Such is the nature of the large coalitions that constitute our major political parties that sometimes part of an interest group within one of those coalitions goes off the proverbial deep end. Such is the case with the over-the-top and offensive response adopted by some in the gay rights community in response to passage of Prop 8 in California.
Activists aggressively confronting, harassing, and attempting to intimidate those with whom they disagree is appalling. Political free speech is political free speech. Donating to a cause someone supports shouldn't become a license to try to make that person's life miserable, especially for the mere reason that you disagree with their political choice.
Locally, we have seen a more moderated response from those on the left upset with the passage of Prop 8...well, mostly.
Nevertheless, the appalling escalation of hate-filled rhetoric and intimidation - just a tad ironic come from the gay rights community - in response to others utilizing their own right to free speech remains a stain on the Democratic coalition if left unchecked.
Republicans and conservatives in the aggregate have attempted to self-police their ranks, with varying success. That includes drumming out the Birchers, rejecting anti-abortion activists utilizing violence as a form of protest, and publicly refusing the "Obama is a Muslim" rhetoric of some loons on the right.
The left and Democrats have generally attempted to do likewise (see eco-terrorists, 9/11 truthers, etc.). While neither party coalition is perfect in tamping down idiocy, the rise of virile, anti-free speech activity in the wake of Prop 8 is a trend crying out for a Sister Souljah moment from the someone - or some entity - prominent on the left. The alternative is not very appealing.
UPDATE: I hate to break it to John K at comment #1 - who does an amusing job of playing directly to negative stereotype - that just because you disagree with someone's political choices, does not mean you have the right to make their lives "miserable" or declare their electoral success a "farcical version of 'democracy.'"
Prop 8 supporters got a ballot measure qualified for the ballot itself, then proceeded to pass what is construed as a conservative outcome in a blue state (in a high turnout Presidential election year of all things!). Just because you disagree with the outcome does not make it a farce.
UPDATE II: point of reference, here's my post on the topic back in November when things first came to a head.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 08, 2009 12:50 PM | Email ThisAnd, what the hell do you mean by "Having the ability to make decisions as a voting public brings with it certain responsibilities, and the Prop. 8 people violated those responsibilities in an absolutely egregious manner." Are you saying that responsible votes are only those votes that support your agenda? How pretentious and arrogant! Typical for a fricking tool.
As Cheney said to Leahy, " Go F**K yourself."
Posted by: Michael H on February 8, 2009 02:33 PMWhere are the hate-crime cops when you need them?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 8, 2009 03:04 PMThis is not a matter of me thinking anyone who thinks differently than me is violating their democratic responsibilities. But on this issue, yes, they are. Not if they voted for John McCain even though I voted for Obama. Not if they are against the stimulus package even if I'm for it. Not if they are ideologically opposed to all hate crimes legislation (but not if they are only opposed to sexual orientation hate crimes legislation) even though I think such legislation is a good idea. THOSE are simple political disagreements. However, the majority passing a law that preserves rights for that majority and removes them from a minority are morally reprehensible. Prop. 8 falls into that category, and that takes it out of the realm of "mere political differences."
Posted by: John K. on February 8, 2009 04:40 PMThey seem to have forgotten the will of "We the People" ... the very same "We the People" they brag gave us bambi.
It's all very reminiscent of gran, bam, and grumpy's idea of "bipartisanship": I won, you obey.... in other words, only what they want when they want it, no dissention.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 8, 2009 05:12 PMAdvocates of same-sex marriage will complain that such an interpretation - in effect, forcing involuntary divorce upon thousands of couples - is heartless. Lest anyone be swayed by such emotional appeals, we need to be reminded of what the status quo was before the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in May. Through the state's expansive "domestic partnership" scheme, same-sex couples already had access to 100 percent of the legal rights and benefits of marriage under state law. ...
... Same-sex couples in California have lost one thing and one thing only - the word "marriage." ...
... The simple fact that same-sex relationships are not called "marriages" does not imply that they are inferior to opposite-sex relationships. All it implies is that they are different. Since opposite-sex relationships are the only kind that ever fulfills the essential public purpose of reproducing the human race, and same-sex relationships never can, it would be difficult to argue that there is no difference between them. ...
...So, what's the final score of Proposition 8? Number of same-sex couples who remain "married" in California - zero. Number of marital rights and benefits lost by same-sex couples in California - zero. Insult to same-sex relationships implicit in passage of Proposition 8 - zero.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 8, 2009 05:22 PM
I have the right to find out whether businesses I patronize are donating to causes I oppose (for whatever reason), that I may boycott them.
I have the right to vet the affiliations of people I hire that I might discriminate (yes, discriminate) against people whose views I despise. (Sorry, "liberal" isn't a "protected class" under the law.)
I have the right to speak freely and truthfully with the employers and affiliates of people whose contribute to causes I oppose.
So do you. If you don't want to work with, live near, or patronize the business of someone who donated to a group supporting Prop 8, or the ACLU, or the LaRouche PAC, or Focus on the Family, that's your right. Freedom of association cuts both ways.
If you want to peacefully lobby your misguided neighbor, that's your right.
The only rights you and I don't - and shouldn't - have is the right to inflict or threaten physical harm or property damage, or to make untruthful (libelous or slanderous) statements about a private person to harm them.
Yah, so what? There are all kinds of rights people shouldn't have.
Nobody should have the right to club someone over the head just because they don't like them. People shouldn't have the right to shout "fire" in crowded theater. People shouldn't have the right to have their 5 year old watch porn.
Anyhow, if you want to be consistent, are you willing to say that the opinion of people who are against the "right" of a brother and sister, or a parent and child, or a grandparent and grandchild, to marry, to marry also should not be valid because their opinion is that "we shouldn't have rights?"
Or is it just your PERSONAL subgroup you are concerned about, damn everyone else?
Posted by: cliff on February 8, 2009 06:49 PMDemocracy is, and always has been, a messy way of doing things.
Posted by: deadwood on February 8, 2009 07:00 PM
Because it's generally assumed that folks getting a marriage certificate who aren't already living together are going to be living together, most likely the next day after they get married.
People in DPs are forced to out themselves on government forms simply by being in DPs, making it impossible for them to serve in the military under Don't Ask Don't Tell.
And a marriage certificate filled out by a gay couple wouldn't?
Posted by: Mike H (different from Michael H above) on February 8, 2009 08:12 PMSecondly, you make presumptions about my positions on things. I don't have an ideological objection to incestuous marriages (between consenting adults). However, incestuous couples who bear children have an increased risk of those children having birth defects. This harms that child. We can debate whether that is a good reason to keep them from marrying considering we don't stop others from marrying who might know they have genetic predispositions to passing birth defects to their children, but the issue is not the same as same-sex marriage. Same thing with polygamy. I don't think it's necessarily immoral, but it would actually be necessary to change the structure of marriage itself to accomodate such unions. Who get alimony, child support, or custody in the event of a divorce? How about tax structures with multiple extra people involved? Again, these are things that can be discussed, but they are not the same as gay marriage, which changes NOTHING about the structure of the institution.
Again, I think gay people are justified in doing just what they are doing in the wake of Prop. 8. Certainly boycotts, and I would say acts of civil disobedience as well. I will not go so far as to condone violence or property damage, but at the same time, I cannot muster one ounce of sympathy for Prop. 8 supporters who suffer such attacks.
Posted by: John K. on February 8, 2009 08:12 PMA marriage certificate filled out by a gay couple would not necessarily out the individuals involved on a military form that simply asks for marital status. The applicant could simply check "married" and that would be that. As it stands, they must indicate they are a "party to a domestic partnership," which instantly outs them in a way "married" would not.
And Eric: Yes it does, and we will make their lives miserable until they start acting right. Again, they've made our lives miserable, so it's only fair. The process is a farce because it ignores the fact that equal protection necessarily precludes a simple majority from making exceptions to it. If a simple majority can make exceptions, equal protection means absolutely nothing. Farce.
Posted by: John K. on February 8, 2009 08:18 PMThat's not exactly a free democratic society in action. It's, dare I say, "liberal fascism" in action.
Try winning at the ballot box when you have the chance rather than on insisting that others who disagree with you not be allowed to do so.
And if the outcome at the ballot box is as unlawful as you claim, then obviously someone should be taking it to court. Until then, your own rhetoric is doing more to discredit your position than you realize.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 8, 2009 08:45 PMOh, OK, well then learning from your example, I won't be able to muster one ounce of sympathy next time some gay guy gets beaten for being gay either.
Anyhow, I'd like to know where you have this list of "fundamental rights" for one thing. I'm guessing it's whatever you say it is.
I feel as if I should have a fundamental right to work for $1hr if I so desire, or perhaps work for one of the bailout companies for $1 trillion dollars an hour, but the government won't allow it. How is this right not fundamental? Isn't working fundamental? Everybody needs to work.
we will make their lives miserable until they start acting right.
This is the most comically revealing statement I've ever heard.
I can just see a "Christian fundamentalist" saying this about gays and them going apespit.
Posted by: cliff on February 8, 2009 09:10 PMThe founding fathers understood the problem. That's why they made our country a "republic" instead. It is why we have the electoral college. It's why we have the filibuster parliamentary procedure in the senate. It is why we have both a senate with equal representation and a house with proportional representation. It's why we have a federalist system that creates a union of otherwise independent and sovereign states. It was never intended that the United States become a monolithic, direct democracy.
The next time you hear a liberal complain about the electoral college and pine for its demise...just point out that direct democracy gives us things like prop 8. That should shut them up.
Posted by: blindman on February 8, 2009 10:18 PMIn California, elderly opposite-sex couples seeking to avoid a marriage penalty in Social Security can enter into domestic partnerships. OH. MY. GOD. Having to be outed as ELDERLY! Will the insult never end?
Again, I think gay people are justified in doing just what they are doing in the wake of Prop. 8.
I see. You think it OK to have public tantrums, vandalize property and destroy careers because you didn't get what you want.
47% of voters didn't get what they wanted in the election. ONE HUNDRED NINETEEN MILLION of us are not getting what we want with the "stimulus" package. Perhaps you can share with us effective tools of civil disobedience, tantrum tactics and intimidation techniques. You WILL stand up and defend us won't you, since we are "justified" by our unhappiness oveer the results?
It's called the tyranny of the majority.
No flipping kidding: gran, bam, grumpy, and pattys porkfest package.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 8, 2009 10:39 PMFor example:
Pro: Prop 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that Canadian marriage is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of Canadian lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.
Con: Proposition 8 mandates one set of rules for Canadian couples and another for everyone else. That’s just not fair. Our laws should treat everyone fairly and equally.
Posted by: Acid Brain on February 9, 2009 10:35 AMSubstituting Canadian makes me want to support then ban on Canadian marriage. ;)
Posted by: pbj on February 9, 2009 11:40 AM