Op-Ed
The Proposition 8 Blacklist
Wack Attack
.jpg "Wack Attack")
Scott Eckern is the artistic director of the California Musical Theater. Or at least he was. As artistic director, Scott has worked with many in the LGBT community and even has a lesbian sister. Whatever their orientation, Scott showed love and respect to whoever he worked with.
However, Scott also favored Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, and to that end he donated $1000 to the campaign. Now this money was Scott’s personal money. He never insisted that his views represented the California Musical Theater, and he never imposed his personal beliefs on anyone before or after the donation.
Once Scott was outed for his support of Proposition 8, though, word spread quickly, and a protest and boycott of the theater ensued, ending only when Scott made the decision to resign. Scott merely had exercised his right to participate in the democratic processes of California, and had never shown any ill will to his LGBT peers, but his personal beliefs cost him his job.
Now LGBT activists have asked to be judged in the workplace by the quality of their work, not their personal beliefs, and they have a very reasonable point here. But if this is true, then why must these activists engage in such shameful, merciless hypocrisy at the expense of an ordinary man like Scott?
Now obviously, the story I just told about the LGBT movement in California is not the typical one you expect to hear. But neither is the vote to pass Proposition 8 the typical vote.
I find it strange that so many people will proclaim the power of the voice of the people whenever the vote goes their way, if say Barack Obama gets elected. But whenever the vote goes the other way, as it did on Proposition 8, it just has to be the result of an oppressive majority.
In a gracious concession speech, John McCain, on the other hand, did not mince words. “The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly,” he said in response to his loss, and even went on to blame himself, not the mainstream media or Sarah Palin. The response from the opponents to Proposition 8, on the other hand, has hardly been that gracious.
As usual, they complain that the oppressive majority has once again infringed the rights of the majority, but they lost not in Arkansas but in California. And while they insist that their cause parallels that of women and blacks, CNN’s exit polls show that both groups voted in favor of Proposition 8.
It is not as if California is antithetical to rights. On the same ballot, they were so committed to abortion rights (I think the right to life is the real one here, but I digress) that they rejected another proposition which would not restrict abortion but would simply require minors to notify parents of an abortion.
At this point, you would think these activists would figure out that their image problem does not solely result from America being a nation of homophobes who spend every waking moment cursing gays.
Instead, they have resorted to blaming everyone else and protesting churches and Mormon temples. Now while they certainly have a right to protest, at the same time these protests have not exactly shown the type of character that makes people want to repeal Proposition 8. At the protests at Saddleback church, they have called their opponents liars over an ad suggesting that kindergartners would have to learn that homosexual and heterosexual marriage are equal.
However, California does mandate, starting in kindergarten, comprehensive health education, which include marriage as well as its legal and financial aspects. Now California law does not specify any details on how to implement it, but if Proposition 8 failed, then I do not see how teachers could have presented marriage without saying that gay marriage is no different than straight marriage, nor do I see how any LGBT activist would tolerate anything but that.
So basically, while some schools may choose to present marriage at a different grade level, certainly nothing prevents kindergartners from being taught about marriage, both gay and straight. Thus this ad full of lies is apparently true. I could see how protestors could question the underlying motivation of this ad, but to call it lie is more deceitful than the ad itself.
In fact, towards the end of the election cycle, one group opposing Proposition 8 ran an ad that was both despicable and untrue. In this ad, two lesbians answer the door to find two Mormons who later invade their house and rip up their marriage certificate.
Intolerance in the name of tolerance?
Not only is this an example of intolerance and Mormon-bashing, but the ad, which ironically is supposed to promote tolerance, is also grossly misleading. While Proposition 8 would clearly prevent future gay marriages, the question of what would happen to existing ones is a mystery, although the general feeling is that they cannot be retroactively revoked. If the ad about kindergartners is a lie, then this one is nothing but malicious deceit.
And the situation does not improve too much here at Cornell. Now I do not know how people in the ROTC view Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on a personal level, but I know they will enforce it because it is the law. As a result of their heinous neutrality, the ROTC often has to deal with calls for their eviction from campus.
At Columbia, the editorial board of The Spectator wrote an editorial constructively criticizing LGBT groups for making Queer Awareness Month a bit too raunchy, emphasizing “sex over awareness.” They did get a couple of facts wrong, but in the big picture these mistakes did not detract from their overall message. The response: yet another protest. I guess perhaps criticism can never be constructive unless it receives a rubber stamp of approval from the LGBT community before being published.
In conclusion, America is a nation of homophobes, Californians being the worst of them. It’s time to take up the fight against these homophobes. We have already crossed one person, Scott Eckern, off the blacklist. Once we deal with the rest of the blacklist, we can then take on The Spectator. And let’s not forget about that homophobe Mike Wacker.
Mike Wacker is an assistant web editor at The Sun. Contact him at mwacker@cornellsun.com. Wack Attack runs alternate Fridays.
Thank you for crystallizing
Thank you for crystallizing my thoughts on this matter perfectly. I am also similarly mystified how the "vote no" group complains about the "millions of dollars" spent by the "vote yes" when they themselves raised and spent more money than the "vote yes." I wonder exactly who they are trying to fool here. Also troubling is how local governments scramble to join lawsuits to challenge the law as if some horrible mistake was made by six million people (again). Rather than kowtowing and be shouted down by their lobby I would like to here someway say "I am exercising my freedom of speech - I think they are wrong."
Oh Mike - you poor kid!
Look, gay couples live and love like non-gay couples. Non-gay couples have "marriage" available to them and gay couples do not. That's not fair and gay couples want the EXACT same rights. Personally, since I'm not religous, I think the term "marriage" should only be used within the confines of churches and religions. The governement should consider any coupling of two humans over a particular age the right to "partner". As long as they are of a particular age, you can be black, white, tall, short, old, young, gay, or straight. Let's just cut the religious aspects out of governemnt like we're supposed to.
The Primary Yes On 8 Group, ProtectMarriage.com
If you recall (Google it if you don't) actually sent out a type of Blackmail letter to many of the major supporters of the No on 8 campaign.
What they were threatening to do, if these donors didn't send an "equal" amount to the Yes on 8 campaign, is post their names on a list on their web site saying that these businesses were anti-family and should be avoided. They were attempting to extort money from the No on 8 donors, but got no response because the No on 8 donors didn't feel there was anything they should have been ashamed of.
The people who made this AntiGayBlacklist.com weren't asking for money to take their names off - they came right out and said "The following individuals or organizations (according to ElectionTrack.com) have donated money to the California Proposition 8 campaign which seeks to ban same sex marriages. Please do not patronize them."
Seems reasonable to me.
Gay marriage
Wow! That was a very powerful commercial. It must have been like looking into a mirror for you. Of course you didn't like it. Thanks for voting my rights away, bigot!
Flawed argument
"However, California does mandate, starting in kindergarten, comprehensive health education, which include marriage as well as its legal and financial aspects. Now California law does not specify any details on how to implement it, but if Proposition 8 failed, then I do not see how teachers could have presented marriage without saying that gay marriage is no different than straight marriage, nor do I see how any LGBT activist would tolerate anything but that."
Health education includes marriage, but that is not and will not be on the kindergarten curriculum. Your argument is no different from this: CA law mandates teachers teach math to kindergarteners, math includes calculus, therefore kindergarteners must be instructed on calculus.
The fact is that kindergarteners are only instructed on basic safety information, not marriage "and its legal and financial aspects."
Not to mention ALL parents
Not to mention ALL parents are given the legal right to opt-out of any school curriculum they don't agree with...
But as we have seen in New
But as we have seen in New Jersey, that doesn't mean the school will volunteer that curriculum for the parents to decide if they want their child involved or not.
Oh dear. You write that
Oh dear.
You write that "the response from the opponents to Proposition 8, on the other hand, has hardly been that gracious". What exactly do you consider a gracious response? What would you rather have them do? Quietly concede "defeat" and get themselves into one of those therapy sessions you love so much, where they can be converted into the perfect, little family-friendly heterosexual just like you are (allegedly)? Or perhaps you'd prefer they disappear altogether, thus no longer offending your delicate sensibilities. Given that people just took away their right to marry, I'd say that gay people, or opponents to prop 8, are justified in what they are feeling. In fact, I'd say that anger and frustration are more than appropriate responses. But I base this only on everything I know about emotions. You'd understand this too, if you actually had meaningful interactions with other human beings on a daily basis.
P.S. In his resignation letter, Scott Eckern wrote that it was his "religious beliefs" that made him support prop 8. Is it really worth having certain beliefs (religious or otherwise) if they make you a shitty friend, and even worse a shitty brother? Whats the point of having ideology, if it comes before the people you love?
Proposition 4 would have
Proposition 4 would have "simply" required minors to notify possibly abusive parents of an abortion. Obviously the consequences and implications of the proposition were more nuanced than the one sentence you wrote in support of the claim that California has no problem supporting apparently questionable rights.
Regarding teaching children about gay marriage in schools, see this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE. Also, state law allows parents to keep their children out of class if they are uncomfortable with course materials. So your statement, ".. certainly nothing prevents kindergartners from being taught about marriage, both gay and straight," is a straight-up lie.
This article reads like it was written by someone who hasn't actually followed this issue in any meaningful detail.
Imposing?
What do you mean, "...he never imposed his personal beliefs on anyone before or after the donation"? That's exactly what he did. He imposed his personal beliefs by removing the civil rights of thousands of his fellow citizens. It doesn't get any more imposing than that. As a consumer, I am glad to know which businesses I may frequent are bigots and which are not. I choose not to line the pockets of bigots with my money. Others are free to do otherwise.
nonsense
Your article is such complete hogwash that i don't even know where to begin. (And you wonder why Republicans are viewed as homophobic?)
(1) You begin your article with some poor, poor straight guy with a lesbian sister (oh wow, he MUST be enlightened!) that works in musical theater - which is probably the gayest of all forms of entertainment. And this poor, poor guy is so oppressed because his colleagues and patrons don't like the fact that he wanted to strip them of a constitutional right to marry. Nobody forced him to donate money. He wasn't fired. But the people he works with and his customers didn't like his conduct and made it known. Yes, let's all feel sympathy for him, and not the thousands of people whose rights were taken away. After all, they were gays, and this guy is straight so we care about him. Who's the hypocrite here?
(2) Then you bring up the old, tired "this is democratic" nonsense. If 51% of the electorate voted to enslave the other 49%, would that be democratic or just? No. Purposefully targetting a minority and stripping them of a constitutional right is not democratic. It is an example of a tyrannical majority the likes of which John Stuart Mill warned us about. The will or view of the majority is not always right or just.
(3) You go on some rant about LGBT activists protesting at churces. Exactly what is wrong with that? Religious organizations were the primary force behind the Yes on 8 campaign. Are curches somehow immune from criticism?
(4) Of course you devolve into a despicable "think of the children!" rant. The fact that you want your children to grow up bigoted and homophobic should not prevent me from getting married. If you don't want children taught about such things in school then you can put that in a seperate proposition that does not strip anyone of their rights.
(5) Mormons donated about 80% of the money behind the Yes On 8 campaign. But pointing out that Mormons were forcing their religious views on others and taking other people's rights away is somehow "mormon-bashing"? And gays are now bigoted? Whose rights were taken away, again? Was there some vote on Mormon marriage that I missed?
Overall your article is ripe with the false sense of victimization that college Republicans are so fond of. LGBT people were stripped of equal rights, and somehow the bigots and homophobes are the victims? Please, don't insult our intelligence with this tripe.
Oh Mr. Nonsense, I find it
Oh Mr. Nonsense,
I find it interesting how you try to mince words and validate all that is going on with the religion bashing when you can't even correctly spell the word church. What you wrote is exactly what you said...Nonsense.
First off, if there were some way we could dig into every vote you ever made, and then publicly berate you for choosing to vote that way, (protesting your choice in front of where you work, go to church and even live), I am sure you would find it intrusive and overwhelming. Interestingly, no one is asking you to quit your job and you are not feeling pressured to resign for believing and voting the way you do. Perhaps we should feel sorrier for you than for the man in the story...at least he has some moral conviction.
Secondly, I find it very interesting how people like you yell about how conservative people need to be more open minded, however, when it comes to conservatives sharing their point of view, if it doesn't agree with yours, you no longer feel the need to listen...contradictory to say the least!
You say that we are targeting a minority and stripping them of their rights. Perhaps in your mind that is true, but what do you think this community is turning around and doing to those who choose to vote for the ban on gay marriage? They are stripping them of their rights to worship, vote and hold an opinion contrary to yours. Yes, it is a democratic process and just like the American people spoke when they elected Barack Obama, so we speak now on proposition 8.
In response to your comment about protesting churches, (again it's c-h-u-r-c-h), you may know that many churches have been discriminated and protested against. However, the founding fathers knew how important it was for people to differ in opinions, and that's why we have freedom of religion. We don't need to be publicly scrutinized for being God fearing people. We have the freedom to differ from your ideas.
So, Mr. Nonsense, although your comments were a way for you to express your frustrations, they are just as you say...Nonsense. Perhaps you should find some other way to occupy your time than pointing fingers at all the injustices you feel. Perhaps you should take a moment and reflect on the way other people feel when you support public and perhaps threatening actions taken to people who simply don’t feel, think or believe the same way you do. The way you feel your rights have been taken away, you are taking from others in a different way. Remember Mr. Nonsense, if you want others to be open minded to your ideas, you need to expect to do the same for them and respect it (even if they differ from your own).
First of all, it never says
First of all, it never says much for your argument when you need to focus on poor spelling.
So in your mind, you would say that voting to deny rights to a minority population is no different than a disagreement on tax policy? You can 'dig into every vote I've ever made', and I'm sure you would disagree with a lot of my choices (which is certainly your right), but surely you can understand the difference here.
The election of Barack Obama was (at least for most people) a question of *legitimate policy* that would affect all Americans - if McCain had one I'd certainly have been disappointed, but by no means would I claim those who voted for him were fundamentally wrong, and stripping me of my rights. Proposition 8 had nothing to do with policy, and I have yet to hear a single reason for supporting it that can't be reduced to bigotry, plain and simple. Protecting 'traditional marriage'? Gay marriage won't suddenly make your heterosexual relationship any less meaningful, and in any case marriage as you would define is a relatively recent development - if you want 'traditional', maybe we should go back to a time where inter-racial marriage was forbidden, and you parents got to choose your future spouse for you. And any of those arguments about reproduction would apply to *any* couple that can't have children, gay or otherwise.
So no, I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who would vote to strip rights away from a minority population - they are in many respects the worst of what our society has to offer, and the world will be a far better place once their antiquated and barbaric notions of right and wrong reside only in the history books. I'm sure white slave owners felt similarly persecuted at the close of the civil war, and while I would concede that we are not dealing with quite the same level of injustice in this case, it is injustice all the same; some harmless protesting is a far cry from a war that killed millions, yet not many people would argue that the civil war was unjust because it persecuted the confederate aristocracy. And no, no one is taking their rights away; they can still hold their opinions and go to worship - you just have to respect our right to peaceably assemble in protest - and I certainly don't think anyone has suggested we strip these people of their right to vote.
And I don't particularly care for your implication that supporters of gay rights can't be just as God fearing as anyone else. I was born in the midwest and raised in a Lutheran household, but unlike you, the message I received from my church was one of love and acceptance. The truth is Christianity has changed a lot over the centuries, and usually for the better as it shed (and continues to shed) tenants of hate and intolerance; the important ideas are the ones that have endured and are shared by all well-meaning people, religious or otherwise, and I would suggest that in the future you look to these as a guide for your life.
Spelling Nazi strikes again
Oh, I'm so sorry. It's just that homophobic crap makes me so angry I can barely type correctly.
Nobody is telling religious organizations or churches (CHURCH CHURCH CHURCH CHURCH, happy now you jerk?) what they can or cannot preach but they do not have the right to take rights away from others. Bigots do NOT have the right to impose their biogtry on others.
I don't have to be "open minded" and inclusive of views that regard me as a second-class citizen and rob me of equal rights. I don't have to be tolerant of bigotry and hatred.
The American Family
The American Family Association's mailing list at times contains nothing but warnings on companies who allow same-sex couples insurance rights or are 'pro-gay' in some other way, and they're not the only group who keep such public lists. How is this boycott so much worse than the sentiments shown in these links?
http://www.afa.net/christmaslist.asp
http://faq.afa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=274&Itemid=...
http://faq.afa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=260&Itemid=...
Wacker Drivel.
Copying and pasting, with some edits, the talking points of proponents of Prop 8 is not journalism. They (and now you) have it backwards. They sought to revise the state constitution to mandate different treatment. They ought not be surprised if they, too, face discrimination after discrimination has been grafted on to the state constitution.
Contrary to your theory, Scott Eckem DID impose his personal beliefs on gay people be seeking to have them enshrine in the constitution. He made a large and public donation that he knew would be a matter of public record. That was a choice he made, and it has consequences. (To the degree he believes his choice was compelled by his membership in a religion, which is, frankly, a cop out, joining a particular religion is also a choice.) This was not someone simply exercise his right to vote.
So spare us the whining.
You've taught your
You've taught your kindergartner more about gay marriage in the yes-campaign tv ads then he/she will ever learn in school. Now every kid in America with access to a tv knows about gay marriage, regardless of what their parents, church or school want to "protect" them from.
Asking the govt to step in to stop boycotting by individuals is absolutely ridiculous. You cannot stop individuals from taking their business elsewhere for such an emotional issue as taking away a group's civil rights. All contributors for/against all propositions are listed as a matter of public information, which can be accessed on many govt and news-sponsored websites.
Saying that you're "pro-gay" and then saying that you don't want your children to know about gays is preposterous. If you don't want your kids to know about gays or gay marriages, then you're clearly anti-gay. Anyone can throw dollars at certain groups to make it appear that they are in support of those groups, but that is simply "buying" their loyalty.
"never shown any ill will to his LGBT peers"
I would think that denying someone his/her rights is "ill will". I'm sure that the people who thought blacks and whites shouldn't marry had pretty strong beliefs too, they were just wrong. The bottom line is that you don't take rights away based on your personal, religious beliefs. We don't all, nor do we have to, in the USA, believe in the same God. In fact, hold onto your seats, we don't have to believe in God at all!!!! Keep the church out of government and mind your own business. Judge not lest ye be judged. What about that part of the bible?????
The Prop 8 blacklist
Mr Wacker's comments are reasoned and cogent if, and ONLY if, you accept that putting the rights of a minority up to a vote of the majority is democratic, American and just part of the political process. American democracy is not, or at least should not be, "two wolves and a sheep 'voting' on what's for lunch". The California Supreme Court ruled that civil recognition of the marriages entered into by gay and lesbian people was a fundamental right under equal protection. Prop 8 therefore put the fundamental rights of an identified minority up to a vote of an, apparently, antagonistic majority. No matter what you believe, or how you feel, about state recognition of marriages between two people of the same sex, I should think every American would want to protect the principle of equal protection under the law. That is why so many minority organzations have asked the California Supreme Court to void Prop 8. If Prop 8 stands will we now see battling ballot initiatives on any fundamental rights we happen to find inconvenient or don't at the moment like?
Yes, all of the boycotts, loss of jobs, division, rancor caused by Prop 8 are extremely lamentable. There is nothing good, American or democratic about anything related to Prop 8. But, the proponents of the proposition cannot claim protection in the name of democracy or religious toleramce if they themselves are not willing to grant these to others. They cannot ask for civil discourse and respect from those attacked by an action that is, at its very core, uncivil and disrepectful.
A Well-Written Response to this Argument
Feministing.org had an argument against this form of logic that perfectly sums up my thoughts.
http://community.feministing.com/2008/11/oh-no-you-didnt-why-its-not-ok....
I suggest giving it a quick read-through, at least. I understand where you're coming from, but I feel that it's necessary for you, and others who feel similarly, to rationally look at this from the opposite point of view, as well.
But the Supreme Court was
But the Supreme Court was precisely the problem. The public disagreed with its activist ruling and overturned it with Prop 8. Gay marriage is not a right, its a moral issue.
29 other states agree and have defined marriage traditionally in their constitutions. Over 40 states have passed legislation also to that effect. Most Americans would disagree that gay marriage is a right.
Proposition 8 had every reason to fail. Every major politician in the state opposed it. Every newspaper opposed it. Every Hollywood actor opposed it. The No on 8 side outraised the Yes side by millions of dollars. Jerry Brown changed the wording on the proposition in the ballot to give it a liberal spin. In spite of all of this, Prop 8 still passed. I think the public feels very strongly about this issue, even if the elites of society disagree. This one example where the PEOPLE have spoken, and the elites are none too happy about it.
Actually...
Marriage is not a right for anyone, gay or straight. However, denying gays the right to marry is an imposition of religion on others, it is the removal of the right of the free practice of religion. A religious marriage is viewed (generally) as a union between two adults, which is sanctified by God. No body aside from the church itself should dictate who gets married on its grounds and by its clergy. But this is the key point. The sphere of influence of religious marriage SHOULD only extend into the church itself. Instead, religious busy-bodies (Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals) want to impose THEIR view of religious marriage on the whole rest of society. Never mind that there are religious institutions that conduct homosexual marriages. Clearly this is an imposition of religious views onto the RIGHTS of others. And frankly, being an atheist, I will be damned if I allow any religious body not recognize the difference between their views and rights, and mine. It is a tyranny of the majority. Perhaps the PEOPLE spoke, but logically and morally, the PEOPLE spoke against the rights of others to practice their religion or lack of such. That is quintessentially immoral.
I have no such desire to do this, but I think if happened it would be sweet justice (perhaps a useful form of protest). The religious opposition to gay marriage could be countered with something akin to this. I walk into a Catholic church that is performing a wedding. I announce that I think the Catholic church is immoral (which I do) and that therefore this union is an abomination and must not be allowed. Clearly this would not stop the wedding, but the message should be clear. Yet opponents of gay marriage are doing this, and are ALLOWED by society to do this (in a broader sense of course).
Because I actually have respect for others (a respect that I see lacking in people who voted yes on Prop 8 and the like), I have no desire to do such a thing. I, as a supposedly free human being, have the right to not follow the religious mantras of others. If you don't like gay marriages, don't have one. If you don't like gays, stay away from them. Regardless of what the delusional Right would want you to believe, a "non-traditional marriage" does not affect a traditional one. It doesn't turn your children gay. It doesn't erode the fabric of society. You know what really erodes the fabric of society? Abuse, poverty, lack of education, divorce with children involved. Frankly, us straight people can't blame that on gays. People who support the removal of the rights of others are the lowest form of moral cretins.
Homosexuality is a Mental Disorder
All that Prop 8 did was give those that are at least relatively sane a forum to address the madness that was forced upon them by an incompetent group of judges. Since homosexuality is a mental disorder that should be treated aggressively like any other dangerous disease, the people rightfully corrected the court's poor judgment by eliminating its impact on the sanctity of marriage. This issue has never been about "civil rights" or equal opportunity, but rather about forcing rational people to condone the actions and absorb the guilt associated with a curable disease. Rather than encouraging those with the disorder to spread their infection within every structure of societal order, we should be treating it as the disease that it is and offer treatment to cure it.
Maybe there's a pill.
HETEROSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL DISORDER
No wonder Prop 8 passed with this ignorance still allowed to ferment in the religious sector of our democracy. Very sad.
Prop 8 Blacklist... and REAL facts
Mr. Wacker:
I enjoyed your interpretation of the Prop 8 situation in California. It is obvious you do all research required before writing a well-informed editorial. However, even with years of experience as editor and political analyst, you seemed to have overlooked some facts.
I wanted to list a few points for your records:
1. Campaign contributions are public record that anyone can obtain. Boycotters are not breaking any laws.
2. Any acts of aggression or calls for termination of employment were commited by random individuals and not the policy of the boycott movement as a whole.
3. Prop 8 supporters have been doing just as much boycotting toward those who contributed to No on 8. ProtectMarriage.org was publishing names and calling for boycotts of "No on 8" contributors even before the election.
4. Before the election, "Yes on 8" campaign executives sent certified letters to all businesses who donated to No on 8. In this letter, executives demanded that each of these businesses match their donation by at least $10,000.00 to Yes on 8… or their names and businesses will be published as “opponents of traditional marriage.” This goes beyond boycott. This was downright blackmail.
5. Example: Conservative Christians boycotted SpongeBob Squarepants and the Purple Tell-a-Tubby for "appearing too gay". Even though both characters are asexual, conservatives assumed a sexual orientation by the character’s mannerisms and urged parents to conduct a national boycott. Based on assumption alone, these boycotts financially affected both cartoon franchises. This proves how boycotting—though not always justified—is a famous (and affective) protest tool used often by conservatives. Anti-8 boycotters are simply following their example.
6. Whether Proposition 8 passed or failed, the lives of supporters would not have been personally changed. This argument has been proven false. Both the CA State and US Federal Constitutions protect religious belief and practice (including discrimination).
7. Prop 8 did, however, immediately affect the private lives of over 40,000 people who recently married, and millions more who want to marry. Boycotting is a very efficient non-violent way to show Prop 8 supporters that their lives will also be affected by the amendment they financially sustained.
8. It’s not just the gay and lesbian population boycotting either. Many people are angry that a simple majority vote—influenced by lies and fear—could literally rip fundamental rights away from fellow citizens.
9. Marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by both the CA State and US Federal Constitution—a right that cannot carry limitations on a specific group.
10. You stated that opponents of Prop 8 are calling foul on the majority vote. If, in 1954, Kansans voted for a Constitutional Amendment to uphold required segregation in schools? Would it be justified? On the contrary, law in Kansas already required public school segregation. Yet The US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. It is the duty of the courts to protect the rights of the minority from the—sometimes oppressive—judgment of the majority.
11. One “Division of Church and State” stipulation is that no religious sect can involve itself with government or civil law. In return, no religious sect (church) pays taxes and personal religious belief exempt from following civil codes such as discrimination. It is legal for a Christian church to turn away a Black man, Jew, or even a homosexual couple if they can prove it is against their religious beliefs. This would not have changed if Prop 8 failed.
12. Remember that fundamental Christian groups and organized religious sects (churches) placed Prop 8 on the ballot, as well as funded it with over $40 million. This proves that these groups actively sought to instill their personal religious beliefs into the civil constitution. This is a direct violation of both the CA State and US Federal Constitution.
Is there really anything wrong with not wanting to spend your money at a business that supports or caters to a cause you oppose? Especially when this cause is the destruction of a specific group’s fundamental right.
Honestly. Would you frequent the business of someone who monetarily supported a law that banned you from marrying?
Or is it only okay to boycott if you are a conservative fighting for a conservative cause?
If you continue to publish editorials stating how unjust Prop 8 protestors supposedly behave. I think it is only fair that you express to readers just how often ProtectMarriage.org supporters have used unjust methods in their campaign… in California and in other states where they have waged the same battle.
Now that we got all that out of the way. Can I vote on your marriage, Mr. Wacker?
Michael Dougherty
Los Angeles, CA