Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Gay Marriage Disinformation and Intimidation

There's a little debate online this afternoon over Mike Huckabee's appearance on Jon Stewart's show. Apparenlty, Stewart's a big liberal PC master, and he peppered Huck with the standard leftists questions and false equivalencies.

Think Progress has the video, but note this transcripted portion and the response:

Huckabee tried to insist that “60 percent of the American population” opposes gay marriage. Stewart interrupted him, calling it a “travesty” that gay Americans have to plead for their civil rights:

HUCKABEE: If the American people are not convinced that we should overturn the definition of marriage, then I would say that those who support the idea of same-sex marriage have a lot of work to do to convince the rest of us. And as I said, 60 percent of the American population has made the decision–

STEWART: You know, you talk about the pro-life movement [abortion] being one of the great shames of our nation. I think if you want number two, I think it’s that: It’s a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to make their case that they deserve the same basic rights as someone else.

Watch the whole interview ....

It is true that 30 states have banned gay marriage. However, Huckabee — like other conservatives who make similar claims — is wrong to suggest that American public opinion is on his side. A recent poll found that a full 75 percent of Americans favor either gay marriage or civil unions, with nearly 50 percent favoring gay marriage itself. More importantly, the next generation is much more open to gay rights: According to CNN exit polls, an overwhelming majority — 67 percent — of 18-29 year-olds voted against stripping gay couples of their right to marry in California.

Note that Think Progress, to make its case, cites a bogus poll plus the views of young people, who are more liberal on the issue but don't vote in near the proportion to older and more conservative voters.

Just this week Newsweek published the results of its poll on gay marriage, and just 31 percent of those surveyed said they backed full-blown same-sex marriage rights. Huckabee's not only correct, but he's citing conservative estimates on support for traditional family structures.

But that doesn't matter to the radical leftists, who have launched a campaign of intimidation to overturn a decisive majority around the country in favor of retaining traditional heterosexual unions. As the New York Times reports today, in "
Gay Marriage Ban Inspires New Wave of Activists," homosexual activists are launching anti-democratic campaigns seeking to browbeat and intimidate people over their agenda:

The ban [Prop 8], which passed with 52 percent of the vote, overturned a decision by the California Supreme Court in May legalizing same-sex marriage. The same court is currently considering a challenge to Proposition 8.

But many activists seem unwilling to wait for a legal solution and have planned a series of events to keep the issue in the public eye, including a nationwide candlelight vigil later this month, a Million Gay March in Washington next spring and continued protests at county clerks’ offices throughout California.

“We’re doing an end run around the mainstream organizations that run our causes,” said David Craig, a movie producer who is an organizer of Wednesday’s “call in gay” protest. “And the Internet has given us the tool to create these events.”
Recall that gay radicals frequently invoke the black civil rights movement in hopes of finding moral authority for their position. But blacks were disinfranchised prior to 1964 and 1965. They really were on the back of the bus.

Today, gay Americans enjoy full equal protection under the law (and recall that gay marriage is not considered as under the civil rights umbrella according to the federal Defense of Marriage Act). What they don't have - and they'll berate, lie, stomp, and whine until they get their way - is the right to impose their will on a majority of voters who have legitimately and peacefully sought to protect their interests through the ballot box.

10 comments:

Tim said...

Those young people, Donald, eventually replace the old people. The old people voted overwhelmingly to suppress gay rights for the sake of tradition, or whatever pansy-ass excuse you can come up with.

Is the majority always correct? In that case, how do you square the fact that abortion is legal in most states?

Also, what "interests" exactly are the electorate trying to protect?

Donald Douglas said...

Tim:

It's not about the young people. This essay is about the lies and intimidation on the left.

Tim said...

As opposed to those from the right? Give me a break.

From the article:
More importantly, the next generation is much more open to gay rights: According to CNN exit polls, an overwhelming majority — 67 percent — of 18-29 year-olds voted against stripping gay couples of their right to marry in California.

You really should read your posts before commenting. It's about more than just lies and intimidation by the gays.

Donald Douglas said...

Tim: The right is not protesting Obama's election. The left, on the other hand, has rejected the will of the voters.

You're part of the problem.

Tim said...

The right is not protesting the election? How many times do I see the words illegitimate, unqualified, no experience, secretive...

You guys are protesting the election every waking hour of your lives.

Who filed suit to have Obama disqualified for president because they thought he was not a US born citizen? (And McCain.)

For the record, my point is about the lies put out there by the right in regards to their fear mongering on gay marriage. Get with the program.

Donald Douglas said...

Tim:

"The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president are embarrassing and destructive.

This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats’ seditious claim that Bush “stole” the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. This delusion helped to create the Democrats’ Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq war, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became “Bush’s War” rather than an American War — with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.

The birth-certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil."

You're talking about a fringe element, not the real powers that be and strategists on the political right, and certainly not me.

Get a clue...

Tim said...

Speaking of clues...

Don't bring up Florida. Perhaps a decent candidate would have said "I lost the popular vote by half a million votes, Florida is coming down, literally, to a couple of hundred votes or less, so I concede and will abide by the will of the people."

No?

Can you imagine the uproar by Republicans had the situation been reversed and Gore lost the popular vote?

Plus, there was vote recount intimidation by a bunch of Rethugs bussed in from all over. That is well documented. Let's see... and a partisan Supreme Court inserted themselves into that one.

Ever see the movie Clueless?

repsac3 said...

Note that Think Progress, to make its case, cites a bogus poll...

Why exactly is the Harris poll bogus?

...plus the views of young people, who are more liberal on the issue but don't vote in near the proportion to older and more conservative voters.

Isn't their point in citing the views of those younger voters that they are the likely voters of the future and that, while some may not continue voting, or may grow more conservative as they age, others (the rest) will continue voting, and continue voting almost as liberally as they do now, where this issue is concerned?

But that doesn't matter to the radical leftists, who have launched a campaign of intimidation to overturn a decisive majority around the country in favor of retaining traditional heterosexual unions. As the New York Times reports today, in "Gay Marriage Ban Inspires New Wave of Activists," homosexual activists are launching anti-democratic campaigns seeking to browbeat and intimidate people over their agenda:

Campaign of intimidation?
Anti-democratic campaigns?

I see no evidence of either in the NYT article you cite (either in the passage you quote or the article as a whole) and would appreciate your quoting the specific passages that motivate you to make either allegation...

Recall that gay radicals frequently invoke the black civil rights movement in hopes of finding moral authority for their position. But blacks were disinfranchised prior to 1964 and 1965. They really were on the back of the bus.

Homosexuals really cannot marry in most states, or take their legal unions to another state should they want/need to relocate, or obtain the same benefits of citizenship as the rest of us, should a homosexual American legally unite with a homosexual from another country, either in the states that permit it here or in those countries that permit it.

If there really was no disenfranchisement, there would be no laws that grant rights & privileges to some Americans while excluding others, based solely on the gender of the person they love.

If there really was no disenfranchisement, there would be no legal distinction (or any need for different terms in any written law, statute, or ordinance, even) between "married" and "civilly united." Under law, they would denote the same relationship, with all the same legal benefits, rights, privileges, & responsibilities.

Marriage is a religious rite.
Civil union is a civil right.

Dennis said...

Tim keeps furthering the left's there were just a few votes difference. That pure unadulterated crap especially any of us who live in Florida. You subtract the 14000 NYers who voted in both places, you add the 10000 plus military votes that were discounted, you subtract the fact that large numbers in Palm beach county voted more than once and the subtract the number of vote input by poll workers and Bush won by a very large margin.
I have friends who told me they saw the fraud taking place. One voting machine was in one of the poll worker's car and they were just pumping in two to four ballots at the time. By the way, the only way you can get hanging chads with those machines is by sticking more that one ballot in at a time.

repsac3 said...

Putting the terms "marriage" & "civil union" aside, the real question is, what rights & privileges would you grant to homosexual couples who choose to enter a legal relationship, and what rights/privileges would you withhold from them?

Under federal, state, & local law, how should their legal relationship differ from your legal marriage?

(There is no need for Grace to answer, as she has already made it clear she would like to make homosexuality itself illegal, and thus there would be no such thing as a legal union between two of "them," in her eyes--or God's, as she appears to be speaking for Him now, as well.)