Friday, November 14, 2008

Direct Action Cells Organize Nationwide Prop 8 Protests

International ANSWER and the Independent Media Center, two radical organizations at the center of the global anti-American network, are key sponsors of the nationwide protests against California's Proposition 8 scheduled for tomorrow.

Another direct action group,
Bash Back, advocates throwing Molotov Cocktails until "we get real hope and change..."

A number of radical left-wing bloggers are also organizing for tomorrow's demonstrations, including Pam Spaulding, Firedoglake, and Whiskey Fire.

Hat tip: Jawa Report.

Related: Daily Kos announces "Seven Weeks to Equality":

... a 7 week campaign to demand legislators and President-elect Obama write and submit to Congress a comprehensive civil rights act protecting the full and equal rights of all LGBT Americans.

This is all a part of the new culture war that's been unleashed by the left following the election of Barack Obama to the presidency - and we haven't seen anything yet.

See also, "
Protests to Be a Key Test for Proposition 8 Opponents."


Average American said...

Does the phrase "give them an inch and they will take a mile" mean anything to you. NObama won and so every leftard cretin on the planet thinks that their agenda will fly now. Unfortunately, some will, but we have to stand firm on issues like these, or we will not be able to recognize America in 4 years. Conservatives HAVE to reverse "political correctness". No more pandering to the leftist weirdos. Call things the way they are. A "gay" person used to be a queer or a faggot. As far as I am concerned, they still are. Gay is happy or fun-loving. An "undocumented worker" used to be an Illegal alien. As far as I'm concerned, he or she still is an illegal alien, or a criminal. Just using the proper terminology might turn back the clock a little on this cancer that is consuming our society. Call me old school if you must, but I know I'm right.

Loozianajay said...

Prof. Check out NeoConstant. I wrote a piece about ethnonatioalism. Tell me what you think.


shoprat said...

We need to start organizing a few nation wide protests of our own, but most of us are busy making a living or else looking for work. Still we need to do it.

Law and Order Teacher said...

It will interesting to watch in the very near future as the people who were sold a bill of goods and jumped on the change train will begin to realize what these people are really up to. I only hope that we can recognize our country after they begin to hack away at it.

Anonymous said...

California Governor and noted Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger has now flip-flopped on his previously stated opposition on the rights of gays to marry. In fact, Schwarzenegger has gone so far as to urge those against Proposition 8—the recent California ballot measure that successfully enshrined discrimination into the state’s constitution by disallowing gay marriage—to keep up the fight and “be on it and on it until they get it done.” Jokes aside, by being “on it” he is suggesting they keep campaigning and eventually the courts or a later popular vote will overturn this discriminatory measure in which churches sought to influence government policy by manipulating the popular vote.

There are so many misconceptions that the right and the Mormons and Catholics threw up during the campaign, that I therefore totally and completely support any and all measures taken to defeat the ideology of hate. (There is no other argument, look at "average american.")

No church is required to marry gays…
No school is required to teach gay marriage…

It has been argued that the “right” for gays to marry has never actually existed in the first place, and therefore was created by a minority that had neither legal precedent nor popular mandate.
The idea and definition of a “right” must first be approached logically. Rights, by their very nature, evolve. If you look back to the 18th century, the rights of blacks in this country existed only in relation to their slaveholder, the legally rightful owner. Blacks were not considered deserving of simple rights, like freedom, voting and land ownership. They were held in check by the will of the people as enshrined in the laws of the country. This practice of race-based discrimination, determined purely by skin color and origination, was used to control and suppress a growing minority of human beings who were originally brought against their will into this country. By the simple designation of their DNA, and the firmly entrenched idea that they were lesser humans, they were discriminated against. I would in no way suggest that gays are under quite the same struggle, but it's in relation to the recognition of rights that this argument is put forward. Same with the treatment Jews in Nazi Germany.

Perhaps a more disturbing trend is the popular idea, supported by bigots, religious zealots and homophobes, is that being gay is a choice. That's a coward's position, and is not supported by any sense of history or compassion. Homosexuality is something that has been found in all cultures, throughout history. Even cultures that hang gays, such as Iran.

It's simply more complicated. There are strong arguments for and against whether or not gay orientation is genetic or learned. There is plenty of research that suggests one’s sexual orientation is either sociologically influenced, or established intrauterine. And there is great evidence to also support a combination of the two. To take a side based purely on your political orientation is absolutely egregious and ignorant.

For those that argue that being gay is a lifestyle “choice,” one would have to point to examples of the treatment by Nazis, the current practice of hanging homosexuals in Iran, the centuries past treatment of jailing or hanging of homosexuals in other countries, and our own draconian laws in the United States that have sought to criminalize sexual behaviors, as being pretty poor reasons why someone would actively “choose” to be gay, rather than just be a good and “normal” heterosexual. Following the Grateful Dead on tour for years, going to watch NASCAR races and following the drivers, hunting, motorcycle riding are examples of lifestyle “choices.” Being gay, if one has ever actually asked a person who is gay, is not a “choice” but a completely natural expression of sexuality and partner prefence.

Remember, throughout history, rights evolve. As do definitions such as marriage. In the Old Testament, it was common to have many wives, thus the practice of polygamy was endorsed by God. We've evolved beyond that, and we've evolved beyond the laws of Leviticus that state that when a man sleeps with another man as he would a woman, then surely they will be put to death.

One of the best arguments, to me, is that in regards to family planning…never will a gay couple have a child by “accident," and thus never will a gay couple have to struggle with that other dilemma: abortion.

Now, in their zealotry, the Gay Rights brigade may get a bit vociferous, and at times drastic. But it is for a noble cause, one of rights, and one of disavowing legislated bigotry and hate. Therefore, I totally, and without prejudice, support the actions of the demonstrators. I am firmly in favor of outing people who donated not $100, but the personal donations that ranged from the $10,000-50,000 range or above. Those people are truly vile. That money could have fed an African village for years.

Pro life my ass!

Norm said...

Let's make a few things clear:
1)Whether or not being gay is a choice, genetic or whatever is totally and absolutely irrelevant;
2)The history of civil rights and
African-Americans is irrelevant to the discussion;
3)The fact that most if not all communities, like the village I live in, have passed partnership laws granting gay couples all the civil rights of hetero couples is clear evidence that the majority of Americans are not Nazis and welcome gay couples into the community. Civil unions are perfectly legal all around the USA.
4) What is at issue is only the definition of a word: Marriage.

And sometimes people get totally hung up on a word. For example, the highest court in NYS, the Court of Appeals, recently wrote this long confusing diatribe on what exactly meant by the word "cohabitation".

So I vote to keep things as simple as possible. Marriage is between a
man and a woman. Any other definition will be in the court system for the next 100 years.

Lastly, why in the world anyone would fight with molotov cocktails to subject themselves to our divorce laws is beyond me. I think you're a bunch of morons. You only will make the lawyers rich.

Anonymous said...

Norm: Choice or not is irrelevant. You are correct. It was Donald who has used it as an insult, and said that basically they are not allowed these rights as it is their choice. So choose your side here.

The civil rights is used as an example where a minority is discriminated against by a majority. It is totally relevant to the discussion. As I said, not comparing the struggle (although a Matthew Sheppard would highlight similar fates) just talking about the evolution of rights.

Civil unions rarely provide the same terms across the board.

If it is merely the word marriage you are so afraid of losing, remember marriage has evolved from polygamy, bigamy and dowries to what we know today. Be progressive for once. See the future and go with it. In 100 years, the people who supported 8 (mainly older people, thank god) will be gone and viewed as relics of an age of hate and bigotry. You will be talked about much the same as we talk today of the societies that engendered hate.

By saying "I think you're a bunch of morons" merely highlights how you truly feel.

Congratulations on your bigotry.

Anonymous said...

Shorter Norm:

Anything that is inconvenient for me to discuss it hereby rendered "irrelevant".

Norm said...

The discussion of civil rights with this issue is totally irrelevant. Instead of the term "civil rights" we could use: jealousy, envy or resentfulness.

And yes, the term "morons" is exactly the way I feel...not about gays, etc....just about any person or group who can now legally deal with their futures without resorting to divorce attorneys and are fighting to subject themselves to the divorce laws. You have no idea how stupid you are.

Anonymous said...

Norm: Some of us choose to stay married. However, all of my more conservative relatives have multiple marriages. Just an observation.

But even in divorce, you can do it without lawyers. And this isn't about the right to divorce, that's a given, it's about the right to marry the person you love.

Question: If someone got married, and then had a sex change, does that nullify the marriage? It ain't a simple question anymore, this marriage thing.

AmPowerBlog said...

That's a lie, Tim.

I'm not in a multiple marriage.

repsac3 said...

Tim, are you related to Donald?

Anonymous said...

For the record, I am not counting Donald here on my list of relatives, even if we are part of an extended family.

But I can think of three of his relatives that have, between them, around 9 or 10 marriages! That is some respect for marriage there.

And in full disclosure, my wife and I have been married for 22 years, with a 2-year separation in there. But in the end, we chose to stay married and are happier than ever. There is always a choice.

I see no reason why gay people can't be part of the pain and pleasure that marriage brings. Why not?

Anonymous said...

"marriage",lest we forget, is a religious ceremony. So as i see it gay people are bashing the very source of the ceremony they claim to be wanting, which is religion. If there are any discrepencies in rights between "marriage" and "civil unions", legally, this would be a descrimation worth addressing. If gay people want "marrige" ceremonies so badly, which ceremonies they can have already just without the religious implications, why then dont they start their own religion and form gay churches? Seriously though, what legal rights are present in a marriage that are missing in a civil union? Let's address that point.