A supporter of Proposition 8, fed up with what he believed was the gay community's and "liberal media's" refusal to accept the voters' verdict, fired off a letter to the editor."Please show respect for democracy," he wrote, in a letter we published.
What he encountered instead was an utter lack of respect for free speech.
Within hours, the intimidation game was on. Because his real name and city were listed - a condition for publication of letters to The Chronicle - opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search engines to find the letter writer's small business, his Web site (which included the names of his children and dog), his phone number and his clients. And they posted that information in the "Comments" section of SFGate.com - urging, in ugly language, retribution against the author's business and its identified clients.
"They're intimidating people that don't have the same beliefs as they do ... so they'll be silenced," he told me last week. "It doesn't bode well for the free-speech process. People are going to have to be pretty damn courageous to speak up about anything. Why would anyone want to go through this?"
Let the record show that I absolutely disagree with the letter writer on the substance of Prop. 8. I believe that same-sex couples should have the full rights and responsibilities of marriage. In my view, the discrimination inherent in Prop. 8 is morally and legally indefensible in a society where the concept of equal protection is supposed to safeguard the rights of the minority.
But let me also say that I am disturbed by the vicious, highly personalized attacks against the letter writer and others. Protesters have shouted insults at people headed to worship; temples and churches have been defaced.
And somehow, we are to believe that if gay marriage is passed, the radical vanguard of gay activists wouldn't use the legal tools handed to them to go after churches and anybody else they didn't like? Observe and learn, people. You stand up for traditional marriage, or even for the right to speak your mind on this issue, and they'll come after you and try to ruin you. This is not a game.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Todd
No, the gays are not coming because I did not post my contact information.
There is absolutely no reason society needs gay "marriage".
Elaborate, please, on society's "need" for heterosexual "marriages" like Britney Spears's 55 hour "committment", or Darva Conger & Rick Rockwell's TV game show prize "marriage", or any one of Mickey Rooney's eight "marriages", or Prince Charles & Camilla Parker Bowles Windsor's (shurely non-procreational "marriage". We wait with bated breath for a cogent explanation of how we "need" such "marriages".
"If gays want to form lasting relationships they are already free to do so."
Might white of ya, Massa. Trouble is, we already do form such relationships. Now what's missing is equal government recognition of them as marriages (since that is what they are). It's called the equal protections clause of the Constitution.
"And they are free to name those relationships something other than "marriage"
No need for any special institutions or special rights. Equal rights will do just fine, thanks. My marriage is perfectly legal. Why would I (or why should I) call it anything other than what it is?
"since homosexual duos simply lack the gender diversity to meet that word's definition."
Is "gender diversity" anything like the "racial purity" that used to be required? Just askin'.
"Until gays and their apologists present a coherent reason why the rest of us should change the way we define marriage, they should calm themselves and be thankful they live in a Christian, not a Muslim, country."
The "coherent reason" you seek is called the equal protections clause of the Constitution. Sorry you don't seem to know of it.
Oh, and P.S. since when is America a "Christian nation"? I rememberr something called freedom of religion that used to be part and parcel of America's promise to the world. When did you dismantle that?
The Christian right has listed the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortion so that they could be _murdered_. Certainly, the Christian right has no moral high ground in the way that it deals with dissent.
Here is the problem, speaking against Gay Marriage is not a 'Religious Right' issue.
Voters who voted for Democrtat candidate Barack Obama also voted AGAINST Gay Marriage.
The incoming President does not accept Gay Marriage any more than the prior Presidents.
Further, to say civil rights have been violated is a fallacy since homosexuals are not banned from marriage, in fact, homosexuals have married since the dawn of this system even born children, divorced only to marry again.
To the simpleton who posts as "Your Name,"
Barack Obama is on record as opposing Proposition 8 because it is divisive, and he's also on record as intending to repeal DOMA.
As for your argument that gays already can get married, it's not in the best interest of heterosexuals to be married to homosexuals and vice versa. Such marriages are mockeries. Saying that gays have a right to marriage, heterosexual marriage, is like saying Saudi Arabia has religious freedom because anyone can attend the mosque of his choice.
As for the general complaint about religious discrimination, the Supreme Court of California rightly decided that, while religious people commonly assert that homosexuality is a choice, religion is undeniably a choice and, therefore, sexual orientation is at least the same standard of civil rights protection as religion is.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.