Michelle Malkin has a chilling round-up of violent reactions and threats made by unhinged gay activists in California in the wake of Tuesday's Proposition 8 victory. Proposition 8 specified that "marriage" is solely the union of a man and a woman. Some incidents being reported:
- A San Diego man physically assaulted his elderly neighbors because of a Proposition 8 sign in their yard
- Commenters and bloggers on radical gay sites are threatening to disrupt weddings, physically assault or kill Prop 8 supporters, and burn down churches
- An Huffington Post contributor is leading yet another charge to strip the Mormons of their tax-exempt status
Let's put this in perspective, shall we?
Last year, Oklahoma state representative Sally Kern made a speech about the radical gay agenda. She compared the danger posed by radical gays to that posed by terrorists (the same comparison Rosie O'Donnell made concerning Christian fundamentalists). You can agree or disagree with what she said, but Rep. Kern simply made a speech. A speech. No threats, no intimidation, no physical violence. Yet she was creamed by liberal blogs, gay activists, and show business personalities for what she said.
Fast-forward to today, to the aftermath of Prop. 8. Think the mainstream press will make page one news out of it these unhinged threats? Think Ellen Degeneres will call Lawrence Pizzicara and demand to know why he attacked his neighbors? The only reaction we'll get from the liberal chattering class is the sound of crickets chirping.
Assault, arson, murder. I dunno ... it sure sounds like terrorism to me.
One more thing - if gay rights groups hate Christians and the institutionalized church so much, then why do they demand marriage, which is a religious sacrament performed by licensed clergy? Why would they want the church involved at all? If the whole "gay marriage" thing is nothing but an "equal protection under the law" issue, then why not promote secular civil unions, administered by the state and completely void of any religious affiliation? Wouldn't that make things simpler for everyone?
I believe that legalizing "gay marriage" will only pave the way for radical gay activists to begin to harass religious organizations with discrimination and equal protection lawsuits -- particularly churches that are clear in their refusal to perform gay wedding ceremonies. Is that what we really want? Let's give gays equal protection through civil unions, and leave "marriage" out of it.
ADDED: My blog friend LaShawn Barber, who is sickened by the "gay marriage=civil rights movement" argument of radical gay activists, notes that California already allows state-sanctioned domestic partnerships. Perhaps this is why Californians continually vote to keep marriage sacred -- a measure similar to Proposition 8 passed with 61% of the vote in 2000, only to be struck down by the California Supreme Court this year.
Also, blacks supported Proposition 8 by a 70% - 30% margin. What does that say about the "gay marriage=civil rights movement" argument?
Blacks haven't been spared in the vicious reaction to Prop 8:
It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. "YOU NIGGER," one man shouted at me. "If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger." Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.
I believe that gay activists should simply face the truth: "Thus far, 30 states have outlawed homosexual "marriages" by an average close to 70% approval by voters through amendments to the state constitutions." There is clearly an opposition among the general public to gay marriages. Not domestic partnerships or civil unions for gays, but gay marriage.
Gay activists can attack religious groups until they are blue in the face, but the election results clearly indicate that the opposition to gay marriage goes way beyond hard-core fundamentalist Christians, and deep into the mainstream of America. They can falsely accuse the Christian Coalition and other groups of staging hate or fear campaigns, but the truth is that such tactics (were they employed) could never consistently deliver two-and-a-half to one opposition to gay marriage, if people really believed in their hearts that it was a civil right necessary for a free and prosperous nation. Hatemongers like Fred Phelps are not the driving force behind the opposition to gay marriage.
Unfortunately, gay rights activists are even less capable of swaying popular opinion in their favor than the Religious Right. Gay activists have been, for the most part, obnoxious, intimidating, vulgar, and violent, and they have delighted in scandalizing and deliberately offending their opponents. This makes many people (including myself) continually fearful of what their next move is going to be.
Perhaps the gay community should start by firing the current group of malcontents and agitators currently leading its protests, publishing its newspapers and magazines, and writing its blogs. Find people instead who are willing to have conversations. Dialog is the key here, not shouting obscenities through a bullhorn or engaging in crude stereotyping and name-calling. The sincerity and civility that gay activists use to address and motivate their own people should carry over to their conversations with community and religious leaders. In other words, don't become like Fred Phelps in order to stop Fred Phelps.
Or maybe the gay community could involve its people in a series of smaller, proactive projects that create a more direct and positive impact in local neighborhoods. For example, sponsoring a food or clothing drive during the holidays for needy families will garner much more support than marching through the streets wearing leather and chains and yelling into bullhorns. It's all about winning people's trust, rather than bullying or frightening them.