RECENT  POSTS:  » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out » But your subjective view of 'real' marriage is factually irrelevant, Ryan » Flip Benham (yes, their dad) reportedly protesting outside NC weddings  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/26/2009

But what they really mean to say is 'we don't care for gay people'

by Jeremy Hooper
"If gay activists wish to legalize same-sex marriage now, they will have to go to the people and seek their permission"
-Yes on 8

"The 7 million Californians who worked hard to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife are breathing easier today."
-Brian Brown

"This victory for Prop 8 is a victory for children, for civil rights, and for the common good."
-Maggie Gallagher

"What next? Are you going to demand that we officially change our names to "pond scum," or is working to make us, your fellow citizens, feel like it enough to satisfy your twisted moral compass?"
-Average gay Californian who can must pay taxes, but can't live equally

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I thought only 52% of those 7 million wanted to restrict marriage.

Posted by: ---- | May 26, 2009 5:21:54 PM

"Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment to all.
Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment."

Justice Moreno, J of the Supreme Court of California

Posted by: David Humphrey | May 26, 2009 6:43:30 PM

Jeremy take heart. We will win at the ballot box whether we have to keep putting the repeal back on the ballot until it gets repealed. The 'victory' for their side will ultimately lead to their downfall. religioustolerance.org said in their opinion conservatives have two choices on how to deal with rising acceptance of gays. 1. Continue to oppose gay rights and in the process hurt their reputation and evangelizing efforts. or 2. Quietly step back and let gays obtain their rights. Apparently they've chosen the first option. Well when the time comes and conservative christianity heads into a steep decline as more liberal churches grow they will only have themselves to blame.

Posted by: Adam Kautz | May 26, 2009 7:22:00 PM

Let's Honor the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots with more of the same. I am sick of being a second class citizen. NO MORE !

Posted by: Bud | May 26, 2009 7:33:42 PM

and next year when the voters approve gay marriage everyone you quoted is gonna be screaming about how the courts need to fix this or how they refuse to accept it. Pathetic bigots.

Posted by: Penguinsaur | May 26, 2009 8:29:55 PM

Bud,

I was indeed tempted to engage in some "civil disobedience" of my own today.

If you oppose gay rights, you belong in Iran with your fellow theocrats.

Posted by: Attmay | May 26, 2009 8:32:17 PM

This shows again that in America, as long as there is the religious right and people who profit from demonizing us, there will always be the threat that tomorrow some right may be taken away by a strong-enough legislative push on their part. It may be a court decision, a referendum where the conservative propaganda borrowed from Goebbels, a piece of legislation that piggybacked on a popular bill, etc. What this means to me is, if marriage gets passed in New York State, we would have to take advantage of this *window* that may slam shut any moment, as it did in California. All those couples that were engaged and were waiting to get married are now devastated. In this country, where it is acceptable that civil rights or lack thereof are decided by tyranny of the majority, we have to grab the bull by the horns and make that marriage happen while we can. If it was overturned by the "people" in liberal California, it can be overturned anywhere where it was put into place by a judicial decision, which is most of the current "yes" states.

Posted by: Mariya | May 26, 2009 11:08:29 PM

*nods at Mariya* I hate comparing the black and LGBT civil rights movements, but there's a reason why school desegregation, the legalization of interracial marriage in every state, etc. did *not* happen as a result of a popular vote.

The word "permission" in the first quote really makes me want to throw things! How f***ing DARE they?!?! And of course, that term "the people" obviously doesn't include us.

As for Gallagher's appeal to "children", this weekend, my wife and I had a bi male friend's husband and 8-year-old daughter over to our house. We learned that she is beginning to really understand just how much some people, including her own grandmother, hate her father and stepfather for being gay. (And then I blogged about it.) The bit that broke my heart in a thousand places was when she said, "I don't feel bad until my grandma says I should feel bad." When she said her grandma called her a "tomboy," her stepdad advised her to tell Grandma (truthfully) that she thinks the male athletes she's in love with are cute, not just talented. The 8-year-old didn't need much time to understand why he'd say that.

Maggie Gallagher doesn't think of children like her when she says that, and that is the most charitable interpretation I can come up with. Sorry to run off at the keyboard.

Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | May 27, 2009 9:57:10 AM

Maggie Gallagher cares nothing about children - if she did, she wouldn't have them being force-fed lines they don't understand, for a commercial which can come back to haunt some of them later in life.

I don't know how children of the Nazi's anti-Jew propaganda were treated as adults post-liberation, but I can tell you that Maggie won't be there to provide the therapy these kids will need if word gets out 10-20 years from now that they participated in a video which is no different than the Nazi's propaganda.

What Maggie done with those kids is reckless and selfish, and those kids were used and abused by NOM.

Posted by: Scott | May 27, 2009 2:08:21 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails