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

Four Lesbians Arrested For Assault on Anti-Gay Activists

Jim Burroway

July 31st, 2009

There are idiots on both sides:

The salsa and eggs stopped flying, but the police continued to investigate. Now four young women face charges of assault and disorderly conduct. They’re accused of hurling food and drinks and spraying pepper spray at a group of men who stood in the median on Bald Hill Road and East Avenue Tuesday afternoon carrying signs supporting traditional marriage, Capt. Robert Nelson said Thursday morning. The men all gave the police an address in Spring Grove, Penn. — 1358 Jefferson Rd. — that’s the location for the Foundation for a Christian Civilization Inc., a group that’s in the midst of a caravan along the East Coast. The group states on its Web site that they make themselves “visible to motorists by engaging them to support traditional marriage.”

…Thursday evening, the police arrested four women: Melissa Migliaccio, 22, Amanda L. Zangrilli, 23, Kristen A. Scungio, 19, and a 17-year-old female from Pontiac Street in Warwick, whom the police have not named because she is a juvenile. All are charged with at least one charge of battery or simple assault, and with disorderly conduct. The 17-year-old faces a more serious charge as well — felony assault with a dangerous weapon or substance, according to the police.

The Providence Journal updated that story early this morning:

Amanda L. Zangrilli, 23, of West Warwick, said she and her girlfriend had seen the men in the same spot for a few days, and had “every intention” of bringing opposing signs of their own. Then, Tuesday afternoon, Zangrilli said, she and her girlfriend, Kristen A. Scungio, 19, also of West Warwick, saw the men again. She says they were pointing at the women, in a way that told her they realized the two were gay. Her girlfriend threw the soda bottle out the window –– missing the man she threw it toward, just as she had intended. “We heard him yell, ‘Ha ha, you missed,’ ” Zangrilli said.

The two drove to a friend’s house, gathered whatever they could get their hands on and returned with the friend. Zangrilli and Scungio said the men yelled at them when they returned, calling them the Antichrist, homosexuals and sinners. The men shouted anti-gay slurs at them, the women said, and one pushed his camera into Scungio’s face; she “pushed it away on instinct.” “And then the flagpole guy raised his pole to me, and I turned around and punched him because I wasn’t sure what he was going to do,” Scungio said. “I was wicked scared. It turned into, like, a riot.” Another woman driving by, an acquaintance of the women, jumped into the fray.

Members of the Catholic group deny using anti-gay epithets. But whether they did or not, these women acted like idiots. Getting into a physical brawl over words and signs is never justified, not under any circumstances. Committing assault is wrong no matter how anyone tries to justify it, and beyond that it is immensely stupid.

This incident will now become a huge part of the anti-gay arsenal: see how violent they all are? For months, anti-gay activists have characterized the Prop-8 protests as “violent” even though no one has been able to demonstrate that a single violent act was perpetrated by LGBT protesters or their allies. But now they have this, handed to them on a silver platter.

Morons.

By the way, Rhode Island appears to have a very robust hate crime law that protects on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation. This might quality. After all, these people were assaulted for legally expressing their religious belief.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

NG
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Yeah, how about that irony: Four lesbians charged with a hate crime for throwing their egg salad at a bunch of closeted gay men belonging to another state crossing state lines and trying to cause a disturbance.

fannie
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Let’s implement a countdown until Mags Gallagher picks this story up and runs with it.

Richard W. Fitch
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

And don’t forget Elaine Connelly. Here is another reason not to let lesbians into the armed forces, they are too combative.

Four Lesbians Arrested For Assault on Anti-Gay Activists | Place Pay Blog
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

[…] more: Four Lesbians Arrested For Assault on Anti-Gay Activists Posted in Digital Camera, Games, News, Other, PDA, Seo, download | Leave a […]

Timothy Kincaid
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

NG,

Plese support your assertion that the anti-gay activists are “closeted gay men.”

Alex
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Even if the Catholic protesters did use epithets, anti-gay Christians needn’t worry. All they have to do is say the magic words — “The Bible does not endorse that kind of behavior, so those men were not true Christians and do not represent the rest of us” — and presto, they are absolved of all culpability. Meanwhile, they will exploit the intolerance and stupidity of these girls to further demonize the gay community as a whole. The double standard is so disgusting.

AJD
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

The problem is that enough people despise us that the actions of a single person are seen to represent GLBT people as a whole, while Christians can behave badly, and it’s seen as an “isolated incident.”

Timothy Kincaid
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Foolish little girls behaving badly.

I’m sure when the anti-gays run their articles about The Evil Gehs who attack Good Christains, they will fail to notice that the gay community is condemning the actions of these girls.

AJD
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

I’ll bet that Maggie Gallagher will appear on TV using this as an example of how “gay marriage has consequences.”

I have to admit that while I think it’s wrong to physically assault people, I have a hard time feeling bad for those guys. I don’t see their “free speech” as any different from marching down the street in KKK hoods: It may be legally protected, but if you catch a beating, you can’t really say you weren’t asking for it. If you intend to spread a message of hate, then you should be prepared for it to be seen by people crazy or stupid enough to give you their opinion with their fists.

What angers me more is the stupidity of these women in giving the religious right another case of poor little Christians’ rights being violated by us evil faggot Nazis.

Alex
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Timothy,

I think anti-gay bloggers will notice our condemnation. Whether they actually report to their readers, that’s a different matter.

Alex
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Correction: whether they actually report *it* to their readers

Mandy
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

You know, I seem to recall a certain level of violence being a part of the Stonewall riot. Would you call them idiots and morons?

I don’t support violence, and I’m sure that things could have been deescalated, but to call these young women such negative terms is not very community-minded of you. Speaking of which, why aren’t there ever any posts from women on your site?

Let’s protect ourselves by protecting our own. You sound like one the self-loathing soft-spined people responsible for putting restrictions on gay pride parades. Or like an alleged “gay rights activist” who’s willing to jettison the trans community in order to get a bargaining chip for civil unions.

Burr
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

“I’ll bet that Maggie Gallagher will appear on TV using this as an example of how “gay marriage has consequences.””

Gay marriage does have consequences. The consequences being that we won’t have to fight each other any more once it’s legal.

That said these women are criminals and deserve what’s coming to them. Not only does it paint the cause poorly, but it may “up the stakes” and incite a violent response from the other side (not that they need an excuse).

Mandy
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

And you know what? Now that I read some of the other comments on this article, I’m absolutely appalled by the level of shameless misogyny. “Little girls behaving badly,” are you serious? How insulting. “This is why they shouldn’t let lesbians in the armed forces?” First of all, how do you know they identify as “lesbians?” Secondly, do you really think that it’s a good idea to generalize the reactions of some very young women that felt angry and intimidated? I’m very disappointed by this. Perhaps this blog should be re-titled in order to make it clear that it belongs to elitist gay men who don’t care about the rest of the GLBTIQ community.

Burr
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Mandy, Stonewall was different because they were dealing with violent oppression from police. These guys were just standing with signs. There’s nothing physically threatening about that, no matter how much it may irk you.

Mandy
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

“The men shouted anti-gay slurs at them, the women said, and one pushed his camera into Scungio’s face; she “pushed it away on instinct.” “And then the flagpole guy raised his pole to me, and I turned around and punched him because I wasn’t sure what he was going to do,” Scungio said. “I was wicked scared. It turned into, like, a riot.” Another woman driving by, an acquaintance of the women, jumped into the fray.”

Sounds like more than sign-holding to me. She felt physically threatened and responded. I’m not saying it’s ok, but I don’t think this kind of cannibalism is ok, either.

Alex
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Mandy,

What you don’t seem to recall is that the Stonewall rioters acted out of self-defense, whereas these girls committed an unprovoked assault. See the difference?

Mandy
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

One guy “shoved a camera” in one of their faces, then another “raised his pole to (her).” See the threat?

Michael A.
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

“You know, I seem to recall a certain level of violence being a part of the Stonewall riot. Would you call them idiots and morons?”

Huh? Are you suggesting the government-sanctioned persecution of gays is morally equivalent to holding up signs and calling names?

Alex
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Mandy, did it occur to you that the man shoved his camera into the girl’s face because he didn’t like having food thrown at him? I love the spin you’re putting on this story!

Timothy Kincaid
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Mandy,

Please restict your outrage over comments to those that are actually present here. And to make it perfectly clear – so you don’t think there is some inequality based on gender –

We oppose violence. We do not justify throwing bottle or punches simply because we happen to have the same sexual orientation of those who are engaging in this type of behavior, be they male or female.

That’s what sets us appart from culture warriors both gay and anti-gay: we aren’t trying to “win” because we hate the other “camp”. Rather, we are fighting for equality and respect because it is the right thing to do.

You call it cannibalism; we call it integrity.

Mandy
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

OK, you know what? I wish I never brought up Stonewall because I think there’s a certain level of nuance that isn’t translating.

The point here is not whether or not what these women did is OK. We all agree that they were out of line. My point is that this reaction is not OK. Furthermore, the discussion about this is extremely gendered. Also, not OK.

How could we ever expect to be treated with respect in the face of disagreement if we can’t model this within our own community?

Michael A.
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Yeah, I’m sure if these women were men it would be a totally different reaction.

Sorry, Jim. She’s got yah. You must be a sexist. ^_^

Mandy
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Do you think someone would post “little boys behaving badly” if it a group of men that had committed this crime? Or that gay men “shouldn’t be allowed in the armed forces?” I can’t believe you guys are defending those statements. After all of these years, I thought we’d made some progress to have cohesion between all the parts of our alphabet soup, but I guess I was sorely mistaken.

Mandy
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

And to clarify, I did not bring up misogyny in regards to Jim Burroway’s reporting of the event. I pointed out the misogyny in the comments about the article. I don’t think that Mr. Burroway was slanted in his reporting, I stated it was not very community-minded to call them (or anyone else in this situation, regardless of gender) “idiots” and “morons.”

Burr
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Well you have my permission to call gay men uncivilized apes if we do the same thing. :)

And the armed forces thing was obviously a joke.

It seems like you’re looking for cracks and parting them deeper. A bit counterproductive given their aims.

Alex did a good job of pointing out the spin. Flip things the other way around. Would it be right if those were pro-equality people holding signs and someone chucked a drink at them to start it?

Burr
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Er.. “your” not “their.”

Richard W. Fitch
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

@Mandy: Either you don’t know who Elaine Donnelly is or you are unaware of the hearings held last summer on DADT. One of her agreements against repealing DADT was based on an alleged attack of a female in training camp by four other females, assumed to be lesbian. My comment was not intended to reflect sexism, simply sarcasm. And until the day our 50-something female co-workers stop referring to their groups as “the girls”, I think it is still fair to use the expression, unless it falls into the same category as only African-Americans being able to use the “N” word.

Michael A.
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Mandy:

Ah. I see where you’re coming from now, at least.

And don’t forget Elaine Connelly. Here is another reason not to let lesbians into the armed forces, they are too combative.

I’m pretty sure that was meant to be both ironic and sarcastic, not sexist. But I suppose you could interpret it otherwise.

Timothy Kincaid
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Do you think someone would post “little boys behaving badly” if it a group of men that had committed this crime?

Absolutely. If it was a group of boys ranging from 17 to 22, you bet I would. Unlike you, Mandy, I don’t base my comments on the gender of the parties involved.

Or that gay men “shouldn’t be allowed in the armed forces?”

Richard wasn’t saying that lesbians should not be in the military; he supports lifting the ban. He was speculating on what Elaine Donnelly would say (Donnolly is the primary supporter of the ban in the military).

And, indeed, it is similar to remarks she has made in the past.

I think you would be better served by putting down your outrage. You are beginning to look foolish.

Mandy
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

I honestly don’t think I’m putting a spin on this. Obviously I have a perspective, but I think “spin” is a charged word that is inappropriate in this context.

I don’t oppose the opinion that what they did wasn’t the best idea. What I’m saying to you is that if you’re so worried about Maggie Gallagher, you’ve now given her the opportunity to quote this blog reference to those women as “morons” and “idiots” and exploit it to her purposes.

I’m not looking for cracks, I’m pointing out the glaringly obvious sinkhole staring out at me from my computer. And re-evaluating my endorsement of this blog within my immediate community. It’s going to have to come with a disclaimer now, “Just read the articles, don’t bother with the comments.”

Priya Lynn
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Mandy said “Speaking of which, why aren’t there ever any posts from women on your site?”.

There are Mandy, I post here semi-regularly as does Emily K, Regan Ducasse and others.

Patrick
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Quite frankly, I’m to the point where I’m not going to condemn the women. Yes, I’d prefer they didn’t do it but I don’t think in the grand scheme of things it’s going to negatively impact gays.

Yes, the religious right will trump it up beyond belief. But, they’d do that even if it didn’t happen. As you noted with Prop 8, they’ve constantly talked about the “violence” etc, even though there was none. You see, it doesn’t matter if it actually happens or not, they’ll say it anyway. And, let’s be honest, based on how often these things get repeated their followers aren’t exactly fact-checking.

Furthermore, in my opinion, those who are already gay-friendly are going to understand the context because they understand what crap we take on a daily basis. When all is said and done, this will not have an impact one way or another.

What matters is how we respond. We can use this positively to demonstrate that the Prop 8 examples were pure lies. We can use this positively to demonstrate the disparity in “hate crimes” (with quotes) against Christians by gays compared to hate crimes (without quotes) against gays by Christians.

Yes, there are stupid people on both sides. Yes, there are people who do stupid things on both sides. Yes, there are people who are not fair on both sides. (And I’m not saying which category, if any, these 4 women fall into to). That won’t change. What also won’t change is the blatant lies and misrepresentation the religious right conducts against gays.

How we respond, and will people listen, is ultimately what matters.

Chad
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

I agree with Mandy. Regardless of your thoughts on the use of violence against bigots and on the potential consequences of these women’s actions, calling them “idiots” and “morons” is needlessly harsh and divisive, as well as dismissive toward the real fear and anger anti-gay protests can inspire. Indeed, I’ve seen the authors of this blog extend a more forgiving and tolerant attitude toward anti-gay activists.

I honestly can’t say that I or my gay friends, especially at those ages, would have reacted any better under similar circumstances. At the very least I know I would have had a very hard time not returning slur for slur. We can’t all be saints forever mindful of the broader rhetorical consequences of our actions.

Timothy Kincaid
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Indeed, I’ve seen the authors of this blog extend a more forgiving and tolerant attitude toward anti-gay activists.

Indeed, you have NOT.

The authors at this site are opposed to violence whether it be on the part of gay persons or anti-gay activists. You have never seen the authors be tolerant of anti-gay violence, nor will you.

Chad
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Timothy,

You misunderstand, although I admit I could have phrased what I meant better. I am referring to instances where the authors (I can’t remember which specifically) displayed empathy for the father of a gay man who bought fully into the ex-gay movement. That’s all. Of course, I would never, ever accuse any of you of being sympathetic to anti-gay views, just people who buy into and are indoctrinated into such views, which is well and good.

I just can’t see why, in this case, similar empathy can’t be extended here.

AJD
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

A visit to this organization’s Web site (www.tfp.org) reveals that they’re venomously anti-gay. Among their reasons for opposing same-sex marriage is that “It validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle,” “It violates natural law” and “It turns a moral wrong into a civil right,” among others.

Their site also has an article about “The animal homosexuality myth” that attempts to refute the argument that homosexuality is natural because it occurs in animals by comparing it to animal filicide and cannibalism.

Another article bears the title “The World Watches as Brazil Advances Toward a Homosexual Dictatorship,” and the organization calls the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas decision “America’s moral 9/11.”

That should give you an idea of what these guys are about. To have them demonstrating in your town isn’t too far from having a bunch of neo-Nazis or the Westboro people marching down your street.

With that in mind, I wouldn’t be surprised if the lesbians’ account is true.

Jim Burroway
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Llet me see of I can understand the argument being made here. Suppose there were some gay advocates standing on a street corner holding signs and yelling slogans at passing cars. And suppose four ladies from one of those passing cars threw a bottle of water at those advocates. Then they went home and CAME BACK, got out of their cars and started a fight?

What would your reaction be?

I think just about everyone would find much harsher words to dscribe these people than idiots and morons.

But if you believe holding a double standard is acceptable, be my guest. I happen to think we’re better than that. Maybe I’m wrong and I misjudged our readers.

Richard Rush
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Since I don’t feel I know enough about the incident involving these women, I’m not condoning nor condemning. So, my comments here are about the general issue of physical action in the pursuit of full equality.

I am conflicted. I want us to win, and I don’t particularly care how we do it. My thoughts about tactics are very simple in one respect, and very complicated in another.

Here is the simple part: Our tactics must be mostly legal. I say “mostly” legal only to allow for some civil disobedience and maybe a well-timed pie in the face. And just to be completely clear, any physical action that may cause, or is intended to cause, physical injury is not legal and is off limits.

But here is the complicated part: The tactics must work to achieve our goals. My problem is that I don’t personally know what works and what doesn’t. (Surely there must have been some bona-fide research about this subject, so if anyone has a web link or knows of a book, please let us know.) At the least, I certainly think any amount of mockery, ridicule, and humiliation directed toward the rabidly anti-gay people and ideas are perfectly fine – – – if they work. Of course they won’t work with the rabid crowd, but neither will civil discourse. The important thing is how it plays in the larger society. It seems more productive (to me) to marginalize the rabid crowd than trying in vain to persuade them.

How do we know that some mild physical action will not benefit our cause? I’m not saying it would benefit, but how do we know it won’t? I see a multitude of assertions similar to “physical action is never, never, ever justified. They are stupid. They are morons. They are setting back our cause.” How do we know that? Could it be possible that we may garner some respect for not always being willing to sit back passively while volleys of vile are thrown at us?

Here is a question that may very well have an answer, but I don’t know what it is: Did the White Night Riots in San Francisco accelerate or retard the advancement of gay rights? And, no, I’m not advocating riots.

There is this famous film clip of Anita Bryant having a pie thrown in her face. Was that incident helpful, hurtful, or neutral to our cause? I don’t know the answer to that either.

There are those who seem to think that physical action against the anti-gay Christians displaying signs is no different than if the Christians used physical action against gays displaying signs. It’s hugely different. It is not just two groups with a difference of opinion. Any rational person should recognize that one side has been relentlessly attacking the other for decades, while the other side is defending themselves. And furthermore, the loving Christians who are just “sharing the gospel” are deflecting responsibility for actual physical violence against gays perpetrated by people who see their signs as justification for gay-bashing. Then there is the torment, sometimes leading to suicide, which they actively promote. They cause physical violence to happen while being able to say, “our hands are clean.”

So, I’m inclined to feel that if these Christian creeps are on the receiving end of some physical action, they are getting what they deserve. But there is that difficult question: Does it work to further our goals? I’d like to hear answers other than assertions such as “no, absolutely never, ever.” I want to know why.

Chad
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Jim,

There is no double standard on my part by any logical stretch. You cannot reasonably compare vocal members of a marginalized minority group being harassed by members of the majority with a fight breaking out between members of said minority and a group being very vocal about their opposition to the minority’s rights – unless maybe we place your scenario in some make-believe area where gays enjoy full rights and homophobia is virtually non-existent, and add that the gay protesters are advocating against heterosexual rights, if not shouting “Down with the breeder agenda!” Only then does your comparison look less inadequate and bizarre.

“I happen to think we’re better than that.”

Between this post and the other one criticizing a young gay man for not being willing to sever all financial ties with his homophobic parents, it does seem that feeling superior to those in our community who fail to respond to bigotry precisely the same way you do is becoming a theme here.

Jim Burroway
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Those women were safely in their cars. The decided to leave. They left and decided to come back. They decided to get out of the car. They decided to get into a confrontation. They decided to respond physically. By my count, they made at least six decisions, at least half of them they could have decided more wisely, especially the decision to commit criminal assault.

If there’s anything “becoming a theme here” it’s that adults need to behave as adults and take responsibility for their own actions. And when those actions go to physical assault — let’s not overlook that, shall we? — in response to words, then there is no justification for that whatsoever no matter how vile and ugly those words may be.

AJD
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

I want to be clear that I don’t think the type of behavior these women displayed is justified. I wouldn’t do that myself, and I would discourage anyone from behaving in that way.

However, if you stage a demonstration against a beleaguered community whose members have probably had to put up with a lot in their lives, I think you need to be prepared for some of those people who might lack restraint. If you’re trying to provoke people, then don’t be surprised if you end up provoking people.

And don’t underestimate the power of young people in large groups to get riled up and do stupid things.

The four women aren’t absolved of responsibility for their actions, but people need to be careful when they try to call attention to themselves.

There’s an inherent incivility and impropriety in demonstrating against the rights of already downtrodden people. If you back people into a corner for long enough, they’re bound to bite back at some point. That’s not an attempt to justify violence or criminality — it’s just common sense.

That’s why I refuse to make any moral equivalence between these women and the hypothetical Christians attacking gay demonstrators. The overwhelming majority of Christians in America haven’t spent a lifetime being discriminated against, beaten and ostracized because of their religion; they don’t turn on the TV or open the newspaper and see their rights being debated as though they were a budget appropriation, let alone subjected to a popular vote.

There’s a moral difference between action designed to oppress people and action by oppressed against their oppressors. Again, I’m not trying to justify violence — it’s illegal, and it does harm our image, particularly among those who see the actions of a few gay people as representative of all gays — but it’s not a double standard to make that distinction.

mike
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

I haven’t read most of the comments, and may be repeating other statements, but I don’t think the ‘morons’ are the lesbians, they just reacted to an entitled (redigilous) group who was taunting them indirectly. I’m disappointed in Box Turtle

Penguinsaur
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Do you think someone would post “little boys behaving badly” if it a group of men that had committed this crime? Or that gay men “shouldn’t be allowed in the armed forces?” I can’t believe you guys are defending those statements. After all of these years, I thought we’d made some progress to have cohesion between all the parts of our alphabet soup, but I guess I was sorely mistaken.

Were alittle sexist, we probably would have been meaner to the guys and called them something like ‘brainless dickheads handing ammo to every bigot in the state’, probably still would have made the joke about gays in the military. I bold it because you seem new to the concept, or new to the internet. Not all of us have a stick up our ass like you, we dont feel the need to keep completely serious about some idiots who decided to martyr these bigots instead of just ignoring them or yelling ‘jackass!’ from the car.
They’ll be back within a week, these shortsighted morons will have a permanent criminal record and every bigot in the state will be citing this incident for years. I dont care if we’re in some community, they could be my sisters and I’d pimpslap all of them for being so goddamn stupid as to pick a fight with someone who is just gonna tell a grossly exaggerated version of it to every person they see when they’re standing in the same spot the next goddamn day.

Chad
July 31st, 2009 | LINK

Jim,

I’m not trying to make you or your co-writers feel that the women should be absolved from legal repercussions, or that they are in no way culpable, or that you have to believe there was any justification to how they acted, but…can you at least understand their anger? Can you at least see why they shouldn’t be blithely and crudely dismissed as “morons” and “idiots”? Why are these people, in these circumstances, so utterly undeserving of the very same civility and call for understanding that are written about and extolled in your mission statement?

As happened when I read the other post I cited, of the young man who chose to go into an ex-gay camp rather than risk losing his funds for medical school, I am genuinely surprised and unable to comprehend such a negative, even hostile, reaction. Both cases demonstrate the emotional power of bigotry over its targets, whether the reaction is irrational fury or total surrender. To only be able to see the decisions of that man and these women in stark moral and political terms…well, what can I say but that it’s a shame and that it’s much less than what I would have expected from the people behind such an otherwise thoughtful blog.

On that note, I’ll shut up now.

Candace
August 1st, 2009 | LINK

It would be better to call somebody a brainless dickhead than a moron because Maggie’s Holy Baby Jesus Purity Filter would render it “brainless d######d” while “moron” will come through loud and clear.

Buffy
August 1st, 2009 | LINK

Mandy,

Get a grip. The young women threw things from the safety of their car. Then after threatening to return they did so with more ammunition. They left their cars to directly confront the men–a completely voluntary and unnecessary action. They were in no way threatened directly by these men and if they felt so it was because they chose to enter their personal space. While the men were being intolerant bigots (as is their right), the behavior of the women was completely unacceptable.

paul j stein
August 1st, 2009 | LINK

[This comment deleted due to violations to our Comments Policy — JB]

Timothy (TRiG)
August 1st, 2009 | LINK

Let’s get back onto the general debate on the place of violence within political discourse.

Online, I know a Scottish Marxist (and a very intelligent man) who says that the only argument some people understand is a half-brick. With that in mind, I give you The Battle of Cable Street.

TRiG.

Timothy (TRiG)
August 1st, 2009 | LINK

And have a more relevant and local occurrence: Omaha.

TRiG.

Priya Lynn
August 1st, 2009 | LINK

I think AJD had the most balanced and correct perspective on this.

Burr
August 1st, 2009 | LINK

Yes I really liked AJD’s post. It struck the right chord I think. Good job.

Jason D
August 1st, 2009 | LINK

One of the things I appreciate about this website and about the gay community itself is that we are not afraid to call each other out on our BS. It’s what separates us from the anti-gays, who often give each other passes and are afraid to critique one another. Often times the only “critique” they make is to imply or state that the person in question isn’t “really” a Christian — in other words, distancing themselves, rather than openly critiquing one of their brethren.
There is an honesty and maturity required in order to be able to sympathize but not condone the behavior of fellow LGBT who behave like idiots.

Sure, the women might have been angry, but they made a series of bad decisions that ended…not surprisingly…badly. While I may understand their anger, that doesn’t mean I excuse it.

What’s not helpful is to rubber stamp LGBT people just because they’re LGBT. What’s not helpful is to focus on our sympathy for them and completely ignore how foolish they were being. As previously mentioned, this is integrity, not cannibalism.

Alex
August 1st, 2009 | LINK

Well said, Jason D.

Unfortunately, those in the anti-gay community will most likely ignore discussions like the one that’s taken place here. They will ignore our condemnation of this stupid behavior and instead portray the assault as a “typical” consequence of not tolerating homosexuality — to scare more people into opposing the LGBT community. And it’s really a shame, because there is a level of thoughtfulness and maturity here that you simply won’t find on anti-gay blogs.

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.