Because it’s a move from the courts to the streets?

Having been told that we were wrong to fight in the courts and should have tried through democratic means, are we now to be told that we’re wrong to fight via democratic means like public protests as well?

I’m sure that many anti-gay activists will be trying to frame these protests as “militant gay activists trying to push their agenda”, just like they always do when gay activists exercise their democratic right to free speech. And if there hadn’t been opposition in the wake of the vote, then the same anti-gay activists would be claiming that the apathy “proves homosexual activists never really cared about marriage and were only using it to push their agenda”.

Gay people need to stop playing defense. If there’s a problem with peaceful protests being misrepresented as a coercive and aggressive activity, then that misrepresentation needs to be acknowledged, but not treated as if it’s accurate. We should spend less time worrying about what people opposed to gay rights may think without our input and more time actually providing them with our input.

But then, if Michelle Malkin were posting here, she’d probably quickly run afoul of our comments policy rather quickly, given her track record elsewhere.

“I wouldn’t be too concerned with the sociopathic rantings of Michelle Malkin.”

Is that okay by BTB rules?

Are you seriously comparing these protests to what Ghandi and King did? Ghandi and King didn’t just march in the streets and shout slogans; they strove to show the world the ways in which their peoples were being oppressed.

Demonstrating the hardships of colonial occupation or Jim Crow is hardly the same as bitching because a government benefit that has never before existed, but has lately been much discussed, hasn’t been created.

And you can’t possible compare the amendment just passed in California with what Ghandi and King fought against. All Prop 8 did was reserve the term marriage as a legal descriptor for opposite-sex couples. Same-sex couples can still legally wed in the state. Yet “Stop the H8″ is the rallying-cry for all these protests.

These protests — in California and across the country — are all about confrontation. As Tim says, they are about letting anti-gay marriage voters “know that there are consequences to their actions.” But confrontation, by taking people to court rather than trying to persuade them, is what brought matters to this point.

If I may quote Jonathon Rauch:

On gay marriage, we’re now zero for 30 on state constitutional bans. Think about that. Has any other political movement in the history of the United States compiled such an unblemished record of total electoral annihilation?

Confronting those who consider the difference between the sexes to be intergral to marriage hasn’t been successful so far. Why should moving from the courts to the streets change that?

You may care little about the opinions of the likes of Schubert, but that is beside the point. The point is how well has he guessed the reaction of most Americans.

People who voted for the amendments in Arizona, California, and Florida may be moved to reconsider by all these protests. But they can also be angered and moved to harden their hearts. Certainly committed marriage traditionalists like Malkin will not be moved in your direction by these protests, which is why I quoted her.

I probably should have said “simple majority” … which is what it was.

Your point was valid with or without “simple”.

My comment was more of an “addendum” regarding the comments of proponents of Prop 8 who (to listen to them) give the impression that it was a huge landslide majority of the state, rather than how in fact it was almost a 50:50 split.

http://lezgetreal.com/2008/11/no-more-mrs-nice-gay.html