To all of my GLBT counterparts in America:
I’m reading a lot of things today that are turning my stomach. I’m ashamed of the things I’m hearing and seeing. Despite repeated calls from all of us for more tolerance of our different way of living and loving, we are showing hatred and intolerance like never before. In light of the passage of Proposition 8, I can understand that many of us are upset. However, it saddens me to see us reacting in such a way.
Conservative or liberal, we all have the same thing in common: we’re all gay. Being politically conservative doesn’t make myself, Philip or Steve any less same-sex attracted as you. It doesn’t make us any less human. It doesn’t mean we don’t want to reach the same goals as you do as far as our rights go. We are all connected through that. However, we are being called on to answer to the actions that we do not approve of because of that connection, things that are completely counter-productive to reaching our goals.
With the court’s decision not to keep private the names of those who donated money to the Yes On 8 campaign, people from our community have begun harassing and at times openly threatening those whose names are on the list of donors. Here are some examples:
“Did you know you work for a judgmental bigot? I know I could not work for someone who encourages bigotry and hate.”
“What goes around comes around, and now you’re going to experience the comes around part. Have fun.”
The first quote was in an email to the employees of a real estate agent in California. The second was in a voice mail to the same person. Several business owners have reported repeated threatening voice mails, emails and visits from people angry about the passage of Proposition 8. Several high-level managers of various businesses have been forced to resign in the wake of such harassment in order to protect the businesses they worked for and the other employees that were being negatively affected.
You’re calling them hatemongers. You’re calling them intolerant. You’re calling them bigots. And you are doing the very thing you are accusing them of–hating people you disagree with and doing everything you can to upend their lives. Like the religious leaders who persecuted other denominations during the flegling years of America’s independence, you are becoming the very thing you say you’re trying to stop. You are not the only ones who will be affected by this sort of behavior; all of us will pay for it in the end.
I implore all of you to think before you speak and act. Ask yourself how being so emotional might impact those around you. Question your judgement before you call or email somebody–will this have a positive impact on our common cause, or will it only serve to strengthen the resolve of those who disagree with us? Like it or not, there will always be more straight people in this world than there are GLBT folks. If we want to have equal footing, we need to prove that we’re worth it.
From now on, I will be in partnership with those targeted by your hatred. I may disagree with some of their beliefs, but I also believe in their right to disagree and I’d rather work with them than against them. Any phone numbers, email addresses, ISP’s and names I can collect that are linked to Prop 8 rage, I will publish it here to expose you. I will not tolerate the open hypocrisy perpetrated by my own community. I don’t like being called a traitor, but hopefully, in time, you’ll understand. I’d rather do what’s best for us than continue to allow us to be our own worst enemies.
Sincerely,
Mel Maguire
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
Scott Eckern – former director of the California Musical Theater. Forced to resign for supporting Measure 8. He donated $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Richard Raddon – former director of the Los Angeles Film Festival. Forced to resign for donating $1,500 to Yes on 8.
Marjorie Christofferson – former manager of the El Coyote Mexican Cafe made a contribution of $100 to Yes on 8. She resigned her job over public pressure once her donation was revealed.
All three of these people happen to be Mormon.
None of them did anythng illegal.
I remember in the 8th grade in Social Studies how in the early days of the Nazi’s they “encouraged” “good Germans” to not do business with Jewish people.
I know the Yes on 8 people are guilty of dirty action of their own. Their hands are not clean.
I know in the past and now there are boycotts against various companies such as Disney Co. for sponsoring Gay Day at their theme parks. I know other companies were/are targeted for boycotts for offering domestic partner benefits even when the law does not require it.
When we as gays and lesbians behave in the same dirty ways as our opposition that doesn’t make us better. It doesn’t make those tactics right. All this does is encourage one side or the other to take it to the next level.
Things rarely end well when people keep taking it to the next level.
And in this case, the next level is a slew of personal threats and harassment that goes well beyond a simple boycott. When a boycott is organized against a company for their corporate decisions, it’s one thing. When a company is singled out because of the actions of one employee on their own time and their own buck, at least when those actions are perfectly legal, it’s none of our business.
Good point about the “good Germans” thing. Very good point.
“This might be a good idea, if not for the fact that it’s almost certainly not going to work. Even assuming that someone who’s thinking of taking matters into their own hands sees this, it probably won’t deter them. The sad reality is that a very large part of the intimidation and violence I’ve seen has come from the proponents of marriage equality rather than the other way around; having your name on the Prop 8 Maps website actually puts you at risk, whereas having your name on a list like the one proposed above probably will not.”
Escalation << Nous
Disorder thrives when good people stand by and do nothing. It’s better to do something vs. nothing. I’d rather have someone do something even if that something may not work vs. standing by and doing nothing.
Sorry I have zero sympathy for these people. They expressed their right to vote, and now I am expressing mine but calling them out on it. You can sit in the back of the bus if you want, but I refuse to. Civil rights have never been won by asking meekly they are won by demonstrating and demanding them! Weird how we are the one’s who had our rights stripped away and are being called intolerant.
I hate to tell you this, but our community accuses everyone else of intolerance more than anyone else. It’s been like this for a long time.
I have no intention of sitting in the back of the bus, but Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t win so much ground in the civil rights movement by pulling that kind of garbage. He didn’t call for ruining the lives of other people, he nudged people toward peaceful demonstrations–and urged them to work WITH those who hated, not against them. If it will change the minds of a handful of those people to have a peaceful conversation with a gay person about all of this, then what I’m doing will be completely worth it.
“Sorry I have zero sympathy for these people. They expressed their right to vote, and now I am expressing mine but calling them out on it. ”
DavATA
Sounds like a conversation I had Saturday night.
What if an anti same sex marriage group got your name and donation to a pro same sex marriage organziation and then called you out on what you did?
What if they contacted your employer, picketed where you work, and demanded you be fired from your job?
What if these people launched a boycott against your employer for keeping you on?
What if they carpet bombed your employer with phone call after phone call expressing their discontent nad making threats? What if these phone calls disrupted business?
Tell us what would you do? Would you stay at your job? Would you expect your employer who had nothing to do with your outside work activities to bear the threats and hassles against it?
Never forget what you do to others can often be done to you.
If you don’t see how Nazi like the tactics you espouse are then you don’t deserve any civil rights.
Sorry good people. The above post is mine. I forgot to sign it.
Sorry guys, the above is mine. I forgot to sign on.
“Weird how we are the one’s who had our rights stripped away and are being called intolerant.”
LOL. I challenge you to pretend to be the following for six months:
Openly Gay
Republican
Practicing Christian
and tell every gay person you know this is who you are. You’ll see how intolerant quite a few gay people are.
“If we want to have equal footing, we need to prove that we’re worth it.”
I don’t think we have to “prove” anything, to have equal footing. My equality belongs to me as an American citizen, granted to me from God and guaranteed by the Constitution.
I, for one, am not waiting for the straight world to toss me a bone. I’ll just go ahead and take that “bone” called equality.
That said, I don’t understand why people will put up their money for a political point of view and not stand up for their beliefs. Has America become so cowardly that that people refuse to stand up and be counted?
While I have great respect for the legacy of Dr. King we should not forget that the road was paved for him by John Brown and Harriett Tubman, both lawbreakers in their day. Neither they, nor the Black Panthers, nor Malcolm X, sat waiting patiently for the white majority to toss them a bone.
The rest is history.
The publishers of this site remind me of macho bottoms: Act tough and ready to rumble but then meekly lay down and take it up the ass.
Dana, the Black Panthers and Malcolm X are hardly in the same vein as Dr. King and Harriet Tubman. Militant racism never got anyone anywhere, which is part of my point here: the more outraged and militant WE are, the faster we lose the battle.
Barry…I have never been one to meekly do or take anything. I simply like to go at things with a rational state of mind rather than an emotional outburst.
“Act tough and ready to rumble but then meekly lay down and take it up the ass.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Laying down and taking it dude is the most macho any man can be.
Malcolm X got a bullet for his intolerance. Many of the Black Panther leaders ended up in the slammer. Harriett Tubman broke the law but I don’t recall any history of her hating white people.
“Laying down and taking it dude is the most macho any man can be”
sure…if you’re a self hater or a sado-masochist.
I disagree Mel. I don’t think there is any evidence to show that “the more outraged and militant WE are, the faster we lose the battle.”
It is a pleasant platitude, but history shows otherwise.
Peace,
Dana
“I don’t think we have to “prove” anything, to have equal footing. My equality belongs to me as an American citizen, granted to me from God and guaranteed by the Constitution.”
That’s a matter of opinion, Dana. I’m gay and I think it’s preposterous to compare gays marrying to blacks getting civil rights.
Blacks were allowed to marry before granting civil rights. It had nothing to do with a Constitutional issue.
Marriage has always been a separate union. Perhaps your argument should be framed to fit the government’s recognition of a union between a man and a woman. Maybe it’s fair that they disregard tax benefits for them and perhaps they should make the divorce process more complexed.
But the reality is what Mel is talking about here. The reality watches how quick members of the community are to swap partners. And no matter how much you want to deny it, without the approval of the people, you can keep dreaming.
And then the question becomes “why don’t the people support gays marrying?”
It’s not because of the Christians.
It’s not because of the Republicans.
It’s because very liberal states like Oregon and California have voters that vote for Clinton and Obama and simultaneously pull that lever to deny you your rights.
If homosexuality and the rights of homosexuals WERE a party line issue, the problem would lie with the Democrats, not the Republicans nor the Christians.
The people will simply reject politicians who hold no regard to their opinion and votes against it. So, unless you want to spend a long frustrated life fighting the government for what you think you are entitled to, you should learn to be happy with the individual rights you have while simultaneously holding the community up to the proper standards it needs for society to take us seriously.
Well, Steve, I wasn’t arguing about Christians, or Republicans. Nor was I equating gay marriage with the struggle for racial equality. Except, of course, to point out that passivity is not the best course in either struggle.
As I said, my equal rights are granted to me from God and guaranteed by the constitution.
They are not, as you seem to believe, granted to me by popular opinion (the voters), nor qualified by anyone’s “proper standards.” That’s what makes them “inalienable” rights.
Conservatives of my generation understood that we are a Republic not a Democracy. That’s why the courts can toss out foolish decisions made by majority rule when that rule impinges on my rights, for instance.
I’m not concerned with living a “frustrated life fighting the government,” as you say. I am quite pleased with the government, really.
As for the decision by Bush appointed Judge England not to expunge the names of those who donated money to Proposition 8; I am delighted. He is obviously one of those old school conservatives who still respects the rule of law.
“oters), nor qualified by anyone’s “proper standards.” That’s what makes them “inalienable” rights.
Conservatives of my generation understood that we are a Republic not a Democracy. That’s why the courts can toss out foolish decisions made by majority rule when that rule impinges on my rights, for instance.”
Stevie gets pwned as usual. You’d think he’d get tired of it and wise up.
The court does have the right to declare a majority-driven amendment unconstitutional. But the majority still has the right to attempt to override the judges, hence the system of checks and balances. The courts are not the final word, believe it or not. Whether we agree or disagree they can still be overruled.
“They are not, as you seem to believe, granted to me by popular opinion (the voters), nor qualified by anyone’s “proper standards.” That’s what makes them “inalienable” rights.”
If you live in California then do me a favor, MOVE!
I am so sick of people who live in California and don’t like the way democracy works in the Golden State. For better or for worse we do it our own way in California.
As someone who lives in California and has for nearly 20 years, I can say this with 100 percent certainty.
Gay and lesbian folk have it very good in California. Even before same sex marriage became the issue du jour, things here were very good for gays and lesbians.
We have state laws that protect our right to hold a job. We have housing protection too. Regardless of who you are or your circimstances in life, you need a place to live and you need an income stream. Laws to protect those things are MORE important than same sex marriage laws.
We also continue to have Registered Domestic Partnership (RDP). Although it is not called legal marriage, RDP provides all the benefits and obligations that marriage provides under California law. There are no Federal protections under RDP. There will be no Federal protections with same sex marriage either.
Yes it is unfortunate Measure 8 passed. At the same time gays and lesbians in CA sitll enjoy all of the protections I mentioned. I don’t know how many states in the U.S. offer the same protections to gays and lesbians. I’ve lived in states that do not have any of these protections. I can tell you that is far worse than not being able to marry someone.
“As I said, my equal rights are granted to me from God and guaranteed by the constitution.”
That’s a matter of opinion as I said before. If the argument never existed that marriage just might be a separate union outside of what is Constitutionally protected, then nobody would be arguing about anything.
If you don’t want to use popular opinion of our community to begin (as Martin Luther did with the blacks) a new path for how the voting community views us, then I’m here to tell you it will remain a frustrating haul for you.
You get one judge you like enough, the voters will respond with another one that will overturn it. That’s the beauty (and the ugly) of Democracy.
“Conservatives of my generation understood that we are a Republic not a Democracy. That’s why the courts can toss out foolish decisions made by majority rule when that rule impinges on my rights, for instance.”
Majority is required when it is not apparent that your foundation is based solely on what is Constitutionally protected. It’s not. That area is not so broad. Moreover; we all vote and the people in a Democratic way have always had a way of responding to issues they overwhelmingly disagree with. Look at Canada. Immediately after gay marriage was legal, an all new conservative Parliment was elected and suddenly the activists became worried.
The liberal versus Republican argument I make is indeed a poke at those who use “religious right” to deny what the true majority of the people (often secular folks who don’t even go to church and vote Democrat) are saying overwhelmingly. As if anyone religious can sway anyone who voted for Obama in California or Florida would go to church, anyway.
“As for the decision by Bush appointed Judge England not to expunge the names of those who donated money to Proposition 8; I am delighted. He is obviously one of those old school conservatives who still respects the rule of law.”
That’s correct. We cannot scream “right to privacy” only when we want to.
“Stevie gets pwned as usual. You’d think he’d get tired of it and wise up.”
Anyone who uses the term “pwned” is absolutely retarded.
Steve is the king of being pwned. His hole is as wide as a methhead’s at a bath house
“Anyone who uses the term “pwned” is absolutely retarded.”
I have no idea what pwned means nor any desire to learn. It must be some stupid internet talk I imagine.
“Steve is the king of being pwned. His hole is as wide as a methhead’s at a bath house.”
I always prefer those who have the power to actually do something than those who stand around being the spectators.
To prevent comment moderation, please contribute a viewpoint that requires having an IQ above that of a toaster.
“To prevent comment moderation, please contribute a viewpoint that requires having an IQ above that of a toaster.”
Hey now….my toaster is pretty smart. It always toasts the bread the way I like it every time. Stop insulting toasters Steve!!!
“Steve is the king of being pwned. His hole is as wide as a methhead’s at a bath house”
Ah so you’ve seen such things. Bully for you.
Ditto, John.
I love how the libs come around and insult everyone (Steve mostly) without giving any real, logical rebuttals. Classic.
“I love how the libs come around and insult everyone (Steve mostly) without giving any real, logical rebuttals. Classic.”
What’s classic is your and lil Stevie’s parroting of Sean Hannity and spewing blindly partisan bullshit on each and every issue.
I know you’d love to think so, Jay, but I rarely have time to watch Sean Hannity. I rarely have time to watch anything on TV these days, because I have two jobs. I do my own research, I read multiple news sources, and I make up my own mind based on what I see. I come to a logical conclusion after attempting to give all sides a fair chance.
Try to point the spotlight elsewhere by pointing out someone else’s percieved flaws, buddy, that’ll work.
lol…”logical”.
“What’s classic is your and lil Stevie’s parroting of Sean Hannity and spewing blindly partisan bullshit on each and every issue.”
Who the hell is Sean Hannity?
Everything I ever learned about being conservative comes from my 3rd grade class and my home life full of liberals.
Steve, I think you are painting with too broad a brush when it comes to the issue of the right to privacy. That right is not, and never was, an absolute right. It is subservient to the common good. You are correct to say claim a “right to privacy” only when we want to,” as you say.
But the suggestion that Judge England was making that point is erroneous. He was not.
Indeed he pointed out that such a right could exist. But that it did not exist for the Pro 8 folks in this case. He pointed to cases involving the NAACP, the Socialist Workers Party, and others whom he labeled “fringe organizations” as being entitled to those protections. “Challenges have been successfully raised only by minor parties, specifically those parties, as discussed, having small constituencies and promoting historically unpopular and almost universally-rejected ideas,” he wrote.
So, contrary to your view, he was allowing for the “privacy” argument for certain vulnerable groups. “Plaintiffs did not seek to promote a “reviled cause,” and instead sought to legislate a concept steeped in tradition and history,” he wrote. Furthermore he concluded that “the Court cannot say that the Government’s interest in this case is so insubstantial or the burden on Plaintiffs so great as to warrant an exemption from disclosure.”
Clearly Judge England was not suggesting that privacy is an invalid argument. Indeed he acknowledged that “privacy is an essential element of the right of association and the ability to express dissent effectively.”
Enough of that. His decision is decisive and speaks for itself.
But now you say: “Majority is required when it is not apparent that your foundation is based solely on what is Constitutionally protected. It’s not.
Wrong.
Witness Roe V. Wade. Is abortion Constitutionally protected? It’s not.
Witness Lawrence V. Texas. Is sodomy Constitutionally protected? It’s not.
All of that said, I do not know what “pwned” means and I have absolutely no idea why you directed that comment towards me.
“What’s classic is your and lil Stevie’s parroting of Sean Hannity and spewing blindly partisan bullshit on each and every issue.”
Enough to make you come around and act like a 7th grade. This is precisely why I would never delete one liberal’s posting.
Dana, the “pwned” comment was directed at someone else who did use the kinda-sorta-not-a-word.
“All of that said, I do not know what “pwned” means and I have absolutely no idea why you directed that comment towards me.”
I didn’t.
“Witness Roe V. Wade. Is abortion Constitutionally protected? It’s not.”
But the argument for it is indeed based on the Constitution. Just as the right to gay marriage would be.
I am glad you brought that up though. If you noticed during the Clinton administration, he sold out every special interest group but the abortion ladies. It wasn’t until the Bush administration that the federal ban on Partial Birth Abortion was put into place.
I do not think any of these issues are Constitutional.
Re: Lawrence v Texas, in this case there are multiple characters that should have had the crap slapped out of them; starting with the arresting officers, then to the Prosecutors, then to the defense attorneys. This case was so ridiculous that the lower courts continue to ignore it to this day.
It depends on taste in a private situation like this with two consenting adults. Personally, I think it’s disgusting that Columbia University has a student club called Conversio Virium which folks gather to ask questions to “go ask Alice” about issues such as, “how hard can you beat someone with a leather cat-o-nine tails, and how much natual fluid will excrete before the point of blood draw?”
Now if I were a cop, I’d be more interested in stopping that in lieu of anal sex.
Dana, at the end of the say, there will always be the Phelps, there will always be hillbillies, there will always be adversity.(If you haven’t noticed, I happen to chuckle every time someone tries to insult me.)
Being gay was one step. Being Republican in my community was another.
But issues like abortion and gay marriage will always be decided on by the people in one form or another. If you appoint a liberal judge that hands victories to any special interest group, the people usually respond by electing the other kind that will appoint new judges to repeal such decisions.
Don’t laugh. But why hasn’t the gay community had their own version of Martin Luther King? No, we get the crazies up at GLADD who immediately blame conservatives and Christians for their losses. The big guys at the top of that scale are being paid to turn their heads to the issues that are important to you.
Sure they hold a few fun benefits. But in a world where George Michael gets to tell a reporter to “f**k off” because the reporter wasn’t gay and did not understand the gay “culture” when asked why he couldn’t refrain from wanking off in public, we sort of cannot blame the outsiders for thinking that way. Because of how we are viewed in the mainstream, our community is suffering.
From this moment on, let’s choose who represents us.
When straight folks act slutty, we don’t excuse it by saying it’s “cultural.” We simply say “it’s slutty.”
While we’ve all compromised our own personal values in one instance or another, removing the “wow, I acted badly” from our own actions has contributed to where we are today.
Steve and Mel, we seem to live on opposite sides of the world. That’s O.K.
It has been fun exchanges views with you.
Likewise Dana.
I would like to point out though that if we cannot deal with the adversities among us – as members of the same community (assuming here), we can close the door now to any true “progress” we wish to make.
Thanks for the discussion.
“Don’t laugh. But why hasn’t the gay community had their own version of Martin Luther King?”
We had Harvey Milk in San Francisco. He certainly was MLK in San Francisco. Who knows how much more he would have accomplished.
What’s sad is someone like Barney Frank has never risen up. I guess he’s too busy helping his roommates run an escort service out of his DC home. No, wait, I don’t think they do that anymore. But they used to.
Trackbacks
One Trackback