Angry Gay Activists Show Their True Face
Angry activists for gay marriage have shown their true face after they lost the battle for gay marriage in California earlier this week.
As reported earlier today, they declared war on Catholics and Mormons immediately after Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, was passed by a major of California voters. Soon after they also started to target African Americans who, like Catholics and Mormons, voted for the ban in big numbers.
Now, they have taken their attempts to take revenge one step further, and a angry left blogger, John Aravosis of AMERICAblog.com leads the way: he has called on his fellow activists and everyone else to boycott Utah.
Why Utah, you ask? Because Utah is the home of the Mormon Church or the Church of Latter-day Saints. The Mormon Church pushed the ban quite aggressively, donating millions of dollars to the pro-Proposition 8 campaign.
Aravosis and others have taken the stance of the Mormon church as a declaration of war, and are now going all out, thereby displaying their hatred, anger, viciousness and lack of moral values.
The anger coming from this side of the political spectrum in recent days has been shocking, breath taking. These people are not reasonable activists, willing to accept the outcome of democratic elections, but hateful, angry radicals willing to get rid of democracy altogether in order to accomplish their goal.
One would almost dare these individuals to take it one step further; singling out Mormons is unfair. Do the same, then, for Catholics, white protestants, African Americans and everyone else who voted for Proposition 8. Instead, they show just how biased and intolerant they truly are themselves; their complaints about ‘intolerance’ from the other side are increasingly hypocritical.
A word of caution to these people – and this is coming from the perspective of someone who believes it should be legal: you’ll lose the battle if you try to turn this into a major cultural war. You’ll be squashed, destroyed, without any hope of every reaching your goal.
How true it is. These people took to the streets after Prop. 8 passed, clogging traffic and had to be closely watched by the police. They staged a huge protest in fron of the Mormon temple in LA where they chanted “Mormon Scum” and yelled at other disparaging remarks at them. They spray painted Bigot onto the walls of the property. They formed a website where every donation given will send a mocking letter to the Church President. They also tagged another Mormon church in California.
In Utah another rally was held at the church headquarters where similar embarrassing acts took place. Notice how the Mormon church is not fighting back besides issuing a statement to be respectful. They did not take to the streets and march around gay areas yelling threats at them. They havn’t done anything hateful or bigotted and yet they are still accused of such action. Even if Prop 8 didn’t pass they would have backed down and not gone to the extremities being shown now. The gay community has shown themselves for who they really are.
After reading your article above, I feel confused. I am wondering if you understand why gays and lesbians are angry with the mormon church? The church donated 20 million dollars to put out tv ads that made false claims about what passing prop 8 would mean for people. They ran an entire well done campaign based on lies and misinformation. They produced tv ads designed to scare people by claiming that if prop 8 wasn’t passed children would be taught about gay sex. These were complete falsehoods and lies.
People rights should never be put to a popular vote. Had desegregation been put to a ballot then the schools would still be segregated. I think your anger with gays and lesbians right now, and your preception that are angry is intolerant may be based on your own misinformation. It is clear to me from your article you do not understand the “why” behind the anger. I think if you took the time and connected with what glbt folks are feeling and why, your take in the issue would be filled with compassion rather than all this judgment and talk of destroying people.
I add that talk of destroying and squashing people doesn’t make them want to listen to you.
The church did nothing of the sort. Individual people did.
Watch your own misinformation before criticizing others, especially since it is YOUR side that is advocating violence.
I understand the anger and outrage of gay-rights advocates. I do not understand their willingness to express it violently. It is immoral and counterproductive to their goals.
The violence is on both sides. I can show you just as much violence from the pro-prop8 folks as you can show me from gay folks. I feel disappointed when I see terms like “your side”. We are all on the same side of humanity. I refuse to see people through the lens of “sides”
adding to that the words of Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin:
In response to the protests in Salt Lake City and in front of the Westwood CA temple, the leadership of the LDS church issued a press release saying “it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.”
They are preparing the ground to characterize the protests as anti-Mormon religious bigotry. However, it should be remembered that:
– They have the right as citizens to do what they did.
– And so they exercised those rights as citizens.
– When they exercised those rights as citizens, they forfeit the right to be just religious leaders. They became politicians.
– And politicians deserve every right to scrutiny, criticism, protests, etc.
– As politicians, they cannot hide behind their temples now.
You write: “The church did nothing of the sort. Individual people did.”
I would remind you those individuals were from the mormon church!
So they have the right as citizens but the moment they exercise the right, they become politicians?
So every time a black person commits a crime, all black people are responsible, according to you?
Also, since California is only 2% Mormon and Prop 8 passed with around 52% of the vote, there were many Prop 8 proponents who were not Mormons.
Maybe you should stop hating Mormons and start persuading people. Hating Mormons as a group only makes you just as bad as you see your opponents to be.
> The violence is on both sides
Both sides? You mean Mormons are being violent against gays? Or are Mormons not really the ‘other side’ you’re referring to here?
Jason, I don’t hate anyone as a group. I am upset that a group like mormon can give millions of untaxed dollars to politcal ventures. I am upset that those political ventures were based in untruths about gays and lesbians and the meaning and effects prop 8 would have on others.
It appears you and Veld may have jumped to the conclusion I hate mormons. I feel exactly the same way about any tax exempt church group that fights political battles. I also feel that balance is to be valued. I recognized that gay bloggers have said some undue things in anger, I recognize prop 8 supporters have done the same. Emotions get high and reason seems to jump the shark.
Look at your words above and tell me about hate and anger? You said gays have no morals, you state that gays are biased and intolerant. I again feel generally confused by your site. Are for or against name calling and hatred?
Lying about what other commenters did or did not say is the fastest way to get banned from this site. Bye-bye.
He didn’t say gays have no morals. He said that the violent expression of anger is immoral.
also I’m still waiting: Have mormons violently harrassed gay people, or is the ‘other side’ you’re referring to someone else, and if it is, how can you justify the attacks specifically against mormons?
Ah, I see he’s banned.. really though, ARE there any incidents of Mormons violently attacking gay people?
Not that I am aware of. Even though I am no longer an active member, I do know that any violence or threats would certainly be against the express teachings of the LDS Church (“obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law”) and could result in excommunication.
California’s Proposition 8 is a perfect illustration of how democracy without an appreciation of liberty is just tyranny of the majority. The idea that 97% of the people can vote to define or take away the rights of the other 3% is crazy. This is why the Founding Fathers were so against the idea of a pure democracy.
Michael and others on this blog have expressed their concern regarding the intolerance that is being directed towards Mormons as a result of the passage of Proposition 8. And indeed, after hearing some of the rhetoric being directed towards the Mormon Church and Mormons, I have become concerned that people are beginning to unfairly lump all Mormons together, as if they act and think exactly alike with regards to this issue or that they all share some sort of collective responsibility for the results of Proposition 8.
Of course, what no one here has bothered to point out is that Proposition 8 is itself an act of intolerance—one far greater than any rhetoric that has been uttered since its passage. For one person or one group to use the force of government to force their religious or moral views on everyone else (or in this case, on a minority group) is inherently intolerant.
It is one thing to strongly oppose another individual’s lifestyle and speak out against it in hopes of convincing others that such a lifestyle is wrong. It is quite another to put a stop to such a lifestyle through the force of government.
I condemn how certain gay activists are targeting and engaging in the defamation of Mormons as a group as well. This is unacceptable and under no circumstances should anybody be excused for behaving in this hateful fashion towards Mormons or anybody else. The fact that society as a whole rejects gay marriage is no excuse for certain gay activists to behave this way or to single out certain religious groups for vengeance.
Many will hesitate to say what I’m going to say at the risk of being labeled as homophobic or intolerant, but I have to be honest and state that this type of unfortunate behaviour only perpetuates stereotypes of gay people as being immature or irresponsible factions of society.
Selin, I get your point in the second paragraph but I wouldn’t go that far. What I do think is being displayed is the typical political mistake of demanding all or nothing. If gays would recognize that certain religious groups do have a stake in preserving their church’s right to sanction traditional marriage over the secular definition (which although commonly called marriage is really only a civil contract)then there would be room for a compromise position between the two sides in the debate. Instead, gays insist that equality demands a complete moral acceptance of their unions- which endangers First Amendment rights of churches to express their views on morality of homosexuality.
My point is this: If I were to threaten to engage in violence whenever I did not get respect from society as a Muslim, I would perpetuate negative stereotypes about Muslims in general. In fact, I would become that very stereotype. Nobody should be exempt from behaving in a responsible fashion, regardless of the “injustices” they face in society.
nicrivera,
I don’t really understand your point about putting a stop to the gay lifestyle through government. It wasn’t very many years ago that gay marriage was not recognized in California at all. Then it came on the ballot in the form of prop 22 and it failed. Then it was only because of 4 San Francisco judges that gays were given the right to marry ( a little “governemntal” in itself). It was then put back on the ballot as prop 8 and it once again came out with the same result.
I think a lot of people get really confused by this issue. It is not a civil rights issue. If it is then the “religious side” of prop 8 could say that their civil rights would be taken away by making marriage to mean something completely different than they believe. The glbt community has every civil right that a man/woman marriage has…It is just called a civil union.
I completely understand gays objecting to the result of prop 8 and feel they have every right to voice their opinion and attempt to take it to higher courts. I completely don’t understand the methods of protest they are using right now. Tell me again exactly why the mormon church is your target? Is it because they (and I mean individuals) donated money and time and voted yes on something they believe in. Is that what it is or am I missing someone. Last time I checked people, any people, are allowed to donate and vote the way they want. Let me know if America has changed it’s policies.
Christine,
As someone who grew up Mormon, there is something bizarre to me about the Mormons’ uniquely strong fixation on this issue: They already have a distinct form of marriage that insulates them from the effects of any gay marriage law anyway. Temple marriage is for “time and all eternity” not “until death do us part” and the ceremonies take place in the temples that are only accessible to those that are specifically approved by the congregational leader. That means that alterations in civil marriage laws could not even hypothetically force the Mormons to embrace gay marriage because the Church would still be able to prevent access to the uniquely Mormon style of marriage on other grounds.
Jason, the temple marriage itself MIGHT be safe, but how about people who want to be baptized? Normally couples who are living together would need to be married so they are not fornicating. Or a person who didn’t want to get married would have to start keeping the law of chastity. But if the homosexual couple is already legally and lawfully married and they still want to join the church, that would be a problem wouldn’t it? Short of some new doctrine that says homosexuality isn’t a sin after all because this whole father-mother-child relationship doesn’t matter as much as we’d thought (which, if you were any sort of mormon at all you’d know how HUGE that would be) – we’d still be considered at that point intolerant bigots to the point that we could be prosecuted.
Besides, the point still stands, as far as the law is concerned, married couples and domestic partners have fully equal rights in california. They’re just called different things. All prop 8 does is define the WORD marriage as being between a man and a woman. It does not afford extra rights. Calling a domestic partnership marriage, on the other hand, buys gay couples the right to prosecute anyone who thinks otherwise.
You can’t FORCE people to change their minds. Even with violence.
@Selin: re “Nobody should be exempt from behaving in a responsible fashion, regardless of the “injustices” they face in society.”, that’s exactly the way I wish I’d said it.
@nicrivera: re “It is quite another to put a stop to such a lifestyle through the force of government.”, the use of the words “put a stop to” and “force” is entirely inappropriate.
What part of Prop. 8 goes to either of these? Is there any popular movement to criminalize or persecute homosexual behavior? No.
I’ve been following this thread with interest. I am a Mormon but am somewhat conflicted on the proposition 8 issue. What I want to say is this:
1) As someone who is persuadable by both sides on the proposition 8 issue, the rhetoric espoused by the supporters of gay marriage after the vote isn’t likely to win me over. Mocking my church’s leader isn’t going to convince me they are right. By the way, how do they know enough about him to accuse him of bigotry when they don’t even know how to pronounce his name (it is Monson not Munsun, as the woman who announced the postcards kept calling him)? They clearly know almost nothing about it other than the fact that he supported proposition 8 (which perhaps is enough for them).
2) Jason, I haven’t quite bought into these arguments of the “yes on 8″ crowd. I think it’s unlikely that legal action would be taken against church’s that refuse to marry homosexuals (although I understand some obscure cases have been cited, so perhaps I’m persuadable on that), but I think your baptism argument is even more difficult to believe. On that basis, the Mormon church should be sued now for discriminating against people who smoke, since smoking is against the church’s teachings and a person who smokes cannot be baptized, but smoking is legal. And I’ve never heard of a church being sued based on who they choose to admit into their church, although perhaps you can point me to a case where that has happened. My understanding is that religions (and other private organizations) have quite a lot of leeway in terms of who they consider members, who they allow to be leaders, etc.
3) I agree with those that say there are no rights being taken away here. CA law states that civil unions afford the same legal rights as marriage. What we are debating here is a word. That’s not to say that gay marriage activists don’t have other valid arguments, though. They could use the same argument against the “Yes on 8″ crowd, in fact (If it’s just a word, what’s the big deal?). However, in light of the accusations coming toward the proposition 8 supporters, I think it’s important to point out.
Not at all. Membership in a church has never been and, under the First Amendment and the BSA Supreme Court decision, could never be challenged on equal protection grounds. The LDS Church would remain completely free to deny baptism to people based on homosexual lifestyle or anything else. The decision can even be completely arbitrary. It is black letter law and is not challenged in any way by legalizing gay civil marriage.
@Mike
Hi Mike, that wasn’t Jason’s argument, that was mine, and I thought about that immediately after posting it. Sorry.. bad argument. Still, their behavior now makes me wonder about their motives in the first place.
As a Mormon I would have to say that I HAVE been personally conflicted on this as well. I don’t have anything against gay people — well, I do have something against the ones who are persecuting mormons. I don’t have anything against them for being gay, though. I must admit though, there are people who have really lame arguments on this. My dad for example said that maybe as long as gay people can get married, we should make adultery legal too… *sigh* which is a really lame argument on so many levels. Obviously, some people don’t get it. You can’t MAKE them get it, either (I’ve tried). I don’t think our prophet is someone who doesn’t get it, though. I think he gets it alot more than I do.
I WOULD have something against gay people who try to force anyone to accept them though. You don’t gain acceptance by suing a photographer who doesn’t do gay ceremonies, for example, or by forcing an adoption agency to close because they think that children should be placed with a mother and a father. You don’t make people think your agenda is innocent that way.
The anti-prop8 people said that it was untruthful and vindictive to bring those arguments to light, because California law would prevent any such things. Besides it was all about Love all along, not about bullying anyone into accepting their point of view.. or was it?
*wishing I could edit posts* – they come out so bad when I’m in between getting kids off to school
Christine,
Access to religious rites has never been subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and there is no reason to believe that enactment of civil marriage rights for gays would magically create such access for them, regardless of whether they had been previously baptized. I am aware of exactly zero legal theories that could even hypothetically be deployed in support of such an argument and I am aware of exactly zero judges who would ever support such an argument, even on the infamous Ninth Circuit.
Enactment of gay marriage would only allow gay couples the right to access civil marriage — by a judge or a justice of the peace or any other civil official empowered to perform marriages. Clergy who function as civil officials for purposes of marriage do so secondary to their religious status and the secondary role cannot trump the primary religious role.
Jason, assuming you are correct I’d still argue that most people are unaware of that and instinctively feel that the churches’ rights are being threatened. Perhaps a better strategy for gay rights activists would be to dispel the misconception of that if indeed it’s a misconception. Frankly, some of the activities that another commenter mentioned earlier (suing photographers and others involved in the wedding industry) do more to further the fear than to dispel it and thus hurt their own cause.
velda, Thanks for clarifying and I apologize to Jason. Somehow I must have gotten confused about who was saying what.
Marc,
Proposition 8 isn’t a suggestion. It isn’t a recommendation It’s a Constitutional Amendment backed by the force of government.
I don’t understand how you can argue that “put a stop to” gay marriage is “inappropriate.” Proposition 8 was SPECIFICALLY meant to “put a stop to” gay marriage.
@Mike
No problem..
Sorry for not thinking my argument through thoroughly before hitting send.
Out of curiosity, did anyone find out what legal benefits a domestic partnership can be denied as a result of not being able to marry? Someone on youtube had posted:
* Spouses can change family name without court order.
* Parenthood of couples threatened if family moves out of CA.
* Dom Partners must share a domicile; not spouses. (CFC 297(b.1, c).
* After DP’s death home values can be reassessed (meaning property taxes can skyrocket).
* Public employees excluded from long-term care insurance [CFC 297.5(g).]
* Interstate spousal reciprocity denied to DP’s.
So aside from interstate issues, which CA has no right to decide, you’d think it wouldn’t be too hard to patch up a few of these problems. I am sure you’d have some people who would resist, but I’d think the majority would have no problem patching this up. THESE things are rights and privileges that all legally joined couples should share.
But legal marriage itself is less a right than it is a responsibility to the children that may come along as a result, IMHO.
Actually this is a good point. Do couples who have civil unions forgo any of the benefits that comes with marriage? To me that seems to be a more valid place to channel one’s energies for reform at least for the time being. I mean, that’s what I would do if I were a gay activist, as opposed to going after photographers who don’t do gay marriages to vent out my frustrations or something like that
))
nicrivera: I think the point being made is that you said that Prop 8 was an attempt to put a stop to the lifestyle of gays. Even if there were no legal avenue for civil unions (which I don’t think is the case in CA even after passage of Prop 8, but I’m fuzzy on the details), this doesn’t put a stop to anyone’s lifestyle. To make that statement true you’d have to be talking about laws against sodomy or such.