GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Will the Juvenilia of Prop 8 Sore Losers Ever Cease?

November 19, 2008 by GayPatriotWest

[Please note I revised this post slightly to correct typos and to clean up a few paragraphs.]

Imagine, if you will, that in order to protest the outcome of the recent elections, some leading Republicans declared a “Day Without Republicans,” encouraging those disappointed with the election results to “call in Republican” to work and stay at home all day.

Well, some sore losers of the campaign to defeat Proposition 8 are doing just that with their latest childish antic, declaring December 10 a “Day Without a Gay” when people “call in gay” to work.  Can’t these people grow up and instead of extending their temper tantrum, actually work on promoting the idea of gay marriage?

If they’re not adult enough to handle a political setback, are they adult enough to assume the obligations of marriage?  I know that many gay people have assumed such obligations and have shown that they are up to the task.  Shouldn’t these individuals be telling those demonstrating to chill and work on a more adult solution to the current situation, like actually promoting the merits of gay marriage?

Even gay leaders have demonstrated a childish attitude toward defeat at the ballot box.  In an extended rant on her blog, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Executive Director Kate Kendell says “there will never be acceptance” of the result. That’s not leadership.  That’s refusal to accept reality.  And it’s childish.

Just by following the antics of gay activists and reading the public statements of the heads of gay organizations, I would assume that gay people aren’t up to the obligations of gay marriage.  Fortunately, I know gay couples who take their marriages seriously.  That’s why I opposed Proposition 8.

Think about that statement for a minute.  Okay?

Now, let me explain again for those who, like Miss Kendell, refuse to accept reality.  I’m a gay guy.  I socialize with gay people.  I know many who favor gay marriage, have gotten married and who take the institution and their vows seriously.  That’s why I voted “No.”  Unlike me (and others in coastal metropolitan areas), many Californians do not know such couples.  A good number of them voted, “Yes.” Â

You’re not going to change their votes by acting like children who didn’t get the toy they wanted for Christmas.

Instead of continuing this temper tantrum, advocates of gay marriage should, unlike Miss Kendell, say that they accept the results of Prop 8.  The should show respect for those who have serious concerns about changing an institution defined for millennia by gender difference.   They must refuse to define advocacy of traditional marriage as hate.  And they must accept their obligation to make the case why this is a good thing.

Most have refused that obligation, resorting instead to repeating their mantra that gay marriage is a civl right without explaining why that it is so (except to quote the Loving decision).  Or blathering on about how the Proposition eliminates a right-as if the state had long recognized same-sex marriages.

I now wonder if mayber I should have voted, “Yes,” on 8 in order to remind advocates of same-sex marriage of their failure to make the case for gay marriage.

RELATED:  Michelle Malkin’s The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob: “Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 have responded with threats, fists, and blacklists.”

Filed Under: Civil Discourse, Gay America, Gay Marriage, Gay Media, Gay PC Silliness, Gay Politics

Comments

  1. Ignatius says

    November 19, 2008 at 4:44 pm - November 19, 2008

    This is like speaking Kaffir to Cherokee.

  2. rusty says

    November 19, 2008 at 5:05 pm - November 19, 2008

    see comment 48 at Gender Differerences & Marriage:

    if there were small numbers at the past weekend’s protests, I might concede that there was whining and juvenille behaviors being presented, but alas, this was not a small outcry. For the most part, it was a civil statement.

    as far as the stay at home day, let those chose to decide how they want to act how they want or, stand up and take the lead yourselves and become the leaders you are calling for. . . two people in Seattle worked on the Saturday protest and accomplished something ‘of wonder’ in less than 3 days.

    GOOD LUCK

  3. GayPatriotWest says

    November 19, 2008 at 6:46 pm - November 19, 2008

    But, Rusty, what does this accomplish? A rally before an election is designed to influence that vote. And if this were coupled with introspection, I might see your point, that is, if the speakers actually made the case for gay marriage.

  4. rusty says

    November 19, 2008 at 7:12 pm - November 19, 2008

    it has been discussed that the no on 8 campaign had it’s flaws and was probably poorly run. and it has been discussed that the leadership of the no on 8 didn’t ‘do what was needed’ to be done.
    I agree on these points. but the side effect of the passage of prop 8 has been a ‘social catalyst’ for the GBLT nationwide.

    this catalyst is not going to provide ‘perfect results’ but I am waiting to see how this all plays out.

    there are many out there wanting to take some action, that is there right. there may be some conflicts and actions that may not reflect positively on the GLBT community, but there might be some wonderful change as a result of some of these proposed tactics.

    it was just announced that the CA SC will be hearing challenges to prop 8.

    you stated ‘why you voted no’ in regards to your friends who got married. there are many GLBT folk who have similar friends, and many GLBT folk who see promise on the horizon. let some of that promise be savored.

  5. John says

    November 19, 2008 at 7:13 pm - November 19, 2008

    Ok, this is indeed a stupid idea. Count me among those who will ignore this call, even though I could use a day off to rest. As for the boycotts, the whining from Malkin and others about this is hypocritical. I have yet to see them give ANY criticism of AFA, FRC and other far right groups when they lead boycotts of companies due to support of the “gay agenda”. No doubt this is because she agrees with those boycotts. I personally ignore calls for boycotts, but if there were a business I patronized frequently and I knew they supported Prop 8 you’d better believe I’d take this into consideration about whether that would continue or not.

  6. Leah says

    November 19, 2008 at 9:00 pm - November 19, 2008

    the side effect of the passage of prop 8 has been a ’social catalyst’ for the GBLT nationwide.

    Which unfortunately proves Dan’s point. Why weren’t these people energized before? I actually read that at the protest here in LA was a couple who had originally planned their wedding for that Saturday. It never occurred to them that 8 would pass.

    I’m sorry, that is being extremely juvenile. Meanwhile, despite the Mormon Church, the No on 8 people raised more money – and still didn’t get their message through to their own people.

    I see a big problem here, and it’s not the people who voted to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

  7. Jeremayakovka says

    November 19, 2008 at 9:02 pm - November 19, 2008

    The “Day w/o a Gay” tactic is absurd. How does targeting the economic and productive sector advance debate on the potential impact of same-sex marriage? How does launching a national campaign speak to the concerns of certain voters of 4 states?

  8. Dave says

    November 20, 2008 at 12:15 am - November 20, 2008

    Can’t these people grow up and instead of extending their temper tantrum, actually work on promoting the idea of gay marriage?

    NO!

    Leftist politics is about protecting people from the need to grow up.

  9. lansing quaker says

    November 20, 2008 at 12:29 am - November 20, 2008

    Hey there.

    I found your blog a couple of months ago. Gay, Michigan guy here. 23, yuppie, and have always been a Democrat. But I was one of those Hillary PUMAs, and have changed my political lens over the past year.

    One thing my perspective can tell you — and always has — is that the action of the anti-8 crowd post-election makes me sick. I’ve always been a bit of a “different” gay, and have never been about “marriage” equality, but about equality in rights under law.

    As you’ve said, these boorish rioters only equivocate on a word. Not on benefits — but a word. And for me, someone who grew up in Michigan, and now live in Chicago, I’ve never had any laws in place as near as good to me as a member of the LGBT community as the California Domestic Partnership registry was (and is).

    People don’t get that the “Brown v. Board” argument on separate but equal is a false analogy. In this case, separate IS equal. California DP’s (heh, odd abbreviation in a gay world, that) are legally equal to the nascent CA Marriage Licenses.

    The ivory tower elitism of calling for “equal rights” over a word makes me sick. I use this analogy with my friends all the time regarding this, so maybe it’ll be of some use to you:

    ——-

    You’re in front of a starving, 3rd world child, holding a big, juicy apple.

    And you say to her: “This big apple is not good enough for me! It is toxic! I need an ORGANIC apple!”

    Then you throw the apple away into the dirt, in front her eyes. But you explain to this child:

    “Why would you accept something that is not fair? You deserve the best! In throwing away this one of many apples I could receive, I am actually fighting so that both I — and you — can get the true organic, toxic-free nutrition to which we are entitled.”

    All the while, this child now eyes this now inedible apple, hungry with the possibility of what could have been.

    ——

    As someone who has lived in 2 states, neither of which has any state-wide recognition of partnership rights, I find this attitude offensive, short-sighted, and wholly elitist.

    You’ve found a convert in me. Keep up the good work, chico.

  10. Erik says

    November 20, 2008 at 12:31 am - November 20, 2008

    Marriage is a civil right because the government has tied countless benefits and privileges to such relationships. If government had also tied such benefits to another religious sacrament – lets say communion – it too would be a civil right. But you don’t hear anyone saying communion is a civil right because it is not entangled with the government.

    For marriage NOT to be a civil right, the government would have to get out of the marriage business. But once you start legislating with regard to marital status, then yes, it’s a civil right.

    A civil right is any right bestowed by a government.

    [Whoah, Erik! You really need educate yourself on rights. The government does not bestow rights. As our Declaration put it, we are endowed by rights. Governments protect them. What you’re talking about in the first ¶ is not a right, but a privilege. –Dan]

  11. Jeremayakovka says

    November 20, 2008 at 1:04 am - November 20, 2008

    Some are calling the international reaction to Prop 8’s victory “Stonewall 2.0“.

    Two questions: Does this accurately describe the intensity of built-up and now running-over frustrations? And even if it the phrase has merit, then perhaps is Stonewall “1.0” worth calling into question?

  12. lansing quaker says

    November 20, 2008 at 1:09 am - November 20, 2008

    Stonewall 2.0 is such a joke of an analogy, and it is a complete betrayal of not only the original Stonewall riots, but of the entire Civil Rights era.

    With Stonewall (I guess, in this instance, “1.0”), gay bars were raided by cops and people were arrested just for being gay. And we all know the atrocities committed under Jim Crow during the Civil Rights era.

    Prop 8 is nothing of the sort. The same benefits afforded under a “gay marriage” license were afforded under registering as a “Domestic Partner” in California.

    This argument, to me, insults the legacy of both Stonewall and the Civil Rights movement. While I believe gay rights are civil rights, the equivocation that “marriage” (and calling it as such) is a “civil right” is absolutely a conocted ivory tower fantasy.

  13. Erik says

    November 20, 2008 at 1:18 am - November 20, 2008

    Then what was at issue in Brown v. The Board of Education? By your definition, public schooling is a privilege, is it not?

  14. lansing quaker says

    November 20, 2008 at 1:24 am - November 20, 2008

    Brown v. Board determined there was not an equal application in the public sphere regarding separate institutions. And there was a quantifiable difference to support as much in the schooling: funding, teaching staff, length of transport (i.e., busing of students), and more.

    Brown v. Board argued that separate is not quite equal, regardless of “Separate, but Equal” legislation.

    With regard to Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships (like California) separate is very much equal. You have the same rights to the extent of State law as any other married couple in your State. There is no quantifiable deficiency. The argument is only over terminology.

    But as far as State law is concerned, separate is very much equal. This is how it differentiates from Brown v. Board.

  15. ThatGayConservative says

    November 20, 2008 at 1:45 am - November 20, 2008

    declaring December 10 a “Day Without a Gay” when people “call in gay” to work.

    Wasn’t that the plot of a John Stamos TV movie that came out last year?

    “Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 have responded with threats, fists, and blacklists.”

    Yeah, but look who we’re talking about. Liberals never look at themselves to figure out what they did wrong. It’s always everybody else’s fault when they fail.

  16. American Elephant says

    November 20, 2008 at 2:24 am - November 20, 2008

    Hilarious!

    If you hold a protest and nobody notices, did it really happen?

    I hope at the very least all 12 participants get written up. (Assuming, that is, that they actually have jobs to call in “gay” to in the first place.)

  17. Erik says

    November 20, 2008 at 3:27 am - November 20, 2008

    Brown v. Board determined there was not an equal application in the public sphere regarding separate institutions. And there was a quantifiable difference to support as much in the schooling: funding, teaching staff, length of transport (i.e., busing of students), and more.

    You’ve obviously never actually read the Brown decision, Lansing Quaker. Because that was not the basis of the decision. The court held:

    We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

    The court implicitly says in Brown that it did NOT matter if the facilities and all tangible aspects are equal or made equal.

    So what was the finding of the court?

    “Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.” 10

    Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority.

    Thus, the court held in Brown that it was the psychology behind separate but equal, regardless if the the facilities could be made equal, that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Now tell me the psychology behind the bans on marriage for same sex couples has no effect on their standing in society. 😉 Really, wanna argue that?

    And Dan, the court also says public schooling is a “right.” In speaking of education, the court held:

    Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

    See that? The court held in Brown that public schooling was a RIGHT. In that sentence, the court gives the basic definition of a civil right. A civil right is any opportunity, benefit or privilege the government extends to its citizens. Marriage, like public schooling, is a civil right.

    Whoah, Erik! You really need educate yourself on rights.

    I base my definition of “civil rights” on case law. I think if you’re going to base it on anything, that’s a pretty sturdy foundation to go with.

  18. GayPatriotWest says

    November 20, 2008 at 3:32 am - November 20, 2008

    Um, Erik, marriage has long been defined by gender difference. Racial segregation laws are statutory creations and in clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

    Can you now a constitutional provision designed to open marriage up to same-sex couples? Studying the framers of the federal constitution or any one of the amendments and I’m sure you’ll find a lot of people who didn’t even question the gender basis of marriage; it wouldn’t even occur to them to include same-sex couples in its protections.

    But, they made no effort to bar state recognition of such unions, leaving it, as they left all matters not settled in the constitution, up to the legislatures of the various states.

  19. Erik says

    November 20, 2008 at 3:52 am - November 20, 2008

    And just so no one tries to argue that laws specifically targeting gays and lesbians don’t have a societal effect of making homosexual couples inferior, from Lawrence v. Texas:

    When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.

    Again, the reasoning of the court is very similar to Brown. They are looking at the psychology of the law and how it violates equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

    And someday, when these bans do go before the high court, you can see a justice lifting this passage from that decision, as well.

    It should be noted, however, that there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter.

    Same script, different cast.

  20. Erik says

    November 20, 2008 at 3:58 am - November 20, 2008

    Studying the framers of the federal constitution or any one of the amendments and I’m sure you’ll find a lot of people who didn’t even question the gender basis of marriage; it wouldn’t even occur to them to include same-sex couples in its protections.

    I’m going to let Justice Anthony Kennedy speak to that. From the majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas:

    Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

    Discrimination, under the guise of tradition, is not a justifiable argument for its continuance.

  21. The Livewire says

    November 20, 2008 at 6:45 am - November 20, 2008

    So we’ll add Erik to the pro-polygamy/pro-marry-a-cartoon-character/pro-marry-a-six-year-old-crowd. Since “But once you start legislating with regard to marital status, then yes, it’s a civil right.”

    Erik likes to forget the Constitution is a negative document by construction. It limits the Government. Then again, this makes him like too many people wh live under that government.

  22. John says

    November 20, 2008 at 11:30 am - November 20, 2008

    Racial segregation laws are statutory creations and in clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

    “Clear”? Surely you jest, Dan. Such is easy to say now decades after a liberal Supreme Court came out with the Brown decision. You have been saying all along that it never occurred to the original framers of the CA Constitution that the same-sex marriage was included under the equal protection clauses, yet this “strict constructionism” you tout out is noticeably absent when it comes to segregation and the 14th Amendment. A complete mixing of the races, including intermarriage or even occurrences where blacks might be in authority over whites, was not at all thought to be included in the 14th Amendment. Well, except for a few “radical” Republicans at that time and even many of them with daughters would have balked at intermarriage. Yet you ignore this history because it isn’t useful to your argument now. Why is that? The fact of the matter is that segregation wasn’t seen as violating the 14th Amendment until the Brown decision, something even the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist may have agreed with:

    Rehnquist’s memo unambiguously stated that “Plessy vs. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.” It acknowledged that this “is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position for which I have been excoriated by ‘liberal’ colleagues.” But in its key passage, it insisted that “one hundred and fifty years of attempts on the part of this court to protect minority rights of any kind — whether those of business, slaveholders, or Jehovah’s Witnesses — have all met the same fate. One by one the cases establishing such rights have been sloughed off, and crept silently to rest. If the present court is unable to profit by this example, it must be prepared to see its work fade in time, too, as embodying only the sentiments of a transient majority of nine men.”

    Rehnquist went on: “To the argument … that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.”

    Rehnquist’s memo concluded that the court should uphold segregation and refuse to protect “special claims” merely “because its members individually are ‘liberals’ and dislike segregation.”

    There is no doubt that Rehnquist wrote this memo. But was he speaking for himself?

    Testifying before the Senate in 1971, the year he was nominated to the court, Rehnquist said the memo “was prepared by me at Justice Jackson’s request; it was intended as a rough draft of a statement of his views … rather than as a statement of my views.”

    The understanding about segregation and the 14th Amendment is summed up in the Plessy decision, using reasoning VERY similiar to what we see today in the current matter:

    We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. The argument necessarily assumes that if, as has been more than once the case, and is not unlikely to be so again, the colored race should become the dominant power in the state legislature, and should enact a law in precisely similar terms, it would thereby relegate the white race to an inferior position. We imagine that the white race, at least, would not acquiesce in this assumption. The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other’s merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals. As was said by the court of appeals of New York in People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438, 448: ‘This end can neither be accomplished nor promoted by laws which conflict with the general sentiment of the community upon whom they are designed to operate. When the government, therefore, has secured to each of its citizens equal rights before the law, and equal opportunities for improvement and progress, it has accomplished the end for which it was organized, and performed all of the functions respecting social advantages with which it is endowed.’ Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts, or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation. If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.

  23. Peter Hughes says

    November 20, 2008 at 2:30 pm - November 20, 2008

    One small little thing that Erik conveniently forgets is that the Lawrence v Texas decision was based upon the Ninth Amendment, not the Fourteenth. The concurrent opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor used the Fourteenth Amendment as her basis for overturning the Texas sodomy law. However, the majority opinion as written was based upon the Ninth Amendment’s so-called “penumbra” clause as a right to privacy.

    Speaking of which, the erroneous interpretation of the Ninth Amendment is coming back to haunt us now. Nowere in the Constitution are you guaranteed a specific “right to privacy.”

    As for Erik, he should go back and read Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion for true jurisprudence. But then again, Erik seems like the type of person who would stick fingers in his ears and shut his eyes just to make you go away.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  24. John says

    November 20, 2008 at 5:09 pm - November 20, 2008

    Nowere in the Constitution are you guaranteed a specific “right to privacy.

    You know, I’ve heard this line more than once, usually given as an example of judicial activism gone awry, but it’s always bothered me as a myopic view of personal liberty. It just dawned on me why this bothered me: you’re taking a fear expressed by the Anti-Federalists and using it as an argument in your favor. No doubt they had good reason based on experience to fear what could develop in this country if the government wasn’t explicitly restricted from interfering with enumerated rights. However, the concern expressed by Alexander Hamilton of the dangers in this is exactly what I see wrong in the continual use of this line:

    I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights… Federalist Papers No. 84)

    This view may not be practical but it has been shown to be quite prescient.

  25. Peter Hughes says

    November 20, 2008 at 5:40 pm - November 20, 2008

    #24 – Good point John. Hamilton, Madison and the rest of the Federalists also were not above pointing out the obvious to the electorate:

    “The republican principle… does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse…” – Federalist #71

    In other words, don’t look for things in the Constitution that are not there.

    And my personal favorite from Mr. Hamilton:

    “The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.”

    Remember that last line come another election year.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  26. John says

    November 20, 2008 at 6:46 pm - November 20, 2008

    In more ways than one we saw that this year, Peter. *sigh*…

  27. North Dallas Thirty says

    November 20, 2008 at 8:43 pm - November 20, 2008

    Now tell me the psychology behind the bans on marriage for same sex couples has no effect on their standing in society.

    Only to the gay leftists who need a reason to feel inferior.

    The rest of us are too busy being who we are to worry about whether or not our relationship is called a marriage.

    Also, leftist Erik, please explain why, if marriage is a “civil right” that cannot be denied to anyone, why the Supreme Court has not only found that it does not apply to other people whose sexual behaviors make them a minority, but specifically does not apply to gay marriage (Baker v. Nelson).

  28. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 20, 2008 at 9:18 pm - November 20, 2008

    #24 – John, great. The Constitution is one giant affirmation of a God-given right of privacy, or was intended to be: the Federal governments starts with zero powers, then receives only what the Constitution explicitly grants it, with every other conceivable right or power being reserved to the States and/or the people. A right to privacy is implied in the very enterprise of trying to specify – and thus limit – government’s powers. But we’ve forgotten that.

  29. Roger says

    December 1, 2008 at 7:14 am - December 1, 2008

    I think most Mormons would back you for improving the rights of the current civil agreements(if they really are lacking), and even Obama said you were fighting the wrong battle to win this war. This fight seems to be more about the legal implications of the word marriage than any individuals rights. There is a mindset held in many minds that both agendas can’t comply and they can. This rioting is simply polarising opinions and increasing the number of radiacals.

    If the ‘straight people’ fear the ‘gay problem’ these riots are simply giving them ammo to strike you with.

Categories

Archives