn't anything like a punch, unless you're so insecure that photons are perceived as threatening.

Any time you hand someone power over you like that, it's a sign of your weakness.

Not necessarily. Even Jesus overturned the moneychangers' tables.

 

[Spensed]

Obviously.

But their behavior was indecent and inappropriate. Had she been a big muscular younger person yelling and gathering force against them, that's a different story. But she was a small elderly woman, alone. She had no power, she'd cast one vote, she hadn't the power to influence hundreds or thousands or millions of votes; one vote. I understand their anger and frustration but the truth is those men behaved shamefully; it's disturbing that no gay man appears to step up to protect her, to stand up to his peers and say stop, this is wrong.

You're just projecting your own fantasies onto the incident.

What the demonstrators did was clearly wrong. But the old woman was a deliberate provocateur, who had pre-cleared intruding herself into the crowd with the police beforehand and was far from an innocent victim.

She demonstrated again after the incident, but this time positioned away from the pro-gay demonstrators by the the police, which is where she should have been in the first place.

http://www.afterellen.com/node/40709:

....according to eye witness reports, Burgess was responsible for screaming and elbowing her way through the crowds, and in the process knocking a disabled Prop 8 protestor to the ground, just before having that cross ripped from her hands. So it seems likely that, while still inappropriate, the treatment she received was a reaction to her violence and inappropriate behavior . . .

....it turns out that Burgess is somewhat of a professional rabble-rouser and has disrupted at least several other LGBT events, including Palm Springs Gay Pride. Burgess even showed up to protest at the White Party, a giant circuit party held every spring...

 

[NickCole]

Burgess even showed up to protest at the White Party, a giant circuit party held every spring...

Oh NO!

Not the White Party!!!

Beat that bitch down!!!!!



Do you have even the slightest clue how monumentally silly you sound?

I saw her, she's a short old woman.

Don't get me wrong, I think she's a nut and an agitator -- but nobody can agitate anyone without their permission, and when it's one old woman with a styrofoam cross and a big crowd of robust gay men, and the gay men gang up on her in a physically bullying way, that says more about them than about her.

 

[Spensed]

^ The original quote wasn't just about the White Party and was from a commentator, who was making the point that the old woman was a habitual anti-gay rabble-rouser and not some innocent.

Obviously, the demonstrators need to control themselves.

And equally obviously, the old coot need to think twice before elbowing her way through an angry crowd.

 

[NickCole]

^ The original quote wasn't just about the White Party and was from a commentator, who was making the point that the old woman was a habitual anti-gay rabble-rouser and not some innocent.

I read the commentary.

It was stupid, full of anonymous hearsay "eyewitness reports."

Americans are allowed to protest; she was innocent in that the mob was wrong to bully and physically intimidate her.

Mob rule is bad. A throng of people ganging up on one person without a weapon (and therefore not threatening their safety) is wrong. I don't care if it's an African American and the mob is racists or if the woman is anti-gay and the mob is gay men. But this same thought process has come from the same quarter for many months; it's no surprise to me.

 

[Spensed]

^ And that you're, yet again, completely missing the point comes as no surprise to me.

What's in issue is her role. Even in the video, she doesn't seem especially intimidated and she wasn't injured. She could have had her counter-demonstrations in the same area, but away from the crowd. But she kept on positioning herself in the middle of the demonstrators.

If it was a Christian demonstration with some belligerent leather queen baiting the crowd and pushing a gay sex banner in front of the cameras, guys like you would be saying he should have shown more respect and deserved what he got.

As I say, she's subsequently holding her counter demonstrations at a reasonable distance so the incident hasn't been a complete waste of time.

At least the old bigot now knows not to fuck with an angry gay crowd.

 

[Backlum-Chaam]

I understand their anger and frustration but the truth is those men behaved shamefully; it's disturbing that no gay man appears to step up to protect her, to stand up to his peers and say stop, this is wrong.

Oh wow. Please watch it again. It's important to understand that part of the noise was coming from demonstrators shouting BACK at the men shouting at the church lady.

I wonder if this is why a few posters in this thread are so shocked; because of the impression of the group as a monolith?Take a closer look and you'll see that part of the way the agitation got ratecheted was when other demonstrators tried to shout at the shouters. A typical phenomenon. Most of it is inaudible so you have to pay careful ttention to the body language of some of the guys in the clip to catch it.

 

[new_433]

The way to deal with Christians is to talk to them on their level in a calm, rationale manner.

How do you rationalize with people whose brains lack the capacity to think rationally?

I think this is naive. This is not to say that we need to get physically violent, but you don't seem to get that in their minds, they are engaged in a cosmic battle between light and darkness. To them we are dark forces, and they are the warriors of light, soldiers doing God's work on earth. Anything rational we say, in their view, is simply the work of 'the father of lies'.

The woman tried to stage a counter-demonstration and a video interview in the middle of an emotionally charged crowd.

Btw, this is not her first time of doing that:

But it turns out that Burgess is somewhat of a professional rabble-rouser and has disrupted at least several other LGBT events, including Palm Springs Gay Pride. Burgess even showed up to protest at the White Party, a giant circuit party held every spring..

....

Burgess is apparently well-known to the Palm Springs police and she informed them in advance that she would be attending the No On 8 candlelight vigil during which the cross incident occurred.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2008/11/truth-about-phyllis-burgess.html

Mahandas Ghandi.

Who, ironically, was both a racist and a homophobe (and a fundamentalist too).

 

[White Eagle]

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37823prs20081119.html

California Supreme Court Grants Review In Prop 8 Legal Challenges (11/19/2008)

Court To Determine Constitutionality Of Prop 8

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [Email address: Removed by Moderator]

SAN FRANCISCO — Today the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.

On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six couples and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.

I got this in a newsletter from ACLU. Lets hope it gets attended to asap and properly.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not necessarily. Even Jesus overturned the moneychangers' tables.

He was merely enforcing the rules his Dad had established for use of the family place.

 

[Kulindahr]

Obviously, the demonstrators need to control themselves.

And equally obviously, the old coot need to think twice before elbowing her way through an angry crowd.

Our concern shouldn't be about the "old coot's'" behavior, but about ours: there's nothing we can do about hers, but everything we can do about ours.
With someone who does this a lot, there's lots of room for creativity in responding -- and that's what demonstrators likely to face her need, not just the control to not abuse her, but the control to respond creatively.

I sort of like the idea of a half dozen of them holding hands in a circle around her and singing "Kum Ba Ya".

 

[Kulindahr]

If it was a Christian demonstration with some belligerent leather queen baiting the crowd and pushing a gay sex banner in front of the cameras, guys like you would be saying he should have shown more respect and deserved what he got.

I'm trying to figure out what benefit you get from holding this sort of fantasy. There's got to be some, or you wouldn't spin such a thing out of thin air.

 

[Kulindahr]

Who, ironically, was both a racist and a homophobe (and a fundamentalist too).

Ghandi, a racist? You'd better have something serious to substantiate that; as I recall, he did work against racism when he was in South Africa.

I doubt he was a homophobe, though I can see where culturally he would not have approved of homosexuality.

And a fundamentalist????

 

[Kulindahr]

I got this in a newsletter from ACLU. Lets hope it gets attended to asap and properly.

I saw something about that on TV. An attorney with one group was setting out reasons why 8 must be considered a revision, and thus subject to court review, rather than am amendment. They seemed pretty darned good, even though I don't remember them now.

 

[Spensed]

I'm trying to figure out what benefit you get from holding this sort of fantasy. There's got to be some, or you wouldn't spin such a thing out of thin air.

Here's an extract from of one of your previous posts:

Let's see -- you were 6 twenty years ago; I was at college living with a house full of 'evangelical' guys. And you know what? Near half of them, back then, were quite willing to grant gays every legal benefit and privilege heteros get -- if gays just would stop insisting on polluting something sacred by asking for marriage.

It's that request that I refer to as disrespect, and it's a disrespect shown on JUB in abundance.

Blacks never did anything to whites, as a policy, anywhere near gays asking for marriage does to many, many religious believers. I keep saying, hoping people will decide to reach for an understanding of whom they're fighting, that demanding that man + man = man + woman is like deliberately walking into their homes and pissing on the floor -- except worse. By demanding the label "marriage", gays continue to insist on confrontation, without even bothering to think of, or care about, the insult and disrespect and despite they are offering.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4451613&postcount=156

"...if gays just would stop insisting on polluting something sacred by asking for marriage."

"....demanding that man + man = man + woman is like deliberately walking into their homes and pissing on the floor -- except worse."

Now, I know that that's what you're saying "evangelicals" thought and think. But, in presenting it, you don't qualify, criticize or demur from that hateful prejudice You convey it as a moral equivalent of the opposite point of view, which it isn't.

To me that attitude informs your posts on the subject. Evangelicals see gay marriage as pollution and pissing on the the floor of their home and they are to be shown respect for that view and not called on their bigotry.

Obviously, showing that respect may, or may not, be one means to and end. And I don't reject it as such.

But, my point is that you display a completely different perception when it's the gay guys who are doing something wrong. In the old woman incident, she checked with the police in advance and inserted herself and her counter-demonstration right in the middle of any angry crowd. Many of the people in that crowd would have seen what she was doing as polluting something sacred (by denying their marriage bonds and those of their friends). Many would also have seen her as pissing on the floor of their home. Instead of relating to their strength of feeling, while condemning their bad actions, you just see them as Nazi thugs.

Even, if you assume that the reports of her own belligerence and elbowing her way through the crowd aren't accurate, however bad the crowd's response was, she behaved badly and disrespectfully by not holding her counter-demonstration at a reasonable distance and by not inflaming the crowd, once it was obvious she was provoking a hostile response.

The police rightly objected to her being jostled, However, in subsequent demonstrations, they're not enforcing her right to mix it up in the middle of the demonstrators. No, she's now gay bashing safely to one side.

In any event, I'm not suggesting that the demonstrators behaved well, just that your attitude and lack of understanding and empathy for them is fucked up.

 

[Kulindahr]

"...if gays just would stop insisting on polluting something sacred by asking for marriage."

"....demanding that man + man = man + woman is like deliberately walking into their homes and pissing on the floor -- except worse."

Now, I know that that's what you're saying "evangelicals" thought and think. But, in presenting it, you don't qualify, criticize or demur from that hateful prejudice You convey it as a moral equivalent of the opposite point of view, which it isn't.

To me that attitude informs your posts on the subject. Evangelicals see gay marriage as pollution and pissing on the the floor of their home and they are to be shown respect for that view and not called on their bigotry.

Obviously, showing that respect may, or may not, be one means to and end. And I don't reject it as such.

But, my point is that you display a completely different perception when it's the gay guys who are doing something wrong. In the old woman incident, she checked with the police in advance and inserted herself and her counter-demonstration right in the middle of any angry crowd. Many of the people in that crowd would have seen what she was doing as polluting something sacred (by denying their marriage bonds and those of their friends). Many would also have seen her as pissing on the floor of their home. Instead of relating to their strength of feeling, while condemning their bad actions, you just see them as Nazi thugs.

Even, if you assume that the reports of her own belligerence and elbowing her way through the crowd aren't accurate, however bad the crowd's response was, she behaved badly and disrespectfully by not holding her counter-demonstration at a reasonable distance and by not inflaming the crowd, once it was obvious she was provoking a hostile response.

The police rightly objected to her being jostled, However, in subsequent demonstrations, they're not enforcing her right to mix it up in the middle of the demonstrators. No, she's now gay bashing safely to one side.

In any event, I'm not suggesting that the demonstrators behaved well, just that your attitude and lack of understanding and empathy for them is fucked up.

You remind me very much of the ivory-tower theorists in the Libertarian Party who keep it from getting anywhere: you can't talk practical strategy, but would rather pick apart the failings of the opposition on the basis of theory.

I haven't drawn any moral equivalents here at all, nor have I said once that anyone deserves respect "for" their views. I'm not concerned with "understanding" or "empathy" for the demonstrators; I'm looking at a tactical failure on the battlefield and calling it as such.
To be honest, and to use Alfie-esque language, I don't give a shit about their feelings -- any more than I would give a shit about my own feelings in the same situation. If we're looking at this as something we want to succeed in, our feelings are irrelevant; the only things that are relevant are tactics and strategy.

Demanding that we get the word "marriage" is just bad strategy -- especially since (and I still can't believe I heard him say it) someone as influential as Pat Robertson said gays should have all the same benefits and privileges from the government; they just shouldn't have (sacred) marriage.

 

[Spensed]

^ (A) Demanding "marriage" and, if and where that can't be achieved, using civil unions in the interim is clearly a much more practical strategy than (B) ceding "marriage" to bigots, who have shown little, if any, inclination to accept civil union for everyone in return.

That's why (A) is actually happening and (B) is not.

 

[White Eagle]

I wanted to share this with y'all. I receive newsletters from ACLU and this is a good Happy Thanksgiving letter from them.

When Uncle Harry brings up Prop 8 . . .‏
From: Anthony D. Romero, ACLU (Email address: Removed by Moderator)
Sent: Tue 11/25/08 3:43 PM
To: me





With holiday gatherings of family and friends right around the corner -- I’m urging you to make the case against intolerance in a very personal way.

Talk to someone you’ve never talked to about same sex marriage and explain that it’s just not right to deny someone their freedom because of who they are or who they love.

Best wishes to you and your loved ones for a happy and healthy Thanksgiving,




Dear ACLU Supporter,

This Thanksgiving we are reflecting on what family means to us. For those of us at the ACLU and many people across the country, that will bring to mind what happened to families in California as a result of Prop 8.

So -- in what is becoming an ACLU tradition -- I’m writing to share some pointers for talking turkey this Thanksgiving about issues that really matter.

Here’s my biggest piece of advice for when Prop 8 and gay marriage come up over the Thanksgiving dinner table: Don’t shy away from the conversation. Do what I’m hoping thousands of ACLU supporters will do over the holidays. Talk to someone you’ve never talked to about same sex marriage and explain that it’s just not right to deny someone their freedom because of who they are or who they love.

And you can tell them something else: Tell them the fight to stop Prop 8 from disrupting people’s lives and denying gay couples the full measure of their freedom is far from over. Tell them your ACLU has gone to court to stop Prop 8.

On the day after the elections, the ACLU and our partners, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and Equality California filed suit asking the California Supreme Court to strike Proposition 8 down.

The case we are making is a powerful one -- and I want you to know its details -- because if we are going to secure equal rights for everyone in our great nation, the argument for equality has to be made not just in a California courtroom, but in countless conversations between families and communities all across America.

Here are the specifics on our lawsuit: Under California law, major changes in the Constitution -- called revisions -- have to be first approved by two-thirds of the legislature before going before the voters.

The forces of intolerance behind Prop 8 went through a process for less serious constitutional changes called amendments. They didn’t go through the legislature.

So, our lawsuit -- and your Prop 8 conversations over the holidays -- will all come down to the same question: Is it a big deal -- a revision, rather than a mere amendment -- to take the right to marry away from an entire group of people?

We firmly believe it is.

* What could be more serious than rejecting the very idea that everyone is equal before the law?
* And what could be a more drastic change than undermining the essential constitutional principle that we all have rights, which can’t be taken away just because a majority of people might like to do so?

These are the questions we’re asking the California Supreme Court to consider at crucial hearings coming up in December. And, they are the questions I hope you won’t avoid addressing in holiday conversation with friends and family.

The passage of Prop 8 has hit a powerful nerve all across America. People are seeing for themselves the unimaginable pain and anguish it has caused. And the sense of outrage is growing stronger every day.

With holiday gatherings of family and friends right around the corner -- I’m urging you to make the case against intolerance in a very personal way.

Prop 8 has made clear that we all have a lot of work to do challenging discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. And we can’t do it without you.

So, be a little bolder this Thanksgiving.

When someone makes an uninformed remark about gay marriage, don’t let it slide. If they say they’re glad Prop 8 passed, tell them you love them. Then remind them that no one should ever lose their rights or face bigotry because of who they are and who they love.

Make it clear that, no matter how someone feels about same-sex marriage, gay people are a part of our community entitled to the same rights, the same dignity, as everyone else.

Today, it is clearer than ever that the struggle for LGBT equality is one of the defining civil liberties challenges of our time. You can count on the ACLU to defend LGBT rights in courtrooms, classrooms, and legislative hearings all across the nation.

We’re counting on you to do the same around the water cooler at work and over Thanksgiving dinner.

Be brave and outspoken. It’s the only way to move freedom forward.

Best wishes to you and your loved ones for a happy and healthy Thanksgiving,

Anthony D. Romero
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

What I like about it is they don't know I'm gay. So this is a letter they send to all their members. Straight or gay. I hope all the straits take them at their word and talk about this over the dinner table. Won't there be a lot of Uncle Harry's tho upseth, as GA would say.

 

[Kulindahr]

I wanted to share this with y'all. I receive newsletters from ACLU and this is a good Happy Thanksgiving letter from them.




What I like about it is they don't know I'm gay. So this is a letter they send to all their members. Straight or gay. I hope all the straits take them at their word and talk about this over the dinner table. Won't there be a lot of Uncle Harry's tho upseth, as GA would say.

What bothers me about that letter is that they didn't mention freedom of association, which is what this really comes down to. It's easy for people to say, "You don't have a right to 'marry' because marriage is a man and a woman", but if you respond that we have the right to associate as we wish with who we wish, in associations equal to anyone else's, that's hard to dispute. And at that point, if they bring up civil unions, I'd say, "Fine, let's give marriage back to the churches and everyone can have civil unions".

 

[Kulindahr]

Um Im pretty sure freedom of association was designed to keep the gov't or other authority from disbanding would-be protestors of gov't corruption. I don't think gay marriage was part of the intent of this right. Sort of like when people try to protect rape porn under free speech. A bit of a stretch. How bout we allow marriage to remain a religious freedom, detach it from the gov't and allow churches to decide whom to marry? And when people want "rights" they can apply to big bro for a civil union between 2 people (no Kulindahr not 7 people and a goat, 2 people) of any sex or orientation.

Wiki words this rather well:

Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.

Marriage is thus a form of exercising freedom of association.

"Apply to big bro" -- for rights?
Government doesn't grant rights; rights are inherent in being sentient.

"Between 2 people". So you want to continue a discriminatory regime, with religious oppression? you want to keep stifling freedom of association?