As promised, here is the Ugly part of “The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly.” And it is ugly. Disturbing, actually. In all honesty, I was dismayed to see what some in the GLBT community are now doing. But I am getting ahead of myself. The article I read was this one, “Next Time, They Come For You“.

Now, I imagine that for many that title conjures up the poem by Pastor Niemoller, “They Came First For the Communists…” And I imagine that is no accident by the author, Rod Dreher. The poem concludes, “Then They Came For Me, and by that time, no one was left to speak up.” Powerful piece, but a lesson not yet learned:

If you gave money to the successful Proposition 8* campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California, you’d better watch out. Anonymous gay-marriage activists have mashed up public data with Google mapping technology to create Eightmaps.com, an online map to your home. And it’s perfectly legal.

Alarmed Prop 8 backers recently filed a federal lawsuit seeking an injunction against a state law forcing citizens who give $100 or more to campaigns to disclose their names and addresses. We had all better hope they prevail.

“I don’t get the fear,” gay-marriage campaigner Andrew Sullivan disingenuously wrote on his popular blog. “If Prop 8 supporters truly feel that barring equality for gay couples is vital for saving civilization, shouldn’t they be proud of their financial support?”

Andrew Sullivan. Please. He’s being made the voice of the GLBT community?

I certainly hope not, and not just because, as some of you may recall, he continues to nominate me for The Moore Award (not all bad, really – it is the Michael Moore award, and Moore has done some pretty good work in is day). Oh – I don’t know how it ended up – last I heard, I was beating out Gloria Steinem. But I digress. Andrew Sullivan is an HIV+ gay man who advertises for unprotected sex. That used to get you an attempted murder charge. Oh, and he’s an arrogant, pompous, condescending jerk. His quote above pretty much shows how disingenuous he is – he doesn’t get the fear? With gay bashing on the rise in the United States, he doesn’t get it? Right.

The article continues:

Oh, please. This is why people are frightened by Eightmaps:

•Margie Christofferson, a manager of a popular Hollywood restaurant, did not talk about her politics or her religion but quietly gave $100 to the Prop 8 campaign. Activists swarmed the restaurant, with a mob getting so out of hand that riot police had to be called.

•A man who wrote a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle supporting Prop 8 soon found that gay activists posted to the Web personal information about him and, as appalled Chronicle columnist John Diaz noted, urged “in ugly language, retribution against the author’s business and its identified clients.”

•In Los Angeles and Salt Lake City, someone sent mysterious white powder to Mormon temples, apparently to protest the Latter-day Saints Church’s role in passing Prop 8.

•In Fresno, police said the city’s mayor and a local pastor received death threats over their support for Prop 8. Vandals pelted the pastor’s church with eggs.

There’s more where this came from. Given what gay-rights fanatics have shown themselves capable of – did you see the YouTube footage of a furious gay mob chasing a group of Christians out of the Castro district? – who can blame traditional marriage supporters for being afraid?

This is the video referenced above:

The article continues, and oh, joy – another quote from Sullivan:

In online Eightmaps discussion, gays typically take the line that anyone who would vote to take away their marriage rights deserves what he gets (Sullivan: “Why should you be able to protect yourself from the consequences?”). Extremism in the defense of gay marriage, therefore, is no vice. Let this be a lesson about the tolerance those who do not support same-sex marriage will receive if it becomes legal.

Why should someone be able to protect themselves from the consequences of having their own opinion?? Oh, gee, I dunno – because the CONSTITUTION guarantees it?? We have Free Speech in this country, Andrew. The following clip from the wonderful movie, “The American President,” sums it up nicely:

So, that’s why. You don’t have to like what someone else has to say, but s/he has the right to say it without fear of threat or reprisal (unless what the person is saying is threatening). It is a Constitutional right. The article continues:

Eightmaps.commies are so caught up in their own revenge drama that they don’t understand how this technique can be used against homosexuals. It won’t be long before far-right radicals draw on publicly available data to create an online map to gay-rights supporters’ homes. How safe will gay folks in small towns feel if gay bashers are one click away from a map to their house?

For that matter, anyone who wants to give money to a candidate or cause will wonder if it’s worth taking the risk of being eightmapped by radicals. Would you give to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, La Raza or Planned Parenthood if you thought right-wing goons would eightmap you, as these left-wing goons have eightmapped social conservatives? Could you afford to put your family at risk?

And that’s the only conceivable point of Eightmaps: to intimidate ordinary people into political docility.

Eightmaps is a vicious cultural bellwether. It rips apart a common understanding that makes it possible for us to live together in a diverse democracy. Today, technology makes a great deal of personal information about each of us publicly available. We therefore depend more than ever on the restraining power of custom – such as the shared sense that people have the right to feel safe in their own home – to keep that information from misuse.

And that “political docility” seems to be the hallmark of this recent election cycle. I have never seen this level of thuggery, threat, and intimidation before, certainly not by Democrats. But now we have Black Panthers standing outside polling places, groups going into polling places disseminating political propaganda, groups wearing vulgar hate speech t-shirts, shouting down Congresswomen, destroying private property, and hunting people down for not supporting their candidate. Those of us who have the audacity to speak out against The One have had to guard our privacy jealously for fear of reprisal. Too many have been the recipients of damage done in one form or another, from character assassination to having to spend time and money to counter mischief made against us. All because we did not agree.

As the author says, it comes down to custom:

Recall this memorable exchange between William Roper and Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s play A Man for All Seasons:

Roper: Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil? Yes. I’d cut down every law in England to do that.

More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? … I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.

Substitute the phrase “custom” for “law,” and you have captured the danger of what the Eightmaps people have done. They may believe Prop 8 backers are devils, but they ought to give the devils the benefit of custom for their own safety’s sake – especially given the vulnerability homosexuals have always had to gay-bashers.

When some techno-savvy barbarians turn this technique against them, remember Sullivan’s snide brush-off to Eightmaps’ potential victims: “Cry me a river.”

He’ll regret that one day. We all will.

Rod Dreher is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist. His e-mail address is rdreher@dallasnews.com.

“Cry me a river.” Yes, typical compassionate Sullivan. What shocks and appalls me is that a community that has long been on the receiving end of this kind of treatment is now engaging in this kind of treatment. Given that gay bashing is already on the rise, what in the world would stop someone from using Eightmaps to target people who give to the Human Rights Campaign? PFLAG? GLAAD? Any number of gay-positive organizations? Or Women’s organizations?

And, why is it that these GLBT thugs seem to have isolated a select group of people for their ire? Why not the African American community, or the Hispanic community, both of which voted in large numbers for Obama, and FOR Proposition 8? Why don’t they hold Obama accountable for placing someone like Doug Kmiec, a Pro-Prop 8 supporter, head of his Faith Outreach Team? Oh, I am sure most of those people still bow and scrape before Obama, denying to their core his own stance against gay marriage, his numerous insiders against gay marriage (Rick Warren, Tim Kaine), but they’ll target a restaurant owner who gave $100 bucks? Seems to me they have their priorities a bit skewed.

And their morals. While it may not be illegal to post online directions to people’s homes, it is immoral and unethical when the intent is to harass them, and that is clearly the intent of these thugs. How is it that they think this is going to help our cause? Do they honestly think that terrorizing these people is going to make them MORE willing to support LGBT marriage? Really? And do they not see how very much alike they are to gay bashers with these actions? They are targeting people with intent to intimidate (at the least), and possibly do harm just because they disagree with their stand, and they don’t see the irony?

Well, I do. And I am disturbed by it. No one wants gay marriage more than I do, but not by threats of violence and intimidation. This is wrong on so many levels, and I am sickened by their behavior. They do not represent our community well with their actions. They are acting rashly, and without a care to the long term consequences of their actions. They may get some short-term thrill or victory from it (in their minds), but they are causing long term harm to the community, and to our cause.

And they need to stop. Now. Just because other thugs on the Obama bandwagon got away with this kind of action does not make it right or acceptable. Violence begets violence, and if we start targeting people, they will just target us right back (more). Bottom line, it will do nothing but set back our cause, and will damage the entire community in the making. It is the wrong way for civilized people to conduct themselves, and it is the wrong way to get what we want – equality.

* Just out of curiosity, why does NO ONE ever mention Amendment 2 in Florida, which also passed this past election? It is always Prop 8 that gets the attention, even though Amendment 2 was pretty much the same. Doesn’t make sense to me…

  • Gary McGowan

    Andrew Sullivan, a non-U.S. citizen who focuses on American political life, herding the unwary to fascism. (To be clear, that is quite likely not his intention–just a result of his background. He’s probably just a whoop-whooping ignoramus.)

    Fascism is control of the feisty part of the population while their nation is taken through the final stages of its destruction.

    If people, especially leaders at various levels and in various domains, don’t gain perspective on individual issues vs. strategic operations, “ugly” will be an understatement for what will prevail for at least some generations in the future.

    Being propelled along the current, not seeing enemies of our nation and its Constitution and what it stands for, who are well-practiced experts in running such operations, is naiveté.

    Eschew chaos.

  • R3A

    With you and Obama it is ALWAYS personal. You never miss a chance to hurl mud at the man. Calling his supporters thugs, hurling unsubstantiated rumors, and otherwise broadcasting every bit of paranoia, left or right wing that you can find.

    A women of your certain age would know that the real Black Panthers died an ugly death in the late 70’s. You would also know that the Panthers were mainly a NorCal phenomena. The “Panthers” that Obamaphobes bandy about are not in any shape or form the same people who raised Cain and raised consciousness in Oakland CA in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Your “Panthers” were young, foolish hooligans who rummaged through dad’s (or maybe granddad’s) trunk and found his old leather jacket and beret. They were posers who only knew that the Panthers were the original bad-asses and wanted to be seen as bad-asses too. They were an offshoot of a fringe group with only the most tenuous connection to a organizing committee that had a marginal connection to a get-out-the-vote campaign by supporters of Obama.

    It sickens me that you would drag this rancid. and yes racist, trope of Panther thugs around. You of all people should know better.

    Zeroing in on the rest of missive. First please note that the pro 8 forces have also used the very same contributions data to strong-arm businesses to shell out to their cause. Your analysis is far too one sided here.

    Plus I must really ask what kind of ministry did you actually run while you were active? Must not have been one that had much contact with real people with real raw emotions. Come on R3A, the LGBT community got hit in the gut by prop 8; just like they got hit in the gut by the assassination of Harvey Milk. Damn strait they were a little raw after the vote and did some foolish things. People do have a limit you know. How long would you allow a group of Bible-Beaters to harangue one of your congregations inside the sanctuary before you called the cops? Even U-U’s have their limits.

    Damn straight the LGBT community got into the grill of the manager of Coyote. That restaurant was smack dab in the middle of the beating heart of the local gay community. It would be like a rib-joint in Watts giving money to the KKK. It called “a bad business decision.” If you have problems with gays having equal citizenship rights then maybe, just maybe you should not be doing business with them. And the community has every right to picket your business and boycott your business and exercise their free speech prerogatives in a very rude manner.

    R3A real politics is not a U-U congregational board meeting. Real politics has damn little to do with Roberts Rules of order. Real people get real angry and do stupid things. The first amendment type in me tut-tuts the LGBTs who may have rough-housed the Bible Beaters who tried to “lead them back to righteousness” The realist asked “what the hell did those evangelistic morons expect, hugs and kisses?” Those Jesus freaks ignorantly and willfully blundered into a buzz-saw. This not a justification this is just the reality of the situation. This is why every major city has riot police on the payroll.

    As for Mr Sullivan he is an interesting conundrum a gay, married, conservative, Catholic, Republican. It is a wonder the man does not collapse into a singularity of contradiction. His party and his church are deeply offended by his sexuality and his he has burned all sorts of bridges with his pro-Bush, Pro-Iraq ruminations that were quickly flipped into Anti-Bush, Anti-Iraq and pro-Gay marriage missives. He is one of those unguided missiles of political/ideological purity that land in some of the most bizarre territory. He is one of those happy fools that rush in were angles dare not tread. Still I must steal a line from Douglas Addams and rate Mr. Sullivan as “Mostly Harmless.”

    Going forward it is critical to get over the anger and focus on out-reach. The message to LGBTs must be “come out, come out, where ever you are.” Only when straights are confronted by flesh and blood LGBTs will they reconsider there biases. That is the carrot. But if you ever were a real rebel rouser you damn well know that you never get ahead by just asking. You have to do a Mandela and “keep the pressure on.” You have to get into bigots grills and let them know that their are consequences for denying people their basic rights. You have to let businesses know that there are consequences to betraying their client base. You have to be a Dixie Chick and not be ready to make nice. Real progress sometimes demands that you be willing to throw some very sharp elbows.

    It would be lovely if the political field were run like a U-U General Assembly; lovely and a tad boring. But the Mormons and the evangelicals are not interested in an exchange of ideas Amy. They are only interested in imposing there narrow theology on the rest of us slackers. They are the termites gnawing away at the wall that separates church from state and like the title page of this blog there is No Quarter with them.

    • Wow, James – you managed to not miss an opportunity to hurl an ad hominem my way in this comment. It weakens any argument you might make, btw. And, perhaps you missed the numerous statements above abt the type of discourse that is acceptable here – personal attacks are not welcome.

  • Cindy

    Rev. Amy….yes, this is ugly and needed to be brought to our attention. Although I’m straight, I’ve always had a ton of gay friends. I remember in the ’60’s when gay men (though they weren’t called “gay” until the ’80’s) absolutely hated lesbians. Wouldn’t have a thing to do with them. I think it was the 1980’s and Reagan that made homosexual men realize they needed the women and each other, politically. I was happy to see the men being kind to the women, finally. When I worked at the Texas Capitol 10 years ago, my boss was the first openly gay State Representative in the state of Texas. It made me proud. But, I feel that people like Andrew Sullivan, however, abuse their influence, and undo what the GLBT has worked so hard to achieve, and it saddens me. Shame on him!

  • yttik

    Andrew Sullivan inspires homophobia. Seriously, if he was my only experience with gay men, I would assume they are all misogynistic jerks. Hell no I wouldn’t want them to have any rights, except the right to move to Siberia. He’s offensive.

    There’s that saying, you can’t take down the master’s house with the master’s tools. You cannot shame people into supporting gay rights. You cannot terrorize, harass, or threaten them. Like any other civil rights struggle, it sucks, but there are no shortcuts. You have to win over hearts and minds.

  • Erm, not that it means much at this late time, but coming back to this thread I wanted to be clear about my earlier comment. (I said it seems strategically stupid to try to use violence against a much larger community.)

    I am not, not, not, NOT saying that gays or anyone else should shut up and put up. I’m not saying that all forms of protest are bad. I’m not saying that boycotting businesses who support policies you disagree with is a bad idea. Even picketing them is completely legimitate.

    What I feel is not legitimate is intimidating individuals. That is just not right. Publishing people’s home addresses in a “those bastards” context falls into that class. It’s not right when it’s applied to gays. It’s not right when it’s applied to fascists. (Even though fascists wouldn’t see anything wrong with it. But the whole point is that there should be some difference between us and them.)

  • Katmoon

    Good Point garychapelhill

    “we gays” aren’t all part of some monolithic borg collective who act in unison.

    I don’t know if people realize this is also generational, as with all people . That can have a significant impact. I know elderly gay men who have had enough of the infighting, and are also afraid of being targeted. Their perception is much different having dealt in different times with a whole host of serious repercussions for being gay.

    • Katmoon: You are right about generations. And there are just as many different experiences for gay people as anyone else.

      When I lived in Big Sur, back in the 60’s and 70’s, I had a number of gay friends…all of whom had been out for years. Admittedly, they were artists and lived bohemian lives but they didn’t fall into the mold of today’s gay community. They related as human beings first and none of us would have thought it was any of our business about who shared whose bed. After I moved to SF, I asked one of my old friends (thinking of a lunch date) if he ever came up to the Castro. He reacted with horror adding that he would never want to be stereotyped by the “gay” lifestyle. It really had never occurred to me until then that I loved them because they were simply wonderful people. It wasn’t about sexuality. In the Castro, it’s always “in your face” and a lot of people are put off by that…including some gay people.

      • Katmoon

        I know what you mean Annie. As I have said before on NQ my dad is gay, in his late 70’s and very similar to the gentleman you describe above. His experiences go from living in the closet while in his hometown and his mother was alive (She knew, it was disrespectful to speak of it out-loud,his own self imposed method) . The sexuality thing never entered my brain as child, my Dad is my Dad. When I was older we started having the discussions about his experiences, some are so painful, you can see in his eyes as he remembers, the fear, and the shame. He moved from that small town to Hawaii, then on to San Francisco, then to the east bay.

        He left the democratic party over the treatment of Senator Clinton. He doesn’t agree with some of the issues around gay marriage, and he worries out loud, about being harmed, for being gay. This man is no coward either, as he explains(this reminds me so much of certain issues I have dealt with for women’s rights) he doesn’t want to continue to carry part of a load for those who are only concerned with themselves.

        • My former brother-in-law came out to me when his mother died. My response was “Duh, and how is this supposed to be a shock?” He was the only one who’d go see “Some Like it Hot”, “Auntie Mame”, go to The City to Finochio’s (it’s been so long, not sure I spelled that right)…an original “Birdcage”, or see Phyllis Diller with me (we knew her jokes by heart). We shared many side splitting laughs over the years. After his mother died, he was out for good. Still, he worked at the local newspaper in the San Joaquin Valley, lived in a ranch house in the suburbs with 2 different partners over the years. Not everyone is an activist whether gay or otherwise.

  • mountain girl, contrary to what you might have been told, “we gays” aren’t all part of some monolithic borg collective who act in unison. And some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time, which means we realize that many AA supporters of Obama are NOT allies to the gay community just as we’ve always known that conservative christians are not either. And I believe one of the first rules of war (and they declared it, not us–who coined ‘culture wars’?, cuz it wasn’t ‘us gays’-) is know your enemy. Saying that we don’t have the right to know who is donating to what political group (when every other opposition groups have and have always had those rights) is just further discrimination which is commonplace in our society for gay people–like marriage, for example. Unfortunately many gays have been so traumatized after lives of second class status, that they fear to “make waves” or chastise so called allies when they get stabbed in the back. Its much easier to keep on attacking the ones that nobody on “your side” likes, like christians. However, that hargly excuses their bigotry. Nobody else is going to help us fight for our rights if we’re too afraid to do it ourselves.

    • Mountain girl

      garychapelhill, I’m not saying you don’t have the right to know,I’m questioning the tactics. I suppose that most AA’s have not contributed any money to Prop 8; they just voted against it. It’s one man/one vote in this country. So it appears that you are targeting people who contributed money even though they only have one vote, perhaps assuming that their money was used to convince the less affluent, such as AA’s, to vote against Prop 8. Of course you are wrong; the AA’s don’t need to be convinced by money…they have very conservative moral beliefs that money does not buy. So, I am asking, why are you not targeting the AA’s?

  • Mountain girl

    I do have a question. Why are the gays not targeting the African American community because that is why Prop 8 lost. AA’a are very conservative socially. Obama is not real big on gay right either. I still don’t understand the gay support for him. But, not to change the focus, my real question is why have you, gays, not targeted the AA’s? Just curious.

  • Mawm

    I wouldn’t call myself rabble rousing, if I didn’t want to rouse the rabble.

    • Oh, please. Because I don’t advocate violence, threats, and intimidation I am not “rousing the rabble”? There are far better ways to make statements and fight for one’s cause than acting like thugs, or succumbing to mob rule. I have been out, fighting for our rights for 32 yrs now, Mawm, so, please, spare me the attitude.

      And Gary, AGAIN, NO ONE here is advocating for hiding contributions to political groups – I don’t recall one person on this thread advocating for that.

      But you are right, we are not monolithic as a group, and there is, no doubt, generational differences between us (Katmoon, wow abt your dad! Neat!). STILL, I cannot advocate VIOLENCE as a means to an end. It does not work, and does nothing but demean us as a group. (Someone up-thread mentioned, too, how Obama and his minions acted like that all Primary/Election season, and I could not agree more. Do we really want to be like that? I sure don’t.)

      • Mawm

        Total Straw man again. Who said we were advocating violence? You keep sticking that in there. The main premise of your article is that the eightmaps site is wrong.

        Tell me where someone has advocated violence?

        Show me examples of gays being violent?

        Boycott and protest as intimidation is not violence.

        You do not have a clear position on this.

  • oh, and the DADT thing, Clinton had an all Democratic congress, which stabbed him in the back with DADT. If there is anyone to blame for that fiasco it squarely lies on Sam Nunn, former Democratic rep from Georgia, who btw, was on homophobe Barack Obama’s short list for VP. Looks like gays are being sold down the river by all sides now.

    • Gary, I think most people here have said they DO want contributions to be transparent, just to be clear.

      And as I acknowledged above, you are right abt the DADT Congress, I misspoke. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is any shortage of people willing to sell the GLBT community down the river…Obama has demonstrated that time and time again, but you still have organizations like HRC standing behind him. What’s THAT about? Even after he appoints someone like Tim Kaine to be the chair of the DNC!

      And that was part of my point – why are these people in CA targeting the people they are instead of, I dunno, say OBAMA, for the passage of Prop 8? And Amendment 2 (which Glenn outlined so well above)? The NY Times called the outcome of Prop 8 before it ever happened because of Obama’s supporters.

      And, Obama has CONSISTENTLY surrounded himself with anti-gay people, yet most of these folks threatening a group of Christians support him! GO figure…

      And Gary, I don’t think anyone is telling us to be quiet – I think people, including myself, want us to be BETTER than the people who have treated us like crap for so long, like by not using violence, or intimidation, or threats. But I hear your frustration – truly.

  • I don’t get it. Would you all prefer that all political donations be private? Because if you do, than you’re closer to the Obama campaign with their shady campaign practices. I thought that transparency in government and the electoral process was part of a healthy democracy. Isn’t that why we cry foul about those under 200 dollar donations that Obama never reported? If you guys are going to take a position, at least show some consistency. BTW, can someone please point me to all the reports of murderous gay thugs hunting down christians? Give me a break.

    There is a reason that the courts laughed these bigots out on to the streets. If we didn’t have any transparency in poliitical donations, can you imagine the nightmare world this would be? I mean even worse than it is now. this post is coming dangerously close to ludicrous hypocrisy.

    Oh, and everyone telling us to be quiet because it just makes things worse….we don’t need cowards like you telling us how to fight for our civil rights thank you very much.

  • very interesting! this list of home addresses and maps is of the ilk used against abortion providers –with, if we all recall, deadly results.

    And Andrew Sullivan is the world’s biggest crybaby: when we (FemiSex.com) put him on our Deathwatch List (born out of Slate’s HRC Deathwatch) Andrew Crybaby Sullivan contacted Real Clear Politics and requested the article be removed; it was. We (at FemiSex.com) made it very clear our Deathwatch was a list that named extremely sexist persons who used their positions to do damage to women; we made it clear our goal was to protest their public work, not target them in any other way. Yet, poor Cry me a River Sullivan, was frightened enough to demand the story come off RCP. So when Sullivan says: “I don’t get the fear,” …believe me, he gets it, even when we only want him removed from The Atlantic (and all respected journalism), not the face of the earth or harmed in any other fashion.

    • My Name is Red

      this list of home addresses and maps is of the ilk used against abortion providers –with, if we all recall, deadly results.

      And Andrew Sullivan is the world’s biggest crybaby: when we (FemiSex.com) put him on our Deathwatch List

      Your dissonance is pretty stark: you object to this tactic because it led to murder; and you call somebody a crybaby for being worried when you use it on him.

      • Dear My Name is Red:
        my goodness, if calling for sexism to be routed out in the media is akin to posting abortion providers home addresses and personal details on a website that prompted readers to act against their persons is the same tactic, you and i live in very different worlds.

        Hillary had to endure being “Deathwatched” on Slate for months with no (zero) public outcry. Our Deathwatch was a media Deathwatch, that called for the ouster of the likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann for being allowed to pollute the airwaves with sexist smears. (Hence they lost the anchor chairs at MSNBC during the election, perhaps partially b/c of all of our calls against their misogyny! We also called for Mr. Geitner to not be confirmed. But objecting to someone’s position is a form of democracy and…far far different than targeting them for personal harm. We chose the to Deathwatch them to make the point to media that if it is OK to Deathwatch Hillary, then you had better be ready to wear that same moniker, as it were.
        My ferverent hope is that the next serious-contender female presidential candidate will not be “treated” to a Deathwatch by the media, but until things change, those who purvey sexism to limit women’s progress with be subject to our calls for the end of their employment in positions that allow them to continue to disseminate hatred against women.

  • George

    Andrew Sullivan is the foremost and most eloquent proponent of gay marriage in Western society. Just because he was an Obama supporter doesn’t take that away from him.

  • Belle Gardens

    Has Andrew Sullivan ever had an independent thought, btw?

    I wonder if other people dream his dreams, too?

    Sheesh…

  • glennmcgahee

    When are they gonna go after the PSBO? He and Biden are as much responsible for the passages of these bills as anybody that donated money. Sorry, but until I hear them call out the One and demand he support us, they have no basis to complain. In Florida, the Amendment 2 not only banned gay marriage but banned civil unions and denies partners of gov’t employees from enjoying family rights like insurance coverage and partner benefits yet we have been ignored. Guess we’re not Hollywood and don’t have movie stars.

  • It’s hard to be patient and take the slow and steady course. Much more satisfying to let all that seething anger come out as rage against the opposition. Boy, have I been there.

    However, when President Clinton initiated “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, I saw it not as an insult or a weak position, rather the first wedge in the door for change. You can’t get from “A” to “Z” overnight…well, you can but you still have to go back and fill in beginning with “B”. Now it seems to me that the general attitude is “Who cares if gays serve in the military?”. At least, I don’t hear anyone saying it’s an issue they’re concerned about.

    • Thanks again for the great comments and discussion, folks!

      People forget a LOT abt “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and all that Clinton was up against when he got even that through. Was it perfect? Not at all. But it was a FAR cry better than what they had before “DADT” when people were could be thrown out at the very hint of homosexuality, and worse.

      Remember, too, that Clinton was dealing with an al Republican congress.

      You’re right, though – it is RARE to go from A – Z in one fell swoop. As frustrating as it is, it takes time to effect change like this. Think abt how long it took to get women the right to vote, or African Americans. That doesn’t mean we should just sit back and wait for it to happen. We need to keep fighting for it.

      BUT – as Belle said so eloquently, violence is not the way, and only gives fodder to the enemy.

      • In line with slow and steady…I believe polls have shown that most people have no problem with civil unions for gays. Rather than being insulted, why not accept civil unions as an expansion of the existing boundaries? It might be sooner rather than later that the issue would be off the hot burner and become acceptable.

        On the other hand, I think a lot of people fear that given a crack in the door, the next step would be holding Ministers and Priests liable if they refused to perform ceremonies. Just as the GLBT community want recognition and respect, you have to allow churches to follow their own doctrine even if they exclude SSM.

        Change is made more comfortable and real if you gradually expand boundaries, moving forward when stability has been achieved.

        My opinion is that Gavin Newsom has squelched his chance to be Governor. He cooked his goose with his arrogant pontificating by forgetting that not everyone lives in SF. It’s probably not a good idea to express yourself in such a way as to make people feel you’re shoving your position down their throats…kinda reminds me of the rest of the Leftists.

      • Chi-Town

        Remember, too, that Clinton was dealing with an al Republican congress

        It was a Democrat Congress.

        • My apologies – yes, for two years, it was, 1992 – 94. I stand corrected.

          And not to nitpick, but it is “Democratic.”

      • Sorry R3A,

        DADT was actually worse for LGBT servicemembers. The number of discharges/separations went up for LGBTs and the harassment only got worse. Or have you forgotten about the death of the Gay Sailor on the USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3)? Let me refresh your memory; he was beaten to death by his fellow sailors at a public bathroom in Sasabo Japan. I remember, I know the park, I know the ship, I remember the black eye the US Navy got in Japan due to this affair. I also remember that the sailors who perpetrated the crime were let off with very light sentences. (Granted seven years in a Military Brig are not fun times but still not adequate punishment for the crime.)

        More recently the Army separated critical Arab language specialists because of their sexual proclivities.

        DADT has been a failure from the beginning. It did not help that the military held Clinton in open contempt for his former Draft-evading ways. They were aided and abetted by such stalwarts like Sam Nunn and others to continue their homophobic witch hunt. DADT was supposed to be Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue. The military did all three from day one. Bill Clinton was unable for political reasons to reign in the Brass Hats. Clinton’s heart may have been in the right place but the end results were spectacularly awful.

        • James, I am aware that a number of Arab linguists have been separated from the military because of their sexual orientation (I am a member of SLDN, after all), and it is absurd.

          I do not LIKE DADT, but I am saying it is better than what was happening before. YES, bad things have happened since it went into law, but BEFORE DADT, the simple HINT that someone was gay was enough to separate them. And there was a tremendous amt of violence against homosexual service members before DADT (remember the “blanket parties”?).

          DADT needs to be abolished, period (not gonna happen anytime soon, though, unfortunately). But it DID make it better in terms of cutting down on the “witch” hunts. IMHO, that is.

          • Ferd Berfle

            You are spot on. When I was in the service in the 70s, it was not uncommon to badger those who were suspected of being gay (even if they weren’t), trumping up some ridiculous charges, and then summarily throwing them out of the service under a general discharge.

  • Helen

    Rev Amy you are wonderful. Great analysis. I’ve been a long time civil rights and gay rights activist, but lately I’m finding both blacks and gays tiresome, especially in their refusal to acknowledge Obama’s behavior has not matched his promises.
    What’s tough is that I have to remind myself to honor the gay or black person I’m dealing with in a specific situation and set aside their group’s politics.

    • Mawm

      Sounds like you are a racist homophobe then really.

      [ADMIN: That is a nasty, negative jump of an assumption from what was a delightfully frank and open statement. You’re being placed on moderation for such negative comments as well as using (1) two usernames — not allowed here, and (2) two e-mail addresses, which I’ve tested and expect will bounce back. If people don’t use a single username and don’t provide a a real working e-mail address, their privileges get pulled. I’m not banning you in case you wish to write to me at susanunpc at gmail dot com.

      But you should know that a number of people have complained about the name-calling by you, and we do moderate or ban people who do that to other readers, because we want intelligent and rational discourse here. We want new people to find the conversation intelligent, not full of name-calling like your comment is.]

      • Mawm, personal attacks are not welcome here:

        (2) We need to avoid personal attacks, and stick to the subjects. Now, ahem, Larry and I are imperfect this way; I’ve “gone off” on a reader whose remarks irritated me, but I’m trying to change my ways because it’s not conducive to good, rational discussion where we can all learn from each other. We do NOT require that you agree with each other or the writer’s POV. In fact, we encourage disagreement. But let cooler heads prevail!

        • Mawm

          What’s tough is that I have to remind myself to honor the gay or black person I’m dealing with in a specific situation and set aside their group’s politics

          Isn’t this racist and homophobic?

          Own what you write.

        • Zeke

          Amy,
          I believe that personal attacks need a better definition than simply tossing them all into one basket. We get very close to accomplishing our enemies’ goals by stopping ourselves from intense discussion.
          I haven’t got a code of conduct in mind but there still has to be room to call an asshole an asshole.
          Insults to a person’s intelligence should be allowed as it is the perception of said intelligence which is the supposed basis for that individual’s argument.
          I am more of the belief that there should be a sign on the door saying, “No Crybaby’s but Watch the Rough Stuff”
          Regards

  • Belle Gardens

    Civilized, rational people do not settle their differences with violence, period.

    Violence, or intimidation should never be a first line response.

    In the end, the misuse of violence only plays into the hands of your enemy.

  • VinceP

    I’m gay and am opposed to gay marriage and am appaled though not surprised by what the activists in CA are doing.

    The intention of the disclosure laws was so that voters would be able to weight their support or opposition of a candidate or proposition based on who the supporters are. It’s a total abuse of the system to use the system to go after the donors.

    If people were governed by civility and decency they wouldn’t be taking advantage of the public information to launch reprisal attacks.

    I supported 8 for a few reasons…

    One of them is just my basic agreement with it
    Another was to show the Supreme Court of CA who it is that sets law.. it’s the people and the legislature. Not the Courts.

    I think ensuring the Courts understand they cannot keep inventing these rights is more important than the question of the particular or specific right in question.

    • JozefAL

      So, why is it that when the LEGISLATURE voted to APPROVE same-sex marriage in California (IMS, twice), the Governor VETOED it, saying that HE believed that the people should have the final say?
      If we extended Ah-nuld’s “logic” to its extreme, there would be no need for a Legislature as the people would vote on EVERYTHING.
      Furthermore, the “people” have NO right in RESTRICTING civil rights. In theory, it wouldn’t take much to, say, bar Muslims from voting since it would just take a “simple majority” vote to deny that right. In theory, it wouldn’t take much to, for instance, require that all marriages in California MUST take place inside a religious building (which would put a serious crimp on atheists and agnostics getting married), and, even further, it wouldn’t take much to make the only buildings be churches of Christian denominations. Nothing more than a simple process of I&R and then a simple majority vote.
      Vince, the fact is that the court did NOT “make” a law. The court INTERPRETED the law as it applied to the case before it. That is, the last time I looked, the actual purview of the judicial branch. The Supreme Court of California ruled on a particular set of cases before it and that ruling displeased a certain vocal minority, so they decided to use an absolutely asinine bit of California lawmaking to foist THEIR views on everyone.

  • I’m a Linda too

    Of course, the extremists on the left have shown themselves to be selfrighteous, condescending, HYPOCRITICAL THUGS.

    The only slightest sweet payback would be if any of those Obama thugs who are hypocritical bigots who go around calling names while making threats if you didn’t support their chosen one also gave to Prop 8 and are met with their fellow Obama supporters threatening them and their work like they did to Hillary supporters or opposition party supporters.

    Andrew really looks for his next gift as to whom he’ll advocate for. Another hypocritical pig. Not long ago appearing on Real Time with Bill Maher breaking down in tears because he supported George Bush.

    WAAAAAAAAAAA

  • Ferd Berfle

    This is response to a comment made by Zeke. I have tried three times to post a response to a comment he made and each time the post has been shunted off to purgatory.

    I’ll try to respond a fourth time and hope the spam filter takes a breather for a split second.

    A very good summation of the situation, IMO. When was it that you think this nation turned to this “ends/means” philosophy? And do you think that there was any a precursor event to that which might have opened that door?

    Manifest Destiny is that precursor. A lot of the indigenous population died as a direct result and were part of the means, albeit in a very negative sense.

    • Manifest Destiny is that precursor.

      Indeed, Ferd. It does come and go though. I was only relating to recent history that the justification of the ends justifying the means has been prominent.

      I can (am I that old?) remember times in the past when it has not been acceptable. The ends do not justify the means…will we live to see a time when that becomes completely obsolete?

    • Zeke

      Ferd,
      Thanks for fighting your answers through the flack. Its a good point, but since the Karmic Wheel had just gotten a massive spin the other way through the human cost of the Civil War, I don’t think that was it. Nor was it WWI (a good result), or the Depression and WWII (another Karmic Payday.)
      I believe it was when we supposedly became “enlightened” in the sixties. One side, riding a good buzz, decided that they had discovered ALL the answers and that nothing from the generations before had any true value in this “New Age.”
      The other side, seeing absolutely no good in the naive ramblings of unexperienced neophytes to the world system, scoffed at anything the young fools had to say.
      Neither side being right and one side embracing the teachings of Marx, Mao and even Stalin, (see Bill “BoomBoom Ayers) decides to do whatever it can no matter who gets hurt. The other side is busy watching a big Bear munch its way around Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and even South America and is more concerned about the outward threat to ever consider the more subtle decay from failed adherence to higher ideals. And it was in Vietnam that waterboarding was first used.
      It was this choice to abandon Everything from the past which left a vacuum filled from one side with only with rhetoric, dope smoke ideals and now, their bastard child, Hope/Change and from the other, CIA screw-ups by the ton and a new resolve to win at any cost.
      I’ve said this before… my generation, the Love Generation, is the greatest collection of dickheads in the history of the World. We are the reason we are where we are…
      Peace, Love and Waterbeds, my brothers and sisters,
      We are our own Fate
      somebody pass the bong

      • Sorry, Waterboarding dates all the way back to the fun times of the Spanish Inquisition. The American use of Waterboarding dates all the way back to at least the Philippine-American war. (AKA the “Philippine Inserection” Back then we prosecuted American Soldiers who indulged in such behavior. And by the way speak for yourself, not all Boomers are hopeless fuck-ups; case in point Hillary Rodham Clinton

        • Zeke

          Re: Waterrboading
          My point, Mr. Torture History buff, is that in Vietnam, nobody was being prosecuted and the acts themselves were covered up, thus, the my point is still valid. It was the acceptance of the act which was significant, not the act itself.
          Re: Boomers being fuck-ups:
          Have you looked at the ages of the people in charge now?
          Our nation is run by Fuck-ups who have abandoned any relationship with the knowledge of right and wrong. They have their own bureaucracy for it. Its what schools teach kids and it is rewarded.
          You cite one person as not being a fuck-up and its her genius opinion that you need a village to raise a kid.
          I raised four kids and the thing that raises them is love and teaching them that there is a consequence to each action we take and that we are responsible for those actions. Since this concept was abandoned in favor of excusing things piecemeal, accepting less than honorable behavior as day to day business and simply being so damned lazy that we don’t want to do things just because they are right, anymore. There always has to be a “what’s in it for me?”
          Well, what’s in it for us now is a gigantic shit storm and I guarantee that your Pollyanna viewpoint is going to come under some serious strain.
          Enjoy

  • truthteller

    This is simply not true:

    Why not the African American community, or the Hispanic community, both of which voted in large numbers for Obama, and FOR Proposition 8?

    The Hispanic community broke about even for and against this proposition. Stop spreading lies.

    The rest of the article is scary!

    • CraigF007

      truthteller is right…It was 53% of the Hispanic voters and 70% of the black voters who helped pass Prop 8.

      • And 52% of the white vote. The only cohort that broke against prop 8 was the Asian community–a group that had been targeted by a concentrated outreach program. LGBT outreach to the Latino/a cohort is limited and the outreach to AA is next to non-existent. The more sections of the electorate get to know average LGBTs the less threatening they become.

    • According to the NY Times article, more than half of the Hispanic community voted for Prop 8, and 7 out of 10 African Americans did. Just quoting the Times, truthteller. Another source, http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/2008/11/7/prop_8_and_the_hispanic_vote.htm, said 53% of Hispanics voted for it.

      The point was that the GLBT community is targeting a very narrow group abt Prop 8 when it was a widely varied group that voted FOR it. IOW, it was passed by a larger number of people than just, say, Mormons, who have been a big target.

      And not to be contrary, but 53% is a MAJORITY of the Hispanics who voted.

  • Touchet

    I must have missed the part where they got violent. I saw a bunch of people yelling at the religious people to go home and get out of their neighborhood.

    They both antagonize each other. Why the hell would you go into a gay town and invoke that situation. They got exactly what they wanted though. A bunch of angry gay people. I’m sure they considered it a success.

    • Responding to perceived hate with more hate is absolutely wrong and counterproductive. A mob yelling at people to go home is HARASSMENT. It is verbal violence. It is WRONG.

    • According to one of the Missionaries, she was beaten with her Bible. It was a Bill O’Reilly video, though, so I thought I’d spare you! Ahem.

      I think the issue was also the whole mob mentality. The reality is, the missionaries have just as much right to be in that neighborhood as anyone else. People may not like it, but they DO have the right to be there unless they are breaking some law.

      It reminds me of when I lived in Boston – there was this street preacher who screamed fire and brimstone for HOURS and HOURS near my office building. He wasn’t breaking any laws standing on his soapbox, though, so the option was to either listen to him, or ignore him. I chose the latter.

      You make a good point abt the antagonizing of each other, though – and yeah, I am sure they got exactly what they wanted. Like Alessandro said abt Newsome’s comment, it will probably be used as a commercial or something…

  • The protests and harrassments of today serve as the fodder for future commericals against gay rights.

    Gavin Newsome accidentally gave the sound bite to end all sound bites that easily polarized a swing vote of 10% of the population, aka a 20% swing in the Prop – 8 vote tally.

    here it is in case you don’t live in California.

    If you do live in California, you probably saw the Gavin Newsome clip literally hundreds of times before the Nov. 4th election.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-TGqtpMGeU (News version)

    The actual commercial that made the difference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKn5LNhNto&feature=related

  • Katmoon

    I believe my comment is in the spin cycle of the spam filter.

  • Katmoon

    On both sides there is a lack of conviction on how to work at getting public policy changed. I have no doubt there is not lack on either side, that either one is “right”

    Violence is insidious, becoming a mob mentality that can be used to “witch hunt” those you do not agree with, and serve to cause them damage by threat or loss to their business, and violence is also sending a message of fear by chasing people out of a public area. No one wins, and no one is heard. IT all becomes another gladiator set of events in our ever increasing Roman-like mentality.

    Looking at the side of the G.L.B. T. community, I suspect there is exhaustion with being cast as a victim, similar to how women have been relegated, thus not seen as a threat, instead, easy targets. Not often in recent years have women stood by their convictions as a group to achieve a change in public policy.

    Looking at the group who deliberately and openly is behaving as inquisitors, to serve their purpose, not that of the general public, you see again an unsuccessful change of public opinion, here there is a more of the same expectation of a group that has been labeled “crazy”.

    Over the last twenty years public policy has changed, but by the wrong people(not the ones who the policy is about the ones forcing the change) in the wrong way. Years ago it wasn’t an exciting future to be an unmarried female parent. You could lose your job, ability to obtain a line of credit, rent an apartment, or insure your vehicle, all because you were not married. As you notice in current times, it is more often the norm than the exception for people under the age of thirty to not be married and have children. How did the policy change? From many different contributors and some manipulators.
    (please note this is not a morals judgment).

    There have been ridiculous methods to try and restrain young people from having sex; unrealistic expectations, There has been an outward attempt to control sex education substituting information that was almost if not dangerous to the health of those involved. Only when people in large numbers became infected with the HIV virus, did the policy begin to give just a little regarding having safe sex, primarily to prevent disease, but still little work or financing on the effort to provide prevention.

    Next the role model syndrome took over, with so many believing it necessary to model the behavior of the popular. If it is ok for them, it is ok for all. In this second phase it comes from more of an naive entitlement of freedom approach. Perhaps the actual role models may have considered serving up a little honesty with their actual “parenting” time and skills, being able to afford 24 hour care, or a live in nanny is not the reality many of those who followed suit learned to live with.

    These aren’t all the reason or contributors, but complicit, how it came through the system, being supported financially. Not saying there wasn’t help needed, but there was a great amount of abuse also. Now it is more public policy, and generally accepted to be an unwed parent.

    From Stonewall to present the G.L.B.T. community has had some public fights, and some darn good ones. They were successful as they were organized and had the protect oneself as the last choice in the speaking out process.

    What has to be understood is if the G.L.B.T. community wants to be heard, they cannot allow themselves to be divided. I would also recommend understanding how much public policy will change, and what fear that change can and does generate. I am not in any way saying the change is wrong, but it is a nightmare to see gain to be lost because of mimicking wrong actions.

    I cannot address those who are witch-mapping people other than to say, it is wrong to do this, and it should never be a way to solve a problem, but outwardly, deliberately, seeking to force an opinion change based on fear, nor to punish your fellow human, because you don’t agree.

    Like it or not we are a nation of laws, yes I believe we still are, and the statutes are meant to reflect the will of the people. If those statutes are allowed fairly to be written and voted on. There is no harm in change when it is understood, but not a single person who keeps their finger over their ears and seeks to find ways to harm another will bring about change.

    To create more strife between groups of people, is something we don’t need anymore of. I don’t have the answers, but I do know, I would stand in the way of either group trying to frighten someone else.

  • Great discussion, folks – thanks.

    EML, you hit the nail on the head – yes, that is what being in a Democratic Republic means, having open records, etc. But it is when that line of protest is crossed and becomes a mob, when death threats are issued, and property destroyed, that it morphs into a transgression.

    I am the last person on the planet who thinks anyone should have to go back into the closet, or does not believe we should fight for our rights. Hell to the yes, we should, but that does not mean we have to become a bunch of thugs, acting just like the people who attack US. It is counterproductive and solves NOTHING. It simply adds more fuel to the fire AGAINST the GLBT community, IMHO.

    And, Obamastoleyourboyfriend, I think you are spot on abt the difference between FL and CA…

    THANK YOU, SocalAnnie! What a wonderful thing to say!!!

    • socalannie

      So true! I never hear about FL!

  • I have a friend who voted for Prop 8 and also donated money. She works at a large company and people regularly email the company to harass them about her (trying to get her fired). She got mad at me once when I emailed one of the guys harassing her and told him off but I just couldn’t help myself.

    We also went to have dinner at the Hollywood restaurant mentioned above – El Coyote – it was packed by the way and not affected it seems by boycotters.

    I voted against Prop 8 but I will stand up for the rights of people who believe gay marriage is wrong. They are not opposed to civil unions most of them, so the level of violence and hatred shown towards them is beyond wrong. It is downright EVIL!

  • socalannie

    God, this is so sad. If they keep this up, I’m afraid there will be a backlash, not a move forward. a. sullivan is revolting in every possible way.

    Rev Amy, you are on target with this post & I have never admired you more for your bravery & principles! I hope you have a pleasant weekend!

  • MrX

    The irony is that the One person standing in their way is Obama, yet they voted for the guy. Andrew Sullivan is a BIG supporter of the One, yet doesn’t seem to realize that he’s the one being screwed.

    • Zeke

      Perhaps its a stiff neck?

      • socalannie

        Ewww! Zeke!!! You rascal, you!

        • Zeke

          socalannie!
          😉

  • EML

    There is nothing wrong with putting together this information. If you give money to a campaign, those who oppose your views have every legal right to expose your name. They also have the legal right to picket your business and to boycott your business. However, their right ends at threats and violence. If they threaten you or harm you or your property, then the police should intervene. Welcome to a democratic Republic. The right to organize and to use information freely is part of that right. The alternative is to give up our form of government. I’m simply not willing to do that.

  • Texas Playwright

    Thanks to bho the fraud and his thugs who introduced widespread misogyny, racism, bullying, computer hacking and voter and financial corruption into the primaries and beyond. bho the fraud is an agitator–some are following his methods. Fascism is here.

  • It’s the wrong approach. They will simply make donations in smaller increments or cash under an alias…taking a page out of The Messiah’s playbook.

    I find it so odd that so many in gay/lesbian communities voted for him even though he is for keeping marriage defined as between a man and a woman. How do they justify this? Of course, the strategy being used now is that the ends justify the means…just like the leftists in the Democratic party.

    No one expects people to just roll over and play dead and of course, you don’t support those who are in opposition to your position, but I think the anger and revenge angle is guaranteed to create more backlash than support.

    I eventually found that expressing my outrage over voter theft by the Repubs and later the Dems was counterproductive and landed on deaf ears. Instead, the only option available to me now is not to support the party, the artists or locals who put Obama in office. I certainly wouldn’t picket their businesses or resort to anything that would not help get them out of office next time around.

    • Zeke

      Thanks Annie,
      A very good summation of the situation, IMO. When was it that you think this nation turned to this “ends/means” philosophy? And do you think that there was any a precursor event to that which might have opened that door?
      I have my own ideas on it but am more interested in others opinions a to whether we can ascribe a timetable for this “New America” we have to step in all the time.
      What’s worse to me is that there isn’t anywhere to scrape of our shoes…

      • I think that “philosophy” has always been around although not found so acceptable when people aren’t in a state of rage.

        I see it beginning to be alright after 9/11. Many of my friends (not to mention staunch Republicans) said that they would vote for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al because they were dirty SOB’s and we needed someone tougher than the terrorists to deal with them. I still voted Democratic at that time (without exhaling). Although I have to say that the picture of Kerry windsurfing did nothing to allay my own misgivings that they knew how to keep the USA safe from another attack. And in hindsight, although Gore still came across as is an honorable man, he seemed like a creampuff as opposed to our enemies.

      • Ferd Berfle

        I’ve tried every conceivable way to post an innocuous response only to have the spam filter (more like runaway comment grinder) go haywire.

        The precursor was Manifest Destiny.

        ADMIN: Sorry, Ferd – don’t know what the problem is!!

        • elise

          Manifest Destiny was a horrible arrogance and the trail of blood left in the wake of expansion a moral bankruptcy our country has never faced or admitted, but I believe there is something else going on here, Ferd.I understand the anger the GLBTs feel and they have been patient a long time, but I questioned the timing of the push for Gay Marriage in 2004 because it gave Bush and Rove a message. Someone upthread, said there is so much anger everywhere in our country and groups of citizens have decided violence or destroying the rights of others is the only way to achieve their goals which only serves to give their opponents a weapon to use against them and allows them to feel self-righteous in their opposition. The biggest and most lasting social changes have come as a result of peaceful protests. I don’t know when this began and you could possibly be right about Manifest Destiny, but I just feel it is a more recent phenomenon.

          • Ferd Berfle

            You’re correct but my response was to Zeke’s question:

            When was it that you think this nation turned to this “ends/means” philosophy?

            I believe Manifest Destiny was an answer to that question.

  • I’m unable to make a comment here on this blog about the militants pushing the envelope risking a huge backlash without being called a gay hater.
    Just predicting the future people!

    • lark

      Just predicting the future people!

      Enviable. Never quit.

    • UKforDems

      Comment by Seattle Moss | 2009-01-31 16:03:49

      I’m unable to make a comment here on this blog about the militants pushing the envelope risking a huge backlash without being called a gay hater.
      Just predicting the future people!

      I get what you say and you should feel free to say it. I am gay and had some bigot on here (LooneyH) hooping round her burning cross that I admitted it.

      I do not care about those type of people.

      Moderation can work. No one is going to convince the stupid cross burning Rethug bigots that got conned by the co-ordinated anti gay referenda in 2004 that being gay is ok. So why bother?

      I am not convinced by gay marriage. I support civil partnerships with full equal rights to marriage, but I do not see why the whole baby needs to be washed down with the bath water over a word.

      • I am not convinced by gay marriage. I support civil partnerships with full equal rights to marriage, but I do not see why the whole baby needs to be washed down with the bath water over a word.

        My view exactly!

    • lorac

      I think you and Amy are right on. As much as we dislike what someone says, we don’t have the right to harass them. People are entitled to their own opinions in this country. That doesn’t mean we can’t challenge them, but there are other options for doing that besides humiliating them.

      I believe that community organizing has been very misunderstood in this election. There are different types, and the original type, Saul Alinsky’s type, is only one type.

      Having said that, Alinsky believed in making scenes to make a point and to get people to cave in to his demands. By making big public demonstations and humiliating people, he was able to effect “change”. I think these activists are attempting the same thing. Just like Alinsky, there is some good in their goals, but their means are reprehensible, IMO.

      But it’s like how I feel about Obama – even if he ends up doing a few things I like, I will never stop reminding people that the end doesn’t justify the means. All that cheating and lying to win – the “means” are important.

      • Zeke

        Ayup!

        🙂

  • bert

    Another great post RRRA.

    However, this quote from Rod Dreher’s editorial has implications beyond just Prop 8 and the GLBT community.

    “Alarmed Prop 8 backers recently filed a federal lawsuit seeking an injunction against a state law forcing citizens who give $100 or more to campaigns to disclose their names and addresses. We had all better hope they prevail.” [emphasis mine]

    I do not want to see transparency in political campaign contributions go the way of the dinosaurs. I think it is imperative that I can find out who contributes to what candidate or issue. This is an important principal in a free democratic society.

    I still want to know who made all those $25 contributions to Obama’s campaign. I also want to know who those people were who donated money to his campaign under crazy, stupid, and nonsensical names. I also want to know who exceeded the campaign contribution limits by donating in small amounts that in total exceeded legal limits. Who paid for this Presidency? As a citizen I have a right to know.

    I have always believed in the concept of pubic financing of campaigns. However, that is a dream that will never come true now that Obama broke his written campaign promise to accept public funds. Now no candidate for President will ever again agree to public financing. No republican will ever again so constrain himself. Obama killed public financing of campaigns forever.

    So any restrictions on the scant ability I have to see who is paying for a campaign are verboten to me.

    However, anyone who attempts to use that information to harm anyone in any way, shape, or form is breaking the law and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    And as you say so well, anyone who would so misuse and break the law is hurting their own cause.

    • Mawm

      The Judge denied the request to make the Prop 8 supporters’ info private.

      • UKforDems

        Comment by Mawm | 2009-01-31 15:48:32

        The Judge denied the request to make the Prop 8 supporters’ info private.

        Good. This information is already public. Just as political donations were public and it exposed PUMA thugs as a front. Durrgh Murphy claimed to be a Democrat yet paid nothing to anyone except McCain. She has still paid nothing to the Hillary campaign. Some support there. When it realised that the donations were public it complained. Aww stupid Rethug. It should have read up on the law.

        Now anti gay bigots want to keep their details private. $100 is a lot of money in this economy. $100 is a real commitment to hate. No one is saying do anything criminal, but not buying from them, not giving them a job – all of that seems perfectly fine.

        • CraigF007

          How much does Obama pay you for all of you hate?

        • lorac

          You’re judging an entire movement by one person, and not just by one person, but by your own personal interpretation of their behavior?

          Wow.

        • The Real HC

          “Just as political donations were public and it exposed PUMA thugs as a front.”

          Yes, thats right PUMA thugs are coming for you. Be very afraid.

          Now lets talk about the millions of donations Team Obama found “too technically difficult to track”.

          • UKforDems

            Comment by The Real HC | 2009-01-31 17:19:03

            “Just as political donations were public and it exposed PUMA thugs as a front.”

            Yes, thats right PUMA thugs are coming for you. Be very afraid.

            Now lets talk about the millions of donations Team Obama found “too technically difficult to track”.

            In their 5s. The conference was fun. I have seen better turn outs at time share sales.

        • Mawm

          That’s not true. Look up her donations. Should did indeed donate to Hillary.

          You are a lazy hack.

  • JozefAL

    What’s even more intriguing with the Eightmap deal is that, according to an article posted on the Advocate’s website, “[t]he identity of the map’s creator is not known.” (Source: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid72038.asp )
    Wouldn’t you think the map’s creator would be proud and “come out of the closet” (as it were)?

  • Mawm

    Sorry, but the when I google my name the first thing that comes up is how much i’ve given to politcal campaigns.

    These people want to bar me from my rights, they ought to be willing to take the consequences of their actions.

    Obviously if someone is being threatened with violence that is illegal and should be punished, but boycotting businesses whose owners contributed is what gays should do. Protesting out front of their businesses would be a productive use of our time too.

    We should shame these people. Intimidation is a very powerful technique, they have been using it on us for years.

    • Zeke

      I have to wonder about protesting outside an INDIVIDUAL’s business. What comes to mind in regard to it is that if you were to do that, aren’t you really just changing the type of revenge you wish to get? You’re still using the same info, just changing the style of reaction.
      It was You who googled your name. That everyone is as exposed as this other person now validates ones actions? Although anonymity is not a guarantee in donating, (some people actually cheat that way,) this gets close to interference in another’s right to vote, state one’s opinions and be protected from intimidation by groups who disagree.
      I ain’t no Ghandi and I have my own views on Everything but one thing I learned a long time ago was that our Founding Fathers meant for us all to be able to have our own views and express them as long as we respected each others rights to do so too. This attitude has afforded me many wonderful Lesbian friends over the years and just as many Evangelicals. What was cool about both of these “groups” (as though being gay or EV means they all have the same personalities) was that they both were made up of Tolerant Individuals.
      What people fail to realize is that we are not supposed to be the same, we are supposed to treat each other the same…
      Geeze
      When down right vengeance is a motive, expedience always asks if it can help. Any time we make efforts to step around, or “Cut through the center,” to achieve an end, we hasten our own.

    • “We should shame these people. Intimidation is a very powerful technique, they have been using it on us for years.”

      All your Prop 8 overreacton is doing is pissing off moderate straight people like myself. I purposefully went to one of those boycotted businesses because I don’t think people should be intimidated or threatened for voting a certain way.

      • Mawm

        Then you were never our ally to begin with.

        • Oh please, enough with this “if you’re not with us you are against us” crap. After watching the Obots harass Hillary supporters (including my own blog being targeted) I have a HUGE problem with anyone harassing people for not following a certain party line. My first interest is in democracy. I went to that business with one of my Prop 8 supporting friends who has been personally harassed and I’d do it again.

          I’ve also got plenty of gay and lesbian friends. That’s because I have a variety of friends and don’t just hang out with a certain politically correct group of people.

          I voted against Prop 8 but it’s done now. Trying to change the law by bullying people and businesses who supported Prop 8 is fascist and wrong, no matter how “right” the cause is.

          • Mawm

            Protest and boycott are wrong? and fascist?

    • The Real HC

      “Intimidation is a very powerful technique, they have been using it on us for years.”

      Absolutely, because two wrongs make a right in the new Omerica.

  • I don’t read A(hole) Sullivan or most of the news, so I hadn’t heard about any of this before.

    UNBELIEVABLE.

    Any sense of right and wrong has deteriorated so far (the fish rots from the head) that I guess I shouldn’t be surprised about this.

    But what does manage to surprise me is that it is so s.t.u.p.i.d. Forget right or wrong, if you want, but this is just plain doomed. Lesbians are around 5% of women, gay men around 10%. The highest estimates I’ve ever seen border on 30%, but that’s still very much a minority. If we want pitched battles of neighbor against neighbor, one side is pretty damn outnumbered. It makes zero strategic sense to start a hot war, forget, as I say, the appalling ethics of it.

    It makes me feel like that German mistress talking to her lover the General when he was telling her about the glorious victory they would soon have against the Russians. “But, liebchen,” she says, all wide-eyed, “have you looked at a map?”

    • Mawm

      This is exactly what straights have been telling us for years. Don’t make noise. Don’t stand up for your rights. Its called the closet, and a lot of us refuse to go back in.

      • bert

        No one is asking you not to make noise. No one is saying you cannot stand up for your rights. Just don’t break the law.

        Gandhi and Martin Luther King did it best – non-violent civil disobedience.

        • Mawm

          The idea of this article that simply mashing up the donations to addresses was wrong. You set up a straw man by saying “don’t break the law”. There is nothing against the law about the mashup.

          And why is it just fine to do this to other types of politcal donations?

          • bert

            “simply mashing up the donations to addresses was wrong,” is not the main idea of RRRA’s post at all. You are reading something into the post that is not there.

      • “This is exactly what straights have been telling us for years. Don’t make noise. Don’t stand up for your rights. Its called the closet, and a lot of us refuse to go back in.”

        The oppressed becomes the oppressor. Let’s respond to gay bashing by bashing religious people. Kill the Christians!!! Yeah, that makes a lot of sense…

        • Mawm

          Who said anything about bashing? Again, if someone is violent that is wrong and illegal.But this can be a powerfully useful tool for political organizing around the issue. I know a lot of people would like to know if a business’ owner donated to Prop 8. Why ahouldn’t we have that information? I certainly don’t want to give my money to people who hate me.

          • It’s not being used just against businesses. It is being used to target and harass individuals – I know because a friend of mine who donated for Prop 8 has been personally targeted and harassed over this.

            • Mawm

              File a criminal complaint if they are being harrassed.

              If they didn’t file a complaint, my hunch is that whatever happened didn’t rise to the level of harrassment. Maybe your friend just wants to be able to deny me my rights and be left in total peace.

    • Zeke

      “have you looked at a map?”
      Ahhhh.. got my breath back. Thanks!
      When the consequence of one’s actions results in only him paying for the deed is one thing. When his actions bring in others who gave him no authority to act for them and they are harmed by those actions, two groups become his victims.
      The ones he originally attacked are his fault and the ones involved in the back-blast land in his lap too due to his being the spark in this instance. Thus, not only do gays get exposed to risk through no fault of their own, but it turns out to be gay extremists who start it. How dense people truly are is beyond measure.
      Acts like these don’t help a damned thing. Militance does not infer a desire to sway society into acceptance, it infers that by evilly motivated confrontation and violence that something good will be achieved.
      I submit that there can be no “good” result from any act which has evil intent. This is also why I know that nothing “good” will result from anything VOLDEMORT does.
      It might look sweet at first, but it will turn sour in the mouth and have an aftertaste of rot.

  • My Name is Red

    Amy,

    Nice column by Dreher — particularly that quote from “A Man for All Seasons.”

    I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.

    Reminds me of this:

    We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers…faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expediency’s sake.

    Can you get an “Amen!”, Reverend? You’ve got an “Amen!” from me on this one (I know that’s not the UU style :))

    I’ll have to make a point to read some of Dreher’s other stuff.

  • Zeke

    Amy,
    Great piece. What this demonstrates is a significant difference in legal position and a huge difference in ethics.
    One party, whether one agrees with them or not, uses legally approved means of political expression helps its cause by helping to finance its position in an election.
    The other side’s extremists use legal means to provide information which they provide to the “public” with the intention that someone who gets the info will perform a crime on the parties that he listed. This is no different than websites showing the addresses of released child molesters.
    At issue here is not gay rights. The ends do not justify the means. It is correct to assume that if this continues that the other side will use the same steps, thus encouraging polarity and, someone do the numbers, if it becomes violent, gays lose it all. This is extremism by obviously militant gays and harms everyone. Its consequence has a far end potential no different than Hamas and Gaza.
    One does not achieve rights in any society in which one is actively trying to tear it down. Rights exist because of the sacred nature of the rulebook we abide by. When that rulebook is tossed out in order to get a short term result, then there become fewer and fewer rules we need to decide to obey.
    Stop signs are just suggestions. Red lights are only pink, seatbelts wrinkle my suit, IRS are bandits anyway, that handicapped slot is right in front and I’ll only be a minute.
    We need this guy so I’ll vote twice. These guys are bastards so we’ll torture them to save our own people.
    Anybody getting this? The Means Do Matter!

    • Mawm

      Who is asking anyone to be violent?

      • Zeke

        The guy who shows the tiger how to get out of the cage isn’t asking it to become violent either. You know that there is the potential for a link from the website to any violence against those donors. If anything does happen to them, watch how fast the one who started this gets jailed. Actions have consequences.

      • mountainaires

        Get real, Mawm.

        Giving a mob a map to harass someone at their home because you don’t like how they voted is an invitation to fascist jack-booted thuggery.

        Imagine how Jews would feel if someone gave neo-nazis a map to their home, with an implicit invitation to teach them a lesson for their vote.

        Do you think the KKK didn’t provide maps and or directions to the homes of those black victims they planned to terrorize with burning crosses?

        Do you think women, or civil rights leaders, or gays or blacks or Jews don’t “get” the intent of maps to their homes to threaten and terrorize them for their beliefs?

        Gay victims of bigotry and riotous mobs have suffered such harrassment and terror; is it right for gay people to do the same to others? No. It’s horrifying.

        Andrew Sullivan is the lowest scum on the earth for condoning it.

        Thanks Amy. You’ve nailed it. It’s alarming and disturbing that people opposed to Prop 8 don’t get that they are strengthening the arguments FOR IT with their mob actions, and their fascist thuggery against people who supported it.

        • Mawm

          There are many sites that mash up political donations to addresses. I used the one Huffington post provides all during the election. I never saw the level of hysteria that i’m now seeing about this. What is the difference?
          Would you fault Huffington post if some psycho used their site to find and attack an Obama donor?

          It’s alarming and disturbing that people opposed to Prop 8 don’t get that they are strengthening the arguments FOR IT with their mob actions, and their fascist thuggery against people who supported it.

          So, you don’t like some get in your face politics, so now Gays shouldn’t be able to marry in your opinion? Even if you don’t agree, how does it “strengthen the argument” that we aren’t equal?

          This is homophobia plain and simple.

  • Snickers

    The O campaign has taken politics to a new low. Anything seems to be okay; harassment, intimidation, threats, pushing, name calling, etc. etc. I have no doubt this kind of behavior will continue during this administration given how it all began…I’m saddened that this oppressed group (I am a lesbian BTW) would target others as it has been targeted in the past. Do we truly learn nothing from history? Are civility and grace outmoded and no longer fashionable customs? Make way for JayZee and the gang, Rick Warren, Jim Kaine, and all the lobbyists who weren’t supposed to be part of this O administration. Hypocricy is the order of the day. When it starts at the top and is role modeled through an entire election campaign, this is what the O supporters learn. I believe This Uniter is as great of a Divider as the last one who stole the election. Just when our great nation needs a true leader we get hype and hate…

    • Ferd Berfle

      I believe This Uniter is as great of a Divider as the last one who stole the election. Just when our great nation needs a true leader we get hype and hate

      That One makes Bush look like a piker in the realm of division. He is another in a long line of polarizing politicians who say one thing and do another. His supportes rejoice, as there is unity in division, joy in hate, truth in lies, and diversity in lock-step conformity.

  • obamastolemyboyfriend

    Prop 8 gets all the attention quite frankly due to hollywood elite and the whiney celebrities.