Gay Patriot Header Image

Where are the Grownups?

Welcome Instapundit Readers! While you’re here, you might want to check out my post contending that state recognition of marriage is a privilege not a right.

It seems I can’t open my e-mail box without receiving a whole host of messages, telling me about rallies friends and acquaintances (or people who have somehow gotten my e-mail) have attended or inviting me to join them at future protests against the passage of Proposition 8.  Now, there’s some major demonstration planned for sometime this weekend.

Can’t these people just accept the face that they’ve lost?  And figure out what they need do to change minds so they win next time?

This is becoming one long extended temper tantrum.   Take a gander at the video below to see just how juvenile some Prop 8 opponents can be. Here, they try to prevent a reporter from interviewing an elderly supporter of the proposition. They don’t just harass this old lady; they pull the cross out of her hands and stomp on it.

(Via the Ground Game via Instapundit)

Yeah, I get why people are upset.  But, what explains this childish behavior?  Didn’t their mothers teach them to be kind to old people?  Why this refusal to understand their opponents?  Why this insistence on silencing them?  Do such people deserve the privilege of state sanction of their unions?

Where are the gay organizations condemning such conduct?

The gay movement needs some adult supervision right now.

UPDATE: Robbie: “the fact not a single gay stood up for her in that video speaks volumes to me about the quality of protester we’re getting here.” I repeat my point: adult supervision is needed.

Share

105 Comments

  1. On the one hand, I think somebody needs to dump some Diazepam into the water system in WeHo. On the other, we need to highlight how liberals are wielding their “tolerance” against blacks, the religious and Seasoned Citizens.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 13, 2008 @ 4:11 am - November 13, 2008

  2. No, frankly they don’t deserve any sort of sanction for anything whatsoever.

    This is outrageous. I’m furious. Who the HELL do these people think they are?

    Gays want to make this a fight between religion and homosexuality? Fine. So be it. But the hell if I’m going to side with them.

    And to think these are the same children who regularly complain of the intolerance of religious people! I tell you, if they continue their thuggish tactics, people are going to very quickly set their tolerance aside, and then gays will find out the hard way what real intolerance looks like.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 13, 2008 @ 4:18 am - November 13, 2008

  3. I am so upset as to the way this old lady was treated. How dare we as a gay people act this way towards anyone. When i see this video i start to tear up , i think this could be any of our grandmoms. Ill tell you this if i were there i would have stood up for this lady, she has a right to her thoughts and opinions as do we. The idea of expressing ourseleves in this capacity is vile and totaly wrong . Now is a time for love and understanding on both sides and if we want RESPECT well by GOD we have to give respect.

    Comment by mikey — November 13, 2008 @ 7:07 am - November 13, 2008

  4. I think picking on little old ladies never does your cause any good. And I agree with Robbie-the fact that nobody told them to stop is troublesome.

    I can understand the anger and hurt at having the measure lose. I can’t understand making things worse for your cause by picking on old ladies-even if they disagree with you. I think marching on churches and disrupting services is also a bad decision.

    The gays and other supporters of gay marriage need to regroup and figure out what they should have done to get support for their position-but picking on old ladies and disrupting services isn’t going to help and just puts more ammunition in the hands of those opposed.

    I think one real concern many religious people have is that if SSM is approved, will it lead to gays suing their houses of worship. These marches aren’t going to do anything to alleviate those fears, and I can already see the commercials.

    Comment by just me — November 13, 2008 @ 7:17 am - November 13, 2008

  5. It happens again and again…the people that push tolerance the most are most often the least tolerant. :-(

    Comment by Timothy — November 13, 2008 @ 8:34 am - November 13, 2008

  6. the people that push tolerance the most are most often the least tolerant.

    They don’t really want general tolerance. They want to be the ones who decide what is tolerated and what is not.

    Comment by V the K — November 13, 2008 @ 9:24 am - November 13, 2008

  7. It is obvious that the gay community is not ready for marriage.

    Comment by Colocelt — November 13, 2008 @ 9:33 am - November 13, 2008

  8. Colocelt-
    There are lots of violent straight people. Does that means that straights aren’t ready for the special rights of marriage either?

    Comment by JT in the Army — November 13, 2008 @ 9:56 am - November 13, 2008

  9. You know, when protests turned violent in India, Gandhi went on a hunger strike to get the people to calm down.
    Maybe if Cher, or Madonna, or Ellen, or Bette, or Babs went on a hunger strike…

    Comment by JT in the Army — November 13, 2008 @ 10:06 am - November 13, 2008

  10. There are lots of violent straight people.

    Yes, but they tend to beat up each other. Not go after old ladies at church.

    Comment by V the K — November 13, 2008 @ 10:10 am - November 13, 2008

  11. I find it odd that there are no reports of California homosexuals protesting in front of mosques. I’d bet serious money that 100% of Muslims voted for Prop. 8 (or at least 99.9%).

    Comment by Anna D — November 13, 2008 @ 10:36 am - November 13, 2008

  12. Hunger strikes in Hollywood are commonplace. They occur 6 weeks before the Oscars.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 13, 2008 @ 10:47 am - November 13, 2008

  13. Temper tantrums have been a fixture of American society since the baby boomers came on the scene. Just look at what passes for civilized discourse in the comments columns in the SF Chronicle.

    Comment by glenn — November 13, 2008 @ 10:47 am - November 13, 2008

  14. I am a tolerant Christian hetero. I wasnt for Prop 8. But after seeing radical gay outbursts of late, I am starting to think I may be forced to pick a side. In a stone fight, I know which side I’ll be on.

    Personally, I don’t see a major rights discrimination issue. There is nothing preventing gay people from being together, going out in public and living normal lives. I’ve heard that as of late, majority of hetero couples have actually eschewed marriage for “living together”. Gays at the most are inconvenienced.

    That said, gays should just live and fight another day. Maybe define their own union for the law, without using the word marriage. This whole thing is about semantics. Get around it, and the problem would likely be solved.

    Comment by Juan Trinida — November 13, 2008 @ 10:53 am - November 13, 2008

  15. Government should be totally out of marriage.

    TOTALLY

    Comment by swassociates — November 13, 2008 @ 10:56 am - November 13, 2008

  16. The other fact to keep in mind is that, in California, gays do have equal rights under the law. Couples that enter into civil unions enjoy all the rights and privileges that hetro married couples do. And for them to believe the Christian community will ever accept gays is marriage is folly. They have won, they have equal rights. Period.

    Violence and marches now, after the people of the state have spoken with a constitutional change, will only solidify resistance against them and lead to more states enacting the same type of change.

    And, eventually, they will come up against a crowd that will not be so passive, that will not allow an old lady to be assaulted. They have not seen true violence against gays for along time – I fear it is coming much sooner than they expect.

    Comment by W. Keller — November 13, 2008 @ 10:58 am - November 13, 2008

  17. Infantilism is so tied to homosexuality and vice versa that it is almost a conundrum to think that gays might behave otherwise.

    It make the phenomenon of Gay Patriot so much more inexplicable.

    Comment by almiller — November 13, 2008 @ 10:58 am - November 13, 2008

  18. I think it is pretty much a proven fact that straight men who have a tendency to be violent are not ready for marriage either. Which brings us back to the point of this post.

    If you want to be treated like an adult, act like one.

    Comment by Harry — November 13, 2008 @ 11:01 am - November 13, 2008

  19. Unfortunately, I think this was all predictable from the moment that gay marriage proponents decided to short circuit the process by winning their rights in the courts instead of the legislatures. Yes, legal gay marriage would probably be 20 years away still. But you’d be getting there through a process of changing minds and winning acceptance (and waiting out demographic shifts), not through trying to get some judge to impose a huge social change by fiat. Now you have a bunch of constitutional amendments to overturn (and remember, measures like this have passed in 30 states, not just California) which will be a legislative process as well– but a much more difficult one.

    If the black civil rights movement had proceeded strategically like the gay marriage movement did, they’d still be trying to get enough states to ratify the amendment repealing the Segregation Amendment to the Constitution of 1959.

    Comment by Mike G — November 13, 2008 @ 11:01 am - November 13, 2008

  20. This is pretty par for the course for the gay community.

    Here’s how it’s going to work:

    1) If you don’t agree with your opponent, out him so that he loses his job, his friends, his family.

    2) If you don’t agree with your opponent, shout him down.

    3) If that doesn’t work, block the cameras

    4) Once all opposition has been eliminated, then the Muslims can step in and decapitate all of you.

    Comment by watcher — November 13, 2008 @ 11:03 am - November 13, 2008

  21. How abut a hunger strike from two gravity challenged yammering social reformers, like Rosie O’ or Roseanne? I know, I know, if those two chow-hounds ever went on a hunger strike we’d be looking at a bailout of the grocery industry in less than a week. Purina and Hostess would be forced into massive layoffs, and don’t even get me started on the repercussions for Ben and Jerry’s, it’s too disturbing to contemplate.

    It’s just a bunch of pathetic spoiled children who don’t like being told “no.” What a tragedy that there aren’t any adults in the crowd.

    Comment by Ken — November 13, 2008 @ 11:10 am - November 13, 2008

  22. You know, maybe this is actually better. I’d rather people be very angry right now, than that they sublimate their rage and frustration into fanatical Obama support.

    Comment by DensityDuck — November 13, 2008 @ 11:15 am - November 13, 2008

  23. “But, what explains this childish behavior?”

    Partial explanation: groups like International Answer, who will use any excuse to foment social unrest and disintegration. Do you really think this is totally about marriage??
    http://www.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANSWERLA

    Comment by Patricia — November 13, 2008 @ 11:19 am - November 13, 2008

  24. To me the general intolerance of the Left is of a piece with this. Adult supervision needed for that entire crowd. We saw with Hillary and Sarah Palin just how sexist the Left is; we know they use and manipulate homophobia, and their racism is pervasive (race-baiting and calling conservative blacks Uncle Toms is anti-conservative but it’s also just plain racist). The biggest joke of the past century is the idea that the Left is tolerant.

    We have problems on the conservative side but our adults tend to squash and marginalize most of them. You cannot eradicate intolerance but you can publicize and ostracize it. This is what must be done. These children in CA and elsewhere are doing their cause way more harm than good.

    Comment by Peg C. — November 13, 2008 @ 11:24 am - November 13, 2008

  25. So I’m all ready to go to the courts and take away Obama’s victory and give it to McCain. After all, he only won a 52% majority, right? I mean in LibLand, when something passes by 52% that they don’t like, they’ll just change the venue to the court system and defeat it there. I think we all should be this way: win at any cost, change the rules as much as you need, hold your breath until you turn blue and get your way.

    Consistency in this case would be a breath of fresh air. If Obama wins by 52%, I’m supposed to shut it and unite with the country, regardless of whether I like it or not. Fair enough. But majority wins should apply to all the voting, not just the issues that the libs agree with.

    Come back in 2 years with a new amendment allowing gay marriage. If it wins, you won’t see me intimidating old people or calling black people n—– or ignorant.

    Comment by JD — November 13, 2008 @ 11:26 am - November 13, 2008

  26. AmericanElephant:

    Gays want to make this a fight between religion and homosexuality?

    I certainly hope not. Because if they do, they will quickly find out that America has more religious people than gay people. That is a fight you won’t win, folks.

    There comes a time for choosing your battles, and for making sure you’re fighting for the right things. Are you fighting for the right to silence little old ladies? Are you fighting for the right to tell churches to shut up? Or are you fighting for the right to tell the churches, and the little old ladies, “Criticize me all you want, and I’ll criticize you right back. But let’s both keep our noses out of each other’s private lives.”

    I agree, reluctantly, with several other posters here. The passage of Prop. 8 is, in the long run, not nearly as big a setback for the gay community as these violent protests will be… if they’re not stopped.

    And they must be stopped by members of the gay community. Folks, if you can’t police your own, then you’re simply proving that Prop. 8 deserved to pass.

    respectfully,
    Daniel in Brookline

    Comment by Daniel in Brookline — November 13, 2008 @ 11:41 am - November 13, 2008

  27. just me said:

    “I think one real concern many religious people have is that if SSM is approved, will it lead to gays suing their houses of worship.”

    That was why I voted yes on civil unions, no on marriage, when the issue came up in my state. Some of my friends thought I was exaggerating when I said that gay marriage meant that the Catholic Church would be sued for not having same-sex nuptial masses. After the events of this past week, I no longer doubt.

    I think the government has no business defining marriage. Leave it to the religious bodies–let everyone go to the courthouse for a civil union, then get married in whatever house of worship is most congenial to them. I have friends of various (and no) religious affiliation, and I don’t consider the ones married by a priest in church to be more legitimately married than the ones married by a J.P. dressed as a Vulcan.

    Comment by Delayna D. — November 13, 2008 @ 11:54 am - November 13, 2008

  28. I voted for Prop 8 because 1) I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and always has been, 2) we do have civil unions in CA, which extend many of the same privileges to same sex couples, and 3) I do not like having laws written in the courts. Now having said that, let me offer some advice to SSM proponents. Cool it. Put your own proposition on the ballot in 5 years. If that doesn’t work, try it again in another 5 years. Look at the difference in voting between Prop 22 which passed overwhelmingly ~10 years ago, and Prop 8, which passed by a much smaller margin. If you don’t alienate people with your tantrums, you probably will win. These tantrums only serve to harden my opposition to SSM.

    Comment by Jaime Roberto — November 13, 2008 @ 11:59 am - November 13, 2008

  29. Add me to the tally of lost support for gay marriage. I’m sorry gaypatriot, but making me coose religion or gay rights is a stupid decision. I’m going to choose religion every day of the week.

    Comment by AZED — November 13, 2008 @ 12:03 pm - November 13, 2008

  30. This is the political culture we live in. Too many people have a sense of entitlement: I want it, therefor I’m entitled to it. If I don’t get it, I’m being oppressed.

    This isn’t just the gay community. Look at Code Pink. Look at the environmentalist movement. Yes, there is some of this on the right, but the left is clearly leading the way.

    There are two problems with this. First, it makes political discourse impossible. Second, it eventually leads to violence. This is the kind of attitude that led to groups like the Weather Underground and the Baader-Meinhof gang in the 1960s.

    Comment by Just Me — November 13, 2008 @ 12:04 pm - November 13, 2008

  31. Sorry, they have lost my support here.

    I’d like to be libertarian on this, but invading church services and violently silencing opposing voices is not tolerable.

    If this movement wants tolerance, they’ll have to earn it.

    They will have to understand that in some contexts, they may never get what they want. Tolerance I can give–when they grow up. But they can never coopt the sacremental definition of marriage. They will have to learn to tolerate that. Or is tolerance only a one way street?

    It certainly seems to be with these folks.

    Comment by tk — November 13, 2008 @ 12:05 pm - November 13, 2008

  32. Meet the GayKK.

    That’s what it looks like to me, anyway.

    Comment by Letalis Maximus, Esq. — November 13, 2008 @ 12:06 pm - November 13, 2008

  33. OK. I’m going to shock everyone and take a contrarian POV of this incident (Oh Gee, that’s a shocker).

    You guys realize your may be falling for one of the oldest, and most effective, PR tricks in the book. You know there is going to be a protest on an issue you are against, so you send in a lone counter protester, preferably a mother with a child or an old lady, to get an interview on camera, and when you can’t speak because you’re being shouted down, you have effectively drawn feelings of sympathy away from the protesters and onto your side of the argument.

    Step back away from your emotions and look at the bigger picture. Yes, the woman has every right to counter-protest, just at the crowd has a right to protest. But, face it, she knew what she was getting into when she decided to counter protest. If you’re the one voice, or a few, against the mob, the mob is going to shout you down – it’s part of the game. Look at how you guys shout down kevin or Eric when they express their POV (which is usually wrong and hysterical, but what the hey:-)). Same dynamic, except in live action, instead of blog-world, you won’t get the chance to speak. Is it Unless something happened that didn’t get reported, or that I’m not aware of, she was not injured in any way, for which the protesters should be given credit. In summary, most protests ride on the waves of emotion, don’t expect much in the way of rational and considerate thought to emerge.

    PS. I will no doubt get shouted down by ILC when he reads this!

    Comment by sonicfrog — November 13, 2008 @ 12:15 pm - November 13, 2008

  34. Are gay people in California insane? Now that they have been shocked out of their smug and sullen slumber over Prop-8, they’re combing the donor-list (which are incomplete and incorrect) for donors to the “yes” campaign like Madame deFarge.

    http://www.queerty.com/el-coyote-prop-8-press-conference-goes-horribly-wrong-20081112/

    All over a manager contributing $100-dollars? People are being outed, fired, and businesses potentially ruined by accusation and rumor. What’s next…the pillory and burning at the stake?

    Apparently freedom-of-conscience was repealed along with gay marriage.

    …And how many of the indignant mob actually gave money themselves, or even voted? Voter turnout in WeHo wasn’t 100%, or even 90%. How many of those marchers on TV could not be bothered to march their butts down to a voting booth last week?

    Comment by Ted B (Charging Rhino) — November 13, 2008 @ 12:16 pm - November 13, 2008

  35. When is it news that gay “activists” use intimidation and violence against those with whom they disagree? This is standard operating procedure simply given some publicity for a change.

    Comment by Joe — November 13, 2008 @ 12:16 pm - November 13, 2008

  36. Peaceful protests are not childish tantrums. The vast majority of protesters are exercising a right, your discomfort with these protests speaks more to your situation than the protesters.

    Comment by Ken Jacobs — November 13, 2008 @ 12:17 pm - November 13, 2008

  37. I have to add that I don’t think this is just a symptom of the gay marriage movement.

    I think, in general, we are in for at least 4 years of these kinds of tactics, with the force of government to back them up.

    Welcome to the Thugocracy, Chicago deep-dish style.

    Comment by tk — November 13, 2008 @ 12:21 pm - November 13, 2008

  38. My thoughts as a native Californian who voted there in this election, but is in the process of leaving the state…

    I’m not sure that this is all about winning minds. I think it’s about winning hearts and minds.

    25% of the voters will vote for this, no matter what. 25% will vote against it, no matter what. I remember a ballot measure a few years ago in California that seemed to me a no-brainer. The vast majority agreed. The measure passed 75-25.

    Accept that. 75% is as close to unanimous as you’re going to get. Don’t look to ballot initiatives to eliminate your personal insecurities about being gay, or straight, or whatever, because you won’t get unanimous agreement, and your opposition will tend to be somewhere between vocal and vocally unhinged.

    Now that that’s out of the way…

    The 50% of voters “in the middle”, where these things are decided, will decide based on a variety of factors.

    I believe that a primary factor is what and who a given voter pictures when he/she imagines a gay person.

    If some of one’s friends and neighbors are gay, and they seem nice enough, and responsible members of the community, the chances of that voter supporting gay marriage are high. In the voting booth, the image that this person has is of his/her gay friends, who seem like they’d be a good married couple.

    If they doen’t really know any openly gay individuals, or only encounter them occasionally, then their perception will be based on a more distant assessment of who and what gay people are. If they imagine conservative (lifestyle, not politics) gay couple who wants to marry, they may support same-sex marriage. If they imagine indecent Pride Parade participants, or “activists” knocking crosses out of the hands of old ladies, I’d guess they wouldn’t support it.

    Now I’m no fan of using a cross as a metaphorical club as this woman was doing.

    Tactically, though, anti-8 protesters would have been far better off just leaving her alone. It would have made her look bad, when now she seems like a hero to some.

    Maybe I should go to a protest with a sign that says, “Maybe on 8. Screw both sides! You all suck!” and march around in front of cameras. Unfortunately, it seems that all protesters have one thing in common: no sense of humor.

    Comment by BarryD — November 13, 2008 @ 12:26 pm - November 13, 2008

  39. If the old lady had swung her purse and smacked one of these jerks it would be a hate crime, yet the gays are the ones filled with hate and assault her. Something is way wrong in this country.

    Comment by David — November 13, 2008 @ 12:40 pm - November 13, 2008

  40. I am outraged at the Prop 8 proposition, as well as at the fascist granny attacking a group of peaceful gay/lesbian/trans/bi-curious protestors. “But I do not go as far as saying “burn the churches down!” I am a moderate. I say we should burn down only those that supported it.

    we egosexuals stand with out gay brothers! (From the editorial board of “Lumps For The Left,”and the World Association for Narcisstic Kindness, Empathy and Rights.)

    Comment by Dr. Lumplevin — November 13, 2008 @ 12:44 pm - November 13, 2008

  41. I live in West Hollywood, and most gay people I know totally understand that there was a vote, and that’s it. A lot of them are very concerned about the way some gay activists are behaving. If Prop 8 had failed and proponents of it were not just protesting but actually injuring others, gay activists would be horrified and justifiably angry. They’d say, “Get over it!” So, shouldn’t they now do the same? A lot of this, in my opinion, is shock because I honestly think that the gay community assumed Prop 8 would fail. Personally, I voted against Prop 8. As disappointed as I am with the outcome of that vote, I have to accept it. Now, as a straight (married) person, I’m not directly affected, but if my kid turns out to be gay, I’d like her to be able to get married if she wants to. Let’s hope we can find a better way to make that happen.

    Comment by JMS2008 — November 13, 2008 @ 12:56 pm - November 13, 2008

  42. As much as I might get annoyed at some smug person waving around a cross as a justification to treat certain groups of people differently… this behavior is simply not acceptable. The gay rights movement in CA has, in merely a week, thrown away most of whatever moral authority it could draw upon.

    A lot of religious types oppose things like gay marriage because they think it is something inherently hostile to their faith and way of life. What does a disgusting spectacle like that video do, but reinforce that notion?

    And what happens when someone gets hurt?

    Comment by Tim — November 13, 2008 @ 12:56 pm - November 13, 2008

  43. Well, I was a bit on the fence about Prop 8 since it affected me from a cultural perspective and not because I live in CA (I don’t).

    Philosophically, I’m libertarian, agnostic and felt that regardless of other’s religious motivations a multi-thousand year old principle should not be quite so easily set aside without consideration of the consequences. You have to consider “What is the purpose of marriage?” Where you stand on that issue (if you’ve thought aboout it) usually determines where you sit on the Prop 8 debate. Hello? It’s not about YOU (eyeroll).

    After watching the internet and news stories and seeing this video, I have not seen the “hate” supposedly on the Pro-8 side. I have seen religious reasons (valid for them, not for me), and people trying to form coherent arguments pro- and con-. Some arguments are ridiculous and some are worth consideration. Ultimately my personal value system is my guide.

    I have observed that the hate is almost entirely one-sided. The reporter’s spin at the end about “hate on both sides” was a completely PC kind of comment not supported by facts. I saw no violent demonstrations from the Pro-8 crowd before the vote (and I think we all know how the media would have LOVED that). I have seen no violent counter-demonstrations to the Anti-8 crowd displayed in this video. The childlike behavior appears to be mostly the province of the Anti-8 crowd.

    While I was only philosophically sympathetic to the Pro-8 crowd, I am firmly against tyranny in any form. THAT video was Vlaams Belang dressed up in a “second class citizen” argument instead of neo-naziism. If you oppose the one, you have no choice (without great internal hypocracy) to oppose the other.

    All that being said, I am now firmly against the GLBT movement and their agenda and those who enable it. Not on philosophical grounds but to resist tyranny and fascism as best I can.

    And spare me the arguments about suppression of gay rights. I oppose the people who would outlaw gay behavior or couples, intrude on your behavior at home, etc. as I would people trying to intrude on anyone’s personal life. (the Libertarian in me) I believe in the oppression of no “group”. I oppose smoking bans (I’m a non-smoker). I oppose most liquor laws (I’m close to a non-drinker, 1-2 a month socially is about right for me).

    I think you get my drift. So long as those who support and lead the GLBT movement decide that fascist tactics are how they wish to proceed (courts, badgering others for their beliefs, attempts at oppression of their own) then I am your sworn enemy as a group. As reasonable individuals discussing issues, hey… let’s do lunch :)

    Comment by JW — November 13, 2008 @ 12:59 pm - November 13, 2008

  44. Speaking as a person who has gay friends (probably formerly) and gay family members all who I accept for what they are, I will no longer suppport the gay community as opposed to individuals). They as a lot are a bunch a whiny babies or allow themselves to be represented by such.

    Until the community grows up I will consistently vote for what they are against and against what they are for, no matter the issue. I realize that this can be viewed as punishing the lot for the few (and it is) I no longer care as there is more to be lost by accepting this insanity without protest.

    When the community returns as adults I will listen to what they have to say

    Comment by Michael — November 13, 2008 @ 1:00 pm - November 13, 2008

  45. I’m amazed that the pro-gay marriage groups haven’t pulled a Franken and found a few hundred thousand votes just lying around in the trunk of someone’s car…

    Comment by Clyde — November 13, 2008 @ 1:02 pm - November 13, 2008

  46. And I adore the p.c.ness of this thuggery.Not a single black church of mosque has been picketed to my knowledge though I expect the votes for Prop 8 were far more solid in those venues than at the churches being targetted.

    Comment by clarice — November 13, 2008 @ 1:16 pm - November 13, 2008

  47. #36, the line between “peaceful protest” and “intimidating mob” can get awfully fine — and typically, the people who make “peaceful protest” a major component of their action strategy are aware of this, and exploit it.

    If you, a “peaceful protestor,” stand by while one of your fellow protestors assaults a woman, it’s fair to conclude that you intend your “peaceful protest” to have an intimidation component. In which case you’re an undemocratic thug, and that you see nothing wrong with this says a hell of a lot more about you than anyone else.

    Comment by Thomas — November 13, 2008 @ 1:17 pm - November 13, 2008

  48. GayKK

    I’m stealing it.

    Comment by dualdiagnosis — November 13, 2008 @ 1:18 pm - November 13, 2008

  49. The LCR is conducting a “national search” for Sammon’s replacement. His predecessor, Patrick Guerriero, was the campaign director for No On 8.

    So, here is an opportunity to pick a grown up or even better, one of the folk here at GPW to step up and take the LCR leadership role.

    and on the other side of the Prop 8 issue, Guerriero led the No on Prop 8. . .A gay republican. . .So who is calling Guerriero onto the mat to take the reigns?

    just a question Is he the Grown-Up everyone is looking for?

    Comment by rusty — November 13, 2008 @ 1:21 pm - November 13, 2008

  50. I am appalled at the behavior of some of the protestors. I mean I understand that being attacked by a vicious, fascist cross-wielding granny requires the need for physical self-defense, but the cry for burning down the churches goes beyond the pale of civilized civility. I call for moderation – let’s only burn down the one’s that supported Prop 8.

    http://lumpsfromtheleft.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Dr. Lumplevin — November 13, 2008 @ 1:24 pm - November 13, 2008

  51. I couldn’t watch the whole thing it disgusted me so much. I do wonder what the elderly lady was doing there and why didn’t the reporter remove herself and the lady from the situation. Still no excuse for the behaviour.

    Comment by Kelly — November 13, 2008 @ 1:31 pm - November 13, 2008

  52. If gay marriage becomes a legal reality, will this intimidation and intolerance by the homosexuals follow into the churches when a pastor doesn’t want to marry them in his sanctuary, when he doesn’t want them as their youth group leaders or Sunday School teachers? I believe the “slippery slope,” as unpopular as this term is, scares Christians more than gay marriage. The homosexuals always want to push the limits of their agenda to be accepted into the main stream by force tactics. They come across as bullies, in fact, they often are bullies. This is getting tiresome and often scary!

    Comment by sunshine484848 — November 13, 2008 @ 1:34 pm - November 13, 2008

  53. I think the best thing the gay community can do is continue to be open about their orientation, continue to move into the suburbs with their families and continue to be active productive members of their communities.

    It is hard to say “No” to people you like. It is easy to say “No” to people telling you “You have to do this!”

    These protesters are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. They need to convert a few percentage points of the population from No to Yes. They will not get it with bad behavior. The way to get people on your side is to make them like you. Attacking the people you need to convert to your side isn’t going to make them like you.

    Obviously, it is a very small, vocal group of protestors who are getting out of hand and the media is doing the gay community a HUGE disservice by focusing on them. It will enforce a very negative stereotype and make the population who voted for prop 8 dig in their heels and resist any future attempts to legalize gay marriage.

    Comment by Jeanne — November 13, 2008 @ 1:35 pm - November 13, 2008

  54. I still want to see focus on non discrimination in the work place. Marriage is a NON issue for most gay folks.

    As for the protest I am saddened by the hate served up at protest in return for losing the referendum.

    jebntex

    Comment by Jeb — November 13, 2008 @ 1:40 pm - November 13, 2008

  55. Prop 8 voter demographics have been all over the internets and blacks were the deciding voter block, mainly due to an Obama mail piece, not Mormons.

    This sort of cheap thuggery and bullying is so reminiscent of Bull Connerism that it will backfire and solidify opposition in the black community. Mormons and evangelicals will not be convinced, but blacks should be natural allies as this is a civil rights issue, not a theological discussion.

    The only way marriage rights will be resolved is from the federal level as was abortion and racial based civil rights.

    The Dems will soon control the entire government; they should step up and pass a federal marriage rights law before 2012 as it’s the right thing to do. What good is a liberal government if it cannot provide basic civil rights to all the people they claim to serve and represent?

    It’s time for liberal politicians to pay their overdue tab in the gay community.

    Comment by BJ — November 13, 2008 @ 1:53 pm - November 13, 2008

  56. No on 8 folks, here is what you do: Go to Utah, not to protest but to hook up with the Warren Jeffs folks. You want same-sex marriage rights, they want multiple wife rights. When combined, think what a powerful interest group that would make.

    Comment by Claude Hopper — November 13, 2008 @ 1:59 pm - November 13, 2008

  57. Peaceful protests are not childish tantrums. The vast majority of protesters are exercising a right, your discomfort with these protests speaks more to your situation than the protesters.

    Um, no. The fact that you are rationalizing assaulting a little old lady speaks volumes for what YOU believe, not for us, especially when we all know that if a gay person had been assaulted in the same manner, you would have burst a blood vessel screaming “hate crime”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2008 @ 2:07 pm - November 13, 2008

  58. “Gays want to make this a fight between religion and homosexuality? Fine. So be it. But the hell if I’m going to side with them.”

    AE, LGBT people did NOT make this a fight between religion and homosexuality. “christians” spend millions of dollars a year working against us. The don’t want marriage, they don’t want civil unions, they don’t want us to have children, they don’t want us to adopt children. Some go as far as to not want us as teachers or any other profession that has much contact with children. They call us deviant, perverted, abomination. Make claims that we all are promiscuous, anti-God and will die decades before others. That’s just the beginnning of the list.

    And of course you won’t side with “them” because your hate is almost worse than those who use their religion as a weapon. And guess what AE, WE DON’T NEED YOU.

    I’m not saying the behavior of some of the protesters is correct or acceptable. They need to be stopped, but your arrogant,self-righteous and “I’m so superior” attitude is repulsive. Support those against us, you’ll learn in the end.

    Comment by a different Dave — November 13, 2008 @ 2:08 pm - November 13, 2008

  59. I think one of the guys screams “I’m not damaging anything!” – Sorry, bub, yes you are! You’re damaging your karma… the reputation of all gays… and the gay marriage movement.

    I find it odd that there are no reports of California homosexuals protesting in front of mosques. I’d bet serious money that 100% of Muslims voted for Prop. 8 (or at least 99.9%).

    I don’t find it odd. These screaming protestors are bullies. Bullies always pick the target who is so well-behaved and civilized that he or she won’t fight back.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2008 @ 2:08 pm - November 13, 2008

  60. A temper tantrum? What did you expect? The whole concept of gay marriage is juvenile. It’s just another special interest group throwing a “gimme what I want because I want it” fit.

    When two grown men (or women) with no other responsiblities decide they need a special certificate and special treatment and recognition from the rest of us, you know you’ve got maturity problems.

    Comment by K T Cat — November 13, 2008 @ 2:10 pm - November 13, 2008

  61. Memo to the gay community:

    When you are done throwing your temper tantrum and bullying old people around you will realize that the greatest enemy to the acceptance of gay marriage is not the Mormon church or little old ladies. It isn’t even the black Baptists, Hispanic Catholics and Muslims who also voted overwhelmingly against Prop. 8 -you do not dare bully them because they would kick your asses. You target people who you know will not shoot you or beat the shit out of you. Chickens. Let’s see you go toss one of your protests in South Central. Plucka, plucka, plucka.

    The greatest enemy to your greatest desire is YOU! After what I have seen out of your “community” in California over the past week I would pull all of your drivers licenses. Why? Because we do not give drivers licenses to five year old bullies no matter how much noise they make or how often they stamp their feet.

    Grow up and get over yourselves.

    Comment by Ennis — November 13, 2008 @ 2:15 pm - November 13, 2008

  62. Sonicfrog is right to an extent. The older woman was clearly trying to get a reaction by walking in front of a large group of no on 8 protestors “brandishing” the cross, etc. That said, the behavior of the pro-SSM folks is still wrong and should be criticized even if it was provoked to some degree.

    Again, if you want to sway public opinion on an issue you can’t let your emotions run wild in this way. If this was intentionally provoked then the no on 8 folks fell into the trap.

    Comment by KeithK — November 13, 2008 @ 2:16 pm - November 13, 2008

  63. Excuse me NDT, but the gentleman was speaking of the peaceful protesters and in no way rationalized the violence. Some day I hope you learn not to put your “stuff” on to what others write. Reality ain’t so bad after all, give it a try some time.

    Comment by a different Dave — November 13, 2008 @ 2:17 pm - November 13, 2008

  64. I will no doubt get shouted down by ILC when he reads this!

    sf, I don’t shout more than once in a while; perhaps you’re confusing me with someone else. But as it happens, yes you are wrong here to a degree that is basically disgraceful.

    the woman… knew what she was getting into when she decided to counter protest.

    Well, duh!

    If you’re the one voice, or a few, against the mob, the mob is going to shout you down

    Underscoring the fact that the protesters were a mob – i.e., a set of incredibly ugly human beings. Don’t make excuses for them; excusing them is sick. Every person is responsible for what they do and capable of controlling what they do – even when they’re angry, and/or in a mob.

    she was not injured in any way, for which the protesters should be given credit

    Is that how far gone our society is? Screaming at an *old lady* who is carrying herself with grace and dignity is now acceptable behavior from a man, because it falls short of murdering the lady?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2008 @ 2:18 pm - November 13, 2008

  65. There are lots of violent straight people. Does that means that straights aren’t ready for the special rights of marriage either?

    Yes, but only if we were asking for a new right based on a message of love and tolerence.

    Comment by RM — November 13, 2008 @ 2:19 pm - November 13, 2008

  66. #11 with comment from #57: Why are no homosexuals protesting in front of mosques? The same reason that no homosexuals are protesting outside (or inside) black churches. Conservative white folks are the enemy, not blacks and muslims. Also, I suspect that the kinds of protests seen here outside mosques or black churches, would evoke a very different kind of response, one that the activists would not want to face.

    Comment by WSL — November 13, 2008 @ 2:24 pm - November 13, 2008

  67. P.S. to sf:, what you see above is my *expressing my strong disagreement* with you. Please don’t try to play any self-pitying cards about being “shouted down” now. But what those protestors did to that poor old lady: that was shouting down, and then some.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2008 @ 2:25 pm - November 13, 2008

  68. That was one proud, brave, old Christian lady.

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — November 13, 2008 @ 2:25 pm - November 13, 2008

  69. It’s official: I hate the gay community. Thanks, brothers and sisters, for making me ashamed to be gay – again. Is that supposed to be progress?

    Comment by Janie — November 13, 2008 @ 2:29 pm - November 13, 2008

  70. Excuse me NDT, but the gentleman was speaking of the peaceful protesters and in no way rationalized the violence.

    Sure he did. He blamed us for being “uncomfortable with the concept” of a little old lady being assaulted.

    It’s not surprising that you do the same, Dave; after all, the one thing you’ve consistently demonstrated is that there is no behavior by gay people that you will condemn, other than that of criticizing gay people. We should have guessed that when GPW condemned the behavior of those “peaceful protestors” who are assaulting little old ladies, you’d be here to spin and tell us how his doing that proves he’s “self-loathing” and a “Jewish Nazi”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2008 @ 2:33 pm - November 13, 2008

  71. These “protestors” play into the worst stereotype out there. In attacking an elderly WOMAN, grabbing a cross out of her hand, and stomping on it, they are coming as sissies.

    There. I said it. What a bunch of shrieking, hysterical SISSIES.

    Comment by Rhodium Heart — November 13, 2008 @ 2:36 pm - November 13, 2008

  72. In summary, most protests ride on the waves of emotion, don’t expect much in the way of rational and considerate thought to emerge.

    And these are the people who you claim are responsible enough to be married?

    Sorry, no. The “Give me what I want or I’ll attack you” school of thought went out in this country with the Black Panthers and Bill Ayers, and that’s where it should have stayed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2008 @ 2:39 pm - November 13, 2008

  73. Exactly. Instead of attacking people like Ayers, you need to hide your contempt and hatred like Obama. Look how well it worked out for him.

    Comment by RM — November 13, 2008 @ 2:46 pm - November 13, 2008

  74. The older woman was clearly trying to get a reaction by walking in front of a large group of no on 8 protestors…

    Yeah… and you know what else? That gal who was raped, she was asking for it by walking in that place, dressed that way. (/sarc)

    People have a right to protest. People have a right to counter-protest. People don’t have a right to physically interfere with each other. They don’t have a right to shut down each other’s press interviews. They don’t have a right to grab each other’s property and stomp it on the ground (which I didn’t see on the tape, but I was distracted and will take people’s word that it’s on the tape). The old lady was peaceful. The screaming gays weren’t. The old lady stood up for her viewpoint with grace and class. The screaming gays didn’t. They were vile and, as every person is perfectly capable of controlling their own behavior, their behavior has no excuse.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2008 @ 2:55 pm - November 13, 2008

  75. These clowns just won the Presidency, Senate and the House. Nevertheless, they have so much vitriol in their systems that they seek high and low for things to be really pissed off about.

    I’d love to see these jackasses try to pull the same stunt in front of their local Black Panthers headquarters or Nation of Islam mosque.

    Comment by Right Turn — November 13, 2008 @ 2:58 pm - November 13, 2008

  76. Truth is, activists are generally NOT deep thinkers. Let’s face it, if you the capacity to see both sides of a divisive argument, it’s unlikely you’d be able to muster enough energy to take to the streets.

    Comment by Right Turn — November 13, 2008 @ 3:01 pm - November 13, 2008

  77. Let’s face it, if you the capacity to see both sides of a divisive argument, it’s unlikely you’d be able to muster enough energy to take to the streets.

    Maybe I should go to a protest with a sign that says, “Maybe on 8. Screw both sides! You all suck!” and march around in front of cameras. Unfortunately, it seems that all protesters have one thing in common: no sense of humor.

    Comment by BarryD — November 13, 2008 @ 3:08 pm - November 13, 2008

  78. I voted for 8 to keep the GayKK from using a legal crowbar to force the Church from have to perform gay weddings (and I’m not even Catholic). Give me a proposition that strips the State from being in the marriage business (a term undeniably loaded with religious baggage) and leaves the State in the contracts business (where it belongs) while letting churches perform weddings as they see fit (and don’t tell me that the Episcopalians and Unitarians would not step into the breach for gays) and it has my vote in a heartbeat.

    Comment by Harvard@Cal — November 13, 2008 @ 3:12 pm - November 13, 2008

  79. But, face it, she knew what she was getting into when she decided to counter protest. If you’re the one voice, or a few, against the mob, the mob is going to shout you down – it’s part of the game.

    I’ve attended many large Evangelical Christian events and demonstrations. They’re all protested by somebody: NOW, GLBT advocates, etc. If they get into a volume competition, yes they will lose because they’re outnumbered.

    But that woman wasn’t just shouted down by the mob. I have never seen a counter-protester treated like that no matter how badly they are outnumbered. I have never seen someone rip a sign out of someone’s hands, let alone see someone for their safety. That is contemptible behavior for anyone.

    Comment by Jeff the Baptist — November 13, 2008 @ 3:18 pm - November 13, 2008

  80. First of all — there are 1139 federal laws that treat married people different from unmarried. So when you say marriage is not a “right” you are very mistaken. I hope if you are married that you a willing to give up those “RIGHTS” . Just a question when you die does your pension/government retirement/Social Security check go to your spouse. Do you think that this is right only to be allotted to married peope.

    Second, please do not paint all gay people with the same brush. You see I sent a letter to my congressman I have not hit anyone, burn any churches, so please to be fair, don’t say stuff like how awful the GAY people are.

    I wonder what would happen if we said that ALL THOSE WHITE fundamentalist men and women are ….. (the ones that bombed the building in OK).

    We just want the same things that married people have — remenber when you got married — your know life was changed — people in your family looked at you differently, church people respected your marriage, the list can go on forever.

    Well that is my RANT I hope no one thinks that I need to shut up and say yes master.

    Comment by little letter jan — November 13, 2008 @ 3:40 pm - November 13, 2008

  81. P.S. to sf:, what you see above is my *expressing my strong disagreement* with you. Please don’t try to play any self-pitying cards about being “shouted down” now. But what those protestors did to that poor old lady: that was shouting down, and then some.

    Dude, Lighten Up. I enjoy our back and forth. I was being sardonic…. I can’t stand that no-one ever gets my sarcasm!

    Anyone who is thinking this should be a calm protest are being a bit unrealistic. Protests such as these are fueled by raw emotion in the first place. I chose the term “mob” very deliberately, because most protests, whether it’s for something you support, the Iraq war, or something you don’t, gay marriage ban, are a function of mob mentality. The protesters were rude??? Big deal. The same thing happened at the beginning of the Iraq war, when the anti-war protester, a minority at the time, would get into a pro-war crowd, and be shouted down for not supporting the war, being accused of hating the country, and so on and so on. As a long time member of the Gay Patrioti (been around since the first incarnation I think), I know we are all guilty to a degree of the same offense we are so critical of in this case. I defy any one of us, myself included, to show that we, when the Iraq war had started, defended that person in that instance. Not one of us here are in the same league as John Adams, who defended the British solders involve in the Boston Massacre of 1770.

    Yes, the old woman held herself very well under the circumstances. If I put blame on anyone, it would be the reporter on the scene. That interview should have been conducted of to the side somewhere. It’s almost as if she had never covered a protest before – or WANTED to stage the interview in the middle of the crowd for the greatest effect, damn the potential danger she put both the woman and herself in. It’s almost as if she was hoping it would bleed, so it would get the lead….

    Comment by sonicfrog — November 13, 2008 @ 3:47 pm - November 13, 2008

  82. Little Letter jan, your comment shows you have no clue what a right is. Governments do not grant rights, they protect them.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 13, 2008 @ 3:54 pm - November 13, 2008

  83. I am reminded by this incident of another old woman who had an encounter with her ideological opponent, Barbara Frietchie as immortalized by the poet John Greenleaf Whittier:

    Up the street came the rebel tread,
    Stonewall Jackson riding ahead.

    Under his slouched hat left and right
    He glanced; the old flag met his sight

    ‘Halt!’—the dust-brown ranks stood fast.
    ‘Fire!’—out blazed the rifle-blast.

    It shivered the window, pane and sash;
    It rent the banner with seam and gash.

    Quick, as it fell, from the broken staff
    Dame Barbara snatched the silken scarf.

    She leaned far out on the window-sill,
    And shook it forth with a royal will.

    ‘Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
    But spare your country’s flag,’ she said.

    A shade of sadness, a blush of shame,
    Over the face of the leader came;

    The nobler nature within him stirred
    To life at that woman’s deed and word;

    ‘Who touches a hair of yon gray head
    Dies like a dog! March on!’ he said.

    Unfortunately, there were no gay leaders with a nobler nature to come to the aid of this modern Barbara Frietchie.

    Comment by pchas — November 13, 2008 @ 3:58 pm - November 13, 2008

  84. We just want the same things that married people have — remenber when you got married — your know life was changed — people in your family looked at you differently, church people respected your marriage, the list can go on forever.

    Anyone notice how gay and lesbian liberals treat marriage as some sort of magic spell that will get them “respect”?

    I have a news flash for them; if you want respect, stop taking children to sex fairs, stop assaulting old ladies at your protests, and stop your blatant antireligious bigotry, made even more hypocritical by the fact that you refuse to direct it at black, Jewish, and Catholic churches because of political affiliation. Better yet, tell the married gays who claim that “men are pigs” and thus should be allowed to sleep around when they’re married to shove it.

    Again, we see the denialism that is at the center of the gay community’s ideology; it’s not OUR behavior, it’s everyone else’s.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2008 @ 4:14 pm - November 13, 2008

  85. #14 Juan Trinada cuts to the chase. The problem I (and probably most) have is the attempt to co-opt the word “marriage”. Given the fundamental role it has played in society since pre-history, and the host of cultural assumptions surrounding it, trying to apply “marriage” to a homosexual relationship is frankly, in the sympathetic sense, pathetic. Come up with a word that engenders respect, that befits the unique nature of the relationship.

    Reaching for “marriage” seems somehow to be a wistful desire for all the differences and controversy to be airbrushed away. Homosexual couples who want a committed relationship recognized by the state the same way marriage is deserve a term that honors and dignifies *their* relatonship, in a way that “marriage” cannot.

    Comment by Jack Okie — November 13, 2008 @ 4:22 pm - November 13, 2008

  86. sf, sorry if I’m not being light-hearted enough with this, but I care about gay marriage, and the sort of behavior we’re discussing – behavior that sets us back, in addition to (or because of) its being wrong in itself – pisses me off.

    at the beginning of the Iraq war, when the anti-war protester, a minority at the time, would get into a pro-war crowd, and be shouted down for not supporting the war

    Two groups of protestors, perhaps of different sizes, keeping a bit of distance between them and then trying to drown each other out by purely sonic means, is one thing. It’s part of the protest / counter-protest process.

    One group of protestors, going up to a lone old lady and *physically* intimidating and harassing her, grabbing her property and stomping it on the ground or screaming in her ear as she patiently tries to explain herself to a media person who is asking her, is something different.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2008 @ 4:27 pm - November 13, 2008

  87. (i.e., it’s just wrong)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2008 @ 4:28 pm - November 13, 2008

  88. I defy any one of us, myself included, to show that we, when the Iraq war had started, defended that person in that instance [i.e., anti-war protestor at a pro-U.S. or pro-military demonstration of some kind].

    Pray tell what “that person” would have needed defending against. Are we talking about a real person? Who suffered – not being drowned out – but some sort of physical harassment, attack or intimidation?

    I know we are all guilty to a degree of the same offense

    Sorry, no. Just speak for yourself, please.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2008 @ 4:35 pm - November 13, 2008

  89. [...] leave you with this lively example of liberal tolerance, via Gay Patriot. I especially love the pinheaded MSM commentary – “What we’re clearly seeing. . . is a [...]

    Pingback by That vaunted liberal tolerance. . . | conservativeintelligencer.com — November 13, 2008 @ 4:51 pm - November 13, 2008

  90. [...] Where are the Grownups? [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » More Hate Against 8 — November 13, 2008 @ 4:52 pm - November 13, 2008

  91. Keep on burning those bridges! I am deeply ashamed of this behaviour.

    Comment by mark — November 13, 2008 @ 4:53 pm - November 13, 2008

  92. I’ve attended many large Evangelical Christian events and demonstrations. They’re all protested by somebody: NOW, GLBT advocates, etc. If they get into a volume competition, yes they will lose because they’re outnumbered.

    But that woman wasn’t just shouted down by the mob. I have never seen a counter-protester treated like that no matter how badly they are outnumbered. I have never seen someone rip a sign out of someone’s hands, let alone see someone for their safety. That is contemptible behavior for anyone.

    I think that is comparing apples to oranges. As Christians, you and your flock are going to approach things differently than most protesters.

    Pastor Jeff, in case my intent is misconstrued, I mean absolutely no disrespect to you or anyone of faith for the following; this is just my thoughts on this issue, so bare with me.

    When I was younger I went to a few pride parades. I find them boring, sad and amusing at the same time, but friends wanted to go, and I had nothing else better to do. At every one of them there were Christian protesters, complete with crosses, Bibles, exclaiming that we were sinners, we need to repent, so on and so forth. I think once things got a bit out of hand and someone got a bit roughed up, but it was a long time ago and I may not be remembering correctly. Now the protesters had every right to be there, but what is the purpose? They really didn’t expect to save anybody at that type of event, did they? Sure they are expressing their belief, but they are consciously putting themselves in harms way. They are being the proverbial “thorn-in-the-side” Sooner or later, the thorn is going to be scratched. When you stir the pot in this fashion, this is, sooner or later, going to happen.

    I take the Dr. Laura view on this. She will get a call from a woman who had been raped and struggles emotionally with the aftermath. Often the woman reveals, leading up to the event, she was at a bar, or a party, drinking with friends. Dr. Laura goes out of her way to make sure the caller knows she is not being blamed for the crime, but Laura also explains that it was stupid behavior on the victim’s part, to put herself in a situation where, being drunk, and being around drunk horny men, the victim has put herself in a position where this type of violation is more likely to occur. Dr. Laura is identifying that the victim exhibited poor choices and stupid behavior that put the victim at risk.

    Before some one accuses me of being heartless, I want them to know I lost a friend, someone who was a tremendously positive influence on my ability to accept being gay and someone I loved dearly, because of the same type of poor behavior choices (some of the old timers have hear this, so forgive the repeat). He used to cruise Pacific Beach in San Diego and pick up straight gay to mess around with. One night he picked up the wrong guy and got bashed to death. Do I blame my friend? Absolutely not. He did not ask for this to happen. At the same time, his behavior opened the door for the likelihood that something like this to happen.

    Back to the protest. It was horrible and boorish behavior to strip the cross out of the womans hands and harass her in this fashion. But it wasn’t exactly the wisest move in the world to put herself in the middle of a semi-rational angry mob and make yourself vulnerable to this kind of treatment.

    Comment by sonicfrog — November 13, 2008 @ 4:54 pm - November 13, 2008

  93. spam filter

    Comment by sonicfrog — November 13, 2008 @ 4:58 pm - November 13, 2008

  94. #77 Maybe on 8. Screw both sides! You all suck!

    Problem is, they’d take you up on it. Have you heard of the Folsom Street Fair?

    There needs to be a counter-demonstration of all people of good will — gay, straight, bi, black, white…everyone who feels the slightest bit of metaphysical embarrassment that there is one term we are forced to share with these protestors: Human.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 13, 2008 @ 5:33 pm - November 13, 2008

  95. And you know-as a mom (although no gay children as of yet, they are still on the young side to declare sexual preferences) I would very supportive of a gay child who was trying to advocate for SSM, but I would want to smack that child silly if they advocated in such a way that they were picking on old ladies-or really any protester.

    I think sometimes those who come out advocating for the gay community in these situations fail to take the high road.

    I have said often that part of the problem with gay marriage is that a lot of people are simply apathetic on the issue-they don’t care enough about it to think about it, and most of them don’t know enough gay people that their main image of being gay are things like Pride parades and Folsom Street Fair.

    I think the “no”supporters would have done better to put a positive gay face on the issue and advocate for why they want the institution itself and not the government goodies that come with legal recognition of marriage.

    I hope that if any of my children grow up and are gay, that they don’t behave like spoiled brats. This isn’t the face gays need to put on the desire for marriage, and what it may do is make some of those who are apathetic on the issue care, but not in the way gays want them to care.

    Comment by just me — November 13, 2008 @ 5:38 pm - November 13, 2008

  96. #95 I hope that if any of my children grow up and are gay, that they don’t behave like spoiled brats.

    These protests are a function of bad breeding rather than orientation. I would bet serious money that your children aren’t going to behave this way whatever the cause because your kids will likely grow out of childhood.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 13, 2008 @ 5:52 pm - November 13, 2008

  97. Right on, Ignatius. But that’s 95% of the problem; we have these leftist gay children running around the street assaulting people, vandalizing churches, and screaming, and they insist that what they’re doing is justified because they’re gay.

    That’s rationalization for bad behavior, not justification.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2008 @ 5:58 pm - November 13, 2008

  98. Gays HAVE tolerance, they can pal around with eachother and do whatever kinds of promiscuous things they want in the privacy of their own home. Now, they’re angling to force society accept them, even the ones that think homosexual behavior is morally objectionable. These are the same type of people who are trying to make it a hate crime in Canada to engage in a moral debate on the topic.

    Comment by Bookstopper — November 13, 2008 @ 6:53 pm - November 13, 2008

  99. Does any one know how many civil unions have been registered in California?

    It would be interesting to know how many of the characters at these protests have actually availed themselves of CUs.

    Watching these protests kind of makes me wish I could go back and change my vote.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 13, 2008 @ 8:10 pm - November 13, 2008

  100. I haven’t read through all the comments but I do think there was a gentlemen near the end, in a red shirt, trying to get the main “screaming man” to settle down.

    Comment by Randy — November 13, 2008 @ 8:26 pm - November 13, 2008

  101. Oh and I wanted to say that while I don’t agree with you all the time, I really appreciate your level headed approach to tough issues.

    Comment by Randy — November 13, 2008 @ 8:36 pm - November 13, 2008

  102. I had always wondered how those who agitate for a Leftist revolution in the U.S. would fight such a war, given their ideological aversion to guns.

    Now I know.

    Comment by Joshua — November 13, 2008 @ 10:14 pm - November 13, 2008

  103. [...] was hoping that the hysteria over Proposition 8’s passing would start to abate soon – like GayPatriot, I find the reactions by some of the people who are putatively on my side on this one to be [...]

    Pingback by ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Domestic terror against Mormons: white powder sent to temples. — November 14, 2008 @ 2:00 am - November 14, 2008

  104. If America has an Achilles’ heel, it is a failure to accept those on the other side of a cultural divide–Blacks, Cherokee, Catholics, Chinese, Gays, The Rich, Illegal Immigrants, and born-again Christians–as human beings instead of bogeymen. Whenever an entire swath of the population is characterized as one dimensional purveyors of greed, or destroying the fabric of society, or stealing our jobs, or incipient theocracy, or whatever, and held up as the source of all our problems, watch out. Such scapegoating of others is tempting, as it resolves us of responsibility for our problems, but the outcome of it is usually ugly and unsatisfying.

    Comment by Nathan — November 14, 2008 @ 3:19 am - November 14, 2008

  105. Is this site for real? I mean I get it. You can be gay and conservative….I think? But really. To side with a legacy of intolerance? I don’t get that.

    Comment by Joe Muther — February 24, 2009 @ 11:45 pm - February 24, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.