Gay Patriot Header Image

Hating & Blacklisting Supporters of Traditional Marriage

Perhaps the most annoying (and counterproductive) thing about the most active advocates of state recognition of same-sex marriage is their tendency to paint all those who support the traditional definition of marriage with a broad brush.  They define them as “haters,” with Cindy McCain apparently joining their ranks by posing for a picture with duct tape on her mouth and a “No H8” tattoo on her cheek (or agreeing to have said accessories photoshopped in).


As if someone somewhere is preventing her from speaking out on gay marriage. Yet, this very image is the inversion of reality. If someone speaks out in favor of gay marriage, they instantly earn the accolades of the PC powers that be and are often heralded for their courage. But, if they dare challenge the politically correct view on this controversial topic, they are frequently branded as haters and their livelihoods threatened.

Larry O’Connor reminds us of “Scott Eckern, the Artistic Director of Sacramento Music Theatre [who] was forced to resign after the public revelation that he donated $1,000 to the Prop. 8 campaign.”  It is the gay marriage activists who wish to silence those opposed to state recognition of same-sex marriage.

Shouldn’t they want to hear their arguments so they can better challenge them in the court of public opinion?  But instead, they seek to ostracize them, punishing them for their point of view.  Via Glenn, we learn further details of this “new blacklist,” no, not against advocates of same-ex marriage, but against those of traditional marriage:

A $26,000 contribution to the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California appears to have cost a 96-year-old former Mormon temple president his seat on the board that oversees Oakland’s historic Paramount Theatre.

Now, if this Mormon used his position on said board to advocate traditional marriage, the City Elders of Oakland would have a point, but if he happens to hold the view he does, while attending, without prejudice, to his duties on the board, then there is no problem.  Instead of punishing such an individual for his position on gay marriage, they should learn to counter, in a civil manner, his argument.

One reason, I believe, we’ve been losing these battles in popular referendum after popular referendum, in initiative battle after initiative battle, is the failure of those advocating this social change to argue their case.  Instead, it often appears they spend the better part of their time demonizing those who hold a politically incorrect opinion.

And while they accuse their adversaries of hatred, they’re manifesting an even more bitter form of animus in their attitude toward their adversaries.  The real haters are not those they accuse, but those leveling the accusation.

They need to let go of their hate and open their hearts to their opponents so they can, in a responsible manner, counter their arguments.



  1. Sean,

    I see you have no argument either. You offer no evidence or logic by which we can accept that Mr. Hoopes has had his rights violated. I acknowledged not having followed the case closely, but you give us nothing here. Your only point seems to be some mindless rant about how I, supposedly, would have a different opinion if I had a political ally in such a position. Which is, of course, a claim you have no reason whatsoever to make, which is untrue, and utterly besides the point. The question here is whether Mr. Hoopes has a legal, or even Constitutional right to this position. And i don’t see how that can be.

    I realize that you, along with a few other commenters here, like to play the game by which I serve as some stand-in for gay liberals, or all liberals, or all people that you don’t like. I give you the opportunity to launch your spittle-flecked tirades against a convenient target. Its ok – I dont take it personally, and to the extent that it keeps you off the street and reduces your stress levels, maybe it is a good thing. But dont make the mistake of taking yourself too seriously – I certainly don’t.

    “Are religious groups supposed to just take your word for it ..”

    Religious groups do not have to take my word for it. That is the really cool thing about Constitutional rights – they exist whether or not particular groups or individuals agree with them.

    “despite your support for how Lorenzo Hoopes is being treated?”

    Once again, where is the Constitutional or even just legal violation that he is suffering?

    And yeah, it should be obvious that I support such rights as churches deciding their marriage policies. If you ever had the interest or ability to actually read what I write, and think about it, rather than seeing me as a proxy for all that you hate, and using this blog as your personal venting site, then it would be obvious.

    Comment by Tano — January 24, 2010 @ 9:35 pm - January 24, 2010

  2. “Once again, where is the Constitutional or even just legal violation that he is suffering?”

    As pointed out here He is being discriminated against in violation of California law.

    Again this is why Tano’s nothing more than a talking points shill. He wants laws changed because he doesn’t feel he’s equal unless he has a piece of paper that he doesn’t want to qualify for. He wants non-discrimination laws, only if they wouldn’t be used to defend others against him.

    And yet he expects others to take him seriously.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 24, 2010 @ 10:11 pm - January 24, 2010

  3. “He is being discriminated against in violation of California law.”

    What on earth are you talking about. The link you provide is to a discussion of employment law. Mr. Hoopes is not an employee – he was a political appointee, and if he were to continue in the post it would be through another political appointment. There is no requirement to ignore political considerations when making political appointments – quite the contrary, they are always made with political considerations.

    Comment by Tano — January 24, 2010 @ 10:37 pm - January 24, 2010

  4. Unfortunately, the only thing that makes gay marriage an issue is the of the rights guaranteed by law that comes with a marriage certificate. Pure and simple. Politicians can say all they want about it being a state’s issue, but eventually, it’s going to come to the rights the Federal government affords to married people (nost notably – federal taxes). Equal protection under the law! It seems to me that since states have already started recognizing same sex marriages/civil unions, then the feds should automatically be recognizing them as well. I know many couples who already considered themselves married, some for many decades. Just time for the gov’t to catch up to reality

    Comment by Kevin — January 24, 2010 @ 10:48 pm - January 24, 2010

  5. Tano, you can continue to lie, but you simply have no leg on which to stand in this one.

    Leslee Stewart, the Paramount’s general manager, said in a statement dated November 11, 2008 that the Paramount Theatre of the Arts Inc., is a nonprofit 501(c)3 corporation that follows IRS rules.

    The theatre “does not prohibit or interfere with the right of any citizen, including members of its board and its employees, to participate in political activity if rules aren’t violated.

    “In this case,” Stewart stated, “the board member acted entirely on his own. … It would not be appropriate for the Paramount either to support or oppose his views.”

    This also points out the other problem; this deliberate act of discrimination based on religious belief and political affiliation is being supported, promoted, and pushed by an Oakland city leader.

    The openly gay Colbruno is an Oakland planning commissioner.

    Then again, Colbruno’s unethical and bigoted behavior is not a surprise; his sexual partner is also a corrupt, lying bigot.

    Do you really think your support of discrimination and bigotry helps the public perception of gays and lesbians, Tano? Do you think your repeated demonstrations of ignorance on these topics and support for proven bigots and corrupt politicos is good for your argument that your sexual orientation makes you think and act the way that you do?

    We understand that you act solely out of irrational hatred and a belief in your minority status giving you magical power to ignore right and wrong, but seriously, why don’t you educate yourself on these topics before making such ignorant comments? You do the gay and lesbian community no favors by your constant argument that your sexual orientation requires you to support unethical and bigoted behavior from gays and lesbians.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2010 @ 11:04 pm - January 24, 2010

  6. BTW #54 is not me.

    I read this and wonder how all these people approving of actions against someone for their beliefs feel if the sides are reversed. I suspect I know, as it is the same reason none of these folks are in Iran protesting the hanging of gays there. A coward is often a bully.

    Comment by Kevin — January 24, 2010 @ 11:52 pm - January 24, 2010

  7. Thank you ND20 for taking Tano apart, again.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 25, 2010 @ 6:58 am - January 25, 2010

  8. #

    It comes down to the use of a word. Whether that word, which, of course, would be a totally accurate description of the relationship being formalized, shall be allowed to be used.

    Comment by Tano — January 24, 2010 @ 3:35 pm – January 24, 2010

    I take issue with this bit of nonsense. It is not “totally accurate” to describe what I have in the same terms one describes what a man and a woman have. Eons of culture, mythology, symbolism, tradition, and power relationships cannot be glossed over with a turn of phrase. I have something different – not something worse or lower, but something definitely distinct that is not what they have.

    Heterosexuals have something that’s theirs and has been for thousands of years. Why can’t we get something that’s ours?

    Comment by DoDoGuRu — January 25, 2010 @ 8:16 am - January 25, 2010

  9. #58 DoDoGuRu: In the same comment (#37) is this statement:

    Those who support civil unions, but oppose gay marriage, are putting us all through this nonsense because they want to “protect” the use of this word by not using it to describe the reality that they are willing to allow.
    Go figure….

    If you reduce the argument to this bit of oversimplified jingoism, you are trapped by its own reality. The gay fighting furiously for the right to be included in the word marriage is wasting his time when he can obtain the legal benefits by accepting the status of civil union.

    Plessey v Ferguson provides and interesting model here. The gay would argue that separate but equal is inherently unequal. (Equal rights do not create equality they only permit equality. Policy can still prevail to mitigate the true equality as in separate shower facilities for the sexes at the gym.)

    Many gays see marriage as a state policy. Therefore, it is a form of caste system in their view. It discriminates against gays. But if that is the line of reasoning, then one must weigh the list of people being kept out of marriage by the so-called state policy. At what point and by what authority based on the compelling societal interest does the state have the obligation to limit access to marriage?

    One way to avoid this endless round of battles over marriage is to create a true state policy in which the state offers a remedy through specific civil union statutes. This is no different than the common law marriage understandings that states have used for many years.

    Many gays like to hitch themselves to the history of blacks being barred from marrying whites. Blacks were barred from one man, one woman marriage if the intended spouse was white. (And vice-versa.) This was a race issue, not a marriage issue.

    I wholeheartedly agree with your assessments. If gay civil unions are permitted by state policy, then all the other marriage wannabes are free to make their case for the same recognition.

    The civil union route is to clear up other state policies that would be applied differently if the couple were a recognized “authorized/legal” pair. It is about adjusting the states codes and nothing more. I have no fight with loving gay couples having the same state code benefits and obligations my wife and I share.

    So, if one wants to reduce all of this to a silly battle over getting to use the word “marriage” I would suggest that one’s argument is so shallow that it can not be detected.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 25, 2010 @ 11:16 am - January 25, 2010

  10. […] Hating & Blacklisting Supporters of Traditional Marriage […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » The Lindsay Wagner Case for Gay Marriage — January 25, 2010 @ 6:18 pm - January 25, 2010

  11. I always like to visit this site when I need the voice of reason. For the past few weeks, I have had to listen to pro gay activist demonize a man with whom they disagree. I am huge fan of gay marriage but when you start calling a man a homophobe and bigot without taking the time to find out where he stands, sounds exactly like the African-American who calls the cop racist because he wears blue. The argument is old and tired and needs to be retired. I am glad to see that I am not crazy. The debate continues over at A Better Oakland.

    Comment by Ralph — January 27, 2010 @ 1:35 am - January 27, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.