Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

All Of Those Gay Friends You Say You Have? They Are No Longer Your Friends

Jim Burroway

November 13th, 2008

Yesterday, Timothy Kincaid provided a first-hand account of the meeting at LA’s El Coyote Cafe to listen to Marjorie Christoffersen explain her decision to contribute to the Yes on 8 campaign. This decision was particularly painful to El Coyote’s mix of loyal gay and straight customers. Now, via Queerty, we have video of the event.

The first video is of Marjorie Christoffersen’s talk before the crowd.

YouTube Preview Image

So far, so good.

That is, until they decided to take questions from the audience:

YouTube Preview Image

Those who voted to disenfranchise their gay and lesbian neighbors have been stunned at the outpouring of anger over the passage of Propositions 8, 102 and 2 (in California, Arizona and Florida, respectively).

It’s mystifying to me, but they seemed genuinely surprised that people that they thought they knew and loved would be angry to see their rights put up to a vote and defeated. It mystifies me because I wonder how many straight people would put up with the idea that their right to marry should be subject to a vote — and they lose that vote? How would they react?

And now many of those people who voted against us and who gave money to a cause to render us second-class citizens, they fall back on the defense that “many of my best friends are gay.”

Well, that doesn’t work anymore. Here’s a news flash: All those gay friends you have? If you supported Prop 8 (or Prop 102 or Amendment 2), they are no longer your friends. You can safely drop that line of defense.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Dave
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

Here’s a news flash: All those gay friends you have? If you supported Prop 8 (or Prop 102 or Amendment 2), they are no longer your friends.

Really? All gay Americans always think exactly like Jim Burroway?

Now that’s news.

David C.
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

This is exactly the wrong attitude to have if we are to win hearts and minds in the culture war.

Take a deep breath and think.

Now is the time to start the education process. Only by dialogue can we hope to change the attitudes of others deceived by the hateful messages of those that would take away our rights.

Friends and acquaintances that will at least listen to us because they know us are more likely to respond to our message of love. If they remain obdurate in spite of that effort, then reevaluate your relationship with them.

Jeff in Surprise, Az
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

Yea. That’s how it should be. I’ve gone so far as telling my sibs, vote for Prop. 8 and forget you know me. Show me that your words are real feelings.

For the last 20 years or so, gay’s have been the frog that was put into the pot of cold water. Then, very slowly the heat was turned up boiling us to death. We’ve finally awaken to realize it.

If you don’t know the story: (I give credit to Rachel Maddow for this.) If you put a frog into a pot of hot water, it will jump out. Put the same frog into a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat, you will boil it to death.

As I said in earlier post it’s time for another Stonewall. Hopefully, this Saturday the nation will see that we are a force. I’m not advocating anything like what happened 40 years ago, only that we need to show everyone that we demand the same rights and respect as all other Americans.

I want my son to be proud of his fathers, and just as proud of the history we can make happen by working together.

Louie
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

And reading from a prepared script! How contrite is that!

If it were me, I would just talk straight from my heart!

Timothy Kincaid
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

Kudos to whoever snuck in the camera.

David,

Dialogue is what that meeting was about. I went expecting an apology, a retraction. I heard a defense and the assumption that I must just accept it. And then after the first question, when it became clear that “I love my church” wasn’t going to be an acceptable defense, she fled.

The voice you hear yelling “you are not my friend” was the only person I identied there as an activist rather than a patron. He was mostly hushed and ignored.

But what he said has merit. By the time that we left, I don’t think there was anyone there who thought that the ownership of El Coyote was our friend – and that includes several who had previously considered Margie as such.

Incidentally, the one defending the Mormon Church is Margie’s daughter.

David C.
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

Tim,

Clearly, this is complicated. I’m no more happy about this whole sorry turn of events than any other person that would like to marry their same-sex partner of 30 years and now can’t do that in the state where they live.

And yes, in this particular case, it looks like the support we once thought came from this particular establishment turns out to be hypocritical. The only thing I’m trying to get everybody to do in the current and very emotionally charged aftermath is to stop and reconnect to our own values. We will regret reacting in the wrong way to all of this without careful thought. I’m not speaking just about this case.

Yes this matters. Yes it’s tough to take, but it won’t get any better if start to behave like the other side. Sure we need to fight back, and that may mean reevaluating who are friends are, and no I don’t think we should be willing to give them a pass, but we should exercise great care to understand for each person we will come into conflict with on this issue exactly what drove them to act against us.

AJD
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

I’ve had this sort of experience for a long time, talking to some of the more conservative people I know. The thing is, they just don’t see opposition to gay rights or the idea that it’s “immoral” for two men or two women to have a relationship together as being homophobic or bigoted, and they’ve even accused me of being bigoted or hateful when I’ve called them out on it. To them, they’re just being true to what the Bible says about homosexuality. And, of course, I’ve heard the old “but I’ve got gay friends” line a million times, too.

Maybe this is a little hyperbolic of me, but something about this type of thinking has always left me thinking of Hannah Arendt’s idea of the “banality of evil.” I mean, people like Margie Christofferson and the conservative types I’ve spoken with seem genuinely convinced they mean well, no matter how many people their attitudes and actions hurt.

Zeke
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

It’s very important to understand that NO ONE is telling them what they can and can’t BELIEVE. They can believe anything they want. What I, and others, have a problem with is having someone else take away my CIVIL/LEGAL/STATE GRANTED rights based on THEIR belief.

I am sick to the gills of these religious people screaming VICTIM, VICTIM, VICTIM! Complaining that WE are trying to take away THEIR rights not a full week after they actually did take away ours.

tjc
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

I’ve posed this question of Prop 8 yes-voters on other forums, but haven’t seen anyone reply, so I’ll ask again.

To those who voted YES on Prop 8: Have you told your “gay friends” how you voted? And what what their reaction? Was it what you expected it to be?

I’m honestly curious about the people who talk about their “gay friends” as if that gives them license to shit all over the rest of us.

Race Bannon
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

A “right” that was pulled out of thin air by a handful of leftist judges is not a right at all. Marriage has been around for at least 10,000 years and it has never included same sex couples, animals or inanimate objects until now. Why is that, do you think? Was EVERY society in human history “homophobic” (a bogus, made-up word, btw) or were they correct in assuming that a man and a woman made up a family, the cornerstone of society? Sir Elton John is right: If it was called “civil unions” or anything but marriage, it wouldn’t be as big a deal, but then that wouldn’t accomplish the destruction of society, which is the real hidden agenda, now would it? Oh, and it’s so brave to protest the Mormons and assault 80 year old white ladies, but I notice there are no huge demonstrations in Compton or Oakland. Wonder why?

AJD
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

tjc, I think a lot of their “gay friends” are people they’ve casually met and chatted with who happen to be gay, not friends in the genuine sense.

AJC
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

“Marriage has been around for at least 10,000 years and it has never included same sex couples.”

Lies, lies, and more damned lies.

“Same-sex marriage is nothing new. Many cultures embraced same-sex marriage throughout history. The ancient Romans allowed two men to ‘brother’ each other. This was a legally binding arrangement that included the granting of certain property rights to the union. Same-sex marriages have taken place in parts of China, Japan, South America, North America, Europe, and the Mediterranean. Native American cultures embraced same-sex marriage. The very ground we stand upon, therefore, may be ground where same-sex marriages might have taken place hundreds of years ago.”

See:

http://www.lawstudent.in/bcsamesexmarriage.htm

Also read “Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation” by Nancy F. Cott.

The banality of evil? Indeed. And the ease of bearing false witness.

But this much is true: Reginald Dwight is a contemptuous schmuck.

Stefano A
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

tjc, I think a lot of their “gay friends” are people they’ve casually met and chatted with who happen to be gay, not friends in the genuine sense.

Sometimes I wonder if that’s not the case.

I’ve always been one to say that I think the word “friend” is sometimes used a rather too loosely.

There have been several occasions when I’ve had to point out to someone that, “No, I’m not you’re friend. We’re close acquaintances who regularly see each, but we’re not “friends”, in the sense that you’re in my close inner circle of confidants and companions.” Sometimes they’re offended by that, but it’s the truth. I select my friends very carefully and there are very few people I consider friends, although I have numerous acquaintances I associate with.

Rob Lll
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

David C,

I appreciate both the content and tenor of your posts. You are right in pointing out that, as a general principle, it’s better to build bridges than to burn them.

However, like you say, there does come a point where you need to reconsider certain relationships and say “Enough. We’re done”. For some people, that time is now. It’s much too soon to expect any efforts at conciliation with “friends” who betrayed us with their support for these laws. I think such an expectation is not only unrealistic, but inappropriate at this time.

No doubt some decisions will be made in anger which will be regretted later on. But anger eventually subsides and a more dispassionate state of mind takes hold. And when it does, you know what? I think we’ll see the broken relationships and the ensuing pain as a necesary step forward, not with regret.

I know that sounds awfully cold-blooded.

But I think we’ve gotten lazy in assuming that knowing us will eventually bring people over to our side. This grossly underestimates the tenacity of anti-gay sentiment. It’s true that those who know out gay people are more likely to support our aspirations to equality. But it doesn’t automatically work that way, not with everyone.

Much of the time, a positive acquaintance with a gay person can erode an anti-gay mindset. But sometimes, it can *enable* it.

When we hear the standard line “Some of my best friends are (gay, black, Jews, etc.)”, what’s really being said is: I have a positive relationship with member of X group, therefore I cannnot possibly hold any animosity or prejudice towards X people nor could ever act unjustly towards them.

If only it were that that simple. The truth is it’s entirely possible to know and like an individual member of X group while harboring bigoted sentiments towards the group as a whole. “Oh, but he’s one of the good ones”. How many times have we heard that?

In these cases, the positive relationship with a gay person (and I agree with AJC that very often it’s a mere aquaintance and not anything more) gives this person a kind of cover, “plausible deniability”, an excuse not to examine his/her feelings towards X group or the consequences of his/her actions towards them. It’s all really perverse, illogical, and sad but that’s human nature for you.

What’s happening right now is that some people are being confronted with the contradictions inherent in this cognitive dissonance. Of course it’s unpleasant — pretty much nobody wants to be thought of as a bigot.

Some people are going to shut down completely and stop listening, which is a shame. But I wonder how many of them would ever have been changeable?

Some will have the character to reflect after the hurt and shock wear off. They will engage in the difficult task of imagining oneself in the shoes of “the Other” and the even more difficult and often painful work of self-scrutiny, incumbent upon anyone who wants to live a just life. I think many of them will come around to the conclusion that they wronged us.

I don’t think this is far-fetched. Many people, gay and straight, have analogous experiences in their personal lives. You get dumped by someone, you hate them for a while, but then the feeling wears off, you think about it and realize…well, it mostly was your fault, wasn’t it? You didn’t listen. You should’ve paid attention, but you didn’t.

Whatever the individual outcome, one thing is for sure. The fall-out from last Tuesday’s vote has clarified for a lot of people that their support for Prop 8 constituted much more than the mere expression of an opinion on same-sex marriage. It was a deed, not a statement.

And now they know that such actions have consequences in their lives as well as ours. That is not a bad thing.

homer
November 13th, 2008 | LINK

I agree. Friendship requires some form of mutual respect. To vote against my rights as a citizen means I am not viewed as your equal. Why should I respect someone for that?

Buffy
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

“I have lots of gay friends and I love them”.

I never fall for that line. Sorry, people who have friends they actually care about do not work to harm them. If they really do have gay friends those gay friends are fools.

I do not have any friends who are anti-gay bigots. I refuse to be “friends” with people who actively seek to hurt me and take away my rights. I don’t care what excuses they use.

Lynn David
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

It seems that as much as the message was not conveyed by the “No on 8″ organizations, we as individuals did not convey our own messages.

I am reminded of the post by Timothy Kincaid about his mother’s neighbor and her “Yes on 8″ sign. And how it disappeared when he wrote her a letterr. It seems that all of us need to be vocal to those we know. It’s a continuation of coming out – or rather, coming out is a continual, neverending process in that respect. I even had to do it with my cousin about what her vote for McCain would mean to me, to all of us. She did not realize the consequences of her vote to my life. We cannot fade into the woodwork like we might prefer, we must stand out – and do it boldly.

Stefano A
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

Rob L

This was a very astute observation:

Much of the time, a positive acquaintance with a gay person can erode an anti-gay mindset. But sometimes, it can *enable* it.

When we hear the standard line “Some of my best friends are (gay, black, Jews, etc.)”, what’s really being said is: I have a positive relationship with member of X group, therefore I cannnot possibly hold any animosity or prejudice towards X people nor could ever act unjustly towards them.

As was this:

Whatever the individual outcome, one thing is for sure. The fall-out from last Tuesday’s vote has clarified for a lot of people that their support for Prop 8 constituted much more than the mere expression of an opinion on same-sex marriage.

This is a very much needed clarification. Too many people view these votes on gay rights issues as being of no more consequence than a disagreement over a school bond issue or a zoning regulation.

A perception that the leaders of the Yes on 8 Campaign are still promoting.

“No matter your opinion of Proposition 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate and harass churches, businesses and individuals for participating in the democratic process,” Ron Prentice, of ProtectMarriage.com, said in a statement. Boycotters were “unabashedly trampling on the rights of others,” he said.
http://feeds.latimes.com/~r/latimes/news/local/~3/452578035/la-me-boycott14-2008nov14,0,7176761.story

I’m really not sure what rights are being trampled.

Especially with his comment regarding churches. When they enter the political arena and impose religious beliefs, I really fail to see how just because it’s a religious belief or religious institution that suddenly removes them from accountability.

I also fail to see how boycotts are trampling anyone’s rights. Such a statement is especially ironic coming from the Yes on 8 co-aliation who has been demanding boycotts of gay supportive businesses for years.

That said, if the protest at el Coyote’s went down as this article portrays it, then I do think that is crossing the line and people need to take a step back.

I have no problem with people taking their business dollars elsewhere or a public protest but the protest act seems to be crossing the line into exacting revenge and retribution disproportionate to a $100 donation and becoming more of a displacement of a generalized outrage onto a single person and that, to me, is becoming hateful mob mentality.

Stefano A
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

Oh! Just for clarity, when I said “this article portrays”. I was referring to the link with the quote that contains a report on later protest at el Coyote, not the meeting Tim attended.

And I wasn’t there, and am out of state, so I have no way to determine the accuracy of the perception the LA Times article portrayed.

Andrew
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

I have to agree with the “enough is enough” crowd. Just today I received an HRC “pledge” that had more to do with what I could do to support “those who disgree with you” than with anything to do with the group they serve. Even the gay leadership seems surprised by the our anger. Perhaps seeing ourselves outvoted by caged chickens (CA Prop 2) and pregnant teenagers (CA Prop 10) – or even a presidential election I never expected to see in my lifetime – has crystalized this question for many of us. I’m done singing and dancing and playing the good gay boy who everyone loves.

Listen to Margie’s comments again… I couldn’t miss the pity and condescension to the gay individuals in the crowd. Pity and tolerance is a far cry from respect and equal regard. We don’t need the scraps from Margie’s table. But she sure as heck needs our hard earned money so she can donate to causes she believes in. Me, I’m inclined to deny her that opportunity. And to those who suffer peripherally, I’m sorry. But surely someone responsible for as many as Margie should have seen cause and effect beforehand.

Or maybe she just thought no one would ever find out.

johnson
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

The tragedy here is that I don’t think these people thoroughly thought it through and realize that there would be consequences for their actions.

Laura
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

The thing that nobody seems to be talking about is that this is not about religion. The political arena is not the place to express your religious beliefs. If you believe that gay marriage is wrong then send your elders out to preach that belief, preach to your fellow parishioners, don’t get a gay marriage yourself but don’t put it in the constitution.

What happened to the separation of church and state? What happened to freedom of religion, which is also to say freedom from religion?

What Ms. Christoffersen seems to be saying is that she either doesn’t understand this separation or doesn’t respect it. Indeed religious and political beliefs may be in contradiction to each other at times. However, it is the resolve of Americans to respect this separation that has allowed LDS to flourish in this country (as well as many other religions).

What really mystifies me is that people like Ms. Christoffersen fail to see this hypocrisy.

Johno
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

“What happened to the separation of church and state?”

I’ve said this here before, and I really believe it: No matter what the opinions of the people on the ground in the Pro 8 camp, I truly believe this huge focus and push is ultimately a concerted effort to evaporate that line between church and state. This is the plan at the highest levels. This is why I wish our campaign focused more on the distinction between religious and legal marriage. And focused on the terror everyone, not just gays, should feel when a religious group other than your own (or even your own if you are fair-minded and truly believe in religious freedom as an American principle,) has that kind of power. This wave of amendments, all of it, is a power grab by religious orgs to obliterate this important line via unfortunate semantics. I wonder, as legal marriage laws were written, if anyone considered it a “religious term”. Abortion up next.

John
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

Sir Elton John is right: If it was called “civil unions” or anything but marriage, it wouldn’t be as big a deal, but then that wouldn’t accomplish the destruction of society, which is the real hidden agenda, now would it?

How ironic that someone using the Democratic Underground url embedded in their name would parrot so vigorously the Religious Right. Apparently Nader was correct in this at least that there isn’t a damn difference between the Republicans and Democrats, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. However, that aside let’s address the substance of your rhetoric here, while ignoring the absurd hyperbole. It is a flat-out lie to say that the religious folks are only looking to protect the so-called sanctity of marriage. Most of the amendments that have passed, including in my home state of Virginia, prohibit domestic partnerships/civil unions. This is an attack against ALL same-sex arrangements. You lack credibility in your assertions because of this. This was seen in Arkansas recently where the homphobes were so adamant in keeping legal barriers against gays that they’ve not only banned them from adopting kids but single heterosexuals as well. Is this a republic governed by civil law or damned theocracy? Make up your friggin’ mind!

John
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

Btw, need I point out that many of these same Religious Right folks, whom “Race Bannon” finds common cause with, if they had their way would still imprison gays for having sex? Take a look at this:

http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=3428&PHPSESSID=

It’s the same damned bunch.

Patrick
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

@Race Bannon

“Marriage has been around for at least 10,000 years and it has never included same sex couples, animals or inanimate objects until now.”

This is a blatant lie. Even Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton has recognized that same-sex marriages have existed: “my paper does refer the reader to specific examples of woman-woman marriages, as the anthropologists call to them”, from
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/26/1696

The fact is when religious leaders tell their followers same-sex marriages have never existed, they are either ignorantly misleading, deceiving, or deliberately lying their followers.

It is time the GLBT community educates itself on issues related to the Bible, marriage, and Evangelical beliefs. We must intelligently and reasonably challenge the lies put forth against us. It won’t convince the fundamentalists, their arguments are impervious to reason, but it will influence those in the middle – and they are the “swing vote”.

I recommend 4 sources for education:

1. This website. Jim and the others do a great job – thank you.

2. “Marriage, a History” by Stephanie Coontz

3. “What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality” by Daniel A. Helminiak

4. “Thou Shalt Not Love: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays” by Patrick M. Chapman

We simply cannot afford to remain ignorant and we cannot ignore the Bible – too much of American society respects what it says for us not to address it.

sovereignjohn
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

How my fellow straight sovereigns can vote against gay rights and think their gay friends won’t mind is unrealistic. What if gays were denying straights the right to marry.

Tony Perkins was on AC360 saying gays can’t redefine marriage. Christianity itself redefined the God Concept and Religion. Many Christians were Jews then redefined themselves. Even within the Christian cult there are many sects, Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Mormons. All these different sects redefining their Christian cult.

This is typical hypocritical Dominion Fundamentalism.

Glad to be an Atheist secular liberal and that the United States of America was founded on secular reason and common sense.

There is also the unrealistic superstitious bull that if men can marry men then this will lead to men marrying goats. Marriage or any human union is based on consent. Then it stands to reason that a goat can not consent to marriage.

We as a society have determined that young children can not also consent to marriage and we make marriage illegal for youngsters till they are of the ‘age of consent’.

As the GWBush administration has proven, Christians lie, cheat and steal to promote and support their agenda. It seems many among us are not of the ‘age of reason’.

We can build a better foundation which morality allows. We need a secular return to Ethics which are the rock of our progressive evolution and the American Foundation.

Thanks for the opportunity to read then contribute to this issue

Jarred
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

It’s mystifying to me, but they seemed genuinely surprised that people that they thought they knew and loved would be angry to see their rights put up to a vote and defeated.

I find this mystifying as well, though for a different reason:

If one is actually surprised that their “dearly valued gay friends” are upset that one voted away their right to enjoy the same marital protections with their partner as married heterosexuals have, it tells me that they haven’t actually talked to their “dearly valued gay friends” about this issue. And that boggles my mind. How can you support an amendment — whether monetarily or just by voting for it — and never even talk about it with those dear friends that would be directly affected by it? It makes no sense to me.

Timothy Kincaid
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

I don’t think that “Race Bannon” intended to be ironic. And I suspect that he thinks the things he wrote are truthful.

And I very much doubt that Race will be back to debate his points; he’s more likely a drive-by commenter. But sometimes something is so astonishingly ill informed that you have to parse it as an example of the mindset of those who are so filled with animus that they will tell themselves ANYTHING that supports bigotry.

A “right” that was pulled out of thin air by a handful of leftist judges is not a right at all.

The CA Supreme Court is considered moderately conservative, and is comprised of six Republicans and one Democrat. They are hardly “activist judges” and to call them “leftist” is lunatic.

The principal they applied in finding that gay people are entitle to the same rights as straight people dates back to the founding of our nation. It is the logical interpretation of the same principal that said that kings and nobles have no more inherent rights than farmers and silversmiths.

The idea is that all men are created equal and should be weighed without preference or prejudice before law. Of course, originally “all men” were white male Christian landowners. But time has revealed that “all men” includes those who are black or impoverished or Muslim or female – though every revelation was fought by those who felt they would lose prestige and privelige.

Marriage has been around for at least 10,000 years and it has never included same sex couples, animals or inanimate objects until now.

Recorded history only goes back about 6,000 at most. What we know about marriage is limited and any claims about 10,000 years ago display ignorance – but what we know of history reveals that there have been in many societies at many times same-sex relationships granted various degrees of recognition – often similar to those of common opposite-sex recognition.

Why is that, do you think? Was EVERY society in human history “homophobic” (a bogus, made-up word, btw) or were they correct in assuming that a man and a woman made up a family, the cornerstone of society?

No. Actually homophobia (the type demonstrated here by Race Bannon) is relatively modern.

The idea of a man and a woman as a cornerstone of society is especially modern. God and king, god and man, landowner and serf, priest and parish, there were a lot of “cornerstones” of society. Seldom did they include women.

Sir Elton John is right: If it was called “civil unions” or anything but marriage, it wouldn’t be as big a deal, but then that wouldn’t accomplish the destruction of society, which is the real hidden agenda, now would it?

I think I can speak at least for the authors of this site when I say that the three of us kinda like society and don’t want to see it destroyed. I, for one, don’t know how to work a plow or a loom and I think toothpaste is a wonderful product so I’d prefer that society remain.

Oh, and it’s so brave to protest the Mormons and assault 80 year old white ladies, but I notice there are no huge demonstrations in Compton or Oakland. Wonder why?

I guess he missed the Oakland demonstration. But I, for one, am not protesting Compton because no one who lives there planned, funded, or implemented a campaign of lies and bigotry. In fact, only ten Compton residents gave to the Yes on 8 campaign, most of whom seem to be Pacific Islanders, likely Tongan Mormons.

TonyJazz
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

Good for you, Jim!

This is familiar territory. The old ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ sort of mentality that suggests that we all be celibate (or, at least, not married or partnered).

I avoid business that treat our community poorly. I also avoid businesses that treat other communities poorly (Abercrombie & Fitch and the Asian community).

Given that I can’t outspend the rich people that donated all that money to Prop 8, we’ve got to do what we can…

Jason D
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

Tim,
Thanks for refuting Race. I haven’t the energy and you got all of the points down.

I wonder about something sometimes.

If marriage is such an important word, why has it been left in the certifiably shakey hands of government? Why is it STILL there? Those offended by gay marriage in CA, or MA, or CT….why you trying to change marriage back instead of taking it away? Seriously, if the government has proven itself incapable of protecting and taking care of such an important and “sanctified” institution, why not take it away from them altogether?

This is the compromise that would be perfectly acceptable to me. Let’s take a a couple thousand bottles of white out and apply a swipe over every instance of the word “marriage” in our legal and legislative documents. Then write in “Civil Union”.

IF the objection is truly over the word, “Marriage” then this seems logical. One side wants equality, the other side seems to not want the word marriage to take on an additional meaning. Since creating a seperate institution is patently unfair, then let’s just remove the word “Marriage” altogether from our legal and government system?

Civil unions for gays, civil unions for straights. You can call yourself married or not, but as far as the government is concerned “marriage” doesn’t mean anything to them.

Ostiarius
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

“The CA Supreme Court is considered moderately conservative, and is comprised of six Republicans and one Democrat. They are hardly ‘activist judges’ and to call them ‘leftist’ is lunatic.”

Ah, yes, this anemic argument. Being appointed by a Republican does not a conservative justice make. The four in the majority engaged in transparent judicial activism and their decision was leftist. As Byron White wrote in Moore v. City of East Cleveland:

The Judiciary, including this Court, is the most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or even the design of the Constitution.

“The principal they applied in finding that gay people are entitle to the same rights as straight people dates back to the founding of our nation.”

Pull the other leg. The CA Constitution and the US Constitution must be read in the socio-historical context in which they were written and amended; no “right” to gay “marriage” is contained therein.

Jeremy
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

I’m new here, so maybe someone can explain this to me. This is a blog for gay people and their friends to discuss the issues of the day, at least that’s what it appears to be. Who are these homophobes dropping these little antagonistic posts? Don’t they have their own blog? What’s the purpose? Are they just trying to remind us how crazy they are? That can’t be right. I don’t go to Focus on the Family website and tell them how great sodomy is. That’s just not interesting to me. Maybe there’s some merit to the argument that the people who really hate us are closet cases who are secretly riveted by our every move. If that’s the case, maybe they should just admit it & let’s all start having hot make up sex. Just an idea….

Stefano A
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

Hi, Jeremy:

Perhaps this will help you understand the unique nature of BoxTurtle.

See this for the Mission and Principles of the site: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/About/Principles.htm

We are especially interested in serving:
1. Those who are questioning their sexuality and are concerned about some of the misinformation that they are hearing.
2. Those who are friends or relatives of someone who is gay or lesbian, and are seeking accurate and reliable information about the issues facing them.
3. Those who support equal rights for gays and lesbians and seek accurate, reliable information on which to base their arguments.
4. Those who oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, but wish to avoid the pitfalls of the massive misinformation coming from all sides of the issues – from gay-rights opponents as well as gay-rights advocates.

In pursuit of this Mission, BoxTurtle has even opened up participation to individuals such as Glen T Stanton of Focus on the Family for public debate between he and Patrick M. Chapman regarding anthropological claims FoF had made regarding SSM, just to use this as an example.

Onlike FocusOntheFamily, BoxTurtle doesn’t allow discussion only between people in the choir.

Jeremy
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

Wow, that was fast…and actually useful. Ok, I won’t call them “homophobes” anymore. It’s a nice concept. That said, you can dress it in all sorts of civilities, but at its core the anti-gay rhetoric remains anti-gay.

Stefano A
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

Jeremy:

I have no official association here, just to make that clear.

But I look at it this way with regard to some posters here (and kind of how I interact in my own life). . .

Some I view as nothing more than web trolls. (I try to ignore them.)

Some I view as anti-gay and close-minded and nothing said will change that. (I’ll confront their blatant lies for the benefit of others, but don’t really try to change their mind.)

Others are anti-gay but there is at least a glimmer of hope as their willing to dialogue and consider different perspectives. (We’ll bounce conversational points back and forth.)

I pick and choose who and when I’ll rebut.

If nothing else, reading the comments of other supporters and participating myself it helps me to refine my own thinking and arguments.

Emily K
November 14th, 2008 | LINK

Does reading the Constitution in a “socio-historic context” include believing women have no sex drives (let alone the ability to think with enough reason as to be allowed to vote), black men are worth less than a human being, and Deism is the foundation by which America should be led? (The latter doesn’t sound so bad, actually.)

Race Bannon
November 16th, 2008 | LINK

With the election of President-elect Obama to our highest office, you can all rest assured that DOMA and DADT will be rescinded (probably on Day One) and that the next 2-4 Supreme Court appointments will be far to the left of Justice Ginsberg. It’s only a matter of time before you win and get everything you want. I’ll be living in the Philippines, where the Catholic Church (at least on the surface) keeps homosexual marriage and other assorted irregularities off the books. I don’t care if you want to live with another man or woman and have sex, that’s none of my business. Have “civil unions” with all the benefits (and drawbacks – LOL) of marriage. Just don’t call it marriage!

If you can’t win in the bluest state on a day when Obama wins, with an amendment written by Jerry Brown, when are you going to win in a straight-out vote?! But just wait: POTUS and SCOTUS will ride to your extra-legal rescue!

Timothy Kincaid
November 17th, 2008 | LINK

Race,

Enjoy the Philippines. I live in a Filipino neighborhood and they are truly lovely people.

It’s so sad about the abject poverty, of course, but I guess those who prefer living where a church can “keep homosexual marriage other assorted irredularities off the books” can overlook such things.

Jason D
November 17th, 2008 | LINK

“I don’t care if you want to live with another man or woman and have sex, that’s none of my business. Have “civil unions” with all the benefits (and drawbacks – LOL) of marriage. Just don’t call it marriage”

It can’t have all the benefits and drawbacks without also having the same name.

But the thing is, we already do. Gays refer to themselves as married, even though the state doesn’t recognize it. Our families treat us like married couples, too. Well, the happy families, anyway.
Just the other day my partner and I were having a playful disagreement at a friend’s house and she said, “Don’t get a divorce!”

While the legal hasn’t caught up, the social is progressing forward. People still refer to Tammy as Melissa Etheridge’s wife. The next generation is going to grow up with gay folks openly refering to their partners as husband, wife, spouse and won’t know until their older that what the law says. But after growing up with Aunt Selma and Aunt Christy being a couple accepted by the family as being just like anyone else, they’re not likely to understand or accept a government that tells it differently.

We’ll win. It just might take a few more years.

Bettina
April 29th, 2011 | LINK

Before you get too full of yourselves, Mr. & Ms. Gay, I have a shocking confession to make: Having queer friends isn’t too high on my list of personal values. Marriage is and always will be for opposite sexes only. I am not intimidated by gay activist thugs. Threats and political bullying just give more people more reasons to detest you. I used to be neutral towards gays in general. That’s changed due to the obnoxious gay agenda
and its aggressive supporters. You push – you get pushed back. Can any of you see the backlash that’s headed your way? I am disgusted by what was done to Marjorie Christoffson and El Coyote. I wish I’d been there for the “protest” against a woman exercising her perfectly legal rights. Next time, try picking on someone who won’t back down! Cowards.

Jarred
April 29th, 2011 | LINK

I used to be neutral towards gays in general. That’s changed due to the obnoxious gay agenda and its aggressive supporters.

Let me translate that for you:

“I was happy to pretend to be nice and friendly as long as y’all acted like good little queers, showing proper gratitude for whatever crumbs I deigned to throw your way. But now that you’ve decided to stand up and request to be treated like the fully human beings you are, I’m going to let my true, bigoted, and hateful colors show.”

Richard Rush
April 29th, 2011 | LINK

Bettina,

Threats and political bullying just give more people more reasons to detest you. . . . You push – you get pushed back. . . . Next time, try picking on someone who won’t back down!

Like a broken clock, unwittingly you are occasionally correct.

Bullies (just like you) typically become enraged and cry “FOUL!, that’s not fair” when their victims fight back against their attacks.

Can any of you see the backlash that’s headed your way?

Well, Bettina, if you are a betting person, I invite you to bet against us. And please don’t bother to read our post-Stonewall history of the last 42 years – because you might decide that placing that bet is bad idea.

Priya Lynn
April 29th, 2011 | LINK

Bettina said “Marriage is and always will be for opposite sexes only.”.

You missed the boat on that one Bettina, in many places marriage is for gays as well and that number of places is growing all the time. Keep your blinders on though, it’ll help you to deny reality for a little while longer.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.