Healing? "You're a HomoPhobe, Niggah!!"

Someone better get the office of the President-Elect on the line. The Left is having more of a meltdown, than a love in on the heels of his having arisen.

Can't we all just try to get along?

The backlash is upon us, and it's going to get uglier unless our organizations step forward and say something. The desire to scapegoat blacks for Prop 8's defeat has exposed the now not-so-latent racism in our movement.

Pardon me. I have to  run out and see if the oceans have started to lower, yet.

Feel the love? 

Comments

[Anon]

It's hilarious. Liberal gays calling black people n***grs, it doesn't get any better than that. Identity politics at its best. It has nothing to do with conservatives, the conservatives aren't out on the street harrassing black people, the conservatives also voted for Prop. 8.

Let the games begin.

[jharp]

"It's hilarious. Liberal gays calling black people n***grs, it doesn't get any better than that."

Just curious, how do you know it was liberal gays.

I heard it was log cabin republicans.

[jharp]

A few facts. Good gracious the snake handlers are a vile group.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/11/7/19537/5973

[Rambo]

The Left will eventually implode on itself.

They are so full of hatred for others in their camp that many will run to the Republican ticket - simply because Republicans are NICER!!

Do you see Republicans taking to the streets because THEY lost? Do you see them freaking out and calling people bad names?!

If you're about small government, self-responsibility, and behaving like a class-act, even in the face of loss:
VOTE REPUBLICAN NEXT TIME!

[davis,br]

"I heard it was log cabin republicans."

BWA-HA-HA.

You're a funny guy jharp; even though I'm sure it's unintentional, that hasn't made it any less appreciated.

You know, this is California we're talking about, right? So, how many log-cabin Republicans do you think there ARE in THIS state? I think we can all be pretty confident that it doesn't rise anything near the use of *percentages* ...damn, but that's funny

As far as black support for Prop 8, it was something like 70% plus. So yeah, I'm sure that the 3-4 log-cabin Republicans in the state are calling blacks vile names.

Dude, do you even try to be credible, ever?

I'm gonna have to add Riehl World View to my daily visit for a few days, just for the amusement that you've provided today alone.

[jharp]

"The Left will eventually implode on itself."

Maybe so. In the next 10 to 20 years. And again maybe not.

But the fact is the right has just imploded and the left is in for a nice long run.

[mary]

The voters of the state have spoken. They should get over it. Probably they realize that if CA, the most liberal state in the union voted them down then so will every other state.

[Spartan112]

It should never have been on the ballot. Civil rights should not be legislated at the ballot box.

[jharp]

"The voters of the state have spoken."

Not too long ago the voters also spoke that black people and white people should not be allowed to marry.

The courts, our 1/3 co equal branch of government, took care of that and they will take care of this too. In due time.

And you obviously have no clue about our constitution, mary. It does not say that majority rules when it comes to equal rights.

In due time justice will prevail. I figure Obama's three Supreme Court appointees only make it all the more likely.

[Peg C.]

I knew loss would expose the racism on the Left, but victory? Stunning. And sweeeeet.

[Noelie]

So give me a time table: At what point will churches be FORCED to marry gay people. At what point will your hypocrisy bee that we will have to "accept" that men/men and women/women are "married" when indeed we don't think they can be no matter what tupid laws you force through judges.

At what point will you force it with tax-exempt status, and at what point are you going to try to enter LDS sacred places.

one of you just be honest and tell me where your snowball of force stops?

[ET]

Gay marriage is not about equal rights, it is about special rights for a tiny minority group. Now they are stomping their feet because they didn't get their way.

Less than 2% of the population and they want to overturn a foundational tenet of our society -- that the nuclear family is the core and that a man and a woman come together and commit themselves to raising kids. The propagation of the species.

We are a tolerant society that has given gays all of the rights of married couples. The only thing they can't do is have a wedding, and crying about that is just so, well, gay.

[jharp]

"Gay marriage is not about equal rights, it is about special rights for a tiny minority group."

You are completely full of shiite.

It is about equal rights.

"We are a tolerant society that has given gays all of the rights of married couples."

Are you really that out of touch?

[jharp]

"At what point will churches be FORCED to marry gay people."

Never. No one. No one is arguing for this. Churches can deny marrying whoever in the hell they choose. Always have been able to. You know... kind of a separation of church and state thing.

"one of you just be honest and tell me where your snowball of force stops?"

When all American's are treated equally under the law. No more. No less.

You are a bigot.

[Anon]

I know it was gay liberals that were giving black people a hard time because I followed the link and it was clearly stated as such...gays, liberals and Obama supporters chastising blacks for voting for Prop. 8. No 'log cabin Republicans' in the bunch.

People in this country never learn. When tens of millions of people are violently opposed to something, such as Roe vs. Wade, forced busing or gay marriage, you would think that history would show the best course of action is to go slow, not run screaming to the nearest courthouse to file an amicus brief.

Gay marriage is hugely unpopular all across the country. Now, what would be smart would be to advocate for 'civil unions' or simply couch it in terms of same sex people having the same inheritance rights, insurance rights, etc. as heterosexual couples..you would probably get a LOT LESS hostility.

But of course, liberals are never willing to compromise and everything has to be completely 'in your face' 'we are right and you are morons' type of activity and tone, so that's what you got: Prop 8 passed and that is a very bad sign given that CA is a bellweather state.

I don't personally care if gays want to "marry" and I don't fully understand the hostility around the issue, but I can clearly see that the hostility is deep and real and like the pro life movement, is not going to just fade away like everyone thought. Time to change your tactics from confrontation and calling everyone who doesn't agree hate mongers and look for a more conciliatory way to get what you want.

[jharp]

"Gay marriage is hugely unpopular all across the country."

Not sure I agree but so what?

So was equal rights to black people and our country is about equal rights to all.

"Now, what would be smart would be to advocate for 'civil unions' or simply couch it in terms of same sex people having the same inheritance rights, insurance rights, etc."

You bring up a good point and I cannot disagree. However, not being gay myself I can't really say how I'd feel about the term "civil union" versus "married". Doesn't seem to be a huge issue to me but again I'm not gay.

And good for you that you don't care whether gays can "marry". It really doesn't affect the rest of us one iota.

Equal rights to all!

[snak]

> You are a bigot.

Didn't you mean to say "You are a bigot, n**ger?"

Just trying to help.

[davis,br]

"Never. No one. No one is arguing for this. Churches can deny marrying whoever in the hell they choose. Always have been able to. You know ...kind of a separation of church and state thing."

Heh. That worked out really well for one of the most successful adoption placement agencies in the history of the state of Massachussetts didn't it. You know, the late, great Catholic Charities.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/

What? Unintended consequences? Your 14th amendment due process trumps my second amendment no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

You mean, you're raised in an arifact of Western Civiliization, and you're unacquainted with the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian practices.

And you think you have anything to say that we'd think was worth listening to?

Dude. You are simply uninformed. And that is being charitable (because I'm all about the puns).

[anon]

you're looking at it from the wrong perspective...there are many things that "don't affect me/you/whomever" directly, but that doesn't preclude people having strong feelings about them.

look at abortion, it concerns nobody but the woman, yet, for millions, tens of millions, they truly believe that abortion IS murder...to discount those absolutely, honestly held beliefs just because you/me/whomever doesn't agree or understand them is counterproductive, and not very progressive

gay marriage is the same way, for tens of millions of people, and frankly for over a thousand years "marriage" has been between a man and a woman, and has been held as something sacred and holy for generations...to expect people to embrace the idea of homosexuals getting married, when it was only a few decades ago that it was considered a crime is unfair and unrealistic.

saying over and over, no matter how much YOU believe it, that its about equal rights doesn't change the fact that for a lot of others it isn't about equal rights because they are seeing the issue through a different lense, and unless you are willing to at the very least give some kind of honor to their viewpoint, then it will always end in polarization and no common ground will ever be found.

it is possible that without Roe v. Wade some kind of common ground between the pro life and the pro choice groups would have already been found, but because of such a huge legal change in the blink of an eye, positions are so hardened that no one will listen to or even try to understand the opposite position.

i'm also pro choice, i don't believe a fertilized egg is the same as a baby and i don't believe the government should be in the business of forcing women to have babies they don't want, but i'vc also seen that roe was an error and that this "debate" has totally poisoned the national political landscape, and that it would not be the end of the world to turn it back to the states as long as there was always the option to get a legal abortion in another state.

liberals have a very, very unfortunate tendency to simply proclaim that their way is the right way, the fair way, the just way, the humane way and that's where all discussion stops, just like you just did with gay marriage, you say its about equal rights and you think the discussion should end there and everyone should agree with you, but they don't...so if you aren't willing to allow that there are other, VALID perspectives you wont' get anywhere.

[jharp]

"Never. No one. No one is arguing for this. Churches can deny marrying whoever in the hell they choose. Always have been able to. You know ...kind of a separation of church and state thing."

Heh. That worked out really well for one of the most successful adoption placement agencies in the history of the state of Massachussetts didn't it. You know, the late, great Catholic Charities.

Posted by: davis,br | Friday, November 07, 2008 at 11:01 PM

That's good for the Catholic Church to get out of the adoption placement business. They can't even keep their own prissts from raping children. What business do they have in placing adoptions? I suspect they might try to place them with pedophiles. Given they have a history of protecting pedophilia.

And regardless the subject is forcing churches to marry someone they don't want to marry. No one is forcing the Catholic church to place adoptions. And there aren't enough to go around anyways. Let someone with some credibility do it. Not those whose aid child molesters.

You see the difference, jackass?

[jharp]

anon,

"saying over and over, no matter how much YOU believe it, that its about equal rights doesn't change the fact that for a lot of others it isn't about equal rights because they are seeing the issue through a different lense,"

So you favor the "separate but equal" Supreme Court decision?

It's not about keeping the opposition happy even though politically it might help your side. It's about doing what is right.

I understand your point but I think the gays are right. Equal rights to all.

[jharp]

"you're looking at it from the wrong perspective...there are many things that "don't affect me/you/whomever" directly, but that doesn't preclude people having strong feelings about them."

Just wanted to throw this in.

I am looking at it from the perspective of what is the right thing to do. Not what is politically popular. If that's your definition of wrong, so be it.

I understand people having strong feelings about it. People had strong feelings about slavery. They were wrong.

[davis,br]

"You see the difference, jackass?"

Oh, I believe I can confidently state to a 100% degree that *someone* is missing the point, jharp. For the nth time today, now I think on't. You're either practicing, or a natural at it.

No, the subject really is *not* about churches being required to marry some group (nor about churches being forced to adopt to some goup AFATG). The subject *you* - however inadvertently - raised, was whether churches could be required - presumably under the due process clause of the 14th amendment, which IS the only valid legal constitutional argument being made by gay rights proponents - to deny their practices and beliefs through legal means.

Interesting question. Because that leads one to wonder whether the 14th Amendment trumps the 1st Amendment enunciation about Congress *or the states* being abrogated from passing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Which I civily, humourously pointed out.

I also pointed out that your simplistic declaration about churches not having to worry about their religious beliefs had already been broached, in a way damning to your implied assertion.

NOTE: I didn't bother with the imprisonment of the Canadian preacher who was jailed precisely for quoting Biblical scripture condemning homosexuality ...because I knew that was going to be too deep for your comprehension. Though it was equally relevant and revealing.

I mean, you do know the difference between confidently asserting that A will not lead to B, and that when B does indeed happen because of A, it rather means that there was an essential failure in the confidence value of the original Quod Erat Demonstrandum?

Actually, its rather blatantly obvious that you don't, indeed, understand simple syllogisms.

You make these ludicrous assertions, apparently never having taken the time to bother yourself with fact-based reality, let argumentation ...and then ...we arrive at ...the classic ....

Jackass? - Now that right there is a sure fire argument winner. Bravo.

You're a blind man jharp. I feel sorry for you. Honest.

[jharp]

"No, the subject really is *not* about churches being required to marry some group"

Posted by: davis,br | Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 12:18 AM

Yes, it is. That is exactly what it is.

You're a bigoted religious freak.

[davis,br]

Bingo.

[Kathy]

jharp... Live in hope, die in dispare! This will be a one time run, & everyone will see Obama should never have been President!
He's a liar, a sneak, & a crook, his inexperienced will sink America even further. Before it's over, Americans will know the true meaning of REGRET!

[Mark Turner]

"But the fact is the right has just imploded and the left is in for a nice long run"

True, the right has had a big setback, but the above assertion is similar to what people thought when Clinton was elected in 1992. Remember 1994?

[Ben]

There are many gays who are not liberal and do not believe in gay marriage. I'm one and there are many of us who have fought hard to stop these radicals. We have many gay friends and nearly half are conserative and they too are aginst gay marriage. But of course we have to keep a low profile in fear of reprisals.

[norby]

I think the gay community has forgotten something in their quest... marriage is a ceremony... the civil union contract you get at the courthouse (mis-named the marriage license) is the legal binding document that preserves your rights.

Combining that effort with un-married couples who are also looking to protect those exact same rights and privileges would have meant more to this voter. Blaming the black community because they turned out in higher numbers to vote is just plain dumb, because it does come across as wanting special rights.

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo: "I understand your point but I think the gays are right. Equal rights to all."

As Neal Boortz pointed out recently we all have the same rights now. Harpo can marry a woman. Harpo cannot marry a man. Bruce (no offense intended to straight Bruces nor gay non-Bruces) has the same rights. Bruce can marry a woman, not a man.

This isn't a question of rights. It is a question of protecting the meaning of common and age-old words. When judges change the meaning of common words they destroy the very law they claim to uphold.

[J]

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. As Abraham Lincoln said, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." Calling the union of two persons of the same sex (or for that matter any other union that is not man and woman)a marriage does not make it such. If this were truly about rights between consenting adults, how many out there who support "gay" marriage would support marriage between adult children and parents, or between adult siblings? After all, they are all adults, right?

[Brooks]

If marriage is a right, how come you have to get a marriage license?

I live in Washington State and that license costs $64, cash only, you want a JP to marry you. You can mail a check to the County Clerk, but you'll have to pick your license up in person. You have to wait three days before the license is valid. You have to have a 'marriage ceremony' within 60 days or the license expires. Fortunately, you don't have to get an emissions' test.

[Miss Carnivorous]

It's funny how the anti Prop 8 people keep comparing the sentiment against same sex marriage to the sentiment once, but, supposedly no longer felt against interracial marriage. They are comparable only in that about as many Blacks support gay marriage as they support interracial marriage. Not many Blacks support either. They really don't marry much even among themselves, inter, intra or gay.

[connarte]

Prop 8 passed. Stop protesting and go to work.