Tag Archives: proposition 8

Why the Miss USA Flap Matters

I’ll tell you that this is the first time in my life that the Miss USA contest has garnered my attention. There could not be a less substantive contest and a parade of preening skeletons is even less compelling when it involves megalomaniac and consummate douschebag Donald Trump. I digress.

What has attracted my attention is the exposure of the fascistic homosexual agenda by the candid response contestant Prejean gave to a question posed by the enthusiastically gay Perez Hilton regarding gay marriage:

Ok…big deal, Prejean feels the way most people do in this Country. She is not “anti gay” and she does not appear to be against civil unions.

What is problematic is that Perez Hilton can call Prejean a dumb bitch and a cunt because she has a different opinion (albeit one shared by most in this country) and he is not taken to task for it. The MSM still interview him. I’m not aware of any condemnation from NOW for his misogynistic rantings.

This just goes to show the hatred and fascistic tendencies of the left in general and the “homosexual mafia” in particular. Dissent is not something that can be tolerated by the left. The Proposition 8 issue has really brought the nutters out from the left and exposed their contempt for free thinking individuals.

“Pinkshirt” Fascists Finally Being Called Out By Liberal MSM

Via the San Fran Chronicle:

The ugly backlash over Proposition 8

Sunday, November 23, 2008

A supporter of Proposition 8, fed up with what he believed was the gay community’s and “liberal media’s” refusal to accept the voters’ verdict, fired off a letter to the editor.

“Please show respect for democracy,” he wrote, in a letter we published.

What he encountered instead was an utter lack of respect for free speech.

Within hours, the intimidation game was on. Because his real name and city were listed – a condition for publication of letters to The Chronicle – opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search engines to find the letter writer’s small business, his Web site (which included the names of his children and dog), his phone number and his clients. And they posted that information in the “Comments” section of SFGate.com – urging, in ugly language, retribution against the author’s business and its identified clients.

“They’re intimidating people that don’t have the same beliefs as they do … so they’ll be silenced,” he told me last week. “It doesn’t bode well for the free-speech process. People are going to have to be pretty damn courageous to speak up about anything. Why would anyone want to go through this?”

Let the record show that I absolutely disagree with the letter writer on the substance of Prop. 8. I believe that same-sex couples should have the full rights and responsibilities of marriage. In my view, the discrimination inherent in Prop. 8 is morally and legally indefensible in a society where the concept of equal protection is supposed to safeguard the rights of the minority.

But let me also say that I am disturbed by the vicious, highly personalized attacks against the letter writer and others. Protesters have shouted insults at people headed to worship; temples and churches have been defaced. “Blacklists” of donors who contributed to Yes on 8 are circulating on the Internet, and even small-time donors are being confronted. A Palo Alto dentist lost two patients as a result of his $1,000 donation. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned to spare the organization from a fast-developing boycott. Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the Sacramento theater group and a Mormon, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8.

This out-of-scale attempt to isolate and intimidate decidedly small players in the Yes on 8 campaign is no way to win the issue in a court of law or the court of public opinion.

Equally disappointing is the lack of a forceful denunciation from leaders of the honorable cause of bringing marriage equality to California. “We achieve nothing if we isolate the people who did not stand with us in this fight,” the No on 8 campaign reminded its coalition in a statement issued after the election.

Guess what? Certain advocates of the cause are alienating people – and this approach needs to be called out. Remember, the No on 8 campaign was shouting “blackmail!” at the top of its lungs when the Yes side sent certified letters to major donors threatening to “out” them in a press release unless they also contributed to the marriage ban. Of course, that “threat” had a tinge of absurdity. Corporations such as PG&E, McDonald’s and Levi Strauss were not afraid of being “outed” for their association with the marriage-equality cause. They were well aware that their major donations amounted to a public statement that might cause them to lose – and gain – customer goodwill.

Opponents of same-sex marriage should not be let off the hook for their post-election tactics. There is already talk of a recall campaign against California Supreme Court justices if they overturn Prop. 8, reminiscent of the unsuccessful attempt to oust Chief Justice Ronald George and Justice Ming Chin after they voted to overturn a law that required parental consent for minors to receive an abortion. The judiciary must not be intimidated in this nation of laws.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, the San Francisco Democrat who wrote a marriage-equality bill that passed both houses and was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said he does not “defend or rationalize” overzealous tactics by those on his side. He noted that tumult and emotion have historically defined moments of momentous social change. “This is a visceral reaction to the fact that, for the first time in U.S. history, a recognized constitutional right was repealed by a simple majority vote,” Leno said.

Time is on the side of marriage equality. Sixty-one percent of voters younger than 30 opposed Prop. 8, while 61 percent of those older than 65 supported it. Attitudes are changing and will continue to shift as more and more Americans see that extending the right to same-sex couples is not a threat to traditional marriage, but an affirmation of its value to society.

Intimidation, through attempts to chill free speech or an independent judiciary, should have no part in this debate. The leaders on both sides should have the honesty to recognize it within their camps – and the courage to condemn it.

John Diaz is The Chronicle’s editorial page editor. You can e-mail him at jdiaz@sfchronicle.com.

Liberals only believe in free speech when they are speaking. Liberals only believe in Democracy when their candidate or issue triumphs.

“Liberals” Unhinged…

San Francisco is off the hook folks. Since Proposition 8 passed there has been an extreme reaction from elements of the homosexual community that may set the stage for some serious backlash. You know the issue is serious when you see editorials like this (via the San Jose Mercury News):

 As We See It: Proposition 8 reaction risks backlash

Posted: 11/18/2008 05:19:18 PM PST

 

As reaction to the vote on Proposition 8 continues, reasonable people have a right to ask whether some of the tactics of same-sex marriage supporters will provoke another backlash.

People are free to protest, but at best, or worst depending on how you see this volatile issue, gay-rights supporters who are engaging in some questionable tactics risk alienating people in the middle who may have been considering changing their positions.

The positions of both sides are more than clear. Gay-rights advocates not only want California courts to toss out the Yes on 8 vote from the Nov. 4 election, but in some cases are targeting supporters of the measure and publicizing, mainly using the Internet, the names of people who gave money to the measure.

In one well-publicized incident, the director of a Sacramento musical theater group was hounded from his position after it was revealed he supported Proposition 8.

In other cases, churches have been picketed by same-sex marriage proponents, who are accusing people who voted for 8 of being hate-filled homophobes and are likening their support to segregationists who opposed civil rights for blacks – an over-the-top reaction that will just inflame this debate.

Supporters of Proposition 8, which banned government-sanctioned same-sex marriage in California, say the gay-rights supporters are engaging in a witch hunt, and are seeking to overturn the will of the people. They point to actions such as Tuesday’s decision by the Santa

Cruz County Board of Supervisors to join the San Francisco lawsuit seeking to overturn the majority vote. The Santa Cruz City Council may follow suit next week.

More than that, traditional marriage supporters say the issue is a moral and religious one, and the protesters are trying to reverse thousands of years of teaching and doctrine.

The Sentinel urged that Proposition 8 be defeated. Our argument at the time remains: Churches are free to marry whomever they like, and to do so within their religious traditions and doctrinal understanding – but government should not discriminate when issuing a civil marriage license to a couple.

Seeking a way out of the polarizing debate now occurring, several local people have written to the Sentinel urging the state to move toward granting “civil unions” for both heterosexual and homosexual couples – without using the word “marriage,” which would be associated with religious traditions. In such unions, gays would have all the rights and equal treatment under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. Still, they have fought hard for the right to legal “marriage,” and changing the wording might feel like a defeat many would be unwilling to accept.

Religious communities, in turn, would have to give up their battle over “legal marriage.”

Would such an idea ever gain traction? Probably not now. Same-sex marriage proponents need to realize, however, they are unlikely to get many churches and congregations to change their minds, especially not with picket lines and inflammatory signs, much less calls for boycotts and “outing” Yes on 8 supporters. Will they also target blacks, who voted yes on the measure by about a 70-30 percent margin, and President-elect Barack Obama, who also has said he does not favor same-sex marriage?

Harassing and threatening opponents is no way to build support for equal treatment under the law.

Here’s an example of the tactics same-sex marriage proponents are utilizing:

These are the same folks that try to make the case that their plight is analagous to the civil rights efforts of Dr. King…does this look like the work for Dr. King? I do not understand is why homosexuals want to transmogrify “marriage”.

The relativisitc abyss is consuming this country and we are losing are ability to establish any sense of meaning.

Liberals and Tolerance = Mutually Exclusive

A little background on the tolerant homosexual lobby and treatment by the MSM:

Then Bill O gets on it:

Please understand that I’m not religious nor homophobic but this behavior offends me. It is ironic how those that represent themselves as “liberal” are only interested in freedom and tolerance when you agree with their worldview.

Liberal Tolerance: Fascist Homosexuals Intimidate Old Lady

It’s all fun and games until somebody has a different point of view.