Another highly OFFENSIVE, anti-gay editorial.

[cboy4]

Yes, because as we all know .. the homos are on a rampage, burning cities, in fact, to get what they want. :eyes:

MORE PREACHING FROM STRAIGHT FOLKS ABOUT THE CORRECT WAY TO FIGHT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS:

Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage

:wtf:


Had supporters of gay marriage shown as much fervor for their cause before the Nov. 4 election as they have since, they probably would have defeated Proposition 8. But they will surely fail in their campaign to repeal the ban if threats and coercion continue to be among their tactics.

The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy.

But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.

The gay marriage movement is at a crossroads. It can become more combative, or it can build on the support of the near-majority who came close to defeating Proposition 8. Building support clearly is the better path.

Anger is not a strategy. Harassment will not change minds and can cause a wider backlash. Stifling others' rights of expression is destructive to the cause of a minority.

One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative.

Economic actions dating back to the Montgomery bus boycott are staples of any civil rights struggle. Gay marriage supporters are posting the identities of Proposition 8 donors, and people certainly are free to not patronize businesses owned by those who disagree with them. But the selective boycotts of small donors clearly is meant to send a message of intimidation and suppress the First Amendment right of expression. That is not just self-defeating but dangerous.

Supporters of equal rights would be wiser to focus on persuading others of the justice of their cause, which will only grow clearer over time.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595

[WillParkinson]

1. Hrm...

"But the selective boycotts of small donors clearly is meant to send a message of intimidation and suppress the First Amendment right of expression. "

So not voicing our displeasure isn't suppressing our rights...?

[yardwork]

9. So if I don't spend my money on those who hate me I'm violating their rights?

The Mercury News endorsed McCain-Palin for president. 'nuff said.

[Maat]

25. The government is the only one who can violate First Amendment rights ...

or its contracted agent ... how many times do I have to explain that to religious ignoramuses?

Geez, could they take a civics class?

I, on the other hand, have no obligation to be nice to bigots whatsoever.

[Divine Discontent]

2. hey, maybe it's that guy who posted the same story on here about the gay enemies list

who was griping and throwing a fit about how GLBTers and their supporters are hurting the cause for rights by protesting people who backed this prop, not only with their vote, but actually thought to themselves --- "this economy is going horrible, and I may not have a job tomorrow - but, hell yeah, I'm donating hundreds of dollars to the fight against these gay people with their 'give us marriage too' gross shit!' and helping the yes on 8 campaign!"

lol... you donate money to them, be prepared to answer why you would support the removal of a right given people to marry who they want - or don't donate.


Many different Yes We Did items in the Obama/Biden section www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[Berry Cool]

3. Wow, I thought this was just going to be advocacy against vandalism and violence

but advoacy against boycotts?

Wow, with thought processes like this, there never would have been any sit-ins at Woolworth's to demand civil rights either. I mean, it's not like no African Americans ever worked at Woolworth's and might have had their livelihoods threatened by a sit-in.

[QC]

7. You just don't understand!

Those businesses have a *right* to our patronage, dammit!

[keepCAblue]

23. Yup...Gandhi and King are rolling over in their graves

Gandhi brought the British to their knees with the salt boycott and King, with the bus boycott, etc.

Yet Herhold (the Merc's editor) says people don't sympathize with "the gays" the way they did with the blacks in the sixties. I am so sick of straight people dismissing our struggle for equality as "less than" any other minority's struggle. If I recall, when King was studying Gandhi's protest methods of non-violent direct action, King too was told that Gandhi's approach to protest would never work for the blacks in America because the populous on a whole reviled them so much. Now, how ironic that it is this same load of bullshit being thrown in our faces.

I for one am happy to throw the bullshit right back. Take this boycott and eat it, Herhold.

[terrya]

4. Who in their right minds are going to want to do business with bigots?

And, to me, there aren't any shades of grey anymore on this issue. If you finacially contribute to take away our rights, you're a bigot. Period.

[mondo joe]

5. Hey, assface, boycotts can't suppress First Amendment rights because the First Amendment

safeguards against *government* infringing on free speech. It doesn't convey the right to anyone's shopping dollar.

[bluedawg12]

6. Looks like some editor got the FRC memo, alright.

His slip is showing: "One ugly case was the boisterous protest " of dozens??

Oh wow, is that ugly! That's terrible, dozens protest! :rofl:

[RetiredTrotskyite]

8. Different Day, Same Shit

No matter what we do, the bigots are going to figure out a way to skew it to their own advantage.

As for gays who opposed the initiative, I'm supposed to feel sorry that they may have lost their livelihood. Oh yeah, let's use each other against civil rights. If you voted for this hateful proposition, you are a bigot, no matter what your sexuality!

As for rights of expression, we have been silenced by fear and self-hatred for centuries! It is now time for the bigots to STFU and quit spewing hatred. They have a right to their opinion, but they do not have the right to raise fear and hatred against us.

[bluedawg12]

10. Has any proven who committed the alleged vandalism?

If there are no culprits, if the police have not arrested anyone, this OP ED should STFU and not smear the gay movement with what might be an act committed by "someone" for the exact reason of blaming gays.

[cboy4]

11. It wouldn't be a day of the week ending with "day" if gays

weren't being blamed for something.

[bluedawg12]

13. This OP ED wants to turn public sentiment away from gay protest

in order to take away OUR right to free speech, protest and peacful assembly.

It's the classic: "know your place uppity gays," message.

[xchrom]

12. get the fuck off my life -- and i won't boycot 'small business' owners -

and publish donors names -- all the shit you're complainging about -- you started.

[bluedawg12]

14. The State publshes political donors all of the time - for reason

and good cause.

Now they want to hide their hateful donations and claim a right to secrecy they aren't due.

[mrbarber]

15. Hey now.

I don't think calling that editorial "anti-gay" or "offensive" is fair. It's not like the other article that was posted here a few days ago from the college editorial page.

And yes, anyone vandalizing any building is a crime.

As for protesting the small diner-I see nothing wrong with that. If they want to strip away people's rights, and are aware that doing so will put them on PUBLIC RECORD just like all donations will, than they should expect a backlash. THey have a right to support whatever cause they want, just like other people have a right to protest/boycott their products or places of business.

Edit: Let me rephrase that. The article is in the wrong on all levels (except for the vandalism part, but I agree, if there is no proof that it was a member of the No on 8 base, it has no bearing on the topic at hand-and hell, even if it was, it by no means sheds the entire movement in a negative light) but I don't feel is as full of hate as some of the other editorials I've read out there. Or maybe I'm just being to nice for my own good, please don't think I"m defending it in any way.

[cboy4]

16. The editorial is yet another one in a series lecturing gay

people about how they should go about achieving civil rights.

It is majorly offensive.

Something doesn't have to be "full of hate" for me to find it repulsive.

I can read between the lines perfectly.

[mrbarber]

17. Absolutely.

It is very offensive and preachy, but I just don't see the "full of hate" part. There is real hate out there, and it's dangerous to trivialize it by calling everything hateful. Save that statement for those things that really deserve it, IMHO.

But yes, very preachy and very offensive. Again, please don't think I"m in any way defending this editorial or the author.

[cboy4]

18. Where did I say the editorial is "full of hate"?

You put those words in quotation marks, so I assume you're attributing them to me.

But I did not call the editorial hateful or say it was full of hate.

I said it is offensive (which it is) and it's anti-gay, which it also is.

I don't think you're defending what was written, BTW.

[mrbarber]

19. You didn't. The title fo the thread was "anti-gay"....

..which naturally lends itself to being hateful in nature.

http://www.dailycollegian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=6737dcb0-a1b4-4e5b-9010-878f62ee1cfd#81d411e7-8278-4bb2-aeb9-5500bba819bc

That is an anti-gay editorial. That is hateful, and mean spirited, and full of lies.

This article is offensive, but It's not anti-gay in nature, IMHO. It's preachy, but with lines like

"The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy."

I think calling it anti-gay, and using the term anti-gay to also describe organizations and writers like Focus on the Family, isn't fair to the writer. I think the writer of this editorial would be more than willing to listen to reason and might change their opinion on the matter if they were helped to see it in another light, unlike the author of the previous editorial and her supporters, who are just hate filled and looking to smear the gay community anyway they can.

But maybe I'm just being to optimistic, but I have seen several people who at one time were ardently anti-gay marriage turn over a new leaf. I guess I'm just hoping there's, well, hope.

[bluedawg12]

21. The article is anti gay, it offends me and others, most likely.

>>I don't think calling that editorial "anti-gay" or "offensive" is fair<<

The very first example that the OP Ed gives, is an unproven alleged crime, that he implies is a product of gay protests.

That is unfair! What crimes in specific? Who has been arrested for any of these alleged crimes? Until those facts are known do not lay that at the door of a peaceful movement.

>>But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive. <<

In America, people are innocent until proven guilty. That alone deserves a retraction and apology to the good people, gay and straight alike, who protest in peaceful solidarity.

>>Anger is not a strategy. Harassment will not change minds and can cause a wider backlash. Stifling others' rights of expression is destructive to the cause of a minority. <<

Anger is a human emotion and anger at bigotry is a justified and normal response.

The strategy is protest, boycott and legal action. Fair and legal tools.

No one is stifling other’s rights of expression.
The proHate8 people had the right to express fear mongering lies about gays all over the air waves and media, for weeks, before and even after the vote.

Preachers had the right to make political speeches from tax exempt pulpits.

This is biased language:

>>“One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant ...”<<

The protest was ugly? That’s a pejorative version of events that shows bias.

Dozens of protestors? Not hundred or thousands, is ugly?

Then, the portrayal of the “victim” as a small business, only donated a small amount “$100."

No facts. No way to verify what small business. No way to verify who and how many protested. No way to verify how much the business donated. In short, biased pro-small business language, as “code” for a Silicone Valley news paper, without facts.

And then this double talk:

>>Economic actions dating back to the Montgomery bus boycott are staples of any civil rights struggle. Gay marriage supporters are posting the identities of Proposition 8 donors, and people certainly are free to not patronize businesses owned by those who disagree with them. But the selective boycotts of small donors clearly is meant to send a message of intimidation and suppress the First Amendment right of expression. <<


“Economic actions dating back to the Montgomery bus boycott are staples of any civil rights struggle”–True.

>>“Gay marriage supporters are posting the identities of Proposition 8 donors”<< - False, the list is made public as with any political donation, there are always lists of political allies and political opponents.

“...and people certainly are free to not patronize businesses owned by those who disagree with them.” here the OP Ed advocates for individual action but then contradicts himself about the power of group activism and argues to deny that method to the gay struggle, while praising the Montgomery bus boycott.

The lukewarm support for marriage equality in the OP ED is a mask to hide the anti-gay rights activism message because by now we know that silent outreach on an individual basis is not enough, we need a political movement since that is what we are up against.

This OP Ed seeks to stifle gay protest, unlike the Montgomery protest, he seeks to stifle boycotts, peaceful assembly and peaceful protest by innuendo and speculative slurs and the OP Ed wants to turn people outside of the movement, against gay rights activism.

[mrbarber]

22. Bluedawg12-You made me see the article in a new light.

And I do now see what it is offensive and anti-gay.

Thank you for pointing out my errors while not attacking me personally.

I will have to be more observant in the future and look beyond polite words to see the true intentions underneath. Fool me once....

[bluedawg12]

24. Peace brother! Now about those crunchy pickles at Subway

LOL!

Take care of yourself and that BP and thanks for the dialogue. :fistbump:

peace-

bd12

[donco6]

20. Here's how I read it:

"Shut up, get back into the closet, and we'll give you some rights as we see fit, WHEN we see fit to get around to it. Maybe."

[madmadmad]

26. totally changed my mind- boycotts are wrong, and i'm going to be real quiet and make new friends

i know mormons, evangelicals and hardline catholics will come around if i just smile a lot, spend lots of money at their businesses and not flaunt my homosexuality in their face by doing something perverted like getting marrirred.

so maybe if i'm i'm real, real, quiet and don't make any waves or draw attention to myself, in 50 years they will treat me almost like an equal.

sounds like a great plan, right?

[yardwork]

27. It worked with Dick Cheney.