Proposition 8 Backlash: What's Wrong with Discriminating Against Those Who Want to Discriminate?

After reading an article in the Los Angeles Times today about whether there should be "boycotts, blacklists, firing or de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8," it didn't take more than a moment for me to come up with a response: Why the hell not?

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this issue, as no one I've heard or read has called for rounding the bastards up and putting them in concentration camps, or doing them physical harm or taking away their civil rights. Most of the outrage I've witnessed deals with not wanting to associate on a professional level with people who promote a political objective to interfere with a person's right to have the same joy in their lives that the majority of Americans have.

Most occupational situations are at will, which means that, barring a violation of no-nos prohibited by government statute, many of us can be fired just like that. It can be a simple fact that the boss doesn't like us or finds our work habits, even when successful, not to his liking.

Why then should it surprise us that when people publicly support a statute limiting the rights of a fellow human being, some of those human beings and their supporters might rise up and say, "Well, we can't stop you from voting the way you have, but we're sure not going to make it profitable for you or desire your presence in our work premises anymore."

We liberals tend to bend over backwards to appear fair and say, "Well, is this stance any different than a boycott of companies that promote gay rights?" This is an apples and oranges point of view, because in the case just stated it is a stance taken by people who want to perpetuate inequality and discrimination. These people are intruding in the lives of others -- people who have no effect at all on the hate mongers, except a presumed disturbance of the bigoted lifestyle they want to maintain.

On the other hand, those who rise up against the forces who want to impose their religious and so-called moral beliefs on the public at large and thus prevent loving couples from legally sanctifying their union, are in effect mimicking Paddy Chayefsky's famous words from Network: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."

They're not throwing stones at the contributors' cars or burning their houses and certainly shouldn't be. However, taking a stand against those who discriminate is moral, legitimate and the correct stance to take. Just as the blacks boycotted the Montgomery, Alabama city buses when they were only permitted to ride in the rear sections.

This is not just a question of not liking a person's politics. Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, most of the issues in disagreement involve economics or our foreign policy. And although I admit to being disappointed when one of my favorites doesn't hew to my political philosophy, I can get over it if I can respect him or her as a decent citizen of our planet.

But when hate or smugness affects our neighbor's quality of life and places him or her on a pedestal below, it deprives that person of the chance to be happy and fulfilled. It bespeaks a policy that says "I'm better than you are, and since I have the votes I'm going to prove it with the force of law."

People with that attitude should be punished in a manner that they'll well understand. They must suffer, not with physical torture or incarceration, but with economic retribution, which is the most civilized and fairly meted out solution. Why should those whom they have hurt help them prosper and why should those who are equally offended do likewise? Let these prejudiced souls work and interact with those whose views share their desires to hurt others. If this is blacklisting of a sort then it's of a stripe I can support, as I have little use for those who interfere with the well-being and happiness of their fellow men and women.

Comments

[PhilipB]

Anyone who does not understand that people have had their civil rights stripped from them has no understand­ing,empath­y or notion of equality.
Prop 8 is a personal attack on me and my partner of 22 years.
At this point, I do not care about changing people minds. Some people never change.
I want to boycott businesses that supported the stripping of me of my civil rights.
Why would I want to support anyone who attacked me personally?
If cinemark or the LA film fest or Sundance or Mariott were shown to contributors to Neo Nazi groups or the KKK, what would people think then? Unfortunately, there are many who supported prop 8 who would think that was fine.

[gotborked]

You are never going to convince any Yes on 8 voters to find some conciliation so long as you hold on to the belief that they cast their votes the way they did because they think "I'm better than you are." Besides a few fringe idiots, no one voted Yes on 8 (or similar measures in 30 other states) because they think they're better or because they hate gays or something else nefarious. No, they had legitimate concerns about the consequences of redefining marriage--how it would affect religious liberty, the well-being of the community and the children, free speech, a slippery slope of redefinition of the institution, etc.
I am sure that a majority of those voters would just as quickly pass measures for civil unions. I am also just as sure that you aren't going to convince anyone of your rightness by calling them zealots and bigots instead of trying to convince them on the merits.

[Michale32086]

Well said...

The key is to understand WHY anyone would vote for Prop 8. If it's because they ARE zealots or lunatics, then at least you tried..

But, like you said, chances are they simply have their own belief structure. Trying to make inroads into showing them how their belief structure and the gay community's can co-exist is a MUCH more effective way to win people over...

Michale.....

[CavalierTunes]

I have yet to hear a single good argument for why someone would not support gay marriage other than believing there is something inherently morally wrong with homosexuality.

If someone says "for the children," then they are saying they don't want their children to be taught homosexuality. This makes no sense unless they think this is inappropriate - which makes no sense unless they equate homosexuality and sex (instead of simplifying it to "some men just love other men"). In short, they have to believe that homosexuality is intrinsically inferior to heterosexuality.

If someone says it's preserving marriage, then obviously they think that marriage isn't good enough for gay people. Interracial marriages have become allowed, and how women are no longer property.

If someone says it's about religion then they're terribly confused. Marriage, for a very long time, had nothing to do with religion, it was about a man trading his daughter for livestock. Many religions today still don't see marriage as anything more than a ceremony. Many religions today are alright with homosexual marriage. And, if they're so concerned with churches being sued, then they should introduce legislation to increase the separation of church and state to prevent that.

There you have it, if you supported prop 8, you think that heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality. End of discussion.

[11907281]

Reason with people who believe 1 guy got all the animals on earth on to a boat he built (that story is the plagiarized version of the Sumerian "epic of Gilgamesh")?

[Michale32086]

@LeftRight

}}}
And YOUR "gut" is biased. You WANT to believe that it's NOT a frame-up job.
{{{

Please explain how my "gut" is baised? I have no bias towards the gay community. My lovely wife is bi, so it would be hypocritical in the extreme for me to be biased against a similar group..

}}}}
while YOU are simply saying that it MUST be the gay rights activists!
{{{{

Again, completely untrue. Nowhere have I stated that it "MUST" be the gay community.. I simply state that the evidence points to the gay community...

}}}}
Until the evidence is in we MUST treat EVERYONE as though they are innocent!
{{{{

LEOs do not have the luxury of assuming EVERYONE is innocent.

Reminds me of the old Night Court TV show where a preacher stands up in Judge Stone's courtroom and exclaims, "JUDGE NOT LEST THEE BE JUDGED!!" Harry's response?.. "Well, gee whiz, father. That kinda puts a kink in the ol' job description, don'tcha think??" :D

I said it before and I'll say it again. The issue of WHO is guilty is completely irrelevant to my initial point.

REGARDLESS of who is guilty, it behooves the gay community and the NO ON PROP 8 groups to condemn these acts as passionately as they condemn Prop 8 itself.

To do less, simply invites unwarranted assumptions and brings the integrity of the gay community and the NO ON PROP 8 groups into question..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@abbeyroad

}}}}
--- there is NO "circumstantial evidence"
{{{{

This is quite wrong..

I am certain that LEOs have a LOT more evidence than what is being reported.

But, the simple fact that it was ONLY sent to the churches that supported Prop 8 is circumstantial evidence. Rather strong circumstantial evidence to boot..

Michale....

[Michale32086]

@LeftRight

}}}}
Michale, the rights HAVE been violated. If you were suddenly told that only black people can get married, because it's "against god's will" for white people to marry, wouldn't you consider that YOUR right to be married to your wife as having been violated?????
{{{{

That is not what Prop 8 does.

Prop 8 merely defines a label.. Period..

I *AM* married to my wife, regardless what any state, federal or local law, constitution or statute says.

Same sex couples in a domestic partnership ARE married, regardless what any state, federal or local law, constitution or statute says. It's up to the couples themselves to determine their own status.

So the State of California wants to say that it's not really a "marriage" as the state defines one.. BFD... Let them call it whatever they heck THEY want to call it..

The REAL fight is to make sure that NO ONE can discriminate against the couple, REGARDLESS of what their relationship is labeled..

AB205 does that for State rights (save one). Now, the battle needs to move on to Federal recognition and Private Institution recognition..

The fight is not to FORCE everyone to call the relationship a marriage.. There will be those who will refuse, regardless of what the State says..

The fight is to insure that no one can discriminate, regardless of what the label is...

Michale.....

[abbeyroad]

and yes -- i DO agree that the "white powder" cases are an act of terrorism, and the person(s) responsible must be punished to the full extent of the law

(gay or straight, right or left - the punishment must be severe).

[abbeyroad]

ANYTHING is possible in the "white powder" cases.

every single person in this country can be considered a suspect.
--- there is NO "circumstantial evidence".

EVERYONE and ANYONE IS A SUSPECT.

my gut tells me that it was a frame-job because of all the protests at the temples.
it was too obvious. but i have zero proof.

my theory holds exactly as much water as your theory.
neither theories are enough to be labeled "circumstantial evidence".

[Michale32086]

But your "gut" is biased. You WANT to believe it's a frame-up job. You don't want to believe that anyone from your side of the issue could do something so perverse and twisted.

My "gut" is completely objective. My only position in the crime is that the perp be caught and punished to the fullest extent of the law...

There is much more circumstantial evidence to support my gut, than yours..

"Yea, well... Right now, Mac outranks your gut."
-Jeff Daniels, SPEED

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

And YOUR "gut" is biased. You WANT to believe that it's NOT a frame-up job. I'm acknowledging that the possibility exists that EITHER side sent the powder, while YOU are simply saying that it MUST be the gay rights activists! Until the evidence is in we MUST treat EVERYONE as though they are innocent!

[JakeInTheField]

If Proposition 8 stands, it may end up saving California's economy. It sets a precedent that can be used to destroy a lot of the stupid laws that unfairly burden California businesses.

All of the "anti-disc­rimination­" laws that employers and owners of apartments buildings in California have to face are limiting our ability to offer safe, comfortable environments for our customers and renters. If we were NOT forced to allow homosexuals, blacks, mexicans and other undesirables to work in our places of business we could target more affluent customers who want to feel safe.

In the same way, if apartment owners were given more freedom to choose who they wanted to rent to, instead of being forced to take just anyone who applies, more of them would choose to clean up their buildings and be able to offer safe, family friendly accomodations without risks of lawsuits.

By allowing proposition 8 to stand, we set a precedent which gives us grounds to start tearing down these out-of-date laws which restrict our ability to offer good working and living conditions. If the legislature won't handle this, we can take it to a vote and know it will stand. Who would NOT vote to allow businesses and apartment communities to clean up their environments?

[Michale32086]

I am assuming (actually HOPING) that your post was sarcastic in nature... Devil's advocate, so to speak..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@LeftRight

}}}}
But the fact is that their rights HAVE been violated.
{{{{

Prop 8 is simply a label... No one's rights were violated.. All Prop 8 does is amend the California Constitution to define a label..

AB205 still guarantees Domestic Partnerships and still guarantees the same rights that male/female married couples have, save one.

It's silly and ridiculous and, if I had been there, I would have voted against it.. But let's not get hysterical and try to make it sound like the end of the world. It isn't...

}}}}
Even IF we assume that a gay rights activist sent the white powder to the Mormon church , that STILL doesn't change that fact.
{{{{{

No it doesn't.. But the former does NOT justify the latter in any way, shape or form. I am sure you would agree with that...

}}}}
And so what you are doing is railing against people who haven't condemned an act about which they haven't heard, all the while complaining that their rights have been violated!
}}}}

No, I am railing against people who complain that their rights have been violated and do not condemn the perverse and twisted acts committed in their name... It's all but impossible that those heavily involved in the NO ON 8 groups could NOT have heard about the incidents of pseudo-terrorism.

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

Michale, the rights HAVE been violated. If you were suddenly told that only black people can get married, because it's "against god's will" for white people to marry, wouldn't you consider that YOUR right to be married to your wife as having been violated?????

[Michale32086]

@abbeyroad

}}}}
being a LEO does not validate your accusation.

as a leo, i would expect you to validate MY point.

any good officer would know better.
{{{{

Ouch.. And the ref takes a point away. Try to keep them above the belt.. :D

I assume that your "point" is that this could have been a "fake" by some right wing nutjob to put the blame on the gay community.

Yes, it's POSSIBLE. But that's all it is... Possible. The circumstantial evidence, including the lack of condemnation, points to the culprit being from the gay community or, at the very least, a member of the NO ON 8 groups... I am not accusing anyone, simply pointing out the obvious.

But, the thing is, the culprit is irrelevant with regards to MY point.

And MY point is that this perverse and twisted act requires the same kind of condemnation that the gay community would expect universally in a brutal murder or hate crime committed against a member of the gay community.

Wouldn't you agree??

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

Actually, Michale, while I still condemn the action, we MUST assume that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, which INCLUDES the possibility that NO ONE in the gay community did this despicable act!

[Michale32086]

Yes, I have acknowledged that possibility.

But, Law Enforcement doesn't have the luxury of assuming that EVERYONE is innocent..

SOMEONE is guilty.

And the evidence, circumstantial though it may be, points to the NO ON 8 groups. Whether part of the gay community or not is still undetermined.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@WestCoastBuckeye

}}}}}
Yo Michale, I heard about it when it happened. And like everyone else here (I hope), I believe such actions are reprehensible, evil, pathetic, and counterproductive.
{{{{{

Complete agreement..

}}}}
One is a cowardly, anonymous act used to attack any variety of people/causes. The other is a very personal, direct, bold-faced show of hatred and discrimination.

Thanks for listening, Michale.
{{{{

Again, I am in complete agreement with everything you posted. (I had to snip most of it to make it under the 250 word limit)

But you misunderstand me. It wasn't my intention to compare the ACTs. I wasn't comparing the pseudo-terrorism to the brutal and heinous murder of Mr Shephard. The acts are NOT comporable, as one is the tragic loss of an innocent man whereas the other is really nothing more than a sick, twisted "joke"...

So, I am in complete agreement with you that the acts themselves are not comparable..

My point was that the lack of response to both those pathetic acts. As I said, the gay community would have gone ballistic if there wasn't universal condemnation of the brutal murder of Mr Shephard. And rightly so..

I am simply saying that, while the act itself isn't comparable, it's sick and twisted and perverse enough to require the same universal condemnation.

And I just ain't seein' it from the Left blogosphere in the form of HuffPo...

Thanx for a very well-written response.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@ MajorKong

}}}}
So, if you're in favor of Prop 8 why don't you just come out and say you're in favor of Prop 8 instead of using the fact that some idiot committed a crime as an excuse?
{{{{

Because I am NOT in favor of Prop 8 and have stated so on many MANY occasions.

But, I am also not in favor of hypocrisy and intolerance, no matter WHERE it's found..

@LeftRight

}}}}
Because the news never reported it. It's not my fault if I never hear about something because the news never reported it!
{{{{

First off, I am not blaming you for anything. I am blaming all the bloggers and commentators who get all up in arms and hysterical when they perceive THEIR rights are violated, but when an incident happens that MUST be condemned by all, they are strangely silent...

Why are they silent? It's unlikely they didn't hear about it. The public perception would be that they are silent about condemning the atrocious act because they tacitly approve of the act..

If I am wrong about that, I would welcome their correction.

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

But the fact is that their rights HAVE been violated. Even IF we assume that a gay rights activist sent the white powder to the Mormon church , that STILL doesn't change that fact. And so what you are doing is railing against people who haven't condemned an act about which they haven't heard, all the while complaining that their rights have been violated!

[M1]

Wonderful article I could not agree more. I have my list to boycot in my town and I have shared it with my group.

[abbeyroad]

being a LEO does not validate your accusation.

as a leo, i would expect you to validate MY point.

any good officer would know better.

[Michale32086]

@LeftRight

}}}}
But, again, to be fair Michale, out of all of us who condemned it, we all know about it because you brought it up. I DID NOT KNOW about it until then, and I'm more plugged into the news than most..... Granted, I'm sure that there are some who knew about it and didn't condemn it, but it's more likely that most didn't KNOW about it!
{{{{

But that's EXACTLY my point..

How come you know about Prop 8 being passed, but you DON'T know about someone sending fake anthrax to the churches that supported Prop 8..

Because the Left Wing blogosphere plastered all their commentaries condemning those that supported Prop 8, but not a WORD condemning the pseudo-terrorism ostensibly committed in the name of the gay community...

Imagine the uproar from the gay community if the brutal murder of Matthew Shephard was completely ignored.. The gay community would go ballistic and RIGHTLY SO!

Because perverse and pathetic acts like that MUST be condemned..

Michale......

[WestCoastBuckeye]

Yo Michale, I heard about it when it happened. And like everyone else here (I hope), I believe such actions are reprehensible, evil, pathetic, and counterproductive.

My only disagreement with your post is the comparison of the reaction to the murder of Shepard to the reaction over the white powder incidents.

Whenever anyone hears about another white powderl event, our reaction is subdued, only because IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. Whatever the issue/whoever the person involved, people (conservative and liberal alike) don't go ape-^&*% over it because it's become such a regular occurrence.

"White powder Mormon Temple" gets 61,000 Google hits. "White powder in mail" gets almost 700,000. Since the first anthrax attacks in 2001, white powder in an envelope has been used as a cowardly form of terrorism for many causes.

White powder in envelopes to the Mormon church is criminal and indefensible. But it's nothing the media, the conservative or liberal blogospheres are going to blow up into front-page headlines. This form of attack is not reserved for any one group (churches, this time). It's been used against politicians, newspapers, teachers and businesses.

The torture and murder of an individual due to their sexual orientation (or race, or religion, you name it) will always generate more outrage than any white powder incident.

One is a cowardly, anonymous act used to attack any variety of people/causes. The other is a very personal, direct, bold-faced show of hatred and discrimination.

Thanks for listening, Michale.

[carsntrucks]

The point is, the media doesn't seem to ignore pieces that paint the LGBT community as being victims of bigotry and discrimination over Prop 8, but then when stories come out about people taking the vote for Prop 8 too far, there's scant information about it. Tell the WHOLE story, not just the one that sets up some kind of allegory.

The truth ISN'T just that some people voted for prop 8 out of thinly veiled bigotry and hatred. It's also true that many supporters have taken this political issue too far, and are polarizing people at the precise moment they need to be building bridges. The truth is that many SSM supporters aren't interested in what other people go through so long as they support gay marriage, and even then that's no guarantee that they won't be called racial epithets on the street.

The truth is, the LGBT community wants same-sex marriage to be seen as a civil rights and equal rights issue EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS THAT GIVE THEM ALL THE RIGHTS OF MARRIAGE.

No one seems interested in making these points, because it might make people think, and thus dissent, with a lot of what's been going on. It's just easier, it seems, to keep people thinking everything done in the name of gay marriage is justified, even if it goes overboard, but religious groups legally donating and supporting a political measure and participating in the democratic process is innately bigoted and hateful.

[LeftRight]

Because the news never reported it. It's not my fault if I never hear about something because the news never reported it!

[MajorKong]

The only envelope I'd like to see them receive is the one from the IRS revoking their tax-exempt status.

[MajorKong]

So, if you're in favor of Prop 8 why don't you just come out and say you're in favor of Prop 8 instead of using the fact that some idiot committed a crime as an excuse?