His donation [of $1,000 to support Prop 8] was brought to light by online activists angry about the measure’s success at the polls....So theater -- musical theater, anyway -- will be reserved for people who think the right thoughts or keep their mouths shut about what they think. Great idea! Make theater more narrow and exclusionary. Not many people want to go to the theater already. Why not turn more people off? You never wanted to speak to those religious folk anyway, did you? Theater is a place where like-minded people congregate and remind each other of the good thoughts they think together.
[T]he swift resignation was not met with cheers by those on either side.
Marc Shaiman, the Tony Award-winning composer (“Hairspray”), called Mr. Eckern last week and said that he would not let his work be performed in the theater. “I was uncomfortable with money made off my work being used to put discrimination in the Constitution,” Mr. Shaiman said. He added, however, that the entire episode left him “deeply troubled” because of the potential for backlash against gays who protested Mr. Eckern’s donation.
“It will not help our cause because we will be branded exactly as what we were trying to fight,” said Mr. Shaiman, who is gay. “But I do believe there comes a time when you cannot sit back and accept what I think is the most dangerous form of bigotry.”...
The sense of disappointment over the vote extended to Broadway. Jeffrey Seller, a producer of the show “Avenue Q,” which is scheduled to be part of the 2008-9 season at the California Musical Theater, said he had been shocked when he heard about Mr. Eckern’s donation.
“That a man who makes his living exclusively through the musical theater could do something so hurtful to the community that forms his livelihood is a punch in the stomach,” [said Jeffrey Seller, a producer of the show "Avenue Q."]
November 13, 2008
You can't be the artistic director of a musical theater company and oppose gay marriage.
Even if your religion tells you so. That's what Scott Eckern found out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
210 comments:
1 – 200 of 210 Newer› Newest»Why would anyone want to say unapproved things anyway? People should just say and do the correct things and we won't have these problems. That's why we desperately need the new Fairness Doctrine, so we won't have to listen to hateful and unapproved ideas.
I think we should put together a long list of occupations that are closed to people who think incorrectly.
It's called fascism. Or at least it was, when the word had any useful meaning before the left changed it's definition to "anything lefties disagree with", thus making the victim of their hissy fit seem like the actual perpetrator.
Gee, and I thought there was no gay agenda to be shoved down our throats, that we were just being paranoid.
"First they came for..." and all that. The wonderful left, always seeing the fascist mote in the conservative's eye, never noticing the log in their own.
Expect more and more of the same in the next four years. The Ayerization of America has begun its final phase. Where will they put the 25 million or so who simply refuse to abide, I wonder?
But surely, it can't happen here.
I see Obama in the same position as Marc Shaiman. How to deal with the radical anarchists in your own party.
Where is the logic in associating ones beliefs on religion and marriage affect the success of a broadway play? It doesn't. This is a poke in the eye to the theater-goers and those dependent on quality artists for work and support of the arts.
What is done off-stage is seperate from the production. Unless of course one wants to torpedo their goals by leveraging one for the other.
The premise is false. You can be the artistic director of a musical theater company and oppose gay marriage. A step further, you can be a centrist Obama President and oppose some of the radical left without having them turn on you.
This is the rhetorical equivalent of Ayers/Dohrn blowing up infrastructure.
“I was uncomfortable with money made off my work being used to put discrimination in the Constitution,”
The expression of Democracy in California did not put discrimination in the Constitution.
Last straight man driven from musical theatre industry
Whenever I get mad at liberals I always have a short dream that some republican will behave like this. But they never do. You never saw Bush kick the New York Times out of the press Room, even though we all sometimes wished he would have.
Liberals, however, always do this. They bring out the axe and cut heads, which is why we will always be less safe when liberals are in charge.
Liberalism seeks equality by eliminating freedom. This occurrence is just another example of that
I sympathize; elections are important, and they stoke strong emotions. Everyone's entitled to a few days to grieve if they're on the short end; after Obama won, I gave serious thought to refusing to help anyone who voted for him. I calmed down, and these folks will, too, assuming that they're grownups. If they don't, and if they're still acting this way in a month or so, there'll still be time to go after them then.
Simon, they have been behaving this way for years. It ain't temporary.
They drove a guy out of a job. Apparently, the theatah is only for those in agreement.
Well screw them; My annual donation to our local theater, where I have given annually for 15 years is now withheld. Attached will be a note about this little fascist action in California. Why punish them? Because to a one they are all lefties, as witnessed by their Obama stickers. Same with another theater we have donated scads of dollars to in a nearby town.
To hell with the whole fucking entertainment industry. I officially won't spend money on them anymore. Big deal, I know. But I don't have to supply them with cash. I have enough books to last me a lifetime, so they can appeal to Obama for all I care, I'm sure despite the nascent Second Great Depression he can find the funds.
Just more of the Democratic Party Outreach program to segment voters into one issue clans, which can be manipulated by the ruling political class for what they deem to be the best use of the pawns.
Cheers!
I wonder if those unhappy with the donations ever considered that people go to musical theater, not because of the gayness, but despite it?
I mean, camp is fun and all, in limited doses (at least for me). But I actually don't go because of all the gay performers, writers, or directors. I go because it sometimes amuses me.
I'm even more apathetic though, toward men's figure skating.
“It will not help our cause because we will be branded exactly as what we were trying to fight,” said Mr. Shaiman.
Mr. Shaiman, you commit a category error. The problem is not that you will be branded exactly as what you are trying to fight. The problem is that you have become exactly what you are trying to fight.
Another Mormon, the wife of retired NFL QB Steve Young, came out against proposition 8. As far as I know, no one in the sports world cares.
The theater director has every right to give and support whatever cause interests him.
The gay has every right to express their view on the theater director's action.
I didn't read anywhere that a gay asked him to be fired. They just expressed their disappointment in support of this proposition.
It is called freedom of speech.
Why cant the gay speak out?
He made the decision to resign. That was his decision.
Give us all a break titus.
There are resignations and there are firings posing as resignations. Are you honestly saying this is the former?
Here's the story on Barb Young.
It is interesting, as the Mormon church gets tarred by Prop 8 opponents, to read this quote:
"I am very passionate about this issue and Steve is completely supportive of me and my work for equality. We both love our Church and are grateful that our Church encourages us to vote our conscience."
Personally I would have opposed Prop 8 and think the Mormon church was terribly misguided to take an official stance. But I have no sympathy for anti-free-expression zealots, even if I agree with there issue.
Titus, you have to note that Mr. Eckern's trouble started because someone went through the donation list with the express purpose of attacking individual supporters of the measure.
The article said he resigned.
If he was fired then they should say he was fired.
I don't think he should be fired but I also don't believe that the gay should have to keep their mouth shut.
In any event, this is a temporary setback. It will eventually pass. The individuals that oppose gay marriage are on the wrong side of history.
In 30 years the Mormon Church will be likened to George Wallace.
Young people overwhelmingly support gay marriage.
Older people not as much. But soon enough they will be dead.
Blacklisting wasn't government mandated, either. It's the same thing. Wrong politics, and no work for you.
So, if that was wrong, so is this.
However, businesses should be able to hire and fire without having to justify it. This isn't fascism because it's not the government. I'd say it's comparable to a church expelling a gay priest. What's the difference?
"He made the decision to resign. That was his decision."
Don't be so obtuse.
"Young people overwhelmingly support gay marriage."
I suppose they do. The problem with immanentizing the eschaton is the result is always far short of the goal, and instead usually falls into totalitarianism, of which this gay Kristallnacht is an example.
You will comply, says Titus.
Say, I wonder what those islamic and black anti-gay people will do when you go after them, eh Titus? Or are you all too frightened of them to do so?
Since fear seems to generate respect from the gay, maybe that's the way for me to go. Whaddya think, Titus? Why not?
"This isn't fascism because it's not the government."
Fascism is a process, not merely a state progrom. Nazis were fascist well before they were elected.
There is no business, like show business, like no business I know.
Once upon a time, when the local high school put on a play, everyone in the family could go.
No longer.
This fall the principal at my kids' high school has warned parents that the fall play is "R" rated. Children under the age of 13 will not be admitted.
The play? "The Laramie Project."
What is the purpose of intentionally excluding families who would like to bring young children to a high school play? What is the purpose of intentionally excluding families who don't want to expose children of any age to "R" rated material, regardless of the reason for the rating?
Maybe they should try a don't ask, don't tell policy when it comes to ideology in the theater crowd.
On a happier note 2nd and 3rd grade children on a bus in Rexburg, Idaho chanted "Assasinate Obama".
Rexburg is 99% Mormon.
Lovely family values.
Well, not only was that effectively fired, but his career is probably over.
What a sad story. For both sides of this.
It's 1929 and the hot topic here is gay marriage.
"Lovely family values."
But getting a man fired, is that the gay marriage lovely family values?
Ricpic,
1929 was similarly full of the same socialist cant affecting all layers of society, not just economics.
The parallels are eerie.
Brown is the new lavender.
Sometime in October my 6 year old and 4 year old started calling McCain "Poopy McCain".
And I voted for McCain.
Kids.
@Titus:
On a happier note 2nd and 3rd grade children on a bus in Rexburg, Idaho chanted "Assasinate Obama".
That had the ring of some crazy off the wall democraticunderground rumor mill feel to it that I had to look it up. Lo and behold, you're right! Of course, this just goes to show that two wrongs don't make a right, stupid people (parents) can exist on all sides of an argument, etc.
It has nowhere near the dramatic feel, but when I was a kid I heard the word bastard on the playground and decided I would use it on one of my brothers at home. My dad quickly set me straight on that one.
Ann Althouse said...
"Theater is a place where like-minded people congregate and remind each other of the good thoughts they think together."
Sounds like the Democratic Party generally, doesn't it!
I know well some people who work at this theater, so I know a bit about the situation.
Scott made a public statement in the form of a donation against gay marriage. Many, many gay people and non-gay associates of the company (freelancers, actors, designers playwrights) expressed reluctance to continue working at the theater as a result. They are certainly entitled to decide where they will work or not and why. Now, there are a LOT of gay people in the theater and facing that kind of "boycott" it would be hard to function.
If you take public stands in politics you should expect consequences.
Imagine, if you will, a defense contractor which makes its money providing supplies to our military. The CEO is found to be making "personal political" donations to Al Queda. Would military families raise bloody hell that he was living off our military *while* subverting it? Would the board of directors call for his resignation? Would conservatives bemoan his "blacklisting" ?
"These folks will, too, assuming that they're grownups."
These folks are patently not grownups. Grownups don't throw hissy-fits and trash everyone and everything in their path when they (inevitably) don't get their way all the time.
The reason we have so many puerile adults is that the grownups long ago abdicated control. In our rush 40 years ago to be more "fair" and less "oppressive" we stopped forcing people to act maturely. The issue with gays is no longer about equality or acceptance, it's about demanding
that they be LIKED. Every grownup has the sense to know that isn't gonna happen. It's impossible to coerce others to like you; one can only ask to be left alone as long as he behaves reasonably well.
I've had it with these people!
I'm not singing show tunes anymore while I lather myself in the shower.
That whooshing sound you keep hearing Pogo are the blades of those black helicopters. Negrofascism AND Homofascism. Be afraid!
I'm really starting to think that Ann has zero respect for gay people. She thinks that if society decides that gay people are second class citizens - that gay people should just shut the fuck up and accept their fate.
Gay people can't protest. Gay people can't boycott. Gays are just faggots and should pay respect to those who oppress them.
Sorry - I don't think so.
If Marc Shaiman were indeed a man of principle, he would immediately return any money he has received on Hairspray from non-prop 8 supporters.
For example, the movie version starred John Travolta, whose church is against gay marriage. What if Travolta voted no on prop 8? That's tainted money, and he should want nothing to do with it.
Perhaps he only wants to damage other people's livelihoods, however.
If a Jewish delicatessan finds out that there is a Nazi in their midst - I guess Ann thinks the deli owner should just tolerate him, and Jewish patrons should continue to go to that shop.
The issue with gays is no longer about equality or acceptance, it's about demanding that they be LIKED.
Wrong. I could give two shits whether or not somebody likes me.
one can only ask to be left alone as long as he behaves reasonably well.
Exactly. Leave me the fuck alone and stop writing laws about me.
How about I write a law stripping you of your rights for no reason other than what kind of consensual sex you like to have and we'll see whether or not you have a "hissy fit."
garage,
So who wins the fight between the blacks who voted against gay marriage and the gays who are taking their anger out on the Mormons?
And the Mormons have a long history of violence, so the gay has I think not chosen wisely here.
But you're a fool if you don't recognize this coercion of political belief does not represent something ominous.
And you're a fool if you think this won't end in violence.
I'm having a difficult time finding too much upsetting here. It was all private with no call for government interference.
And, let's face it, the guy violated the "Don't shit where you eat" rule. If you work around a lot of gay people, publicly supporting anti-gay legislation (as in contributing a non-trivial amount of money) isn't gonna make you popular.
"They just expressed their disappointment in support of this proposition."
Marc Shaiman withdrew permission to perform "Hairspray" at the theater. That's more than expressing disappointment.
Pogo is being racist by blaming "blacks". He lumps blacks as one big community and not as individuals. Last time I checked, people didn't choose to be black. Many blacks voted for Prop 8 and fewer voted against it. But it doesn't make sense to protest against "blacks".
Mormonism is different. The Mormon Church funded 70% of the dollars against this amendment. And Mormons, unlike backs, choose their religion.
Now if there is a predominantly black church that gave money for Prop 8, please point it out - I'm sure the gay community would be happy to protest it.
@sammy990099:
Imagine, if you will, a defense contractor which makes its money providing supplies to our military. The CEO is found to be making "personal political" donations to Al Queda. Would military families raise bloody hell that he was living off our military *while* subverting it? Would the board of directors call for his resignation? Would conservatives bemoan his "blacklisting" ?
I think "blacklisting", military families, and board of directors issues would be the least of the CEO's problems in that scenario. How about something a bit more apt?
I think this was a very difficult situation and the mob mentality got out of control. Certainly boycotts and calls for his resignation were going to happen since this was such a sensitive subject, yet I think that in this case there may be some buyer's remorse once this is over. At the same time, based on the opinion of this guy who has a show going to that theatre we could say that in this case the result was a bit extreme. But this is life, there is a bit of a see-saw action before things become more accepted.
So who wins the fight between the blacks who voted against gay marriage and the gays who are taking their anger out on the Mormons?
Why drag blacks into it? I wasn't aware they were "fighting" anyone. They didn't organize and pump millions into Prop 8.
This is really sad and counterproductive. The backlash is coming, and they have created it...*sigh*
"Mormonism is different. The Mormon Church funded 70% of the dollars against this amendment. And Mormons, unlike backs, choose their religion."
Yes "backs" are primitives and not responsible for their actions or beliefs. At least in downtownlad's world which, as we all know, is a fun-filled, happy, joyous place.
Let me know when Marc Shaiman announces that he doesn't want his plays performed in California until Prop 8 is repealed.
I wish there was a way for everyone on both sides of this issue to lose.
"Marc Shaiman withdrew permission to perform "Hairspray" at the theater. That's more than expressing disappointment."
Well, no, actually. "Hairspray" was done last season and (try as you might) you can't "withdraw permission" for a show which has already opened AND closed.
He did say he would not in the future license additional works at the theater, which, as the owner of such right, his prerogative.
It was private in that the government wasn't involved.
Marc Shaiman made it very public, though. He sent an email that was posted on Perez Hilton, a website with huge traffic.
http://tinyurl.com/4j9mja
Sammy;
That already occurred. GE's Immelt had a contract with Iran for during the GWOT placing profits ahead of our military casualties.
The MSM didn't want to talk about it.
If a person is black, I have no idea if he voted for Prop 8 or not, just like I have no idea of the director of a musical theater company voted for it.
But if you're a Mormon, by continuing to remain in a bigoted Church, you are giving tacit approval to supporting Proposition 8. You can't be both a Mormon and in favor of gay rights. It's impossible. Just like you can't be a Catholic and be pro-choice. You're either one or the other.
It's time for straight people to boycott the breeders. Fuck them all.
If you breed - you are the enemy.
Well, whats good for the gander maybe good for the goose.
You're saying that its ok, because the theater community is shot thru with homos, then they can mob up and discriminate and ruin a guys career if he doesn't agree with their political preferences. Thats cool with you?
I expect that when someone is fired or forced to resign from a job because they are gay and the other workers don't like homosexuality it will be ok with the gays, right?
Like on a construction site, say. Because the prevalent mob gets its way, right? Gays get the theater and straights get the manly, rough jobs. Is that where we are headed? Do gays really want to unleash this back onto their community?
Or is it only bad when the targets of mob action are homosexuals?
The hypocritical double standard is stunning.
Palladian said...
"Mormonism is different. The Mormon Church funded 70% of the dollars against this amendment. And Mormons, unlike backs, choose their religion."
Yes "backs" are primitives and not responsible for their actions or beliefs. At least in downtownlad's world which, as we all know, is a fun-filled, happy, joyous place.
9:21 AM
Oh, yeah, but they are not racist. They are "progressive" and politically correct.
Black people don't choose their religion? Is it forced upon them? How?
"I expect that when someone is fired or forced to resign from a job because they are gay and the other workers don't like homosexuality it will be ok with the gays, right? "
He wasn't fired, he resigned.
DTL, you do need to get laid, soon. The hate that comes out of you can only have one explanation.
I expect that when someone is fired or forced to resign from a job because they are gay and the other workers don't like homosexuality it will be ok with the gays, right?
You're fucking kidding me right? In case you didn't know it, the Federal government fires thousands of people a year SOLELY because they are gay.
It is legal to fire someone SOLELY for being gay in over half the states in this country. And gays ARE fired every day, simply because they are gay.
And Sgt. Ted thinks that is FINE AND DANDY. He wants the gays to be fired. In fact, when Obama makes that illegal, Sgt. Ted will be the first to protest. But Sgt. Ted thinks a theater company should not be allowed to fire an anti-gay bigot.
Sorry - it cuts both ways. Gays are allowed to fight back.
All these post-election shenanigans have turned me against gay marriage.
dtl, you are a frakkin idiot. I am gay, and have never hidden it. However, I don't hate people based solely on their sexual orientation like you do. You are a sad individual.
Pogo wrote: And the Mormons have a long history of violence
They do?
oh - so my new name for you was appropriate.
Sorry - But most gay people I know are tired of this shit. Tired of straight people treating us like trash. Tired of constitutional amendments that take away our rights.
If straight people want to treat gays like shit, then I have zero time for them.
Straight people in America will NEVER give gay people their rights. Because they hate us and they couldn't give a fuck if we suffer.
So I think straight people can go fuck themselves. I have no time for them.
Quit playing stupid DTL. Many prominent Black churches and the overall black community is well known for their opposition to open homosexuality. They preach it from the pulpit and if you don't think they encourgae their members in voting you are fooling yourself. So it is in the Hispanic community; I live in a very heavily Mexican immigrant town and the "Yes on 8" signs were everywhere.
Butm you go right ahead and solely hate on the Mormons. They won't make you question identity politics because they're white.
Way to avoid my questions Sgt. Ted.
Which black church are you referring to? I know that Rev. Wright's church is in favor of gay marriage - good for him.
Yes - lots of blacks voted against gay marriage. So did lots of Hispanics. I hate them all and hope every single one of them dies a miserable death.
Happy now.
since 50% of marriages end in divorce and gay marriage will likely be the same as straight marriage, i think gay marriage is just a covert plan for future divorce lawyer income. Additionally there are usually more assets and money involved with gay marriages.
marriage is a legality. love is not. i have no idea why gays don't understand the privelege of just having that. Why you want to wrap up love in something that has a 50-50 chance of ending in bitter court battles with lawyers getting richer. the other legal battles in marriage:: death and fights with families :: what are the chances of battles of that? probably the same with or without legal documents.
The Mormons provided 70% of the funding - they are the most logical target.
It's time to start outing people again.
No, you moron DTL, I don't want anyone fired because of their preferences. Or how they vote. For anything.
I am just merely pointing out the double standard that gays like you now want to engage in. You have become what you despise and you can't admit it. You don't want equality; you want your hand on the whip so you can lord it over those who you think have oppressed you. You are a bigot to boot, with your "straight people suck" bullshit, so quit putting words in my mouth, Mr Bigot.
@sgt ted:
Since I was the first to use mob in the comments and then you used mob soon after I'm going to assume that you were speaking to me.
First, cool! A regular commenter at Althouse addressed me. That is pretty awesome. I must have said something worth addressing.
Second, I'm not saying in anyway that the result in this situation was ideal or even ok. I was hoping to go for a more meta-idea using this situation as a catalyst, but I'm not that great with philosophical discussions let alone mind bending ones.
Third, if you were not addressing me then nevermind.
You favor kicking gays out of the military.
Try again.
I have NEVER voted to remove anyone's rights. NEVER. Straight people have consistently voted to remove my rights. I'm allowed to hate them
Sorry - but YOUR hate has consequences. You hate gay people, and you vote in favor of laws that discriminate against gay people. We're allowed to hate your back.
Hate breeds hate.
But you are to blame.
And, DTL, you can't point to anywhere where Ive said I support DADT. Most of us in the service don't give a shit, as long as you do youur job. So, take it up with Obama and the Dem controlled Congress.
Why in the hell do they want to get married anyway? Stuck with the same old cooter day in and out? What is the fun in that? What's wrong with getting the milk without owning the cow?
A pal of mine got divorced from the crone he married and she took the house, the kids, the car and 3/4 of his bank account. He's sending like 20% of his pay every month to her for child support and she remarried some guy knocking down 6 figures and he's eating Mac and Cheese for dinner every night.
Screw that noise.
Also, I ddin't vote for Prop 8. I think gays should suffer along with us straights with divorce attorneys etc.
DTL is enagaged in an epic Strawhalla battle, destroying brigades on the field of wheat.
Downtownlad, in case it wasn't clear, doesn't speak for all gay people and is obviously putting on a performance for all of you. Any sane person here knows that.
I will be protesting on Saturday, at the courthouse in Long Beach, with my gay and straight friends. Thank you.
DTL grow up and take responsibility for your emotional state. Blaming others for your emotional reactions is very immature.
well, as a side note, i also don't believe in wills and testaments either. I don't have much money and plan on spending every last drop hoping that it doesn't run out before i die.
then my children will have nothing to fight about except their father's money. the recipes that i treasure, they can fotocopy, and their art pieces they all can take back as original owners.
To gays I say, life is a purer aesthetic experience without money and laws and legal battles.
Yes Zachary. Of course I'm putting on a performance.
I have lots of straight friends that I love who are fully supportive of my rights.
But I am fucking pissed off about Prop 8 and I am allowed to vent.
Most straight people think this is no big deal, and that gay people should just accept their fate as second-class citzens. How dare we get upset about this and make them uncomfortable?
Sorry - but I'm all for making straight people feel uncomfortable now.
Let's just pray that Sgt. Ted's kids turn out to be gay.
downtownlad said...But it doesn't make sense to protest against "blacks". Mormonism is different. The Mormon Church funded 70% of the dollars against this amendment.
It was VOTES not money that ultimately defeated gay marriage in California.
51% of White Americans and Asians in California rejected Prop 8.
70% of blacks supported it.
In California the black vote made a difference, the Mormon vote didn't.
It's a difference in VALUES not money. Or are you saying the gullible negroes got bamboozled by those slick Mormons?
Blacks who are against homosexual marriage don't need anybody to spend money to convince them to be against gay marriage. It's not one of the more complex issues. Even you average negro can figure it out.
Now if there is a predominantly black church that gave money for Prop 8, please point it out - I'm sure the gay community would be happy to protest it.
Again it's not money it's votes.
If you weren't a racially timid liberal wimp you would be able to admit that black folks don't like homos getting married any less than White Mormon Devils.
The only reason you and your hissy fitting liberal gay buddies wont admit that is fear.
isn't Ekerd getting precisely the same treatment as Gays in the military? "Don't ask, Don't tell".
He told...
Well, I don't think the two situatuions are parallel. I see the points, but I still don't think that the end justifies the means, which is the reverse mob rule that gays seem to be condoning. Because when its a gay guy being mobbed out of an opportunity, they are th first to squak about being left alone to live their lives as they see fit, yet they think that destroying the life of someone who donated to a legal political camapaign is just fine.
Because the question then becomes: do they want that visited upon them again?
I am bit shocked at this outrage about something that was voted in California, not the nation at large. Where was the national outrage when during a Democrat primary in 2004 Missouri passed its own constitutional amendment? Where is the outrage about the one in Florida which got approved on the same day as Prop 8? Where has been the national outrage on all other similar initiatives in more than 30 states?
Is it the celebrity factor?
The Mormons ...are the easiest target.
Zachary and DTL, try boycotting a predominantly black church. let me know the outcome. Try boycotting at a mosque.
What you are showing is that violence works. Mormons, take note.
jdeeripper - Lots of black people voted against Proposition 8. I don't know why you can't get that through your head.
It's racist for me to assume that a black person doesn't like gay people just because he's black.
I don't know someone is a Mormon unless they tell me. And if they tell me - I'd tell them that I think they're scum.
If a black person told me he voted for Proposition 8 - I'd have no problem telling them they're scum as well.
The outrage in California is that rights were REMOVED. We never had rights in Missouri.
There is a big difference.
"How about I write a law stripping you of your rights."
When merely calling your "thing" something different from my "thing" constitutes stripping you of your rights, I will gladly join you in a very well-founded hissy fit.
It is the mischaracterization of Prop. 8 as "rights stripping" that makes some of us roll our eyeballs at the hissy-fitters. I think you'll find a lot of Prop. 8 supporters will agree about when hissy fits are justified, too.
Even Gay Patriot thinks some adult supervision is needed out in California. The mark of being a grownup is knowing when to keep quiet when you get almost everything you want, and understanding that it is counterproductive to scream "murder" when what you don't get isn't substantively zero.
"Even Gay Patriot . . ."
Sorry - but there doesn't exist a bigger self-loathing faggot in the entire universe than Gay Patriot.
They were removed in ONE STATE, which is the one where ZPS lives, but not you. We can still get married in MA and CT which are not across the country. I am not saying it doesn't suck, I am just saying that the national proportions of this issue are overblown.
Also:
"Most gays and lesbians are content to be left to alone; many gays and lesbians go out of their way to ignore political threats and political activism and political activists. Only when gays and lesbians are attacked—only after the fact—do gays and lesbians take to the streets.
Most gay people grow up desperately trying to pass, to blend in; most of us flee to cities where we can live our lives in relative peace and security. We don't go looking for fights. And most gay people walk around without realizing that they've internalized the dynamics of high school hells some of us barely survived: it's better to pass, to stay out of sight, to avoid making waves, lest you attract negative attention, lest you get bashed.
But once you get bashed, once someone else throws the first punch, then you fight back—what other choice do you have?"
More here.
I'm disappointed that this post has stirred the pot, providing a forum for idiocy on both sides, without acknowledging that this is a time honored American tradition: people boycott things and people on both sides of an issue get slammed for taking a position the other side doesn't like. Shocking, I know.
The gays are also boycotting popular gay LA restaurant "El Coyote" because the owner donated $100 to Yes On 8.
"The outrage in California is that rights were REMOVED"
Every time Californians have voted on the subject they have not approved gay marriage. The appellate court "found" those rights and voters have now "corrected" the court with an amendment.
That's how our democracy works, folks.
I agree Sammy - let's put together an amendment that removes the rights of Mormons. How about we take away their right to vote?
Lots of people hate Mormons. I bet we can get that amendment to pass.
After all - it's democracy. And if the majority wants to remove the rights of Mormons to vote, I hope the Mormons don't get uppity and complain about it.
downtownlad said...
"The outrage in California is that rights were REMOVED. We never had rights in Missouri. There is a big difference."
Is there a difference between not having a stereo and having a stereo that was given to you taken away when it later turns out that it was illegally acquired by the grantor? Proponents of Proposition 8 claim an analogous situation: that any "right" that was taken away was fraudulently obtained, cut from whole cloth by the California Supreme Court. I have no idea if the California Constitution actually contains a right to marry a person of the same sex, but if it does not, I'd say that nothing that was legitimately posessed was taken away. To posess something to which you're not entitled is surely the close kin of not posessing it at all.
There is a gay guy that comes into the pub every Thursday. He doesn't admit it but we all know. He never hits on the hot bar wench and he's always wanting to change the tv channel to one of those cooking or home decorating shows.
I mean its frickin obvious.
Zachary and DTL, try boycotting a predominantly black church.
NO.
Like I said, I'll be at the courthouse in Long Beach on Saturday.
This isn't a hissy fit. This isn't freaking out and violence and hate speech. It's standing up for individual rights. Separate but equal is not equal.
The California vote makes it pretty obvious that MA and CT would remove the rights of gays to get married if it was put to a popular vote.
Straight people...
"In general", straight people don't like gays. At least straight people in America. And they will vote to deny gay people their rights forever. And by "forever", I mean as long as I'm alive. That's plainly obvious now.
So gay people can either accept their fate as second class citizens, or take action.
I took action. I left a bigoted country when it became plainly obvious that the majority hated gay people.
Titusistyetyeverytyetye said...
The theater director has every right to give and support whatever cause interests him.
The gay has every right to express their view on the theater director's action.
I didn't read anywhere that a gay asked him to be fired. They just expressed their disappointment in support of this proposition.
It is called freedom of speech.
Why cant the gay speak out?
He made the decision to resign. That was his decision.
Exactly. If he ain't strong enough to handle others not liking him, he should have done what he did-resign.
That is a weak, pathetic man.
sammy990099 said...
"Every time Californians have voted on the subject they have not approved gay marriage. The appellate court 'found' those rights and voters have now 'corrected' the court with an amendment."
For better or worse, they did more than that. An amendment that simply clarified that the state constitution doesn't say anything about the definition of marriage would have returned matters to the status quo ante; proposition 8 went further, writing the opposite definition into the constitution than that invented/discovered by the courts. A more modest amendment would have been durable and would have won more support. Instead, prop. 8 passed by a narrow margin and the clock is ticking on its shelf life.
downtownlad said...
"I agree Sammy - let's put together an amendment that removes the rights of Mormons. How about we take away their right to vote?"
Unless you can limit opposition to twelve states or fewer, I'd save your time.
Why are all guy hairdressers gay? So are all the guys on those home remodeling shows alongside hot babes. What is up with that?
Also, the idea that gays had no domestic partnership rights in California before teh CSC made their ruling, or that now gays have no legal rights to partnerships now that Prop 8 has passed is disinformation. About the only legal difference between gya and straights here is the word "marriage".
Zachary Paul Sire said...
"This isn't a hissy fit. This isn't freaking out and violence and hate speech. It's standing up for individual rights."
It's standing up to the people you don't feel threatened by and the people whose votes you don't need. A lot of blacks and muslims voted for this amendment (something like 70% of blacks, according to one exit poll I saw, although that's so high as to be unbelievable), but you're not protesting them. It's a hissy fit, and a cowardly one at that.
Zachary is much younger than me, and he still thinks he'll get his rights in his lifetime.
He probably will. He'll get his rights when he's 60.
I'll be dead.
dannyboy, please click here.
Thanks!
Don't feel too bad, Zack, I threw a hissy fit on election night, and the day after, too. That's okay, as my first comment on this post indicated. Get it out of your system - but get over it and move on in a reasonable amount of time. The fact is that you're on the wrong side of American popular opinion, and take it from me, when that happens, you're going to lose elections.
I know it's distasteful to you, but if you want to move your agenda forward, you're going to have to try persuading people instead of yelling "bigot" at anyone who disagrees.
jdeeripper said...
Even you average negro can figure it out.
Apparently you're too dumb to figure out blacks make up only 6% of the California population. Dipshit.
Why do we have to persuade people?
These are constitutional amendments. They're not going away. Even with a majority vote.
What's the point.
" A more modest amendment would have been durable and would have won more support. "
Perhaps voters wanted to be "clear".
But all is not lost. This sets up an "equal protection" case for the Supreme Court, yes?
LOL, EKC.
The outrage in California is that rights were REMOVED. We never had rights in Missouri.
The California court, as I recalled, took into account prevailing attitudes to determine gay people was a group that had the right to marry.
Isn't there a risk that gay people hounding people out of jobs, or making a religious institution an enemy, may cause future courts to reconsider prevailing attitudes?
Maybe next time there won't be a right granted to be taken away.
Think of states like Michigan and Ohio, that passed not only no-gay marriage, but no special union benefits at all.
Is that what you would rather have?
This is all a tactical error by proponents of gay marriage. People who are on the fence about being ready for this big change in our social structure are still afraid that gay people have an agenda (pushing marriage on churches and schools). The last thing the marriage rights crowd should be doing is proving they have an agenda.
Show love. Anger is the wrong face.
It's irrelevant what the Supreme Court does not.
It's quite obvious that any justice who overturns Prop 8 will face a recall election. And the Mormons will finance 70% of the recall, and the justice will be recalled.
California will not have gay marriage for another 35 years.
Sure you can married in Massachusetts, but that's not recognized by the Federal government or as soon as you drive over the border. So what's the point.
Like I said - I'll be dead by then. Which is why I gave up on the U.S.
Show love. Anger is the wrong face
Why?
I've already explained that I'm not going to see gay marriage in the U.S. in my lifetime. I'm allowed to be angry.
"It's quite obvious that any justice who overturns Prop 8 will face a recall election. "
Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President for life.
One thing that is being lost in this debate is the sad state of the American Theatre. Where are the thrilling gays of yesteryear like Tennessee Williams and Jerome Hart and Michael Bennet to provide us with scintillating dramas and toe tapping musicals? Let's pass a law so they can get married and end all this crap so they can get back to the important stuff like producing musicals that aren't based on Disney cartoons or old Mel Brooks’s movies.
I've already explained that I'm not going to see gay marriage in the U.S. in my lifetime. I'm allowed to be angry.
You asserted that. You didn't really explain that.
You can be angry. I'm saying anger is the wrong public face.
The countries that now allow gay marriage or gay unions haven't always. They were convinced to accept the change.
Marriage should be about love. People can relate to love and the desire for commitment and stability. Stomping on crosses and getting people fired isn't going to convince people (and they have to be convinced. There's no other choice now) that this is about wanting to legally share love.
i was talking about the California Supreme Court.
You can't possibly be serious about the U.S. Supreme Court. if so - that's rather amusing.
Trooper York - Go see Spring Awakening.
The last original musical I saw that was worth a shit was the “Drowsy Chaperone.”
There has not been anything decent other than revivals in the past two years.
I should add that you get to see 19 year-old naked titty in Spring Awakening - so the straight men should dig it.
sammy990099 said...
"But all is not lost. This sets up an 'equal protection' case for the Supreme Court, yes?"
Absolutely. DTL either disagrees or doesn't understand this, but it's utterly obvious to me that the Supreme Court - the federal one, not the California one - is going to strike down all these state constitutional amendments passed in the last few years as violating federal equal protection. There's a straight line (no pun intended) running through the Romer and Lawrence cases that points directly. And it will probably do so soon, to minimize the effects of the backlash on the 2012 election.
If you want to get rid of Proposition 8, find a plaintiff who is directly, personally and actually injured by Proposition 8 and build a federal equal protection case in such a way as to be amenable to summary judgment (that is, if at all possible, make sure that the facts are clear enough to avoid requiring discovery). Start writing your appellate brief now to compress the timeframe even further. It may already be too late - the case that strikes all these bans down may already have been filed. We'll have to see.
I don't care about convincing people. I'll be dead before this fight is resolved.
I don't give a shit anymore.
Sorry, I meant to say that Romer and Lawrence point directly to the result that a ban on gay marriage violates federal equal protection. I'm not saying that those cases are right, or that the case that strikes down the bans will be right, but it's going to happen, it will happen sooner rather than later, and it'll be a 5-4 decision written by Justice Kennedy.
"i was talking about the California Supreme Court."
An "equal protection" argument would obviously be before the US supreme court.
This has zero chance in the current Supreme Court. You need a resignation on the conservative side, and that ain't going to happen. Which means you need one of them to die.
I think its likely that all of the conservatives will outlive an Obama administration, even if its 8 years.
I saw Spring Awakening and didn't like it all that much. German drama is just too turgid for me. And masturbation should be done in the privacy of your own home between you and your computer screen. I am a standards kind of guy, more Rodgers and Hart and Jerome Kern than Rock and Roll and alternative pop in my musical theatre tastes.
These pastiches of rock songs like Movin' Out for Billy Joel and this new one with heavy metal songs are not much fun. The exception that proves the rule is of course "Jersey Boys" but I think that I loved that just because I grew up on Frankie Valli songs.
I thought only gays and Jews went to the theatre.
Lots of straight people love the theatre. My wife and I try to go to one show a month to support the theatre but the pickings have been abysmal lately.
When our granddaughter comes for Christmas we will have to find something to go to because she loves it so much. There is no better feeling than sitting in your seat as the overture starts and the curtain goes up and the show begins.
I just hope we don’t get stuck with the Little Mermaid.
A lot of blacks and muslims voted for this amendment...but you're not protesting them. It's a hissy fit, and a cowardly one at that.
Wrong. Don't tell me who I'm protesting against. You have no idea what I'm doing. For the third time, I'll be at the court on Saturday.
Hanging out in front of churches is pointless. Churches are lame.
sammy990099 said...
"An 'equal protection' argument would obviously be before the US supreme court."
Not necessarily - with certain exceptions, you can file a case resting on a federal claim in state court, appeal it up through the state court system, and from the State Supreme Court to the federal Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257. Indeed, our hostess has done some excellent work on showing why state courts are important vehicles for enforcement of federal rights, and I agree with her - indeed, go further: that as a matter of allocative efficiency, many cases that are filed in federal court should have gone to state courts, and, in my view, federal courts should be willing to actively push such cases into state court.
Still, in this case, you would want to litigate this in federal court because California judges are subject to election (something I strongly disappove of), would fear public reprisal, and might well be inclined to punt the question up the chain.
I know lots of straight people go to the theater. I just thought they were all Jewish.
Lots of working class people go on matinee showings. They bus them in from Long Island and Jersey and they fill the bars and restaurants in Time Square that I do the taxes for and are a big part of their business. With the economy the way it is, it is really going to be tough times for many shows. They have to watch their step and drop prices or do something or there will be a lot of dark stages after the holidays.
downtownlad said...
"This has zero chance in the current Supreme Court. You need a resignation on the conservative side, and that ain't going to happen. Which means you need one of them to die."
As I say, read Romer and Lawrence. You have four liberals and Anthony Kennedy, which is a five justice majority for gay marriage right now, with no retirements. I have no idea how you can think that Kennedy would come down in favor of these amendments - I can't think of a single case where he has as much as hinted that he wouldn't be receptive to such a challenge.
Kennedy will never vote for gay marriage, and you're on drugs if you really think that would happen.
In fact - I don't think any of the current justices would vote in favor of gay marriage except for Souter. And that's because Souter is gay.
The Irish bars I am talking about are filled with little old Irish and Italian ladies who bring their granddaughters to see a show. Plus if it's a great show like "Jersey Boys" everyone gets in on the act.
They need to reach out even more if they want to survive. It is a shame that they are becoming even more insular and elitist.
The shows that reach out to a new audience like "In the Heights" have a much better chance at survival. Just sayn'
I do have high hopes for the revival of "West Side Story" that will be on Broadway soon. That will be way cool.
Lawrence V. Texas states flat out that the states have a legitimate interest in upholding "traditional marriage".
In seminal case of Steve Lawrence vs. Eydie Gorme the Supreme Court ruled that no show on Broadway would survive with more that two or more sitcom stars in the leading roles. One is the maximum as any more would violate the due process penumbra found hovering over the constitution.
DTL, your persecution complex is, as usual, outrunning your grip on reality. Kennedy will vote to strike down these bans, and he'll do it for two reasons: because it fits his self-image, and becaise it is entirely within the compass of his jurisprudence (the term is applied loosely), most directly but not exclusively demonstrated by the cases cited above. So far, you have presented nothing except a bad actor's attempt at wronged innocence to support your contention that Kennedy won't do so. What's your best case for the theory that Kennedy will vote to uphold the ban?
As for the other four, the idea that they won't vote to strike down gay marriage is just whackadoodle. I don't know what planet you're living on if you really believe that four justices who voted to strike down a ban on partial-birth abortion won't vote to strike down a ban gay marriage when the latter commands far less popular support and is far less important.
dannyboy, please click here.
Thanks!
Hey that's a neat button.
Don't take it as a insult campadre I was just kidding. But hey, you have to admit, finding a straight male hairdresser is like finding talent on American Idol. I mean I'd switch careers considering how much tang they get fawning over them but people might talk.
downtownlad said...
"Lawrence V. Texas states flat out that the states have a legitimate interest in upholding 'traditional marriage'."
No it doesn't. The closest thing to that that you'll find in Lawrence is dicta in Justice O'Connor's concurrence noting that on the facts presented, Texas couldn't "assert any legitimate state interest ... such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage." 539 U.S. at 585. But O'Connor was joined by no other Justice and she is no longer on the court. The majority, meanwhile, sent quite the opposite message, approvingly citing the Casey abortion decision for the proposition that "that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage." 539 U.S. at 574.
Hey, this is great. Just in case you were wondering, the answer is now officially "yes, musical theater is something that only gay men are into."
You have to admit, this Eckern guy was a moron.
Publicly support an anti-gay measure when you work at a musical theater? Dude, that's like donating to the KKK when you work at the Apollo. A very bad career move. Even if you aren't driven out, a large portion of your co-workers will despise you.
Did he publicly support it?
Or did he donate money and someone went through the list of donations in order to identify and "out" the "bad" people and try to get them in trouble with their bosses and clients?
Is there any reason to think he didn't get along with his co-workers?
I once donated to PETA and lost my job at the sausage factory.
Oscar Meyer is very militant.
It's time for straight people to boycott the breeders. Fuck them all.
If you breed - you are the enemy
Nice way to talk about your mother.
Too bad she didn't heed these words. I have a feeling that we would all be better off if she hadn't made the decision to breed.
Say hello to the GayKK.
The problem here is that these folks have politicized the market.
I was uncomfortable with money made off my work being used to [support a cause with which I disagree]
So under this framework, we should only buy goods and services from those with whom we share political views: we should, then, issue lists of "appropriate" and "inappropriate" people with whom to do business.
We are, in effect, reducing people to nothing more than how they vote on a single issue. You're either For or Against, and that's all that matters.
What's missing is respect for common humanity. Dignity. Civic friendship. Toleration. Charity. &c.
Now I don't know if those on the other side escape from this charge, but it ought to concern us.
It's called fascism.
Really? Here on Earth it is called "freedom of association". If you don't like a person's politics, you can choose not to give that person your business. That's not fascistic in any sense of the word.
Whenever I get mad at liberals I always have a short dream that some republican will behave like this. But they never do.
Christian conservative groups periodically try to organize boycotts of Disney for allowing "gay days" at its theme parks. That's just one obvious example.
Of course a lot of gay guys were working at the sausage factory.
Thats why I would never eat a Jimmy Dean Breakfast sausage. Never.
There will be attrition with the "young people" who support gay marriage once they are old enough to be married and have kids. Even the most lefty find themselves saying things they never thought they would say once they hit over 30 and have those kids. Heck, my closest gay friend stopped supporting gay marriage w/ kids once he hit 35. He had looked at his own background, did the research, and decided that if he had kids it would have to be with a lesbian couple because "a developing child needs both gender's influence". (He's a scientist). Of course, a two couple family is an unrealistic model. It'll get there eventually, but at a slower rate then the "young people's attitudes" would indicate.
Transparency: I voted against Prop 8
There will be attrition with the "young people" who support gay marriage once they are old enough to be married and have kids. Even the most lefty find themselves saying things they never thought they would say once they hit over 30 and have those kids.
I have a lot of friends in their 30s who have kids. Two of them are against gay marriage. The other dozen or so are for it. So I'm skeptical about this trend.
Having kids doesn't turn you against gay marriage, because there isn't any rational reason for a parent to be against gay marriage. Recognizing it won't endanger your children, or make your family less secure, or cost you your job, or anything else. It won't have any effect on you, or your spouse, or your kids.
"it is called "freedom of association". If you don't like a person's politics, you can choose not to give that person your business"
Revenant, that's not what happened here and you know it.
They pressured the theater to make him resign because of his politcal views. It is in fact McCarthyism, which liberals seem to have as one of their top 10 evils. They even wrote books, made plays and filmed movies about it. Repeatedly, ad nauseum.
I think McCarthyism as it was described was fascist in practice, from the origin of the word meaning strength through numbers (cf the Latin word “fascis”). Fascism represents a shift away from the Enlightenment realist view to a Romantic view of nature and humanity.
Traditional marriage is realist/Enlightenment/conservative, SSM is Romantic/Rousseau/idealist.
" It won't have any effect on you, or your spouse, or your kids."
The fact that you cannot percieve a problem with expanding the definition is merely a deficit of imagination on your part.
On the other hand there were no lesbians working at the Fulton Fish Market.
You just can't stereotype people. That's bigotry.
Things That Come Between Us said...
"The problem here is that these folks have politicized the market. ... [U]nder this framework, we should only buy goods and services from those with whom we share political views: we should, then, issue lists of 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' people with whom to do business."
They did the same thing after the 2004 election. There was a short-lived campaign called "buy blue" or something similar; it ran aground on the realization that it was utterly impractical since companies that contributed to Bush are involved in every aspect of modern life.
I always wondered if lesbians wanted to get married if they needed a fishing license or licker license.
They pressured the theater to make him resign because of his politcal views.
They pressured the theater by threatening to withhold their patronage, and to encourage others to withhold their patronage, unless the theater fired the guy. See above, re: freedom of association.
It is in fact McCarthyism
Oh, please. Wake me when anti-gay-marriage theater directors are being forced to testify before Congress and getting thrown in jail if they misrepresent their political views there.
It won't have any effect on you, or your spouse, or your kids."
The fact that you cannot percieve a problem with expanding the definition is merely a deficit of imagination on your part.
I can imagine lots of things that aren't ever going to happen in reality. I can imagine a giant amoeba eating St. Louis, for example.
I can imagine a giant amoeba eating St. Louis, for example.
Me too!! Maybe if we all put our hands together to clap and believe real hard.....it will come true.
It's time for straight people to boycott the breeders. Fuck them all.
If you breed - you are the enemy.
Hmmm...I must not be au courant on my sexual slurs...I thought "breeders" were straight.
Anyway, I think gays overrate themselves. To the extent we think about you at all, most of us straights don't hate you, we just think you're kind of icky. I think that at least a mild revulsion and contempt for gays is part of human nature, and a few constitutional amendments one way or the other aren't going to change that. Welcome to the Facts of Life.
You know what would really bring us together? The thing that would motivate the most partisan to setting aside differences and working for a common cause?
A giant ameoba eating St. Lewis.
Bah... Louis.
Figures.
Only one of the girls on the "Facts of Life" was gay.
That would be Jo the "tomboy."
None of them have appeared on Broadway.
Although I think Tootie would be a hell of a Lady Macbeth.
Alas, it's true.
If we are, in fact, born that way... then the "ick" reaction is, you know, something genetic, biological, and innate.
I did enjoy Delta Burke playing a Chinese woman in "Thouroughly Modern Millie."
Of course I have a thing for Delta Burke so maybe that is a bad example.
I have a much bigger problem with the targeting of the Mormom Church than I have with the reaction against this guy's donation. The church didn't give a dime to support Prop 8. It just expressed its views and encouraged others to do so. It's perfectly legitimate to take a side in an adversarial political context. That's America. To stigmatize an entire church, and to bully people who want to worship there is a horrible role for alleged civil rights activists to take.
But this guy ran a musical theater company and didn't realize that most people involved in musical theater -- gay and straight -- would find such a donation offensive? That's like an executive at BET donating to the Klan and wondering why everyone's upset. Just from a business standpoint, it showed terrible judgment. Nobody says he shouldn't be able to donate to his favored cause, but if he takes a public act in favor of a viewpoint that he knew his business partners find abhorrent, he can't expect his business partners to just shrug their shoulders and move on. If you want to work in theater in the country, you're in a world of hurt if you don't think gays should have the same rights as you do. You don't have to be gay, but you're not going to last long if you're anti-gay.
I am a gay and I don't like musical theater.
It is just so gay.
The pomp and color and dance number and lame show tunes are for the most part awful.
I have two exceptions. I love West Side Story and Chicago...oh and Chorus Line.
Otherwise, the rest not so much.
I am gay fellow commenters please hug me, hold me, love me,
Also, as a gay I have never been to a gay pride parade or rally or anything gay.
Generally, I don't like being around other gays.
That is very common among gays.
Gays tend to be very competitive.
Bodies, jobs, lofts, rare clumbers, clothes, asses, dick sizes, how far we can cum.
For example I don't speak with any of the gays in my building and I know none of them speak together.
A friend of mine always says if you would turn off the music in a gay bar you would hear one big thut-you know that sound where you put your tongue up to the roof of your mouth to express disgust.
Another friend of mine says Chelsea is very glamorous and fabulous and beautiful on the outside but if you look inside it is very ugly.
Us gays need our not a unified bunch.
You got your gym bunnies, drag queens, leather queens, twinks, intellectual, small town, big city, trolls, fems, butch, fats, blacks, hispanics, and many other groups.
They all tend to stay with their own kind. Not wanting to ackowledge the other group.
Very sad. Let's all hug and look for some kind of resolution to the gay groups that are so fractured.
There will be attrition with the "young people" who support gay marriage once they are old enough to be married and have kids. Even the most lefty find themselves saying things they never thought they would say once they hit over 30 and have those kids.
That's absurd.
We all get more conservative as we age and take on families, but not on all issues. Not on civil rights. There aren't a lot of civil rights advocates who became racists later.
The progress of tolerance, acceptance and mainstreaming of gays throughout America would be unimaginable to a time traveler from even 20 years ago. When I was in high school, the most liberal kids made anti-gay cracks. My son graduated from the same high school last spring, and there were numerous openly gay kids. It's still a bold move; you're not going to see football players coming out. But the progress has been much more rapid than one could have predicted, and I don't think it's ever going to reverse.
garage mahal said...jdeeripper said...Even you average negro can figure it out.
Apparently you're too dumb to figure out blacks make up only 6% of the California population. Dipshit.
The bottom line is the vast majority of blacks in California don't want you homos to marry any less than the Mormons do.
Here are some numbers on Prop 8 and the Black Vote
A few people seem to be interested in whether or not the black vote was decisive.
If the following standard analysis assumptions are true the answer is probably a very close ‘no’, but at least one of the assumptions seems very possibly false and with other fairly likely assumptions the answer looks like a ‘yes’.
My assumptions are:
1. that the vote among black people was as reported (69% Yes on 8).
2. that black people make up 6.7% of the CA population
3. that black people represented a share of the votes equal to their share of the population
I further assume that 8 passes with 52% which seems the likely number at this point.
Given each 1000 voters, black people in CA represent 67 of them.
There are 520 Yes votes and 480 No votes for each 1000.
At 69%, Black voters voted 46 Yes and 21 No for each 1000.
If they voted like White voters (55% No) they would have voted 31 Yes votes and 36 No votes.
That would make the final tally 505 Yes and 495 No votes. (50.5% to 49.5%). [numbers very slightly rounded]
But this analysis is VERY sensitive to assumption #3. It appears that black people in CA may have voted in a greater share than that of their representation of the population. Right around 10% of the vote.
That would mean that given each 1000 voters black people in CA represent 100 of them.
At 69% Yes on 8 that would be 69 Yes and 31 No for each 1000. If they had voted like White voters they would have voted 45 Yes and 55 No. That would make the final vote equal 496 Yes and 504 No (proposition loses 49.6% to 50.4%).
Interestingly, at the 10% vote share level, if a small majority of black people voted against the measure it would have lost (49% Yes, 51% No gives the measure a loss at 49.9%).
Basically, if the black voter share is 10% or higher, the black vote difference from the white vote made the difference so long as the final total is at or below 52%. And if the black voter share is any higher than 10%, it made the difference even if black voters had only split 50-50 instead of the 45-55 shown in white voters.
In this day and age there are still gay parties in NYC that have a doormen who evaluates you to consider if you are good looking enough to get into the party.
How sad is that?
I always get in so it is not that sad but if I didn't get in it would be really sad.
Immature yes, appropriate definitely
I know that blacks voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage.
I think it is because of religion. Black like their God.
Also, many black men like to do the downlow.
There are downlow parties all over the city every weekend with blacks.
It is very hush hush but I am on the email distribution list.
A lot of them are thugs too. That is hot.
Blacks tend to like white pussy. It doesn't matter if it is male or female.
As I have said before blacks let me call them the n word when having sex.
That is an ok time for a white person to say the n word to a black person. About the only time as Chris Rock has told us.
"and I don't think it's ever going to reverse."
John, the assumption of liberal progress in the West is I believe a mistake. In Europe, as the white European demographic slips below replacemnt numbers and gives way to the Islamic immigrants, all that can and will be lost, and very quickly.
The 20th century some some nations go from modern societies to barbarians or the stone age in a flash.
It's a bit of hubris to make that claim, I think. it is in fact why I am a conservative. It is why, although I support gay rights in general, marriage is sacrosanct. its expansion to meaninglessness will be its demise, and its demise will be wholly deletirious to the West.
Civilization's veneer is thinner than most seem aware.
"...although I support gay rights in general, marriage is sacrosanct. its expansion to meaninglessness will be its demise, and its demise will be wholly deletirious to the West."
The "meaningless" part is happening anyway, not because of gays, but because wedding vows are now: "I agree to be married to you in health, richness, and better times... otherwise forget it."
I'm going to love you until my college degree is paid for.
I'm going to be faithful to you as long as you're a size 6 and your boobs don't sag.
I might stay for the kids, unless I'd rather not, since growing up in two households is no big deal anymore.
Oh, and this one is fabulous!
If I decide *I* don't like being married to you, I reserve the right to financially destroy you.
Another winner!
If I decide that *I* don't like being married to you, I get to leave with all my stuff, all your money, *and* the children.
In the end, love destroyed marriage.
It's not a life partnership. Not a foundational economic unit. Not anything that anyone trusts to build a future or generations on... because now it's just about feelings, and tomorrow you might wake up and realize that the hard work of life sort of sucks, working out compromises sucks, paying bills sucks, and you just aren't *happy* anymore.
Loving isn't how you treat someone, which you can do well even when you aren't in emotional transport... it's how you feel this morning and *this* morning... life sucks.
(I've gotten to be a spectator of divorces too often to have any sort of sympathy.)
Everyone gets to speak in this country.
And then they get to pay the consequences.
See: Dixie Chicks.
Synova, I'm afraid you're right.
Entirely right.
I tell myself every day, or nearly so, that love is a decision, and that promises are meaningful. I still harbor the notion that my little platoon might beget the rise of other such units.
but what the hell do I know.
I don't think we should despair, necessarily. There may be some generational back-lash from the kids shuffled between households.
Fifteen or so years ago it was unthinkable to voice any sort of concern over the lives of children in broken-homes, even if you included a disclaimer that there were certainly *some* situations a good parent *must* leave their spouse, because it might make some single mother *feel* bad.
But seriously... if I have to listen to another mother with a toddler in the house explain how her husband doesn't fulfill her *needs*... ugh! I don't think I'll be polite.
Sometimes people *should* be made to feel bad.
Synova,
Given that all donations over a certain amount are publicly listed, a donation to a campaign like that IS a public declaration of your beliefs.
Also, he might have gotten on with his co-workers before, but it's rather doubtful he would after this. Otherwise, why would he have quit?
The problem is that you have become exactly what you are trying to fight. (Henry, 8:07)
peter hoh said...
Let me know when Marc Shaiman announces that he doesn't want his plays performed in California until Prop 8 is repealed.
9:22 AM
WORD[S]!
Donations have to be reported, true enough.
But they are hardly public announcements and declarations. Someone has to actually go look at the list... and then they have to figure out... hey, that's *this* person... hey, this is where they *work*.
I mean... is his employer and occupation and everything listed with a donation?
Someone had to go dig that information up. That they *could* do so, doesn't make the donation "public declaration" any more than the fact that I *publicly* get "Guns and Gardens" magazine in the mail makes it a "public declaration" if someone pulls a copy of the magazine out of my trash.
(The magazine wasn't nearly as interesting as it sounded, unfortunately.)
A "public declaration" requires no "online activists" to make it... public.
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."
That's all prop 8 says. (That's pretty close to the dictionary definition of marriage, as well.) I wish all laws were this clear, though I see that this is being presented--well, look at this thread: Those who support this are like Nazis, Al Qaeda, Klansmen.
The implicit idea that "Marriage should be about love" as MayBee put it, or happiness, as others say, is precisely what's wrong.
Marriage is not a right, it's a responsibility. It used to apply to gay people as well, in that they had to marry a person of the opposite sex and have children. I wrote something similar to Synova back when the court first "discovered" the right to same-sex marriage.
This, of course, is all framed as "mean heterosexuals taking away our rights." But society has always been repressive, because society really doesn't care about you, your wonderful individualness or, God help us, your needs. Society's norms evolve as a survival mechanism. (Not always right and not even always good survival, mind you.)
Eventually, and not too long from now, this barrier will fall--the fact that this is an issue at all pretty much sounds the death knell (which Synova rightly points out was first sounded in the '70s, with no-fault divorce).
And just as certainly, there will be the negative fallout that the current proponents assure the timid masses won't happen. Just as it did with divorce, welfare mothers, etc. (That is, we got lots of divorce, some women had babies to get the welfare, etc.)
But I believe it was Synova who wrote earlier that, if there's a problem, the solution is to define marriage up. Eliminate the quickie divorce, require actual breeding, etc. Het couples should also do "civil unions" if they're not willing to pay the price of an actual marriage.
Until the hets are willing to do this, it is just arbitrary discrimination against the 'mos.
In Europe, as the white European demographic slips below replacemnt numbers and gives way to the Islamic immigrants, all that can and will be lost, and very quickly.
The 20th century some some nations go from modern societies to barbarians or the stone age in a flash.
Well, you're right about that. Berlin in the 20s was a lot more hospitable to different lifestyles than it was in the 30s.
I was just commenting on the idea that somehow, inevitably, as we get older and more conservative -- which I agree is what generally happens -- we don't take on all the conservative baggage, such as (alleged) intolerance. The conservatism that creeps up on us is the reality check on the efficacy and wisdom of demanding that government do what we should do for ourselves anyway. When I became a parent, suddenly the maxim "charity begins at home" jumped right off the framed sampler and came alive. That, and realizing good intentions don't count.
Marc Shaiman's greatest work is, of course, South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. He's one of the few celebrities to appear on "South Park" as himself--piano player and companion of Big Gay Al.
The boys have come down against, e.g., sexual reassignment surgery actually meaning you're not the sex you were born with (rather hilariously with the little Jewish kid getting racial reassignment surgery so he can play basketball, and one of the dad's having species reassignment surgery so he can be a dolphin). I wonder if they'll do something about marriage.
In 30 years the Mormon Church will be likened to George Wallace.
Every previous prediction about the imminent demise of the Mormon church has been wrong.
I wouldn't bet that Titus got it right this time.
But what you will find, I believe, is that the Mormon church will be a very strong proponet of letting people express contrary views without hating and attacking the speaker.
As Joseph Smith said, "If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,' I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves."
I don't think I'd ever require breeding, blake, but other than that I think you've got it.
And of course, my goal by not requiring breeding is so that when it comes to the human race, my genes win. :-)
I was just commenting on the idea that somehow, inevitably, as we get older and more conservative -- which I agree is what generally happens -- we don't take on all the conservative baggage, such as (alleged) intolerance.
The assumption there is that intolerance is primarily conservative baggage. It's not.
You put an "alleged" in there, but at what point does "alleged intolerance" become "clear-eyed assessment of the facts on the ground"?
Is there an objective reality, or is it intolerance (like Ann's reference to research being :sexist") to make observations that make others uncomfortable?
How far thinking of you, Synova!
I would never think of being open about any consevative tendencies in LA. And I voted against 8 - i'm on the libertarian side. And I'm a good fighter. Still wouldn't do it. What's the point in missing out on work?
Black people may be 6% of the population in CA, but I read they made up 10% of the electorate turnout .
re: my earlier comment about youthful attrition - I said it would slow the trend, not stop it. It'll get there eventually.
I wish all laws were this clear, though I see that this is being presented--well, look at this thread: Those who support this are like Nazis, Al Qaeda, Klansmen.
I don't understand your reasoning, blake. How does the clarity of the law have a bearing on how repugnant (or not) it is? Would the fact that a law stating "no member of the Jewish faith shall be permitted to vote in any state election" is clear and simple refute the accusation that it was Nazi-like? I don't see how.
I'm still stumped by the assertion that "Mormons have a long history of violence." I can only guess that the writer meant that Mormons have a long history of violent persecution being done against them.
I do think there is some hypocrisy in the Mormon churches approach to marriage, given their history with polygamy. However, in this case the Mormon church did not act with violence nor did they go to court and find judges who would invent the law, rather they worked within the structure of the law.
Given the response of gays to proposition 8, I believe were the vote held today, it would pass by an even larger margin. Rather than become angry, violent protesters, the best thing gays can do is to create stable relationships in neighborhoods across the country, befriend their heterosexual neighbors and show through their actions that they deserve the same privileges of marriage.
If a person enters a voting booth thinking of their gay friends and neighbors who are good, decent people, they will likely vote no against things like Proposition 8. On the other hand, if they are thinking of gay people stripping crosses from old ladies and shouting them down, of gays acting like a crazed mob, of them getting people fired and, frankly, of making asses of themselves with obscene parades, that person will have a much harder time wanting to vote against things like Proposition 8.
(The civil rights marches of the 60s may have helped pass legislation, but people simply getting to know blacks in regular life and watching the violence of the white governments in the South arguably did more for genuine civil rights.)
Every previous prediction about the imminent demise of the Mormon church has been wrong.
He isn't predicting the Mormon church will be destroyed. He's predicting that Mormons will be remembered as being among "the bad guys" during the gay marriage debate.
It is a relatively safe bet that a generation from now, the notion that discriminating against homosexuals was once considered acceptable behavior will be considered shocking. The open question is whether people will remember that the Mormons did it. That will probably depend on whether they stick to their current position or have another conveniently timed revelation. :)
"I'm still stumped by the assertion that "Mormons have a long history of violence."
Oh, but they do. It's a little known part of their history.
read on blood atonement" some.
Mikal Gilmore's Shot In The Heart, his memoir about Gary Gilmore, does a good job explaining that hidden history. He was a Mormon himself.
I also enjoyed Brooke Shields in "Wonderful Town" but then I have a thing for Brooke Shields so that doesn't count.
And Patti Lupone was remarkably sexy in the musical version of "Sweeny Todd" where they all played their own instruments.
I mean when she put that tuba between her legs...and started to blow..and the faces she made..well it was hot...you just have to trust me.
The stunt casting that really kicked it off was Reba in Annie Get Your Gun. That was a great show.
read on blood atonement some.
Blood atonement is a fake doctrine that opponents of Mormonism have polished, and pumped up, and pushed for years, and it is a complete canard.
No Mormon teaches it or believes it, and most don't even know what it supposedly is.
Brigham Younf did opine that persons that murdered were better off in the final judgment somehow, if they faced capital punishment for their murder. In that way, they give their own life to attempt to balance the injustice of having willfully taken someone else's life.
And from this tiny thread, Mormon haters construct a full scale secret society where anyone that crosses the Mormons gets off-ed.
So, if that is true, where are the bodies?
Because it seems to me that every prominent Mormon dissenter is heralded in the press and re-interviewed every time their dissention is needed to help attack Mormons.
Hee, hee I said stunt.
A whiff of stunt on a thread about gay marriage. Who'a thunk it.
"No Mormon teaches it or believes it"
Tell Mikal Gilmore then. I am open to the idea however that everything I've read about it is bullshit.
Seriously.
Post a Comment