Aaarg! Prop. 8 (vent)

[3113]

Sorry. I have to get this off my chest.

Okay, here's the deal: Sacramento theater director Scott Eckern made a $1,000 donation in support of California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, and, when this was discovered, he subsequently resigned from the California Musical Theatre to "protect" the organization from controversy. (Obviously, there are a lot of gays in this theatre, supporting it and going to it.)

All these letters to the L.A. Times pour in. Poor Scott! How can gays preach tolerance then be so intolerant of this guy's personal decision. This is McCarthyism! This is hypocrisy! You know what? This guy didn't just vote for this measure which would have been bad enough. He helped fund it. Which means he helped steal away important rights from a lot of people.

To be intolerant of intolerance isn't quite hypocrisy or McCarthyism! That's like saying that blacks are being hypocritical if they don't tolerate supporters of Jim Crowe laws!

I am so pissed at this! Here are all these pro-prop-8 people moaning and complaining about the boycotts and protests and controversies over prop. 8. Are they even thinking? Never mind. Stupid question. Obviously not! If someone said, "Sorry, we voted and you can't get married to the person you most want to marry, and you can't have these rights we who can marry do...." wouldn't you protest? You make a decision to take away those rights, then you'd fucking better be prepared to take the consequences of that decision!

My gawd! These conservative whiners put every bleeding-heart liberal to shame with their "you're picking on me!" cries. Typical of bullies. They want to pick on everyone else but start weeping when they get picked on. They bitch about people taking responsibility but aren't willing to suffer or hear of others suffering for their decisions.

Everyone seemed to think, "Oh, we'll make the law just man & woman, and all the nice gays will go back to hiding in their closets and we won't have to hear about them again....La-de-dah!" Now those nice gays are pissed and not being so nice and everyone's trying to shame them...for being mean! For being intolerant?

I'm glad Scott had to resign! I'm glad he, at least, had to suffer some consequences for his decision. If we all vote for no new taxes then we all agree to take the consequences of that decision if no new taxes mean that potholes remain and there aren't enough police to answer all 911 calls in a timely manner. That's what we decided, that's what we get. I think everyone who funded 8, never mind voted for it, should suffer the consequences of that decision. They made it, so deal with the fall out. And Scott, you took away something precious and important to these people, and if you thought it was that right you should be willing, without tears or complaint, to sacrifice something you hold dear as well. If you really believed in it, then it should be no sacrifice at all.

I am so fucking furious at all this! It's like someone went into people's homes, robbed them, and are now complaining because they can't enjoy their ill-gotten gains in peace! Hey! You made the bed, you lie in it!

And yes, please, feel free to quote me, plagiarize me, re-write me, use what I just said in any blog, protest, letter, e-mail or argument against these idiots. Life does not just go on after you've robbed someone of something that important! Accept the consequences of your fucking actions!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Go get 'em, 3!

I can't imagine anyone in the entertainment business or the arts being such an ass! I've never seen any research explaining why there are so many gays in the arts but anyone who doesn't see it must be a candidate for a white cane! Whadda jerk . . .

 

[jomar]

Here, try this.

 

[fieryjen]

Brilliant post. I couldn't have said it this well.

 

[Sandy_Fox]

Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government."
Lenny Bruce
(1923 - 1966)

That quote just seems to fit right now.

http://www.faphost.com/images/r4u1rjui1rlpwr4j1f8z.jpg​

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think the refeence to "McCarthyism" was more connected to the Hollywood Blacklist in the forties and fifties. Accused Communists had a hard time getting work, because of their supposed political beliefs.

The same thing is happening now. People who spoke in favor of Prop. 8 will be blacklisted, just as suspected Communists were in the Fifties. It wasn't right then, and it isn't right now.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think the refeence to "McCarthyism" was more connected to the Hollywood Blacklist in the forties and fifties. Accused Communists had a hard time getting work, because of their supposed political beliefs.

The same thing is happening now. People who appeared to be in favor of Prop. 8 will be blacklisted, just as suspected Communists were in the Fifties. It wasn't right then, and it isn't right now.

 

[Sandy_Fox]

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

~ Thomas Jefferson (Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)

http://www.faphost.com/images/2pu0orxgqvh845jceoqk.bmp​

 

[Stella_Omega]

The Mormon church called businesses and asked for their support for 8. The callers tole the businesses that if they refused, their names would be publicised for their ungodliness. Souce, for the gander.

I think the refeence to "McCarthyism" was more connected to the Hollywood Blacklist in the forties and fifties. Accused Communists had a hard time getting work, because of their supposed political beliefs.

The same thing is happening now. People who spoke in favor of Prop. 8 will be blacklisted, just as suspected Communists were in the Fifties. It wasn't right then, and it isn't right now.

There is an enormous difference between the government getting in your business, and your clientele-- on whom your business depends-- getting in your face.

McCarthy was ONE MAN who created a witchunt and damaged thousands on his solo say-so. A boycott is the opinions of many people who have reached a consensus. It's Capitalism in action.

There's no "suppose" about it, either; the list of contributers is publicly available, and which way their campaign contribution went.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The Mormon church called businesses and asked for their support for 8. The callers tole the businesses that if they refused, their names would be publicised for their ungodliness. Souce, for the gander.
There is an enormous difference between the government getting in your business, and your clientele-- on whom your business depends-- getting in your face.

McCarthy was ONE MAN who created a witchunt and damaged thousands on his solo say-so. A boycott is the opinions of many people who have reached a consensus. It's Capitalism in action.

There's no "suppose" about it, either; the list of contributers is publicly available, and which way their campaign contribution went.

McCarthy was one man, but he had millions more behind him. The movement was named for him, but he probably had the majority of Americans on his side at the time. I don't know that any poll was ever taken, but he did get reelected. There are references now to a witch hunt, but the Communist menace was very real, not a figment of anyone's imagination.

The boycott threat went something like this: So and so is a Commie, and if you hire him, we will tell everybody about it. Nobody will go to the movies he works on. Since the moviemakers didn't like the idea of having so much of the movie-going population boycotting their work, they knuckled under.

The Prop. 8 boycott would work something like that. So and so spoke for Prop. 8 and donated money. If you don't dump him, we will make life tough for you.

As I said, it wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

 

[Stella_Omega]

McCarthy was one man, but he had millions more behind him. The movement was named for him, but he probably had the majority of Americans on his side at the time. I don't know that any poll was ever taken, but he did get reelected. There are references now to a witch hunt, but the Communist menace was very real, not a figment of anyone's imagination.

The boycott threat went something like this: So and so is a Commie, and if you hire him, we will tell everybody about it. Nobody will go to the movies he works on. Since the moviemakers didn't like the idea of having so much of the movie-going population boycotting their work, they knuckled under.

The Prop. 8 boycott would work something like that. So and so spoke for Prop. 8 and donated money. If you don't dump him, we will make life tough for you.

As I said, it wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

A popular boycott doesn't work like that.

So and so spoke for prop8. He doesn't support you. Do you feel the need to support him? I don't. He's just made life tougher for you. Why should we give him our money?

Honestly, WHY would a theater director be such an ass as to support a bill that hits at such a huge percentage of his clientel?

 

[3113]

Here, try this.

Where was point #7?

Take a baseball bat
hit assholes repeatedly over the head
Keep doing so until you feel at peace

 

[Boxlicker101]

A popular boycott doesn't work like that.

So and so spoke for prop8. He doesn't support you. Do you feel the need to support him? I don't. He's just made life tougher for you. Why should we give him our money?

Honestly, WHY would a theater director be such an ass as to support a bill that hits at such a huge percentage of his clientel?

I have to admit, if I had such a business, I would stay away from such a divisive issue, either for or against. It might not be very brave, but it's pragmatic.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have to admit, if I had such a business, I would stay away from such a divisive issue, either for or against. It might not be very brave, but it's pragmatic.

Say rather, Diplomatic.

 

[Sandy_Fox]

...The Prop. 8 boycott would work something like that. So and so spoke for Prop. 8 and donated money. If you don't dump him, we will make life tough for you.

As I said, it wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

Listen it's simple. They "voted" their money for the support of Prop 8. I get to "vote" my money to people who didn't support Prop 8. How in the fuck is it not right for me to do with my "vote" exactly what they did with their "vote?"

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

3113

This is a war you cant win.

Gays own the theatre and beauty salons and universities, and conservatives own the military and police.
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE 3113.

 

[Emerald_Dragon]

I do think that it is annoying that the govt has to stay out of church's crap (whole separation of church and state thing) but the church (any church) can use it's clout to interfere with lawmaking.

As far as I am concerned, the whole Morman crap shouldn't have been allowed to happen. Individuals should be able to spend as much as they like for or against something. Church leaders should speak for themselves but not for their congregation. Church leaders should only be able to spend their personal money for or against something.

The federal govt needs to get off their ass and make gay marriage legal in my opinion. Shouldn't marriage impact things like soc sec benefits and "federal" stuff like that? They need to stop passing the buck. It reminds me of the time when it was illegal for a black and white couple to get married in some states. What a bunch of bull shit.

Don't even get me started on that catholic priest who said that everyone that voted for Obama should confess and do penance because they had voted for someone that was pro choice. (sorry for the tangent)

 

[Iamcanadian28]

I have to admit, if I had such a business, I would stay away from such a divisive issue, either for or against. It might not be very brave, but it's pragmatic.

As a small business owner that is exactly the approach you have to take in yur community. It's unfortunate, but getting involved in anything controversial in my operating area is off the table because of what it can do to my business. I don't like it, but I'm wise enough to know that it's the way it has to be.

 

[3113]

Don't even get me started on that catholic priest who said that everyone that voted for Obama should confess and do penance because they had voted for someone that was pro choice. (sorry for the tangent)

Tangent away! What's a "vent" thread for if not a tangent or two?

 

[freshface]

McCarthy was one man, but he had millions more behind him. The movement was named for him, but he probably had the majority of Americans on his side at the time. I don't know that any poll was ever taken, but he did get reelected. There are references now to a witch hunt, but the Communist menace was very real, not a figment of anyone's imagination.

The boycott threat went something like this: So and so is a Commie, and if you hire him, we will tell everybody about it. Nobody will go to the movies he works on. Since the moviemakers didn't like the idea of having so much of the movie-going population boycotting their work, they knuckled under.

The Prop. 8 boycott would work something like that. So and so spoke for Prop. 8 and donated money. If you don't dump him, we will make life tough for you.

As I said, it wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

The problem with your analogy is that you're comparing topics that aren't equivalent. McCarthyism was based on "We think you're a communist, therefore we must punish you even thought there's no evidence of that affiliation." The Prop 8 boycott is based on a record of money and other support. A modern day equivalent to McCarthyism would be "You're not wearing a flag pin, therefore you must not be a real American. If you're not a real American, you must support terrorists, therefore we must punish you."

If that's what this boycott was about, I would agree completely that it's like McCarthyism, but it's not. It's about people who went on record opposing gay marriage. No innuendo, no guilt by association. Good for the gay rights crowd for showing that they have incomes and voices that they can use as they please.

 

[egoservitium]

The whole ban gays thing confuses the shit out of me.

The whole ban gays thing confuses the shit out of me.

Are we a democracy or a republic? Everyone says democracy, but I think it's actually a republic. Either way, I know for a fact that we're NOT a theocracy! And the first amendment to the Constitution is fairly clear and straightforward on that point:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If anyone could give me a half credible reason to ban gay marriage or in any other way interfere with gays living their lives *without resorting to spouting Leviticus at me* I might listen for several minutes before telling them to shut the fuck up and to worry about their own bed and what goes on there, and to keep their big ugly beak out of my bed and what goes on there. (It ain't gay sparky, but if you got wind of what goes on in there, you'd probably need counseling!)

The problem, as I see it, is that they CAN'T!! The ONLY reason to bother the gays is because the voices in your head told you to! WE DON'T LEGISLATE RELIGION! As a straight guy with straight friends and gay friends and some friends that I don't even know one way or the other (BECAUSE IT'S NONE OF MY DAMNED BUSINESS!) I say keep your religion out of my bed!

I am not straight because the voices in my head told me not to be gay. I am straight because of my overwhelming love of a good pair of tits! And the taste of pussy. And...but I digress. The point is that my freedom to NOT practice your religion needs to be as well protected as your freedom TO practice it. Don't go trying to pass your religious beliefs as laws that I have to follow. I may not be going to marry a man, but if you come running up and scream in my face that I *can't*, I will punch you in the nose and claim self defense.

Arrrrghhh...I could go on and on.

Go.

Have your religion.

Keep it off my body and out of my bed.

In return, I will not sneak into your house and crap on your pillow because the voices in MY head are telling me to!

DEAL?

ES

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

EGO

Your reason is: The People oppose it. Same-sex marriage was defeated at the polls by The People. IF VOTERS HAVE NO RIGHT TO OPPOSE, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO APPROVE. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION.

Now! If The People cant decide the issue, who gets to do it?

"One of the things the petitioners seem to assume is that when someone argues there should be a change in the law, the people have no power to say no."

 

[OhMissScarlett]

As a small business owner that is exactly the approach you have to take in yur community. It's unfortunate, but getting involved in anything controversial in my operating area is off the table because of what it can do to my business. I don't like it, but I'm wise enough to know that it's the way it has to be.

That's exactly why it puzzles me that all of these larger business owners got involved with supporting prop 8. I can understand religious organizations like the Mormons or Knights of Columbus, but, everyone from Disney to private dentists are on that financial support list. If they lost ten customers, it's not worth it from a business standpoint.

 

[jomar]

Take a baseball bat
hit assholes repeatedly over the head
Keep doing so until you feel at peace

That can certainly work in some circumstances.

 

[Liar]

EGO

Your reason is: The People oppose it. Same-sex marriage was defeated at the polls by The People. IF VOTERS HAVE NO RIGHT TO OPPOSE, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO APPROVE. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION.

Now! If The People cant decide the issue, who gets to do it?

Elected legislators?

Does The People get to decide on every law? No. Why not? Because The People can't make informed and rational desicions on every political issue. They can't devote the time, nor have they the resources to see if they are missing perspectives, and get them, before making their desicion.

There are people whose job it is to do that for you. They're called representatives, state senators, and shit like that. You elect them for it. There's a reason we have them. Because open forum democracy, the deliberative and participatory kind that was practiced in ancient Greece back in the days, and that referendums are an echo of, just doesn't work well in a too big society. It didn't even work in Athens after a while.

So why was this particular issue up for a referendum?

Because a resourceful special interrest group, (this time a minority with a religious agenda) knew that there was no way in hell they'd get such blatantly discriminatory legislation past a state legislative body. But if they got it to The People, they didn't have to win resonable arguments. And so, they bypassed the common way of making desicions in a representative democracy.

They could then spin deceptive propaganda to the lowest common denominator. Which they did - their campaign was ridden with unrational, emotional arguments, deliberate FUD and outright lies. Which affected enough of the stupid percentage of The People to tip the issue to a majority in their favor.

The infinite sensibility of The People is a myth. The People is the sum of all memes and disinformation, and has no checks and balances. That's why modern democracies have representative democracy instead. Of course, the same misinformation makes the rounds every time new representatives is to be elected (pailin' aroun wif turrurusts...). But then we have different branches and lots of oversight to see that it takes a lot of elected idiots to drive an issue straight to hell. With a referendum, the checks and balances are bypassed.

Referendums are the tools of those who rely on memes and disinformation, because they don't have reason on their side.