Are you proud of yourselves, anti-Prop. 8 mob?
I’ve blogged several times about how the anti-Prop. 8 mob hounded the El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles over the $100 donation of its longtime manager, who happens to be a practicing Mormon.
Now, read this — a closer look at how the mob ruined the manager’s life:
A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8
Pat yourselves on the back, tolerance bullies.
(Hat tip – Jane Q Republican)
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Update on El Coyote and Marjorie Christofferson « Jane Q. Republican
- $100 Donation In Support Of Proposition 8 Leads To Cops In Riot Gear
- Democrats, Republicans and Hope and Change? : P.U.M.A
- MishMashZone » Prop 8 Protests and El Coyote
- Radio Vice Online » Tolerance on display in California - what a $100 donation can do
- ‘Okie’ on the Lam » Blog Archive » Anti Prop-8 Activists Take No Prisioners — No Film At Eleven
- ButAsForMe! » Are you proud of yourselves, anti-Prop. 8 mob?
- The New Civil Rights Movement » Michelle Malkin Starts The Week Off “Right”
- San Francisco Values Fly Right Out the Window
- Gay Rage Part IV: Gay and Liberal “tolerance”? Not! « Mark Epstein
- The Non-Religious Case Against Homosexuality | BobMaistros.com
- Gay Musicians From Bay Area To Play Inauguration Parade « Goodtimepolitics
- Why is it That Diversity Advocates Mandate Conformity? | Pirates! Man Your Women!
- Webloggin » Anti Prop-8 Activists Take No Prisioners — No Film At Eleven
- California Prop 8 donor maps showing up | Radio Vice Online
- More Proof Tom Hanks is an Idiot | Mark's Soap Box
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Proposition 8
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
NewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasRiehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin RisesStop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristGay Patriot
» The O So Hip ObamaLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?Weekly Standard
» DVR Alert: Oprah, Obama, Primetime, ChristmasJustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The Turkey
We’re in agreement. I think the government needs to get out of marriage altogether. Millions of couples marry and never step foot inside of a church. They don’t feel any need/obligation to have the church involved. So if a heterosexual couple can legally enter into a civil union that has all of the same benefits and recognition as a religious marriage, why not extend that to gay couples? Religion wouldn’t enter into the picture. If a gay couple find a church or priest or other religious figure willing to bless their union, that’s their choice. Leave marriage to the churches and let gay couples have civil unions just like heterosexual couples have.
FYI, one can think that she does not deserve what she is getting and still recognize the right of those to protest.
About “consent”, chap, it’s the next “taboo” set to fall.
Remind me again, why is it that I can’t be against incestuous marriages while supporting gay marriage?
So basically you are saying “We have to allow interracial marriage because its not their fault they are black”?
Also, whether homsexuality is inherent or not is at the very least an open issue. But even if it is not, so what? People choose their religion, yet discrimination on that basis is illegal, isn’t it?
I’ll repeat: if it’s discriminatory to say marriage is one man and one woman, because it makes a minority group feel violated on the basis of their orientation, you CANNOT honestly argue that the same won’t apply to groups who don’t fit the definition of marriage being between two consenting human adults.
You just can’t. And anyone who insists otherwise is kidding themselves, or fundamentally dishonest.
So what, you are advocating changing a very basic aspect of the definition of marriage. If you can so cavilierly change “one man/one woman” to 2 men or 2 women, why can’t the next group drop the word “consent”. As long as one party consents, all will be well. That would cover the children and animal aspect. Heck, you’d be able to marry your truck.
Once you start changing, it is very hard to stop, Chap.
Chap,
OK, now we are getting somewhere. What about limits between closely related people marrying?
I heard of a group in Pakistan that have the tradition of first cousins marrying. The report stated that this group, although only comprising 3% of Britain’s population were responsible for 30% of the birth defects. That is my rationale for prohibiting marriage of closely related men and women. I have no such rationale for prohibiting the marriage of two closely related people who can not procreate (without outside contributors). Do you care if gay first cousins marry, gay brothers, or gay sisters? From your response I would say you do not.
Limits that have their basis in something other than religion or tradition.
Because marriage, if nothing else, is a contract and you cannot have a contract without at least two consenting parties. But please, continue to justify this through absurdities.
No. I’m saying there’s nothing inimical to the purpose of marriage – that a man and a woman, living together in the bonds of matrimony for the purpose of begetting children and raising them in a safe, healthy environment – in a multiracial relationship.
The free expression of religion is a fundamental right not anywhere in the league of gay “marriage.”
Yes, you can. Change the definition of the word “consent” and there you go. NAMBLA’s been pushing for that for years.
I am asking your reasoning for it. Clearly incest is NOT illegal everywhere. So based on YOUR reasoning (ie, being gay is not illegal) then why would you be opposed to incestual marriage where incest is legal? (link to such places above)
Frankly? Not really. I do think it is gross, but okay…sure.
Nor do I really have much of an issue with polygamy, though I do know that there are decent arguments against such relationships with respect to inherent inequalities between the parties.
I know some people who would love this!!!
NAMBLA can push whatever they want. Just because you can find some yahoos out there pushing a stupid idea does not mean it has any chance of serving as any sort of basis for anything in the future. Certainly we should not let our policy be dictated by the NAMBLA boogeyman.
The next truely equal marriage will be the first. The partners allways have some inequality in some way. Marriage is the art of compromise.
Your pissy little attitude does not make your case any stronger, Chap.
The premise is, you are advocating changing one aspect of the definition of marriage, and you want us all to believe that no other aspect of the definition of marriage will change, or that this change will not spark other changes. That is totally illogical… AND YOU KNOW IT!
Thats what they said about gay marriage in the 70’s.
No. I am saying that there is no inherent definition of marriage and any societal definitions we put on it need to have a better justification that either “religion” or “tradition”.
Just a few short years ago, you could say the same about Gay marriage. And look where we are now!
which is why I think I would have no issue with polgamy.
Well, this has been fun, but I have to go pick up my wife at the airport, as I think that is what husbands traditionally do.
I really think we made some progress here today. Just one or two more threads…
Major issue, 12 women with PMS getting hormonal on your ass at once. Time to eat a bullet.
Maybe I need to rephrase what I meant. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being gay. I think there’s a lot wrong with incest. Does that make me prejudiced or a hypocrite? Perhaps. But I’m completely ok with that.
And just think of what a pain in the ass Valentine’s Day would be!
So its based on YOUR morals. Who exactly do you think you are to dictate to us? Let me clarify:
WHO THE F%$^ DO YOU THINK YOU ARE??
Chap,
OK, you don’t care about close relatives marrying. What about the first cousin tradition of the Pakistani group? If you ban those that immigrate to the US from marrying their first cousins are you not imposing your beliefs and traditions on them? You can cite health reasons, but you are imposing your will on their right to marry whomever they want.
I’m sorry, who am I trying to dictate to again?
Some one said something about it on this thread, and now it’s gotten me worried. A couple of weeks after the election a gay “friend” of mine emailed me about something to do with banning divorce. Now I’m starting to read and hear hints or rumors that they (The gay community) might really be trying to do it. What’s everyones take on that?
Just so nobody thinks I am making the first cousin thing up:
from the BBC
So, for those of you who say anything goes, why do you think it is OK to impose your traditions and beliefs on Pakistanis who want to marry their first cousin? You can cite health reasons as a rationale, but what if they are incapable of conceiving children? Would it be OK then, or would you still prohibit it?
sithson,
If there ever is a ban on divorce, expect the number of annulments, abandonments, and domestic murder rates to skyrocket.
chapoutier wrote:
Not even close.
As I wrote before, nobody would have been taken seriously if they said letting a Hispanic woman marry a black man would lead to two men and two women being legally married. Homosexual sodomy was illegal in California for another 27 years afterward, when a bill written by then-state Assemblyman and former S.F. mayor Willie Brown was passed. And 23 years after that, the CA Supreme Court ruling said homosexuals could marry.
Why are you so sure that what judges and politicians think of as logical and normal today won’t be thought of as antiquated and restrictive some thirty years from now? History disagrees with you.
chapoutier wrote:
Alrighty then! Try this one on for size.
Two men and two women walk into S.F. City Hall. The men are identical twins. So are the women. Each couple goes to the city registrar and says, “We want to get married.”
Without using “religion” or “tradition” as a justification for declining them, chap, let’s hear your reason why they shouldn’t be given a license.
Don’t chicken out.
Objection.
Asked and answered.
Go back and reread what I wrote.
Relax folks. It doesn’t matter what you say to chapoutier. He’s a moral relativist and all values can be redefined. The losers in an argument with him, are those who run out of ammunitions first.
What evidence at all do you have that I am a moral relativist?
I am sure you are sharp enough to recognize the difference between having different morals and considering morals relative.
Aren’t you?
NO
Well, I am not surprised, but I do pity you.
It’s easier to live by standards. I’ve been doing it for 63 years with absolutely NO regrets.
Do you have regrets chap?
Everyone on this board and disagrees with you, by your own admission you have decided that YOUR view is the correct one and everyone else is a bigot.
Again, not sure how you come to the conclusion that I do not have them.
I regret wasting my time explaining and justifying myself to a person that clearly lacks any capacity for self reflection. You sound as deluded in your self righteousness as Bush.
Think of it this way chap. Some people think that rules are confining, while other like me find order and peace within a structure, A composer follows the mathematical rules of harmonics. If he doesn’t the music he makes is irritating to listen to.
Chap
It’s not being self righteousness. It’s called self preservation.
NATURAL LAW
I’m sorry, when did I say that everyone who disagrees with me about gay marriage is a bigot? Oh, that’s right…I didn’t. There’s a difference between objecting to gay marriage based on religious beliefs and objecting to gay marriage because you hate gays, hope they all get AIDS and die. Using your rationale, anyone who disagrees with affirmative action must be racist.
My objection to what the Mormon church did has always been about keeping religion out of government. If you are a Mormon and disagree with gay marriage and voted as such, that’s all good. But when an entire church decides to throw it’s muscle and money into an election, that crosses a line. Same goes for Trinity church.
Anything else you’d like to ask me?
I’m still wondering what the homosexuals have been using as their wedding march; I’m thinking Steely Dan’s “Two Against Nature” would be appropriate; They can debunk it in any religous context, and they can debunk it as the laws of man, but they will never, ever debunk nature!
L.N. Smithee wrote:
chapoutier responded:
I reviewed every comment you made on this thread (three minutes I’ll never get back). You neither answered my question nor a similar one.
You’re chickening out, Chap.
The Gayhadists will never be satisfied until we all celebrate their lifestyle choice. Tolerance will never be enough.
Hey L.N. Smithee
We need a chap call.
Here cap, here chap, good boy
Works for my dog.
I imagine every Democrat union and every Hollywood glee club dumped hundreds of thousands into the No on 8 campaign.
Do you have any problem with their influence, or only when it comes to God-based morality rather than a malevolent political agenda will you take a stand against free speech?
Please Mookie, chastising Mormons for injecting “religion into government” by infusing capital into a campaign for a specific issue important to church members makes you no different than John McCain, who wants to limit how much you can give based on some arbitrary rules set by John McCain.
Why are organized No on 8 donations from political interest groups free expression, but when a church puts its money towards its values it is somehow an assault on your (historically wrong) view of separation of church and state?
Maybe you should spend that three minutes brushing up on your reading comprehension skills then…
That’s his go to “don’t-really-wanna-address-the-issue-but wanna-look-philosophical” answer for everything now.
I swear that if someone asked him what ingredients go into a chocolate chip cookie, he’d answer eggs, flour, brown sugar and natural law.
I can just imagine these bible haters standing before the Lord at the Great White Throne and about to be judged for their eternal home. I can just see these idiots accusing the Lord of being a bigot and a gay hater. The truth is they won’t have a word to say because of the shame of their sin.
Yeah…not so much worried about that, but I hope it works out okay for you.
And I don’t hate the Bible. Lotsa nice stories and lessons to be learned from it.
I’d have a problem with their influence if they were tax-exempt.
Chap,, you are a great guy and great debator, but I hope you are right for your sake. From my viewpoint even if I am wrong I have lost nothing but if you are wrong you have lost all of eternity. I do hope it works out for you but I have no regrets with my views.
Chapy
Natural Law is NOT a philosophy, it is an observable FACT. Moral relativist have been attempting to downgrade Natural Law by calling it something other that what it is.
Positive Law is very very convenient, isn’t it.
I sincerely hope you do not, and actually I apologize to you for being flippant. But understand that my beliefs, or lack thereof, are just as sincere and considered as anyone’s faith. I tend to get defensive.
That is the funniest thing you have said all night.
Kudos.
If I may, I have a question for the folks against gay marriage. Would you have a problem with nationwide civil unions?
That was constructive and insightful.
Nope. Only on a state by state level.
Mookie, Civil unions fall under contract law and not state licensing laws.
About as much as you throwing out “NATURAL LAW!!!!” as your answer to this issue.
But let me please give you the chance. Kindly expound how your theory of natural law:
1) accounts for the concept of “marriage” in the abstract and;
2) accounts for the concept of marriage in the specific, i.e., one man/one woman and or any other definitional boundary you wish to put on the term, taking into account, of course, proven scientific fact that homosexuality has been shown to exist in nature in many other species and taking into account theories that certain instances of homosexuality is actually a function of evolution;
3) a short summary on why natural law, even if proven to exist, necessarily takes precedence over positive law when positive law better accounts for the fact that we are rational, thinking, self-determinative creatures.
Mookie said: (#247)
I think many of the unions, PACs, and such are tax exempt.
——————
And to your #252
Not too much, and I would make the governments change the name of their marriage contracts to civil unions in that case for logical consistency. Churches, of course, would continue to define marriage as they have.
This is an evolving position for me, and I reserve the right to change my mind to a more limited position. But I think it squares my desire for religious freedom and definitions of marriage with the need of a state for orderly civil arrangements.
But a straight couple who gets married at city hall gets a marriage license, right? They don’t get a civil union license.
Would you have the government change the name to civil unions for couples who marry outside the church as well?
Once again, i would like to see these mobs protest and cause problems in Compton. All of the straight people i know who voted against prop 8 were white. The minorities in California, who by the way together outnumber the whites, felt they needed to defend their churches. Gay marriage in California would be a litigation nightmare. Yes on 8 votes were also to protect children from schools too willing to teach gay relationships to young children.
One of the most effective commercials here for prop 8 showed a cute young hispanic girl who is home from school all excited and telling her mother that she learned today in school that when she grows up she can marry a princess. This was a valid argument, last year a rural county school district east of Sacramento had a “dress as the opposite gender day”. They went so far as to say that students who did not participate would receive a failing grade for the day. So many parents threatened to homeschool that the school decided to make the day optional and would not penalize anyone who did not participate.
Sorry, i believe most people do not care what 2 adults do, however they do not want their decisions affecting their lives so negatively. Anyway, I hope this woman overcomes the prejudice and closed mindedness she has had to endure. I hope she finds an even better job in an area of Los Angeles that is not so small minded.
Chap
I’m sure you understand the difference between Natural and Positive Law.
Natural Law is concerned with the absolutes of personal and social survival which is obvious. Positive law has infinite possibilities, and has no concrete moral structure.
Were talking about human rights and not chimps and frogs. Animal have no rights and no morality.
Rational thought has a finite probability. You must be brave and willing to go beyond that. Rational thought, if carried to it’s extreme will become self reflective and end where it began. I’m not talking law now, I’m discussing personal observation which is the only law that counts.
Correct. As it should be.
Mookie said:
NO
Mookie, in 259 asked:
I think the government piece of paper would say civil union for any consenting adult couple; it would be up to the churches to say marriage.
In point of fact, despite my bravely trying to argue in logic, emotionally I prefer the traditional way–once the miscegenation laws were invalidated.
Why not?
Does this answer my questions? No. No it does not.
You claim some theory of natural law supports your definition of marriage. I am waiting to see how that plays out.
But let me help you out, just to show you I am a good guy and a fair thinker. Try reading up on Kant’s first formulation on the concept of the moral imperative and apply that to the issue of gay marriage.
Mind you, I don’t agree with it, but at least it would give us something concrete to discuss.
I really think that’s the way to go. If marriage is a religious institution, remove it completely from the government. Change the tax code so that there’s no difference between a couple married in the church and one married civilly.
Chap said Kant
I don’t claim a special place in creation for myself or other humans. I claim my observable reality as Natural Law which is imperative for my personal and societal survival.
Chap. I have a 3AM call tomorrow and the roads are icy in northern Idaho.
Goodnight all.
I am curious, then, as to how your personal and societal survival intersects with gay couples, 99.999999999% of whom you would never know.
Idaho is a beautiful state. Goodnight.
Be careful, FamilyMan.
OK, chapoutier, we now know where you stand: You are not only in favor same-sex marriage, you would, if it came down to it, be in favor of gay brothers and gay sisters marrying each other even though you think it’s “gross.”
(Say, if you say that same-sex gay siblings marrying is “gross” in public after it’s legalized, is that a hate crime?)
So, let’s go with this, chap, since according to you, there’s no real rules for marriage; If a gay sister wants to marry her gay brother … problem? Howzabout a straight brother marrying his lesbian sister, or vice versa? Or is that still not “gross” enough for you to have a problem with?
On December 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am, sonofdy said:
Gay brownshirts…..
As we all know the leader of the original Brownshirts,Ernst Rohm was Gay.mmmmm
Again, with the reading comprehension issues with you. I think I make it pretty clear that my standard is not what I personally find “gross”.
But… I have thoguht further about the issue and wish to amend my answer. With respect to consanguinity, there are I think obvious health reasons as to why brothers and sisters (and probably 1st cousins) should not marry or procreate. I would therefore think it reasonable to bar the marriage of kin.
Now, a few people have brought up the issue of gay siblings or gay cousins, i.e., a couple that could not possibly procreate. However, I think an overriding factor for me is that I fundamentally do not want to see gay marriage treated any differently from straight marriage. It is often argued by anti-gay marriage folks that marriage is a construct developed to facilitate the raising of children. Pro-gay marriage folks argue that the ability or desire to procreate should be irrelevant to the granting of marriage rights, and indeed is if you are hetereosexual.
I believe the flip side of that is true as well. The mere ability NOT to produce children, i.e., with two gay brothers, should not serve to confer the right of marriage between two people if that marriage would already be barred.
Actualy you do every time the topic comes up.
Prove it.
I also find it amusing here that very few people here seems to know what a hate crime really is.
Is saying something is gross in general a crime of any sort? No? Then it does not matter one bit what or whom you say it about.
There has to be an underlying, pre-existing criminal action before something can be considered a hate crime.
That is why an artist desecrating his own lawfully purchased copy of the Bible is perfectly legal, though perhaps distasteful, and stealing (a crime) and vandalizing (a crime) a copy of the Koran, under certain circumstances, could be considered a hate crime. I am not saying the artist does not hate Christians any more or less than the theif and vandalizer hates Muslims.
I think you’re dreaming about what is happening…people are being arrested for being christians at gay rallies.
link
You forgot to mention that it can get you beheaded in some countries, however it is never illegal for a Muslum to desicrate the Koran or a bible.
Odd how that works, isn’t it.
Freedom of speech is being legislated away for non-minorities as is freedon of religion.
Wow. Thanks for the two examples that have nothing to do with our country.
And as for Stephen Green, me thinks we might not have the full story. I am always suspicious of stories that go out of their way to stress how [blank] was merely doing [blank] in a peaceful manner.
Good morning folks.
WOW! what a trip. Sliding down an icy mountain at 3;30, to see a new client, should be left to someone young and stupid.
Chap and Mookie are still here. Don’t you guys ever sleep?
Liberals?
I know what it is. Anything said or done to a liberal, or a politically-correct protected group.
Nothing more.
Mary Stachowicz – killed (a crime) by a gay man for her beliefs? Not a hate crime. In Canada, if you remove your child from a class lesson on homosexuality, it’s a hate crime. But when rabid feminists vandalized (a crime) a Catholic Church and interuppted a Mass (disturbing the peace, a crime) they were not punished save a slap on the wrist.
Same thing with the Bash Back protesters in Michigan.
Don’t give me that “we don’t know what a hate crime is.” For all the complaining about “equality” under the law with gay marriage, equal protection does not apply to hate crimes laws.
Crimes against Christians – no matter how vile – are never hate crimes.
Why is that?
Hate crimes are constitutional dangerous. How the heck can anyone read another persons mind, even if there is a previous pattern of behavior?
GEES!
Actually, I think I agree with this.
Thank GOD chap. I was about to post Descartes “I think, therefore I am”, to find out if we had any common ground.