Will Gay Marriage Activists Ever Stop Demonizing Their Adversaries?
Bruce just forwarded me a message he got from Twitter about gay activists setting up a “Bigot List” of donors to Question 1 in Maine, the successful ballot measure to “veto” a marriage law passed by the Pine Tree State’s elected legislature.
Now, like those who publish this list, I opposed Question 1, but their determination to root through the list shows an interest in berating these individuals. Can you imagine how they would react if radical social conservatives published the list of those who donated to the campaign to defeat Question 1 and dispatched ex-gay leaders to their homes while encouraging church-goers to boycott their businesses?
This type of behavior does little to advance the cause of gay marriage. Indeed, if it helps anyone, it helps opponents of gay marriage, giving them an additional talking point to show the thuggish tactics of gay activists. I hope (but doubt) that other gay leaders and bloggers will join me in denouncing these antics and encourage advocates of gay marriage to make a better case of their cause.
Remember, the issue should be making the case for state recognition of same-sex marriage, not demonizing those who oppose such recognition. These folks need take a page from the Service Members Legal Defense Network, a group whose leaders refuse to indulge in such juvenile tactics.
28 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I certainly don’t agree with these behaviors, publishing names and such
but then you have this. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html
DC archdiocese making big threats.
St Louis Archdiocese using discretionary funds to aid MAINE’s opponents to gay marriage. . .
I certainly didn’t like the threat of the posting of names in Washington’s REF 71 but I do think gay folk are a bit frustrated.
Comment by rusty — November 12, 2009 @ 8:47 pm - November 12, 2009
Making threats? “If your action leads to X, we’ll have to stop providing services” is a threat?
Logically, rusty, you should support those folks who voted for Question one. After all weren’t they a ‘bit frustrated’ at the law?
Comment by The_Livewire — November 12, 2009 @ 9:31 pm - November 12, 2009
there’s no guarantee that you always win electoral or legislative battles. Sometimes you just are in the minority. That’s the case on gay marriage across the country. Sure, it’s frustrating, just like small government types are frustrated.
Comment by Real American — November 12, 2009 @ 10:14 pm - November 12, 2009
And further complicating the gay left’s ability to identify the opposition to same sex marriage as anything more complex or nuanced than HATE, HOMOPHOBIA, and BIGOTRY:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573886,00.html
I’m sure the gay left would rather this story just go away before they have to do something unthinkable like…I dunno…stop to consider the possibility of human reality being more complex than the slogans on their bumper-stickers.
Comment by Sean A — November 12, 2009 @ 10:26 pm - November 12, 2009
Rusty’s comment just validates religious organizations’ charges that gays would use gay marriage to trample religious freedom. Here we have Catholics saying they are being forced into a position that is incompatible with their religious beliefs and Rusty is trying to characterize it as some unethical threat.
And then he uses that mischaracterization to excuse outright thuggery and intimidation.
The left will always justify ANY means.
Comment by American Elephant — November 13, 2009 @ 12:00 am - November 13, 2009
I know you weren’t being literal but as an “ex-gay” leader no one would have the power to “dispatch” me or anyone I know for such an outrageous idea. The reason is because we don’t go chasing people down, live our own lives and offer our opinions when asked or in an appropriate public forum.
If the gay community only knew half of what we “ex-gays” have pu a stop to you may not be so quick to generalize our experience in such a way.
Comment by Randy — November 13, 2009 @ 12:15 am - November 13, 2009
Sorry, I am on my iPhone. The “pu” should be “put.”
Comment by Randy — November 13, 2009 @ 12:16 am - November 13, 2009
It also behooves us to ask, will certain gay marriage opponents ever stop demonizing their adversaries?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 12:18 am - November 13, 2009
Real American, exactly. (I’m in both categories – small government, pro-gay marriage.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 12:20 am - November 13, 2009
Interesting but ignored is that there are Gay liberals and Gay conservatives. By both sides. Gay liberals are intent on stirring up trouble and using big government socialism as their crutch, even as big government ignores and sidelines liberal gays, repeatedly. While gay conservatives want liberty. In my cruising the internet I have found an increasing number of conservative sites that are now reconsidering their gay squeamishness — it is rather amazing to see links to gay pages from formerly not so friendly to gays people. Amazing how politics makes odd, um, bedfellows — Obama is uniting the country in ways he never though possible — against him — and gays and formerly not-so-friendly-to-gays straights are finding common ground in liberty — the live and let live attitude on which this country is based. It is refreshing. It is charming. It is welcome. And as the liberal gays come to the awful conclusion that they were duped, well, then — let the good times roll. For Obama is about to have a bunch of disappointed queens on his hands – - and that is never a good idea. Especially given that these are American queens — and you can lie to them only so often before they strangle you with their feather boas.
Comment by Jim Hlavac — November 13, 2009 @ 1:32 am - November 13, 2009
ILC,
Pointing out that the actual statutory definitions of marriage agree with me and not with you is not demonizing you, its calling you to the carpet for making up definitions out of whole cloth and being unable to cite any examples of where the people agree with you about what the purpose of their own freaking institution is.
Pointing out that you try to redefine the English language to try and win arguments, even when you are smacked in the face with a stack of dictionaries is not demonizing you. Its pointing out that you are less intellectual honest than Bill Clinton and Andrew Sullivan.
Calling you a liar is not demonizing you, its recognizing reality.
Look. I am deeply sorry that this upsets you so. You have clearly demonstrated over and over again that you have far more time to waste and far more emotional investment in “winning” arguments over the internet than anyone else. Redefining the language, creating long, dishonest flow charts of who said what to whom. I’m surprised you haven’t created power point presentations.
But none of that makes you right, and it certainly doesn’t make you a winner. It just makes you an even bigger, more dishonest loser.
And yes, arguing with people as deeply dishonest and sleezy as you EXASPERATES me FULLY! to the point where I must stop trying to argue with a liar who still cant admit hes wrong even when hes smacked in the face with a dozen dictionaries proving him wrong.
So I withdraw. You win! You are the biggest retard at the special olympics, and I came in a close second for trying to engage in honest debate with such a sleazy, dishonest jerk.
Comment by American Elephant — November 13, 2009 @ 4:46 am - November 13, 2009
Speaking of demonisation and painting with a rather broad brush, I’d be interested to know what you think of this: http://www.thepostgameshow.com/?p=843
Comment by perturbed — November 13, 2009 @ 6:40 am - November 13, 2009
6: Sorry Randy, as you claim “ex-gay”, to (guessing) 99.9% of the gay community, YOU DO NOT EXIST. That would/could totally upset their apple cart.
10: Excellent point… “THAT ONE” dupped the Democrat Party (it should have been Hillary) and liberal Republicans into voting for his Marxist ass. I tell my reps every time I call or write to them to distance themselves from “THAT ONE”. November 2, 2010 (a new Independence Day) is fast approaching.
11: AE, you are so right, I love you man!
12: That is demonization for sure. That is one of the reasons why I DO NOT support the changing the meaning of marriage.
Comment by EDinTAMPA — November 13, 2009 @ 9:18 am - November 13, 2009
…is making a false point, since in fact they agree with me: They give a couple a way to declare themselves “a family” in the eyes of the law, whether or not that couple intends to have children, is capable of having children, or fully intends to kill every unborn child they might have.
That’s reality, AE. Face up to it.
Lying outright about me, AE, as you have done over and over like a leftist when you couldn’t get your way, is demonizing me. For example:
- The time you tried to tell people I supported bestiality. (For the sane people here: Needless to say, I never have.)
- Or in a more recent discussion, AE, you tried sleazy tricks to misrepresent/falsify my actual views… not only not only once, but twice. (The two links are to places where I pointed it out for the record.)
So all my points stand. The proven liar here, American Elephant, would be you. You can’t tolerate people whose opinions are different than yours. And you mostly can’t answer my points. When backed into a corner, you habitually tell outright lies about your opponents (not only me, I’ve seen you do it to others) – then call them liars. American Elephant, you disgrace yourself.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 10:03 am - November 13, 2009
If some wish to boldly boycott, throw public hissy fits or create bigot lists of those who were donors to Question 1 in Maine, I say let them.
My experience has been that when people hiss “bigot” and are given the chance to show their fannies, they will go full bore and show the world what really drives them. Instead of reasoned people, they end up looking more like flamingos on ice skates attempting to tango with a jelly fish.
I followed the link posted in #12 above and it provides a classic example of a narrow minded hater who ends up sputtering and chocking on his spittle. Like the Kos Kids, he may create a whole basement full of agreeing misfits, but he can not get together a simple cogent argument.
The more radical gays do their “best” to “shame” people to accept gay marriage, the more determined the people become to shove them back. I am beginning to rethink whether I care to continue to support civil unions.
Comment by heliotrope — November 13, 2009 @ 10:49 am - November 13, 2009
Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri now says he’s “open” to considering a domestic partnership law.
“Maybe it’s something we should consider,” said Carcieri, after meeting privately Thursday for more than an hour in his office with a half-dozen members of Queer Action of Rhode Island, a group that in the immediate aftermath of his veto had labeled him “a bigot.” Among those attending was Mark Goldberg, the Providence East Sider whose five-week battle to claim the body of his partner of 17 years from the state morgue, had sparked the vetoed legislation. Citing as a possible model the “everything but marriage” referendum that won approval in the state of Washington earlier this month, Carcieri said: “I don’t know enough, yet. All I am saying is I understand the circumstances. I understand the difficulties” that can arise for same-sex couples and others — such as widows living with widowers, and widows with other widows — outside the legal framework of a traditional marriage. “Let’s see if we can find a way to solve that without discreet [pieces] of legislation every time something comes up. I just don’t think that is the right way to deal with it,” he said.
Comment by rusty — November 13, 2009 @ 11:26 am - November 13, 2009
http://www.projo.com/generalassembly/carcieri_gay_meeting_11-13-09_FVGEEAI_v23.3b3ffb6.html
Comment by rusty — November 13, 2009 @ 11:35 am - November 13, 2009
Does the state really marry anyone? Traditionally, a marriage is granted by either the state or a religious denomination. But that is before the gay community forced us to look at what the state is really doing.
Is a civil union any different than two committed people starting a small business in the eyes of the state? Not really. Both have to get a permit and pay a fee. Once the state has issued the certificate it could care less.
When a couple are married in the church, the church becomes part of their lives. They are married, not only to each other, but the church community. The community cares about their marriage. It makes them feel welcome. It is there to help when in need. It is there for the couple to offer themselves to help others. None of this is incorporated in the state.
So, let’s be honest. The state does not marry. It issues licenses for a fee. To the state a civil union, beauty shop or auto repair shop are the same. When the state marries a couple (straight, gay or whatever) it is a civil union and nothing more.
Comment by Ron Woods — November 13, 2009 @ 1:54 pm - November 13, 2009
Ron, agreed.
In the Episcopal Church, the two individuals marry each other. God is assumed to be present, consecrating their union. The Church’s role is only to witness, announce and lead prayers for what the individuals (plus God) have just done.
The State has yet another role. The State licenses / recognizes a new legal entity, “The marriage of … [insert individuals' names]“, having its own interests apart from those of the individuals. The new entity is supported by the law in various ways. In effect, it imposes obligations (or at least certain costs) on the rest of society. That is why a State marriage license is a privilege, not a right. (Privilege == something legislated/created by government; right == something morally above government, that a just government bows down to.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 2:14 pm - November 13, 2009
Oh ILC,
You truly are pathetic. This is why I say you need psychiatric help.
According to you I am a liar, and Merriam-Webster is a liar, Encarta is a liar, indeed ALL the online dictionaries are liars, the state legislatures are all liars, all the state laws defining marriage are lies, and the ONLY one telling the truth is poor little ILC who cannot cite ANY source ANYWHERE that upholds his definition of what the purpose of marriage is, and instead quotes “reality”.
You wouldn’t know reality ILC if it came up and smacked you in the face with a stack of dictionaries. You are the one who claims two men can reproduce.
Your a bald-faced liar, a Clintonian redefiner, and a man of Sullivinian honesty and character.
In other words you are a pathetic lying wreck. And you’ve been exposed.
Go away.
Comment by American Elephant — November 13, 2009 @ 6:00 pm - November 13, 2009
Keep dishonoring yourself, AE. One small starter: Whatever happened to your supposedly not having time for a “loser” like me? Heh.
My advice: Still more name-calling, please. And bigger, bolder lies. That’s what this thread needs.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 6:21 pm - November 13, 2009
(Not.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 6:22 pm - November 13, 2009
Honesty is never dishonorable ILC. Too bad you know nothing of it.
So, I am more than happy to keep calling you what you are: a proven sleazy, discredited, bald-faced liar unable to back up ANY of his arguments with sources.
Comment by American Elephant — November 13, 2009 @ 6:37 pm - November 13, 2009
Not nasty enough, AE. I know you can do better.
We need still more name-calling from you, please! LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 7:03 pm - November 13, 2009
Oh, and don’t forget your screeching.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 7:05 pm - November 13, 2009
For the record, I have repeatedly claimed nothing more or less than that gay and lesbian couples are reproductively equivalent to infertile straight couples. That is, they can reproduce with the assistance of outsiders and technology – as do infertile straight couples. Depending on the precise technique used (e.g., whether the egg donor or sperm donor was a family member of the other partner), the resulting child might be genetically related to one or both of the parents.
Bigger lies, AE! Think bigger! Bolder! Try to claim I’m a child molester, or something.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 7:14 pm - November 13, 2009
(continued) Or a drug dealer, murderer, etc. Use your imagination in demonizing me. I know you’ve got one.
For the record, I have also claimed that whether or not the child is related genetically to 2, 1 or 0 of the parents, many gay and lesbian couples actively raise their children together – thus ‘reproducing’ their values or spirit as a couple. And thus making a GAY NUCLEAR FAMILY. (Or a gay-headed nuclear family; I have not figured out which neologism is better, yet.) Demonize me on that, AE.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 7:23 pm - November 13, 2009
That dog won’t hunt.
I pulled this from the State of New York: ” 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section eleven of this article or any other law, the governing body of any village, town, or city may appoint one or more marriage officers who shall have the authority to solemnize a marriage which marriage shall be valid if performed in accordance with other provisions of law. Nothing herein contained shall nullify the authority of other persons authorized to solemnize marriages.”
The state does marry. Everything to the contrary is foolish word games.
Comment by heliotrope — November 13, 2009 @ 9:40 pm - November 13, 2009