skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The "No on H8" gay rights activists are stepping up their campaign of opposition to Proposition 8 with a "call-in gay" day, set for tomorrow:
Since California voters approved Proposition 8 last month and repealed the right of gay couples to marry, initiative opponents have marched, held rallies and blocked intersections.
On Wednesday, they're asked to do something different: nothing at all.
Modeled loosely after the 2006 immigrant rights demonstrations, "Day Without A Gay" is scheduled for Wednesday and billed as "a nationwide strike and economic boycott" at www.jointheimpact.com, an organizational site for supporters of same-sex marriage.
In San Francisco, the day will be marked by a 6 p.m. rally and march in the Mission District. But local organizers say they don't expect all Prop. 8 opponents to "call in gay" and instead spend the day doing volunteer work, as some proponents urge.
Jammie Wearing Fool adds this:
I could make a crude reference to how Wednesday is also commonly known as hump day, but we like to keep things highbrow around here.
17 comments:
I honestly have no issue with gay marriage. Actually I support it. But I adamantly disagree with their use of terror tactics on churches who opposed them like the Mormons. It is a hate crime by clear definition and they are hypocrites.
At least logo will have a spike in views today.
Obob: I support civil unions, but not full gay marriage.
The radical creeps make the average gay folks look bad.....most, I'm sure just want to live their lives like your Average Joe and Jane, but the radicals won't stand for it...because it's all about them and political power.
I agree with you Donald. I believe in them having the same civil rights as married couples. Wills, insurance and benefits should be reciprocal. But call it a civil union, not a marriage.
If they are not capable of being happy unless they get their way on this, it seems to me that the issue is not about marriage, it is about imposing their lifestyles on the rest of us.
If they are truly in love, what they call it should not make a difference.
And, if they just have an axe to grind, well then they should wait and try to get the prop. again in a few years. This ridiculous call in gay day is activism at it's very worst.
Honestly, why the big deal over the name? Civil union, marriage...Why does it upset the conservative apple cart so much? It's about control, really. The talibangelicals want to control the name and the idea. At least the Islamofascists are on your side here.
Let them marry for Christ's sake. It's not about political power. It's about equality. Get a grip on reality.
Two people in a loving (legal) relationship should be allowed to marry. Bottom line. The actions by some of the gay marriage supporters are reprehensible, sure. But that does not change the larger issue.
Thanks Pat!
Hi Trish: That's exactly what it's about, imposing their gay radical lifestyle on the rest of us.
Who is acting uncivil and terrorist like here, the "Talibangelicals, or the militant, undemocratic GAYS? The gays.
It had a vote and lost.
They are being very bad losers.
If at first they don't succeed, act like a maniac and you will get your way? Bull. This is why they ought NOT to win, because they refuse to accept what the "people" want, and will behave like spoiled horrible children if they can't have it their way!
A vote's a vote, and I gotta live with the guy probably most of them voted into the presidency!
Trish: Answer this question-How does gay marriage affect you? Does it have any bearing on your life?
But it has tremendous affect on millions of others.
The support against the proposition by the LDS tipped the balance here. Remember, the NO vote was winning until they stepped in and started spreading a campaign of pure and utter lies. That is where the gays are absolutely and 100% right to be outraged.
I am too. As are millions of heteros that believe in equality. And don't feel threatened by a name. But go ahead, and keep up your biases intact.
Bias, inequality, bigotry...they all have their day. Then then they die, and wither in the wind.
The g marriage thing is the ultimate in pax equivilency. After all, if you put Michelins and Union Jacks on a Ford Xplorer - does that make it a Land Rover?
I think that there is no tolerance on the part of some gays, for the people who live traditional lives, and want to keep traditional ways.
And not everyone who is against it, is a religious fanatic.
I don't know about the lies that supposedly swung the vote, I never heard it was winning. I was in San Fran in early October, and heard quite the opposite. From Liberal family members who live and work in Berkeley.
You cannot characterize us all as hateful, or vengeful because we want marriage to be sacred.
And, as I said, regardless of the reasons you feel the prop went yes, the vote has been cast, and I don't think the reaction of (those who are perpetrating it) gays is valid. It's full of hatred and spite. I don't believe they're entitled to that behavior.
Donald, it's not imposing anything on you.
Again, someone, somewhere, please tell me how gay marriage affects their lifestyle?
Just for the sake of tradition? I'm sorry, that isn't good enough. Traditions evolve by their very nature. They have to start somewhere, and now is the time for a new tradition. As I've said before, I went to a gay marriage last summer at an Episcopal church. There was nothing weird, deranged, strange, imposing, untraditional...it was just a very nice union between a couple of men who have been together for 15 years.
And it was blessed by that church.
And no one stood up and said they could not be legally wed.
There are militant gays. There are also militant anti-Obamamaniacs who think he is not legitimately elected.
Where is the outrage on your side there? He won by popular vote. Get used to it.
Tim, I know of no one, among all of the blogs I read or the people I know, who doesn't accept that Obama won the election. Where have you seen otherwise?
And, tradition may indeed eventually include gay marriage, but I am one of the people for now, who wants to retain the terminology for a couple who can procreate, and reserve the term civil unions for gays. Period.
Just as there are men in the Catholic faith who are celibate and may be called priests, there are deacons who can be married and still perform the sacraments.
I personally feel there must be a distinction on the gay union issue as well.
I have friends who are gay, and got married in Massachusetts a couple of years ago. Good for them, and if anyone wants to go to MA to do so, great.
But as it comes up, and state by state, the people vote for or against gay marriage, then that state has chosen. I think it is reasonable to ask the citizens to choose.
But, shouldn't the issue become, let's accept for now, civil unions and make sure that they include the same benefits like those of marriages? Isn't that a fair first step?
Trish:
Tim is a left-wing absolutist and moral relativist. That's nice that you're willing to debate him. I don't know if your reason and persuasion will have an effect, however.
Trish, it's all or nothing with them. You're either an ally or a homophobe and a bigot. Once you leave the reservation you're the devil incarnate and you'll be treated as such.
Destroying reputations and lives is fine with them because people who are part of the H8 8 crowd view the conservatives as pure evil and less than human.
Yes, you are right Donald & Art Guy. It's just that as much as I know he will probably never change his mind, I hope perhaps one day he will accept that conservatives don't have to foaming at the mouth, hate mongers.
Well I suppose some of us are, it's a great big country out there, but then again, so are a lot of liberals!!!! Matter of fact, most of them are hugely foaming at the mouth, haters. The blogs of the left have proven that particularly over this election cycle!
We on the other hand have no animosity against gays, but wish to reserve one privilege for heterosexuals that we hold dear, marriage.
Trish,
Whenever Donald starts to get on a slippery slope, he resorts to calling people derogatory names, like nihilist, moral relativist, etc. Because I don't agree with his logic, his fallback is "absolutist" etc. I could say the same things back, but I try to argue the points, not the epithets. Go figure.
The point about gay marriage is a simple one. Donald is arguing on the point of traditionalism, and civil rights. I simply disagree with his points, as they appear to me to miss the larger issue of true civil rights. To me, civil rights are about protection and equal rights for all. What Donald is saying is that gays are not entitled to these civil rights. To me, that is objectionable as there is a very large, vocal movement out there who merely want what you and I already have. The sanctity of marriage.
This issue is about having the same rights. Now, if you want to argue a name, fine. But if that is the pillar of your argument, it will eventually fall. Why should someone who is in the same exact type of relationship as a heterosexual couple be barred from having the same recognition of that relationship? "Hi, this is my civil union partner." Or how about when you fill out an application--Single, Married, Civil Union...doesn't that single you out as being gay in the eyes of your credit card company, mortgage lender, etc?
You have to remember that marriage is actually a legal issue that happens to be sanctioned by churches in many cases. The problem is that it is not simply about religion, as I have pointed out repeatedly. It is about rights. Let's give them their equal rights and be done with it.
Again, someone please tell me how it affects them. And I don't mean having your feelings hurt either. If you can demonstrate how this is damaging to society, I would love to hear it.
Post a Comment