In the comments section to my post considering Michelle Malkin’s piece on the insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob, a number of readers faulted Michelle (and by extension) me because of our supposed hyperbole, attempting to define the protests by their most extreme participants. To be sure, we should distinguish between those who protested peacefully and those who hurled angry slogans (or carried mean-spirited placards).
The former may have indeed been angry, but managed to contain their wrath as they rallied. The latter, however, well deserved the description, “insane rage” that I borrowed from Michelle who, in turn, borrowed it from Paul Krugman, a left-wing columnist who used the expression to describe a handful of angry Republicans at McCain campaign events. There have been far more angry activists protesting Proposition 8 than there were angry Republicans at such rallies.
I don’t think Michelle was trying to paint with a broad brush or contend that all protesters were gripped with “insane rage.” I think she was just trying to point out that while those in the MSM were eager (based on a few isolated incidents) to find angry outbursts on the right, they all but ignore it when it comes from a non-conservatives groups.
And while Republicans (and conservatives) routinely denounced such excess, I have yet to see heads of gay organizations denouncing the extremism at the anti-8 rallies. Indeed, some seem to encourage it by calling their adversaries haters. To be sure, organizers of this past weekend’s rallies did encourage participants to “to avoid signs that single out a particular religious or ethnic group,” saying, “We must continue to garner support for our movement through positive and peaceful messages.”
I commend them for discouraging ad hominems and encouraging peaceful protest.
Yet, I remain unconvinced that the rallies represent anything more than a public display of anger, even if contained. I just don’t see what they accomplish.
I criticize the rallies because they paint a pretty pathetic picture of the gay community, of citizens who refuse to accept the results of a popular initiative. Instead of community leaders saying, “We accept this loss; we failed to get our message across, we’ll do better next time,” they organize in the streets.
To be sure, provided they don’t disrupt traffic (as some seem to have been allowed to do) or otherwise impede citizens going about their business, they should be allowed to protest in public. In the end, all these protests do is show the protesters’ unwillingness to accept the results of this month’s election and their unwillingness to engage in introspection to figure out what they did wrong.
Not the kind of message we went to send to a citizens who don’t yet feel ready to extend the privileges of marriage to same-sex couples. Gay activists need to learn from conservatives and, in Michelle’s words, begin “the peaceful post-defeat process of self-flagellation, self-analysis, and self-autopsy.”