The Shotgun Blog
« ONN: Obama win causes obsessive supporters to realize how empty their lives are | Main | Obama camp scrubs website to remove references to "mandatory" community service »
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Mormons being blamed for passage of Proposition 8 by gay rights activists
Blaming Mormons for the passage of Proposition 8 in California--the proposition that ends gay marriage in the state--gay rights activists staged a large protest, at one point congregating outside of a Mormon church to bellow "tax the Mormon church," and "shame on you."
Voting analysis appears to show that Mormon's had little to do with the passage of Proposition 8. Instead, it was the large black turnout that is mostly to blame for passage of Prop 8:
Although many of the state's black political leaders spoke out against Proposition 8, an exit poll of California voters showed that black voters favored the measure by a ratio of more than 2 to 1. Not only was the black vote weighted heavily in favor of Proposition 8, but black turnout -- spurred by Barack Obama's historic campaign for president -- was unusually large, with African Americans making up roughly 10% of the state electorate.
Is the irony lost on anyone?
UPDATE: Willard, in the comments, points to calls for a boycott of the state of Utah by the gay community. Here's the story. An excerpt:
Gay rights activist John Aravosis, whose well-trafficked AmericaBlog.com is urging the boycott, is unapologetic about targeting Utah rather than California, where voters defined marriage in the state Constitution as a heterosexual act.
Utah, Aravosis said, "is a hate state," and on this issue, "at a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line. . . . They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards. You don't do that and get away with it."
The Mormon Church, based in Salt Lake City, encouraged members to work for passage of the ballot measure. Thousands of Mormons worked as grass-roots volunteers and gave tens of millions of dollars to the campaign.
UPDATE2: It appears that some gay activists are, in fact, blaming blacks as well as Mormons (NB: According to Fact Check, a commenter, the Mormon church funded the "Yes on 8" campaign more than any other group). From Rod 2.0:
A number of Rod 2.0 and Jasmyne Cannick readers report being subjected to taunts, threats and racist abuse at last night's marriage equality rally in Los Angeles.
Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.
It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.
Los Angeles resident and Rod 2.0 reader A. Ronald says he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse.
Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, "Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!" A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were "very disappointed with black people" and "how could we" after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn't matter because "most black people hated gays" and he was "wrong" to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on November 8, 2008 in U.S. politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010535dca29c970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mormons being blamed for passage of Proposition 8 by gay rights activists:
Comments
What's even more ironic, and sad, is that proponents of gay marriage have selected Utah as the target of their anger and are preparing to boycott an entire state.
I understand their strong emotions, but there are other, more effective ways to gain respect. I sympathize with gays as a group that receives too much hatred, but it saddens me to see them react in anger when they do not get their way because I know it sets us all back: gays, Mormons, and everyone else.
Posted by: Willard | 2008-11-08 3:15:21 PM
I don't know about anyone else but it takes forever for the WS blog to load with all the Youtube and other video links you guys post.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-08 3:17:50 PM
The call to tax the Mormon church is ludicrous and is destined to go no where.
IRS law prohibits churches from endorsing specific candidates. It doesn't prohibit them from taking a stand on policy issues. And it shouldn't.
(Admittedly, there is some vagueness in the regulations. But apparently the LDS church didn't even donate a penny itself in support of Prop 8. The vagueness favors them, not the people trying to revoke their status.)
Perhaps these gay activists should extend their efforts and try to strip tax exempt status from black churches. Lots of those congregations supported Prop 8 as well. Some of those churches even donated money, unlike the Mormons.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-08 3:30:30 PM
The Stig: I've moved several videos and other widgets below the fold. Please let me know if it's helping the website load faster for you.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-11-08 3:32:46 PM
I'll bet that the State of Utah is mortified at the prospect of a gay boycott.
And oddly the only gay people that piss me off are the ones that yell in my face about how gay they are. The rest...have a nice life. :)
Posted by: JC | 2008-11-08 3:44:20 PM
I believe stink'n think'n taught by the Bible about sexuality in general is where the Mormons were coming from. It's time we call a spade a spade. That garbage about homosexuality from the Bible is pure sewer, and Mormons used it with hate, to bring down people's marriages and people's lives.
The Bible has a lot of nice stories, and it also has a lot of smut. If people choose to diefy biblical smut and back it with dollars, well, that brings consequences for which we ALL must pay.
Posted by: Devlin | 2008-11-08 4:10:33 PM
Regarding a gay boycott for the hate state of Utah; they can be the example of how not to treat people of any minority, particularly the gay minoirty. BRING. IT.
Posted by: Dale | 2008-11-08 4:15:02 PM
They can say what they like. Mormons have a right to their vote and their beliefs, which unlike those of the Gay Culture, which is barely 40 years old, have actually withstood the test of time. As for making children "bastards," since when do liberals have a problem with having children out of wedlock?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 4:21:31 PM
Devlin wrote: "The Bible has a lot of nice stories, and it also has a lot of smut. If people choose to diefy biblical smut and back it with dollars, well, that brings consequences for which we ALL must pay."
Yes, unlike diefying movie stars and other celebrities and accepting the things one sees in their fairy tales as fact, which of course everyone knows has absolutely no negative effects on society.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 4:23:46 PM
Dale, how is calling marriage what it has always meant--a union between a man and a woman--an affirmation of hate? Because an interest group says it means something else, and the rest of society does not agree, does not a hate crime make. If you want to see an example of real hate, watch the video. Apparently it's okay to hate, as long as you are a minority AND your target is either the majority or a social or religious institution that existed before 1960.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 4:27:14 PM
I am baffled by the call from the GLBT community to complain to the IRS and demand that the Mormon Church's non-profit status be revoked for trying to influence legislation (even though this is explicitly allowed by the IRS code).
By that same logic, all the GLBT organizations, or every other non-profit group that participated on either side of the Prop 8 issue should have their non-profit status revoked. Is that really what they want? If not, they are being intellectually dishonest and logically inconsistent.
Posted by: Craig | 2008-11-08 4:31:16 PM
This is more confusing than a Mormon family reunion. Gays hate blacks and mormons. Does that mean there are no gay blacks or mormons?
Utah gets boycotted because black people in California don't support gay marriage? Utah has enough marriage issues without getting caught up in someone else's battle.
Just wondering, are there any black mormons? I always wondered why Donny and Marie never had the Jackson Five on their TV show.
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-08 4:33:47 PM
Jaws: "Voting analysis appears to show that Mormon's had little to do with the passage of Proposition 8."
Terrence: "Some of those [black] churches even donated money, unlike the Mormons."
Mormons spent over $20 million to promote Prop 8 - accounting for almost 80% of the funds raised for its promotion. Anti-liberty, Christian fascists of many stripes deserve some measure of the blame, including Morons ... er ... Mormons.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-11-08 4:36:46 PM
And when, Fact Check, did liberty become synonymous with the dissolution of social institutions, or with re-engineering the language, Newspeak-style, on pain of mob justice?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 4:57:40 PM
Fact Check,
"Mormons spent over $20 million to promote Prop 8..."
Is that the LDS church itself, or people who happen to be Mormons?
My understanding was that Mormons, as individuals, donated quite a bit (which is their right, as far as I'm concerned), but the church itself didn't donate that much (or anything at all. I'm getting conflicting accounts.)
Surely the Mormon church can't be penalized if its members decided, as individuals, to donate money. Even if the church encouraged them to do so?
By the way, FC: I'm with you about wanting to say a big "fuck you" to the Mormons and other social conservatives about proposition 8. I'm just unconvinced there was any violation of the tax law.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-08 5:23:53 PM
Terrence wrote: "By the way, FC: I'm with you about wanting to say a big "fuck you" to the Mormons and other social conservatives about proposition 8. I'm just unconvinced there was any violation of the tax law"
You're right, there most likely wasn't. Of course, the issue raised by your wanting to raise your little finger to someone who disagrees with you says more about you than it does about that someone, doesn't it? Notice that not many Republicans are lifting their middle fingers to the Democrats right now, a marked contrast to the mass outpouring of hate and grief that followed Bush's re-election in 2004.
I already knew that conservatives had more class than liberals, Terrence. This petulant protest is a case in point. There was no need for you to prove it further.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 5:37:12 PM
Shane Matthews wrote "calling marriage what it has always meant--a union between a man and a woman"
Most of you probably already know that marriage didn't always mean "one man and one woman" to Mormons. Mormons practiced polygamy from the time the church was founded in the 1830s. After Mormons migrated to the territory of Utah, they wanted Utah to become a state. But the US wouldn't allow that to happen unless Mormons stopped practicing polygamy. The church stated in 1890 that they would stop it, although many of the leaders went to Mexico to get married to multiple wives. Polygamy, however, continues to this day among some Mormons.
Posted by: Jackie | 2008-11-08 5:38:54 PM
Shane,
"The issue raised by your wanting to raise your little finger to someone who disagrees with you says more about you than it does about that someone, doesn't it?"
Of course it all depends on the nature of the disagreement. A disagreement over what to have for dinner is one thing. A disagreement over the basic requirements of justice is quite another, and might deserve a different kind of response. Resentment, perhaps. Hostility. Righteous anger.
"Agreeing to disagree", in all matters, no matter the costs or consequences, is a sentiment more common to liberals and moral relativists than it is to conservatives. Here is a situation in which agreeing to disagree is, I believe, not enough.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-08 5:48:32 PM
Jackie, do Mormon men marry Mormon men? Or Mormon women Mormon women? Even among Mormons, marriage meant what it has always meant--a union between a man and a woman, one or more than one. This is a fine hair to be slicing when the base assertion is sound. I am not aware of any society, ever, where same-sex cohabitation has been considered a formal marriage, at least not prior to 1990s Western liberal society.
Are we to allow union between brother and sister, or mother and son, or father and daughter, next? Indeed, some pedophiles are already arguing that if marriage between adults of the same sex is legal, then so should be marriage between adult and child. After all, the social taboos concerning homosexuality, pedophilia, and incest all come from the same book of the Torah. It's just that one is trendy and the other two aren't--yet.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 5:49:52 PM
Shane: Whatever else marriage is, it is a *contract*. Contract law clearly prohibits children from entering contracts about certain things (most things). That automatically excludes children from entering these kinds of contracts, as well as animals.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-11-08 5:54:00 PM
Terrence wrote: “Of course it all depends on the nature of the disagreement. A disagreement over what to have for dinner is one thing. A disagreement over the basic requirements of justice is quite another, and might deserve a different kind of response. Resentment, perhaps. Hostility. Righteous anger.”
Hostility toward those who disagree with you is generally frowned upon in a civil society. In this country, people have the right to hold and express opinions without fear of being hounded by angry mobs.
Terrence wrote: "Agreeing to disagree", in all matters, no matter the costs or consequences, is a sentiment more common to liberals and moral relativists than it is to conservatives.
More common to CLASSICAL liberals, meaning the likes of Voltaire and Franklin, than CLASSICAL conservatives, meaning the likes of Louis XVI and George III and their respective aristocracies who bled the people dry while living in decadent luxury. Look around. Contemporary liberals are not a bit like this. They snort and bugle and charge like an elk in rut whenever challenged, marching in the streets, burning people in effigy, trashing frankenfood labs, spiking trees, sabotaging industrial equipment, setting fires, smashing windows, storming barricades, attacking police, spray-painting fur coats, and in general acting like a pack of brainless barbarians, Visigoths, Vikings and looters, plunderers and highwaymen. Count the number of Left-wing protestors and compare with the number of Right-wing protestors. Go on, count them! Who are the reactionaries now, Terrence?
Terrence wrote: “Here is a situation in which agreeing to disagree is, I believe, not enough.”
Of course not. The laws and rules of civil society don’t apply to you; you have a cause. If the past eight years have taught us anything, it’s that liberals consider their conservative adversaries to be not merely misguided, but evil. They are not prepared to hold up their end of deal in the social contract. If they are defeated in elections, they howl and break things and gnash their teeth, if you can recall their shameful behaviour both before and after the 2004 election. Compare that with the gentlemanly restraint shown by most conservatives in 2008.
All you’ve shown is that you’ve never grown up, Terrence. Like most liberals.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 6:00:29 PM
PM wrote: "Whatever else marriage is, it is a *contract*. Contract law clearly prohibits children from entering contracts about certain things (most things). That automatically excludes children from entering these kinds of contracts, as well as animals."
And, of course, laws are not subject to revision or change, ever.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 6:01:30 PM
Shane,
I'm not talking about sending mobs to bother Mormons at their homes. Even if I commanded a mob (which I don't -- but wouldn't that be interesting?) I wouldn't send it after the Mormons.
There is a CLEAR difference between sending a mob to harass someone you don't like and saying, as an individual, "You know, I don't like those folks."
If you truly believe "people have the right to hold and express opinions", then why do you have a problem with one person expressing their rather negative opinion about the role Mormons played in the passage of Prop 8?
Freedom of expression cuts both ways. If religious-types can express their bigotry, then I can express my opinion of their bigotry. That's classical liberalism 101, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-08 6:07:45 PM
1. Since I know Terrence, I can attest that he's no liberal, Shane. Play by the rules.
2. If you want to challenge contract law, that's your business. But it seems to me like there is very good reason to exclude children from signing certain contracts. As for adults, I'm not so sure.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-11-08 6:09:32 PM
The 'No' camp outspent the 'Yes' camp $38 million to $36 million, and the 'No' camp had more celebrity endorsements than the 'Yes' camp...and the 'No' camp still lost. Was this all due to the Mormons? If so, are Mormons also to blame for the marriage amendments that have passed in 29 other states (with California, Arizona, and Florida all passing theirs this year).
Gays faced a similar defeat in 2000 with Proposition 22. They overcame that by using the courts. However, when faced with the question a second time, California voters still said no to gay marriage. Democracy’s a bitch when you’re on the losing side. However the voice of the people have spoken twice, and not happy with the results, the gay community want a scapegoat for their defeat.
I find it ironic that a community that has always asked for tolerance to their lifestyle choices aren’t willing to show tolerance with those with differing views from theirs.
Posted by: Jason | 2008-11-08 6:10:45 PM
Shane you are spot on with your comments. I also have a news flash for those like Devlin and FC. Every single major religion rejects homosexuality, not only Christianity. Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Islam. By the way Islam even offers a permanent cure. Of course the homosexual activists want to ignore this little fact and focus their hatred on Christians, and by the way Mormons are not even Christian.
Most people now are willing to let consenting adults do in private whatever they want concerning sex but are fed up with the constant in-your-face from homosexual activists.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-11-08 6:13:35 PM
I wish that Prop 8 had been opposed more by the black community but I certainly won't condemn them as a people or call such terrible names. I am a lesbian and would not associate with anyone who used the N word. I think that's terrible. But I do wish that the black community, overall, had seen that our plight was one of discrimination and bigotry and empathized and stood with us. I'm confident that they will -- we're all people, after all.
Posted by: Michelle | 2008-11-08 6:23:59 PM
Terrence wrote: “1.I'm not talking about sending mobs to bother Mormons at their homes. Even if I commanded a mob (which I don't -- but wouldn't that be interesting?) I wouldn't send it after the Mormons.”
1. Let’s see—“…might deserve a different kind of response. Resentment, perhaps. Hostility. Righteous anger.” Which is fine, both to have and express, provided you don’t cross the line. Since the subject was “Mormons blamed” and the ensuing protest, that suggests you support the protestors’ actions.
2. Yes, but unless they intentionally provoke you or do something objectively wrong, as opposed to simply supporting a different definition of marriage than you do, such a response is disproportionate, childish, ill-tempered, cantankerous, and as I said before, says more about you than it does about them.
3. Well, first of all, it isn’t true, because it was the support of Blacks and Latinos, not Mormons, that catapulted this measure over the top. But because it’s politically incorrect to blame immigrants and black people for anything, you go after a politically acceptable but non-critical target, Christians. Who’s the hater?
4. So religious beliefs now automatically qualify as bigotry. You do realize, of course, that by thus writing off over half the world’s population, you come off as a pretty big bigot yourself—and a mouthy one in the bargain?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 6:29:27 PM
Shane,
The slippery slope argument is fallacious.
Children are not capable of providing informed consent, ergo, to permit adults and minors to marry would rob those children of the right to choose.
Interestingly, this same logic justifies why two consenting adults should be permitted to marry. Both adults are capable of providing informed consent, are cognizant of their actions and the responsibilities thereof.
Posted by: Rupert P. Fillywick | 2008-11-08 6:30:24 PM
Pete,
The distinction between liberalism and conservatism has always been a bit mysterious to me.
Usually, it looks to me like this:
Modern liberals believe legislation must be justified in terms of reasons acceptable to all, regardless of their particular religious/moral beliefs.
I've come to believe that standard is unreachable. Or, if it is attainable, only libertarians can get there. Public education, anti-discrimination law, and all the other things modern liberals like implicitly depend on a certain moral conception (probably one that places priority on the value of autonomy.)
Conservatives, in contrast, recognize that legislation must and should be rooted in the values that have, through time and experience, proven themselves to be vital components of human flourishing (NOT happiness.)
Notice that this description of conservatism does not require one to support any PARTICULAR policies to count as a conservative. It'll depend on the values the conservative thinks history has shown are vital to flourishing. And it will depend on lots of other things, like the limits of human nature.
Was Aristotle a conservative? I think so.
Shane, I'm curious: to what degree does my description of conservatism match what you think is distinctive about conservatism?
In any event, based on this description, I'm something of a conservative. I'm just unconvinced -- more and more all the time -- that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage would be a threat to individual flourishing.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-08 6:31:11 PM
Michelle,
"But I do wish that the black community, overall, had seen that our plight was one of discrimination and bigotry and empathized and stood with us."
That would have been nice.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-08 6:32:00 PM
Michelle, do you oppose dropping the N-bomb because it's crass and rude and uncivil, or simply because you've been conditioned not to do it? That is an important distinction if you think about it. Moreover, if the group that had carried Prop 8 over the top had been predominantly white and Christian, would you have an easier time calling them names?
Refusing to call a rake a spade is not discrimination and does not betray a lack of empathy. All it betrays is a willingness to stand by a truth you find distasteful. Moreover, given the conduct of the gay rally, labeling as troglodytes and dinosaurs anyone who doesn't support their agenda and dragging city councils into court unless they arrange for Pride Days at city expense, as well as holding noisy and obnoxious protests, the gays aren't being terribly tolerant themselves, are they? Or is tolerance only required of the majority?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 6:34:40 PM
Shane,
There is a difference between bigotry and disagreement.
Bigotry implies a narrow-minded intolerance of other's view points. Such intolerance is manifested through laws like Proposition 8, where bigoted individuals force their view-point onto others.
Disagreement, on the other hand, is not bigoted. Protesters do not engage in the disingenuous construct of "reverse-bigotry" by rejecting intolerant view points, rather, they defend the existence -- not acceptance -- of their own view points. In doing so they do not reject the validity of opposing viewpoints, instead asserting the injustice of oppression of their own.
Posted by: Rupert P. Fillywick | 2008-11-08 6:37:46 PM
Shane,
"1. Let’s see—“…might deserve a different kind of response. Resentment, perhaps. Hostility. Righteous anger.” Which is fine, both to have and express, provided you don’t cross the line. Since the subject was “Mormons blamed” and the ensuing protest, that suggests you support the protestors’ actions."
Ah, okay. I see what you're saying now. We should be careful, though: surely you don't want to say that any and all protests are objectionable?
But yeah, harassing individual Mormons or Catholics on the street does threaten to cross the line. Yet not all protests will have this form.
And I could be wrong, but by criticizing the Christian organizations in favor of prop 8, am I not also implicitly criticizing the African-Americans who belong to those organizations?
My very first comment in this thread included this:
"Perhaps these gay activists should extend their efforts and try to strip tax exempt status from black churches. Lots of those congregations supported Prop 8 as well. Some of those churches even donated money, unlike the Mormons."
So I'm not sparing anyone from my "cantankerousness", Shane. I've never been accused of being very politically correct.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-08 6:42:48 PM
Tolerance requires no action, imposes no restrictions, and is practiced at no cost.
Claiming the rejection of injustice to be intolerant is merely churlish self-justification on behalf of those that would rob others of their personal freedom.
Posted by: Rupert P. Fillywick | 2008-11-08 6:45:58 PM
I am genuinely relieved to witness the passage of Proposition 8.
After the judicial legislative interjection on behalf of the gay minority, I became genuinely concerned for the sanctity of my marriage.
If gays could marry, what would become of my own marriage? Would it be destroyed, gutted by godlessness and the sins of others?
This genuinely frightened me, and many a night my wife and I discussed divorce and the impending ruin of our marriage.
Fortunately, god be praised, Proposition 8 passed. No longer is my marriage in danger of destruction through the genuine happiness of others. May their sorrow buoy us up.
Posted by: P.T. Barnum | 2008-11-08 6:51:03 PM
Barnum,
"If gays could marry, what would become of my own marriage? Would it be destroyed, gutted by godlessness and the sins of others?
This genuinely frightened me, and many a night my wife and I discussed divorce and the impending ruin of our marriage.
Fortunately, god be praised, Proposition 8 passed. No longer is my marriage in danger of destruction through the genuine happiness of others. May their sorrow buoy us up."
Well played, sir. Well played.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-08 6:52:39 PM
Rupert wrote: “1. Shane, the slippery slope argument is fallacious.”
1. But relevant, inasmuch as pedophiles are already jumping on the bandwagon. Activists have a bad habit of not knowing when to stop, because the truth is most of them aren’t in it for the cause itself. They just enjoy the struggle.
2. That children are not capable of providing informed consent is an opinion, not a fact. Children are not complete and utter morons that magically transmute into fully mature and informed adults on their eighteenth birthday. The basic facts of sex are pretty easy to understand. Most people who infantilize children do so as a salve to their own sensibilities, e.g. “Help our kids stay kids,” not for the sake of the child.
3. Consenting adults should be able to provide legally recognized partnerships that provide the same benefits and tax breaks as traditional marriage. That doesn’t translate into the right to call it marriage, because that is not what it is. Nor should those sanctified to perform WEDDINGS be pressured into enacting such contracts. Gays just feel left out with their noses pressed against the windows of the bridal shops. They see something that someone else has, and they want it. But their choices, already made, preclude it. It’s not up to the rest of the world to change to suit them, when no legal right is being violated in the first place. Instead, they argue that a legal right should be inferred as an extension of an existing one. The burden of proof lies with them, not the society whose mores they oppose.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 6:54:10 PM
Terrence wrote: “1. Ah, okay. I see what you're saying now. We should be careful, though: surely you don't want to say that any and all protests are objectionable?”
1. Most of them are. Certainly the threshold for provocation is far too low. Protests disrupt traffic, disrupt commerce, basically bring that portion of the city to a halt and hold it hostage, all because somebody got pissed. It’s a childish, petulant holdover from the 1960s that really has held on far too long. Despite what some people say, democracy is not synonymous with street disorders and does not require them.
2. Not ALL protests will have this form? How magnanimous of you. How about I counter with: “Not ALL disruptive and illegal protests will be greeted with the police chief’s words, ‘Get out the machine guns…’”
3. You’re still targeting Christians, and thus Christianity, thus providing a protective cloak for your own bigotry. It’s politically acceptable to target Christians, whatever their colour, because of a heavy prejudice among liberals that Christians are all overweight, beer-chugging, deer-gunning white men of West and North European extraction.
4. You can’t pick and choose which Christian churches deserve tax-exempt status, Terrence. For that matter, the same benefits should be extended to all congregations of all major religions, for the same reasons they were extended to Christian churches.
5. Just think. That’s a statement you’ll never have to make again.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 7:05:05 PM
Shane,
"It’s not up to the rest of the world to change to suit them, when no legal right is being violated in the first place".
Had Proposition 8 not passed, no laws would have changed. The judicial ruling enforced the standing constitution right to equal protection under the law, as the judiciary was designed to do.
The burden of proof lies with those that would restrict the freedom of others, for they are the ones who actively seek to constrain the free will and forcibly impose their bigotry through the arm of the state.
Your concern over restriction of the majority's choice is laughable. Freedom of choice guarantees that no religious organization may be forced to marry two people for any reason. In the belief that you have protected your choice, you've denied the choices of others, and yourself committed the sin which you wished to prevent.
Posted by: Rupert P. Fillywick | 2008-11-08 7:05:31 PM
Rupert wrote: “1. There is a difference between bigotry and disagreement.”
1. I have seen that the chief difference is in the eye of the beholder.
2. I have also seen that those who are quickest to call bigotry are often bigots themselves. Rigidity and self-righteousness of belief gives them the unreasoning certainty to levy such calumnies without regard for consequence. That is the definition of bigotry. Every law passed in history has had its detractors; and was the result of someone’s viewpoint; does that make all laws bigotry?
3. This attempt to excuse your own bigotry as “non-bigotry,” because it’s yours, because it’s “justified,” only affirms your own narcissism, and your own bigotry, not that the other side consists of bigots. Refusing to call a rake a shovel is not oppression. If you want society to seriously consider your position, you should stop calling them assholes. Your salesmanship is execrable, exacerbated by the fact that you don’t even think it should have to be necessary.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 7:14:25 PM
Shane,
I never said any churches should have their tax exempt status taken away. That's a lie.
And targeting my criticism to the churches that supported Proposition 8 is better than targeting it at the entire black community, since not all African-Americans voted for Proposition 8.
It's not that I think Christians make easy targets. In my time as a blogger here, I've gone after:
1. the "secular theocrats" of the human rights commissions who want the government to dictate the ideas that can and can't be expressed in Canada.
2. Islamic fundamentalists, and their enablers in the media and the government.
3. White nationalists, generally.
4. Ron Paul supporters (if you think THIS was easy, recall the number of pro-Ron Paul posts on this very blog.)
5. Commies and commie sympathizers.
6. Left-wing amoralists, radical feminists, and other hypocrites (usually the ones attacking Christians.)
In fact, this might be the first time EVER I've criticized a group of Christians, in any context.
Not a lot of evidence for the kind of prejudice you're accusing me of, is there?
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-08 7:15:37 PM
Most causes need a scapegoat. The Mormons are perfect candidates. Nobody really likes them anyways, and they can be painted as an external threat. 'Pure' Californians are not to blame, we are all victims of an American Taliban in the intermountain west. It is not surprising that there is little attempt to understand what motivated the voters, including the Mormons, in this election. Such understanding would require dehumanizing labels such as 'bigot' and "hater" to be qualified. It may require compromise and mutual understanding. I can say one thing, Mormons do not hate gay people. The LDS church does not opposed a single point of the gay rights agenda except the marriage issue. Why? Well you might recall that it was only a century ago that Mormons were jailed and disenfranchised because their definition of marriage differed from the government's. Couple that historical consciousness with reports of numerous legal battles being won against churches in favor of gay rights, and the Mormons feel like they have a well founded fear that history will repeat itself. An aggressive focus on Mormons for reprisal, when they comprise only 2% of the population that passed the proposition, will only deepen the distrust that motivated them to action in the first place.
Posted by: John | 2008-11-08 7:18:57 PM
Thus Rupert argues that Lincoln, by abrogating due process by warring against slavery restricted the freedom of others, actively sought to constrain free will and forcibly imposed his bigotry through the arm of the state.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-11-08 7:20:09 PM
Hell, I just remembered the time I went after Richard Dawkins for some reason or another.
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html
Apparently, I hate Christians, atheists, Muslims, most libertarians, Nazis, commies, white people, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, environmentalists, goths, emo kids, young people, old people, the French, and Jack Layton.
Well, who doesn't hate Jack Layton?
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-08 7:22:42 PM
DJ,
"There is of course one other group missing from his list."
You're right. Scientologists.
What can I say? I was partial to Battlefield Earth when I was a kid (book, not the movie.)
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-08 7:29:34 PM
Terrence wrote: “I never said any churches should have their tax exempt status taken away. That's a lie.”
But also wrote: “Perhaps these gay activists should extend their efforts and try to strip tax exempt status from black churches.” By the way, in spite of your damning words, Terrence, I never actually accused you of saying any such thing, unless I’ve missed something.
Terrence wrote: “And targeting my criticism to the churches that supported Proposition 8 is better than targeting it at the entire black community, since not all African-Americans voted for Proposition 8.”
You mean the same way that rape is better than murder? By the way, it’s a safe bet that not every member of those congregations supported Proposition 8, either. It’s not all lock-step, doctrinaire, hellfire-and-damnation brainwashing, you know. I begin to wonder if you’ve ever been to church. Maybe you should; it’s free and, at worst, you’ll learn some more about your avowed enemies. If you manage to save your soul in the bargain, bonus.
Terrence wrote: “It's not that I think Christians make easy targets. In my time as a blogger here, I've gone after [litany]. Not a lot of evidence for the kind of prejudice you're accusing me of, is there?”
There is now.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 7:42:08 PM
"Thus Rupert argues that Lincoln, by abrogating due process by warring against slavery restricted the freedom of others, actively sought to constrain free will and forcibly imposed his bigotry through the arm of the state."
That's a far cry from what I argued. Slavery restricted the freedom of others, and in doing so, slavers abrogated their own due process and right to choice. One has the right to choice, but not the right to restrict other's choices.
It is the balancing act of this precarious morality that delivers freedom and liberty.
Posted by: Rupert P. Fillywick | 2008-11-08 7:54:27 PM
Rupert wrote: “1. Had Proposition 8 not passed, no laws would have changed. The judicial ruling enforced the standing constitution right to equal protection under the law, as the judiciary was designed to do.”
The judicial ruling stank of social engineering, using loaded language like “widespread disparagement,” “is likely to be viewed,” “may well have the effect,” “second-class citizens.” Moreover, gays are attempting to change the historical definition of marriage to something it isn’t. Marriage is a right only in that it is not forbidden; it is not Constitutionally protected so far as I am aware, and affords the individual no legal protection to speak of, so the courts exceeded their authority.
2. Again, use of the word “bigotry.” You can’t help yourself, can you? You’re so overflowing with spite and bile that you’re determined that others should know about it. Even if it does your argument no good, it just feels SSSOOOOOO good to get it out. Furthermore, the burden of proof always lies with those seeking change, against social consensus. If the case is that much of a slam-dunk it shouldn’t be a hard sell.
3. Excuse me, you’re quite wrong. Here in Canada, where gay marriage is already legal, justices of the peace are already being forced to conduct gay weddings even if they want no part of it. The argument is being bandied about by gay groups that since religious organizations pay no tax, they should be forced to do likewise, or else forfeit their tax-exempt status. These activists really don’t care how much they destroy, provided they get what they want. They are selfish, loathsome, malicious and despicable, and the rest of the gay community is perfectly content to let them speak for them. The citizens know that. And that’s the real reason Proposition 8 passed.
P.S. You should be careful in your use of the word “choice.” It’s currently being used to justify the slaying of over 1.1 million unborn per year. Murder, like marriage, is always a choice. That doesn’t make both options equally valid.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 7:56:18 PM
Rupert wrote: "That's a far cry from what I argued. Slavery restricted the freedom of others, and in doing so, slavers abrogated their own due process and right to choice. One has the right to choice, but not the right to restrict other's choices."
So you're saying that a criminal who violates the rights of another is fair game to have his own rights violated? That's the gist of what you have just put forward.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 7:57:30 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.