Sunday, November 16, 2008

Some Gay Activists Just Do Not Get It

Coming right up, today, 111608

Hey folks,

Welcome to the Big Sunday Edition of the OPNTalk Blog. We are fully loaded today, with some things you may only hear here, and some that are becoming big news. So get your coffee, tea, Hot Coco, Juice, or whatever it is that gets you moving in the morning, and let us get right to it.

Coming right up.

Testing For Obama Starting Early?
Ah, Yes, The Compassion of The New Liberalism
Amnesty Revisited
Answer to Chicken or Egg
IWA For Sunday 111608

That's coming right up. But right now I have a question. Why is it so hard for some of the more extreme Militant types of Gay Rights Activists to get it? Seriously. I'm asking.

Since Prop 8, which they are calling Hate 8, was voted on and PASSED in California by the VOTERS, 70 percent of which was the Black Vote that went to approve the Constitutional Ban, they have lost their minds.

Major destruction and hateful abuses have taken place. People have been force to quit their jobs. Threats and violence is the norm in some parts, and they keep attacking the WRONG people.

According to the AP - Gay advocates protest marriage ban across nation, they continue to not get the fact it was the American People that voted this in. Not the Church, Religious Right, ETC. It was the American people. As a matter of fact.

Connecticut, which began same-sex weddings this past week, and Massachusetts are the only two states that allow gay marriage. The other 48 states do not, and 30 of them have taken the extra step of approving constitutional amendments. A few states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that grant some rights of marriage.

Protests following the vote on Proposition 8 in California, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, have sometimes been angry and even violent, and demonstrators have targeted faiths that supported the ban, including the Mormon church.

So 30 states have changed their Constitutions based on a VOTE from the people in the states, to Ban Gay Marriage by defining Marriage as one Man and one Woman. The PROTESTERS have been "angry and even VIOLENT" during these protests and it's time to hold them accountable. There are some that get it.

However, representatives of Join the Impact, which organized Saturday's demonstrations, asked supporters to be respectful and refrain from attacking other groups during the rallies.

Seattle blogger Amy Balliett, who started the planning for the protests when she set up a Web page three days after the California vote, said persuasion is impossible without civility.

Yes it is, in more ways than one. Every cause that you want to convince people is worthy, can not ever be FORCED down people's throats. From Religion, Race issues, Gay issues, to anything else. The quickest way to turn people off is to get in their face and scream at them, threaten them, or call them names.

"If we can move anybody past anger and have a respectful conversation, then you can plant the seed of change," she said.

Balliett said supporters in 300 cities in the U.S. and other countries were holding marches, and she estimated 1 million people would participate, based on responses at the Web sites her group set up.

"We need to show the world when one thing happens to one of us, it happens to all of us," she said.

The protests were widely reported to be peaceful, and the mood in Boston was generally upbeat, with attendees dancing to the song "Respect." Signs cast the fight for gay marriage as the new civil rights movement, including one that read "Gay is the new black."

No it isn't the new Black. Sorry. If I were a Black person, THAT would offend me. I'm sure that is one of the reasons that 70 percent of Blacks voted FOR the Ban in California, and 71 percent in Florida.

But anger over the ban and its backers was evident at the protests.

One sign in Chicago, where several thousand people gathered, read: "Catholic Fascists Stay Out of Politics."

Again folks, it was NOT the Religious Right Organizations that did this. The PEOPLE Voted for it.

"I just found out that my state doesn't really think I'm a person," said Rose Aplustill, 21, a Boston University student from Los Osos, Calif., who was one of thousands at the Boston rally.

Nice but wrong. Again, not the state.

In San Francisco, demonstrators took shots at some religious groups that supported the ban, including a sign aimed at the Mormon church and its abandoned practice of polygamy that read: "You have three wives; I want one husband."

{Sigh}

Chris Norberg, who married his partner in June, also referred to the racial divisions that arose after exit polls found that majorities of blacks and Hispanics supported the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

"They voted against us," Norberg said.

Yup.

In Salt Lake City, where demonstrators gathered just blocks from the headquarters of the Mormon church, one sign pictured the city's temple with a line adapted from former Republican vice president candidate Sarah Palin: "I can see discrimination from my house."

{Laughing} Sarah Palin had NOTHING to do with this either.

More than 500 demonstrators in Washington marched from the U.S. Capitol through the city carrying signs and chanting "One, two, three, four, love is what we're fighting for!"

A public plaza at the foot of New York's Brooklyn Bridge was packed by a cheering crowd of thousands, including people who waved rainbow flags and wore pink buttons that said "I do."

Protests were low-key in North Dakota, where people lined a bridge in Fargo carrying signs and flags.

Mike Bernard, who was in the crowd of hundreds at City Hall in Baltimore, said Proposition 8 could end up being a good thing for gay rights advocates.

"It was a swift kick in the rear end," he said.

In Los Angeles, protesters gathered near City Hall before marching through downtown. Police said 10,000 to 12,000 people demonstrated.

Supporters of traditional marriage said the rallies may have generated publicity but ultimately made no difference.

That is probably true. Unless President Obama decides to go against his word, and attempt to over turn the Will of the people. The Will of the people in 48 states. I'm not so sure even HE is that brave.

OK. Like I said, we have a lot of ground to cover, so get ready. I'll be right back.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Gay advocates protest marriage ban across nation

8 comments:

Unknown said...

The gays just don't get it.
They lost by a wide margin.
Trying to get it sent back to the courts only proves the have no respect for the will of the voters.
Their really starting to piss a lot of straight people off.

Peter said...

Hey Irishgodfather,

Your right. Calling themselves the "New Black" and saying that "We Have a Dream Too," Comparing themselves to the Civil Rights movement of the Sixties, ARE pissing a lot of people off.

MLK preached change through peace. Change came, Segregation was eliminated, we started on the road to equality. After his assassination, the New Black Panthers showed up. They preached violence, and hate. They accomplished NOTHING. They are still around, accomplishing NOTHING.

The problem some of these combat boot wearing, Militant, in your face, violent, hate-filled, radicals, in the Gay Rights movement just do not get is THAT will change NOTHING.

More people are more open to open and honest dialog. This is what brings about change. Not "Do this or else." Most will take the or else. They will fight against you at every turn.

The People voted. Gay marriage is NOT allowed in 48 states. 30 have changed their Constitution to identify Marriage being between ONE Man and ONE Woman. Agree or disagree with the whole concept, it really doesn't matter. It is CRYSTAL CLEAR what the Will of the People really is.
Peter

Anonymous said...

I haven't read what the ballot said in California but the ballot in Florida was very misleading. It didn't clearly state what you are voting for. If someone voted "YES" on 2 in Florida not only are you voting against gay marriage but this amendment also affects the elderly and unmarried couples.

Amendment 2 would hurt Florida's large senior population by taking away partnership rights of widowed seniors, like health care and end-of-life decision making. The AARP and Florida Alliance for Retired Americans have spoken out against these kinds of dangerous amendments.

Amendment 2 would take away important family protections, including health care insurance and hospital visitation from all unmarried Floridians.

Every person should be treated equal regardless of their sexuality...

Peter said...

Hey Debby,

Welcome to the OPNTalk Blog. Glad to have you.

"I haven't read what the ballot said in California but the ballot in Florida was very misleading. It didn't clearly state what you are voting for. If someone voted "YES" on 2 in Florida not only are you voting against gay marriage but this amendment also affects the elderly and unmarried couples."

I heard the argument that it was confusing for some of the first time, and younger voters. They claim that they saw YES, and thought they were voting FOR Gay Marriage. I'm not sure what is sadder if that is true. The dumbing down of our youth, or that people were not paying attention when they were voting.

"Amendment 2 would hurt Florida's large senior population by taking away partnership rights of widowed seniors, like health care and end-of-life decision making. The AARP and Florida Alliance for Retired Americans have spoken out against these kinds of dangerous amendments."

Meaning? It does not take away any "Rights" from those Seniors. People can still get power of Attorney, ETC. This in no way takes away Health Benefits for Widows or Widowers. So I'm not sure your point.

"Amendment 2 would take away important family protections, including health care insurance and hospital visitation from all unmarried Floridians."

No not really. I can go see anyone I want in the Hospital. I do not have to be married to them. Anyone that has been with someone for years will be seen as the caretaker, or partner. They will still, like they do now, be able to learn anything they want and deal with anything they want as long as they have permission by the person in care.

One can still, which I HIGHLY recommend, create a living Will, and other documentation that grants Rights and Privileges to those you care to be involved and to clearly state your wishes.

"Every person should be treated equal regardless of their sexuality..."

Yes, everyone should be treated with respect and tolerance. However, If I wanted to, I could not join the Girl Scouts. I am a Man. I could not join and reap the benefits of MANY organizations, including some Government funded Organization, because I am not what they are. I do not meet the qualifications.

If you want my HONEST opinion. I never really believed that Government should be involved in Marriage to begin with. What two people enter into should be between the two people and if it is blessed by their "religion," then so be it. The Government started being involved, so the story goes, to attempt to stave off the spread of disease and Birth Defects. It has gone from there. But I see most Government involvement in such personal things as nothing more than intrusive.

There are many avenues that one can take to make sure that they, and anyone in their lives, have the power and benefits they seek. Yet, Marriage in it's very definition is one Man and one Women. No amount of attempting to shove what the majority in this country see as immoral down their throats will change that.

I do not go around telling everyone I am "Straight". I do not see to many "Straight" people in loud and sometimes violent protests. I do not discuss who it is I chose to sleep with behind closed doors. This type of behaviour does not help the cause.
Peter

Anonymous said...

Pete,
Bravo.
Government became involved in the marriage act after the civil war, when white southerners didn't want whites to marry blacks. Prior to that it wasn't any of the goverment's business.

Peter said...

Hey DS Harford,

Yup. When one died, it was pretty much automatic that the homestead, or any possessions went to the Widow, or Widower. There was no question. Of course, there were Government abuses then as well. Attempting to steal the land away from the Widower ETC. But that was rare.

Government gets involved as says "If you do not have this little piece of paper, which pretty much means nothing, you can not have the benefits WE decided you should have." To get this pointless piece of paper, you have to pay them money. Get it?

I live with Laura. We had Joshua. We have been together for like 5 years. I go to work, come home, and love my Wife. Play with my Son. Live my life. We have hopes and dreams.

Debby, NOT say I know this for a fact, lives with, say, Jen. She goes to work, comes home, and loves her Partner. They make plans and have hopes and dreams, just like Laura, Josh, and I.

Does that little pointless piece of paper change any of that? Nope. I could do the same thing with or without it. So can Debby. It has been my experience, TRUST me, that that piece of paper only makes it HARDER to separate if it doesn't work out. It does NOTHING to befit the actual relationship. Just another way of the Government intruding into the private lives of Citizens.

You know, actually, shouldn't Liberals be fighting AGAINST this Government intrusion? Shouldn't they be protesting, holding signs saying "We do not NEED your approval." or "Keep your Damn piece of paper."? Something to that effect. I thought Liberalism was all about getting Government OUT of private lives. Instead, they are saying "You will accept us. You will approve of what we do. You will love us." Sorry, really can not mandate that through force and intimidation.
Peter

Anonymous said...

My father was a liberal Democrat.
If he were alive today he would be appaled at what the term means now.
My stepfather was a conservative Republican. If he was still around he would be very upset with the Republicans of today.

Peter said...

It is amazing.

If you really look at the very definitions, todays Conservatives are closer to the Liberals of old. Smaller Government, Freedom. Pursuit of Life, liberty and happiness.

Yeah, I bet a lot of the older generations would be looking around and saying, "What the??"

Some of the things they fought against is now mainstream.
Peter