Oh NO’s!! Christians are under assault!! Quick! Pull the wagons into a circle - and for God’s sake, don’t let any of them touch you, lest The Gay rub off & infect the Holy Spirit!! Gaaaaaaaaaah!!

Silencing Christians. Pfffft! Just TRY and get them to shut up for five minutes!

It’s “The Gay Agenda” all over again.

it’s slated to run in Grand Rapids, MI today

And once again my home turf of West Michigan makes the news . . . sigh.

The AFA is a powerful influence in Michigan, especially West Michigan.  When I was a teenager (in nearby Holland, Mich.) they campaigned heavily for internet filters on our local public library; thankfully we had a great core of librarians and local citizens who were able to push back.  It’s so frustrating to be reminded they’re still around pushing their wingnut version of the world!

homosexualists?  Collectors of homosexuals?

My current read is “Waking Giant” about the USA in Jacksonian times.  Despite the beginnings of Victorian prudity and the mania of Protestant revivals, etc.  No one seemed to pay any attention to homosexuality.  Indeed, the author can find no reference to the word prior to 1892 and states baldly that it’s use was rare before 1920.

The burning ember Christians of the day seemed to pay almost no attention to it and if they did it was with a bit of amused patronizing.  It wasn’t unusual for men to sleep in the same bed in those days especially in Inns and the like.

This anti-gay phobia is a modern invention rather like the “War on Drugs” etc.

When I was a teenager (in nearby Holland, Mich.)

Dutch Calvinists…RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

Sigh. They are like the people of Krikkit - you can fight all day long, but in the end (it feels like) they win because they are so freaking obsessed with the topic and the rest of us just want to live our lives in peace.

“I care about a lot of things. Life. The universe. Everything, really. Fjords.”

“Would you die for them?”

“Fjords? No.”

Dutch Calvinists…RUN AWAY!

I’m certainly not denying that!  But in the interest of accuracy, even though West Michigan is a conservative (religiously, culturally and politically) stronghold in terms of who has power, population-wise it’s pretty diverse.  And there are some (surprising?) pockets of liberalism.  Twelve miles south of Holland, for example, the Saugatuck/Douglas area is a popular summer vacation spot for gay and lesbian families from all over (Dan Savage wrote about his own family’s vacation there in his book The Commitment). So all is not lost!

Should homosexuals be given the same special rights extended to African-Americans and other minorities? Yes No Undecided

Whoa, Nellie.  Talk about your Freudian slip.  Am I reading this sentence wrong?

Aw, I was gonna go over there and fill out their survey, but they wanted my email address. It’s bad enough that I get constant spam about colon blow and Dr. Porkenheimer’s Boner Juice, I do NOT need that kind garbage in my in-box.

Should homosexuals be given the same special rights extended to African-Americans and other minorities? Yes No Undecided
Whoa, Nellie.  Talk about your Freudian slip.  Am I reading this sentence wrong?

Nope, Todd.  Those uppity Negroes and womenfolk need to get back to the back of the bus, back to the kitchen and stop voting with those “special rights”.

I feel your pain annajcook.  I’m from Norton Shores (my brother-in-law is from Jenison *SHUDDER*).  Sometimes you feel like the whole world has gone nuts.  Thank god you have the internet to remind you that there are intelligent people beyond the confines of west Michigan.

I just want off their mailing list.  I can’t get them to quit e-mailing me.  They send me pleas for donation thru the USPS, too.  I’ve called, written, e-mailed…  My next plot to is just go there.  I mean, it’s an afternoon’s drive.

Burning Prairie
There is a cool service called meltmail where you can create a temporary email that dissolves after a set amount of time. Any replies during that time is forwarded to the email you use. You can do the survey and not worry that you’ll get spammed.

This cracked me up -

Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof.

Surely this describes Christian proselytising to a tee.

Radical homosexualists are interfering with the Christians’ God-given right to shit all over people. They must be stopped!

annajcook….I was just reacting because I know that Holland is similar to where my family came from in NW Iowa (Holland can’t be that different than Orange City, where the main bank is built to look like a Dutch Windmill.)  Those are the folks I come from, and they scare the shit out of me.  I’m convinced that the cool Dutch folks stayed in the Netherlands.  The nasty ones emigrated and started apartheid and became far right American Republicans.

homosexualists?  Collectors of homosexuals?

Studiers of homosexuals.  Any guy who was interested in what was happening at the start of “Two Girls, One Cup”, or any girl who still had a thing for Heath Ledger or Jake Gyllenhaal after “Brokeback Mountain” for example.

Would you support a boycott of a major U.S. corporation that contributes money to support homosexual activist organizations? Yes No Undecided

Annnnnnd there it is. Watch this one coming up again.

Piator,

You’ve been “concerned” every time people have mentioned boycotting the Prop 8 businesses and you keep pronouncing backlashes. You seem to be pointing out that, ohmigod, the fundies have learned about the boycotts and they are doing them now themselves.

What you don’t seem to understand, probably because you aren’t immersed in American fundie culture, is that the fact of the matter is the other way around - the gay rights activists are taking notes from the fundies.

Seriously. Fundies have been boycotting gay friendly organizations for YEARS. When I was a child, years ago, my church was “boycotting” Disney (not that we watched movies - sinful!) for being pro-gay because, IIRC, the fact that the protagonists’ parents were always single/widowed/widowered meant that, I don’t know, they might be lesbians or something. The point was, it was against traditional marriage. And Pocahontas wasn’t a Christian. Stars and garters!!

You need to understand something that you’ve failed to “get” for weeks now:

There’s nothing wrong with boycotts. There’s nothing evil, immoral, or slimy about them. I “boycott” Walmart for reasons that are legion. I “boycott” Dominoes because they are hostile to civil rights. I “boycott” Subway because their prices are too damned high. I “boycott” Mardel because the overt Christian symbology on every wall plus teh purple wall paint scares the hell out of me. If any of those business change their policies that cause my boycott, my boycott will end. They don’t have a god-given right to my business.

Should children in public schools be taught homosexuality is normal, acceptable, and equal to the traditional marriage of a man and a woman?

Well no, of course not! What a silly question. Being gay /= being married. Getting married doesn’t turn straight people gay. If it did, these morons would oppose it, wouldn’t they?

Seriously. Fundies have been boycotting gay friendly organizations for YEARS

Pepsi. Ford. Disney.

I never understood how these nuts rationalized the fear that existence of gay people will somehow dissolve the “family unit”.  How can two people who love each other any other family?

I “boycott” Dominoes because they are hostile to civil rights.

Are they?  Shoot.  They’re one of only two pizza delivery places that will come out to my house in the boonies.

I can haz Papa John’s?

Elmo,

Actually, I believe it was the former owner of Dominoes that was anti-gay rights and I think he’s moved on to another job now. Someone else will correct me if I’m wrong.

I don’t, currently, boycott Dominoes except in the sense that Little Casear’s is cheaper and I don’t taste a difference, so cheaper it is. I was using it as an example and hoped no one would notice.

I expect someone else can clear up the “Is Dominoes still on the boycott list?” question?

I “boycott” Dominoes because they are hostile to civil rights.

Certainly, Tom Monaghan is a crarzed wingnut, who rickly deserves boycotting (both for his politics, and for ruining the Detroit Tigers).  But he sold his interest in Dominos back in ‘98 . . .

Ah, and Rea brings us facts. Thank you, Rea, I wasn’t too sure about the timeline there. So, as I said to Piator:

If any of those business change their policies that cause my boycott, my boycott will end.

Elmo and I can go back to supporting Dominoes in good conscience.

Oh good, thanks Rea and Essie.  Dominoes is crap, but when the choice is between “crap I have to make myself after I clean the kitchen” and “crap somebody will bring to my door in exchange for $20,” the $20 is sometimes (especially right after payday) a smaller deal than the cleaning.

Urban Outfitters is on my list. Have been since the “Ghetto-opoly game.”  But, I’m sure that not spending money at an outfit that sells racist shit and has a right-wing owner is somehow bad on my part.

“send me pleas for donation thru the USPS, too. “

Just use that as the perfect oppurtunity to send them a donation of large dog poop, Chick tracks altered into anti-fundie tracts, those irriating pamphlets the fundies leave for waiters in place of a tip.

They will soon stop sending you stuff.

PIATOR, this is getting tiresome.  Every time Prop H8 and the related boycotts come up, you show up to shake your finger at us hotheaded Yanks for using tactics that actually have some effect for once.  The next time you feel the need to do so, please read this.  If you still feel the need, please read it again. 

I don’t know if New Zealand has ever had a civil rights movement (I think I asked you, but I don’t know if I ever saw your answer), or what it looked like, but the U.S. has been here before.  Every time, it has gotten ugly (hell, by the standards of U.S. Civil Rights movements, this one is almost mannerly - no organized Mormon militias burning down the Castro in retaliation for the protests and boycotts, for example), and every time, people who claim to be on the side of the oppressed advise them to take it easy, to use less inflammatory tactics.  That link leads to the only answer that needs be made to that.

The thing that I do not understand about Piator’s concern trolling over the Prop 8 boycotts is that he simply has not suggested what the alternative should be.

There are two grocery stores in my area. (Actually, in likelihood, there are over a dozen grocery stores in my area, but stick with me here.) Store A donated 10% of its income to a cause I find abhorrent - killing kittens, denying homosexuals basic civil rights, Yanni albums, whatever. Store B did not. I used to shop at Store A, either exclusively or occasionally, it doesn’t matter.

Now that I’ve happened upon this bit of knowledge, what should I do?

In Piator’s world, I’m supposed to just carry on as I had before. In my world, I slightly adjust my buying schedule and choices to give my money to the non-offensive Store B, rather than the Store A. I also alert Store A to the reason behind my choice, in the form of a strongly worded letter, so that they can CHOOSE to earn my money again, if they feel that it is worth the trade-off. If they don’t, no skin off my back.

Where is the evil in this, Piator?

Also, what Essie said about you not understanding US fundie culture.

1) As people keep pointing out to you, fundies use boycotts (and letter-writing campaigns and assorted other forms of public pressure) all the time.  Sometimes it even works.  For us to refuse to do so would be to bring a knife to a gun fight.  Especially because it’s a perfectly legitimate tactic.  The Christian Right in this country is evil, but not every tool they use is evil just because they use it.

2) As people have also pointed out to you before, many of those boycotts have been against companies that merely aren’t hostile to homosexuals.  Advertising campaign in a gay magazine that features a gay couple?  Boycott!  Once again, this isn’t an idea that we gave them.  At least we’re focused on organizations that actively worked against gay rights.

3) Fundies crying persecution to rally the troops is nothing new.  Even in the darkest days of the Bush administration, when they controlled at least 2 of the branches of government, they claimed to be a persecuted minority (persecuted by gays and atheists of course - their power must be broken!).  Now they have a new banner to wave.  Big whoop. 

Does that context change anything?

The Christian Right in this country is evil, but not every tool they use is evil just because they use it.

You know, I hear that Hitler was in favor of children.

Oh yes. I went there. I Godwined your thread.

“I “boycott” Dominoes because they are hostile to civil rights.”

Isn’t the founder/owner/wev of Dominoes the guy who is trying to set up the Catholics-only town in Florida.  Where abortion is illegal, woman arent allowed out of the house and gays hastily removed?

Isn’t that him?

Oh damn ... they are claiming to be silenced, bitching about nothing actually.

I was hoping it was a “how to”.

MAJeff: annajcook….I was just reacting because I know that Holland is similar to where my family came from in NW Iowa

Oh, yes. West Michigan and Iowa are definitely the two stronghold of Dutch Reformed traditions in this country, and you’re about right with the windmills .  For two weeks every spring we celebrate Tulip Time . . . so yes.  I’m totally with you on the reflexive reaction.  I try to remember as much for myself as for other people that the actual on-the-ground politics are more mixed (and changing every day).

What’s with the asterisk in front of “The TV Special will reveal the truth about:”? That’s a heading, not an item.

For two weeks every spring we celebrate Tulip Time . . . so yes.

With street sweepers and everything?  I got my delft and wooden shoes, and even some cloggy slippers

I don’t know if New Zealand has ever had a civil rights movement…

I suspect that, culturally speaking, Piator just a bit isolated when it comes to what a boycott “means.” Perhaps for New Zealander’s, it’s one of the most hostile acts one can engage in against one’s community, while in the US, it’s taken as a normal act of “taking my business elsewhere.” Maybe Kiwis feel that patronizing businesses is an act of strengthening one’s community, while we view it as a choice of whether we want to sent our money in a certain direction or not.

How are they being silenced when THEY WON’T SHUT UP?!11!

Honestly.  You aren’t being silenced if you’re still sending out press releases.

but they know this. 

——
Stupid boycott story.  I won’t use “Baby Magic”.  Back when I was a little girl, back in the days of “Land of the Lost” and the original “Battlestar” they ran an ad campaign of “Before you touched him [your newborn], Baby Magic touched him”.

The idea was that hospitals used their products more than Johnson’s and Johnson’s.  And they showed some simpering new mom in the hospital being lectured by some nurse about the benefits of Baby Magic.

All I could think was: “that baby’s been INSIDE her for 9 months—wasn’t that touching?  And no body better goop that crap all over my baby before I’m *allowed* to hold him!”  It upset me so much I told my mom, who told me I never needed to purchase their products.

Lesson learned, first boycott begun.

Is it silly that a 35 y/o PR campaign affects which shampoos/bath soaps I buy for my kids?  Maybe.  But it was an awful ad, and they ran it for years and years.

So how much more appropriate is it when a corporation supports stripping the rights of the LGBT community?  They are doing active harm not only to my fellow citizens, but to my country by redefining “equal”.  Fuck ‘em. 

They are entitled to support whatever causes they desire, but they are not entitled to anyone’s money, ad especially not to the money of the people hurt by their causes.

My answers to the survey questions:

No (The Bible, contrary to wingnut belief, never mentions homosexuality. This is hardly surprising, considering that the word itself wasn’t coined until a couple of thousand years after the Bible hit its final form.)

No. (There is no reliable evidence to suggest that anyone can change his/her sexual orientation.)

Yes. (All other things being equal, gay folk should be able to adopt children.)

Yes. (All gay rights are “special,” that’s just who we are. But seriously, rights are rights, and everybody should have them.)

Undecided. (Yes, it does seem like imposing harsher penalties on people for hate-motivated crimes is a good idea. Except when I start thinking about the ramifications. I’m still on the fence on this one.)

No. (What’s more, no one is asking or planning to force religious organizations to hire gay folk. I do think, however, that, having hired one, they shouldn’t get to fire him/her just on that basis.)

No. (But I’d likely give money, assuming I had any, to a “U.S. corporation that contributes money to support homosexual activist organizations.”)

No. (But neither should judges who think that any rights extended to homosexuals are ipso facto “special” rights. Ditto for judges who think that homos have no rights whatsoever. Judges who believe in ensuring basic civil rights and equality before the law for all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation or other irrelevant characteristics, on the other hand, are just fabulous.)

No. (And again, nobody’s asking them to. But I do think that, having hired a gay employee, the employer ought to have to provide that employee’s partner with whatever benefits they provide to the spouses and/or dependents of their married heterosexual employees.)

No. (First, there isn’t any such thing as a “homosexual agenda.” Second, the secular media still seem to think that teh queerz are just too icky to put on the teevee in anything like a realistic fashion.)

Not just no, but fuck no. (Because it would be amending the Constitution to enshrine discrimination, instead of to remove it.)

Yes that homosexuality is normal and acceptable (if that’s the way you swing), no that it’s equal to “traditional marriage,” since, as someone else already pointed out, sexual orientation is nothing like marriage.

Not as long as they’re not breaking the law by doing so (i.e., speaking someplace without a permit, trespassing on private property, violating whatever time/place/manner restrictions apply). But given that nobody is even trying to do this, it’s a stupid loaded question.

There’s nothing wrong with boycotts. There’s nothing evil, immoral, or slimy about them.

Gee, Essie, perhaps there’s something you (and the rest of the peanut brigade) need to understand.

I didn’t say boycotts were evil, immoral or slimy.  Feel free to point out where I did so.

I’ve mainly used one adjective to describe them. Starts with a ‘d”.  Can you recall what it is?

As people keep pointing out to you, fundies use boycotts (and letter-writing campaigns and assorted other forms of public pressure) all the time.

Indeed.  As I have mentioned, using the same tactic plays into their narrative of a culture war.

From dictionary.com - “Boycott” - to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: to boycott a store.

The key differences between that and Jeff’s characterisation of him “taking his business” elsewhere is that a boycott is an organised campaign designed to produce political pressure.  It is a political tactic.  It is a legitimate political tactic.

Pace Essie and her inability to read, it is not evil, immoral or slimy per se.

IMHO, it is, however, dangerous to use this as a tactic in this context, precisely because it fits so well into the opposition’s narrative.  They would love to paint the fight for gay civil rights as a culture war, with intimidations and threats by gay activists against god-fearing normal Americans.  It is what they want.

If you don’t want to shop at a place that supported Prop 8, fine.  Organising to do so en masse, with the objective of making a political point (which is the definition of a boycott) is a bit further than that.

As regards alternatives, have you considered contacting the retailers involved with a “please explain” letter and an opportunity to talk in public, and if they fail to provide any reasonable explanation (and I can’t really see what any such explanation might be), using a “more in sorrow” response to state that as an individual you canot shop with them?

At the very least, it defuses the opposition’s narrative power to some extent.  At best, it offers a chance to establish a new narrative where those fighting for gay rights are the side of conciliation and reasonableness, while the crazies are the pro-Prop 8 crowd.

Or, you know, you can always continue to act out of your anger and allow them to dictate how the situation will be framed.  I’m sure that the “EvilHomosexualHatemongers vs ordinary Christian Americans” will work out well for you.

FOAD, PiatoR

Piator:

A culture war is already in progress.  It’s simply a question of whether the theocrats or civil libertarians win. 

Your protests in this one remind me of a lot of the top-down Russian radio traffic on June 22, 1941: a sea of exhortations not to provoke the Germans, not to give them any excuses… a chorus of denial of aggressive reality.

The simple fact is a boycott is a legitimate means of political action; you concede so yourself.  Your extensive posts all basically boil down to this: refusing to use a legitimate political tool in the face of aggressive,  organized anti-civil-liberty activities because the theocrats can frame it in a negative way.  They’ll do that anyway, about anything and anybody who gets in their way of getting whatever they want, whenever they want, so who gives a damn?  Fight back, win, and let the whiny ayatollah wannabes cry in their milk.

One last point: what’s to stop the progressives and civil libertarians from doing some pretty heavy framing of their own?  Rhetorical question.  I know the answers: the timidity of the left and the honest about fighting back and the CMSM acceptance of the right’s memes.  Those, however, are hurdles, not insurmountable barriers.  It’s interesting to note that the one mainstream Dem with the stones to seize control of his own message and force the media to adapt to it in the face of “more knowledgeable” people counselling otherwise is now (gasp!) POTUS’ so maybe, just maybe, there’s something to be said for being less worried about the other side’s frames and more interested in defining and spreading your own. 

Remember Grant’s advice to the demoralized staff of the Army of the Potomac when he took over as General in Chief?  Stop worrying about what Lee is going to do to you and start planning about what you are going to do to him.

Michael, hate crime laws provide a sentencing enhancement for already-existing crimes. There are two major reasons for their enactment: One, for a very, very long time local law enforcement often failed to investigate and/or prosecute crimes against minorities of whatever sort. Federal hate crime and civil rights laws gave victims a way to find justice somehow when they were not receiving it at home. Two, because hate-motivated crime is not intended to harm a single individual, but also to intimidate (terrorize may not be too strong a word) other members of the hated group. The enhanced penalties reflect this intent.

If you’re on the fence because you feel that hate crimes laws criminalize speech, don’t worry; the laws in the United States specifically do not. If you’re worried that it puts courts and juries in the position of reading minds, you may want to look up the legal concept of mens rea.

Wow, PIATOR.  That’s amazing.  You couldn’t have been a better example of what MLK was talking about (as updated for the LGBT civil rights movement, of course) if you’d tried. 

Let me describe how this went down in MLK’s day:

African Americans demanded truly equal rights, and they were Not.  Polite.  About It.  There were boycotts, marches, sit-ins, court cases…the list goes on. 

The businesses they were protesting were in a difficult position.  Regardless of their feelings (sympathetic or hostile), they ran the very real risk of losing their white customers if they catered to blacks.  In the end they had to choose, and who knows how many went out of business.

Civil rights opponents considered the civil rights movement to be an attack on their way of life (which it was), their rights (their privilege), their racial survival, and even their daughters (for surely putting the Flower of White Womanhood in school seats beside those animalistic buck n**gers would result in an epidemic of desktop rapes the very first day!).

In the midst of this come the moderate whites, saying…well, saying what MLK described.  And they were worse than useless.  They were dead weight.  The leaders of the civil rights movement knew that there was no nice way to do this - anything short of returning to a state of uncomplaining submission (preferably with safeguards in place so they would never get that uppity again) would be perceived by the civil rights opponents (and anyone they could convince) as an attack, even the weak half-measures and “waiting” recommended by the Moderate Whites.  They wisely decided not to let their enemies dictate what tactics they were allowed to use. 

In the end - not that it has ended, of course - legal change preceded social change.  Segregation is seen as an evil thing now because public places were integrated by law, no disaster resulted, and the majority in this country now realize that a minority had been deprived of their rights for no reason.  If the civil rights leaders of MLK’s day had done as the Moderate Whites wanted, we might have ended apartheid at about the same time as South Africa, and anti-miscegenation laws might still be on the books.

Do you see the parallel I’m drawing here?

PiatoR, the fact is that there was a concerted effort by the Prop 8 forces to get funds from the folks who donated to the anti-Prop 8 side of things implying a boycott if they didn’t get their way, as was covered on this very blog:

At least one businessman who donated to “No on 8,” Jim Abbott of Abbott & Associates, a real estate firm in San Diego, received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company’s name if he didn’t also donate to the “Yes on 8” campaign.

We have a saying in America, “Turnabout is fair play.”

PiatoR would probably tell this human rights activist to tone it down because of backlash from opponents, if he could travel in time:

I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.

Don’t give me that bullshit that The Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Wating to have gay sex with adult male angels (who would presumably have means to defend themselves) was so evil that it was better that one offer up ones minor daughters as a substitute. Leviticus clearly declares homosexual acts as an abomination and Paul speaks of the unatural lusts of men for men and women for women.

Get with the program. The fundies are right about the Bible, you’ve got to give them credit for getting at least that right. God Hates Fags. But the good news is that this kind of god is not real. Probably no gods are real. Leave your self-decievig gay friendly church and join the real fight.

The god of the Bible hates sex. He recommends an attack on the penis in the form of circumcision and labels women unclean 13 days after the start of their period. Dont give me this BS about how this maximizes fertiity, which might have been important in a desert society. Science has sohwn that screwing on the day of ovulation is less effective than a good male cum two or three days before ovulation, especially when the guy has fresh sperm because he came a day or two befoire that. So if PIV sex is all we got, holmes better be breaking the 13 day rule and gettin some on days 9 and 11 or 10 and 12 to maximize the chance of pregnancy.

But to hell with that. God does not only hate fags, He hates sex. He orders penis raping, he cloisters somen as unclean. We will never be free until the myths of the Bible and Koran are no more believed as true . We must stomp these faiths out of esistance, Judaism included. Their myths must become no more seriously believed than the works of Homer.

I think the Iliad is more plausible than the Bible. What miracles are in it? Zeus could reseurrect people but decliened to do so because the other gods would do the same if he did. Hera dosed Zeus Zeus with a magic potion so that he would fuck her 24 hours straight on Mt Ida so that the other gods could work their mischief unimpeded. Apollo used ths interval to use a magic spear to blast the armor off of Patroclus so Hector could kill him. Zeus recovered from his 24hr sex session and sent Athena to give Achilles a scary scary shield of snakes and a super scary sonic attack power so that the Trojans would not completely overrun the Acheans. Hephaestus with the help of his robots made new armor for Achilles so he could fight Hector.

That Greek shit is way more plausible than Exodus or the Gospels, and it is part of Western heritage, yet few believe it today. Why do we accept this implausible alien god who clearly hates everything we are?

Shortly after moving to Michigan, I visited the Lake Michigan shore and discovered a little town called Saugatuck where I spent the balance of the weekend. During our morning coffee hour, several coworkers asked how I enjoyed Lake Michigan. When I told them I had a great time in the little town of Saugatuck you’d think I had farted in church - the silence was deafening. One well-meaning soul took me aside later and explained that Saugatuck is plagued with homos and lesbians shopping for expensive cheeses and scented candles. I half expected him to tell me that God-fearing christians avoid town after dark when the homosexual incubi freely roam the overpriced B&Bs;infecting sleeping guests with insatiable addictions to flavored whole-bean coffee and biscotti

Or, you know, you can always continue to act out of your anger and allow them to dictate how the situation will be framed.

Like the way you try to dictate the use of boycotts.

Shut up, Piotr.  You’re just wrong on this one.  It may be a cultural difference,  but there’s no reason to toss a perfectly useful tool out b/c the fundies might use it in their framing.

If we don’t use it, they’ll just find some other way to use framing against us.  They are hypocrites and liars and the time for us to coddle them and hope they see the light is long over.

Progressives need spines.  Humans are endowed with rights by birth, but our fellow humans are glad to strip away.  We can’t shy away from using an effective tactic b/c we fear how our opponents will frame it.  We have to be ready with a rebuttal and riposte.

I’m sick of cowardly, scaredy-cat Americans.  We’ve let so many freedoms slip away b/c we’d rather be “safe” than free.  Fuck it.  I want freedom.  I want equality.  I will fight for them.  I will use any method I deem necessary.

No matter what method I use, the asshole fundies will claim that by insisting on my rights, I’m infringing on theirs.  If I don’t practice Fundie Christianism, then I’m discriminating against them.  They’re wrong, and they need to have that fact shoved up their asses and then sued the fuck out of them.

OMG, how dare you not tolerate my intolerance!

BobbyV, you have now discovered something known for years in these parts: if the gay people vacation there, it’s probably worth going to.

I adore NoHo, Provincetown, and happened upon Rehoboth Beach a few years back.  All wonderful places to visit, all very relaxing and tidy and not stupidy touristy (well, Provincetown heads there, but doesn’t Disneyfy).

Most companies have the common sense to stay out of politically sensitive issues.  After all they are in the business of selling stuff.  Why piss off potential clients/buyers?  For those stupid enough to get into the Prop. 8 argument; they deserve what they get including Boycotts.  As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Your extensive posts all basically boil down to this: refusing to use a legitimate political tool in the face of aggressive, organized anti-civil-liberty activities because the theocrats can frame it in a negative way.

Just because you have a hammer does not mean you should use it in every situation.  Rule 3 of the “Rules for Radicals” probably applies here.

Bacopa: The real poison is in some of the Pauline letters and in Augustine, who read the Bible through the prism of that Greek cultural tradition you’re so fond of (the Platonic tradition in Augustine’s case, not the Homeric). Revelation is also an awful book.

But wacky stories about sexy angels in the Pentateuch really doesn’t figure much in most Christian confessional traditions. Too weird, and too far from the gospels.

Actually the better pagan wisdom isn’t Homer’s (you’re really going to champion tediously long epics about trash-talking warrior-rapists and cruel gods that pretty much the same awful people, but with super powers?).

It’s Aristotle’s and Galen’s wisdom that’s best—in terms of seeking “golden” means and a having a healthy respect for all the faculties of the human animal working together as one harmonious unity. (Aristotle is not so great when it comes to women, the enslaved, or any people on the margins of the Greeks’ world. But then, none of the classical philosophers really are.)

Piator: Seems like it’s a damned-if-you-do-or-if-you-don’t-thing that you’ve effectively set up: Without organized, mass opposition, no change; with it, the building of a dreadful undermining “narrative”. So what is to be done?

Just because you have a hammer does not mean you should use it in every situation.  Rule 3 of the “Rules for Radicals” probably applies here.

PiaToR, Cerebus was right about you in the other, related thread: “concern troll is concerned”.

PiaToR, I’ve been gone from here for several months now, and I came back to see how things were.

I don’t think there’s a word to express my disappointment that you’re still around.

Now, would you kindly take a big step back, and literally FUCK YOUR OWN FACE?

Just because you have a hammer does not mean you should use it in every situation.  Rule 3 of the “Rules for Radicals” probably applies here.

“I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”

You aren’t even looking at the links, are you?

You aren’t even looking at the links, are you?

In between the people who seem unable to read for content, the people who cannot distinguish between concern-trolling and dissent over tactics, and the genius who believes “FUCK YOUR OWN FACE” serves as a cogent contribution to the conversation?  It’s difficult to find the time - I skimmed over your comment.

I read “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” over a decade ago, Seraph.  It’s not relevant to my comments; I refer you to my paragraph above:

“IMHO, it is, however, dangerous to use this as a tactic in this context, precisely because it fits so well into the opposition’s narrative.  They would love to paint the fight for gay civil rights as a culture war, with intimidations and threats by gay activists against god-fearing normal Americans.  It is what they want.”

You comment:

“The leaders of the civil rights movement knew that there was no nice way to do this - anything short of returning to a state of uncomplaining submission (preferably with safeguards in place so they would never get that uppity again) would be perceived by the civil rights opponents (and anyone they could convince) as an attack, even the weak half-measures and “waiting” recommended by the Moderate Whites.  They wisely decided not to let their enemies dictate what tactics they were allowed to use.”

The situation is different.  The pro-equality side can, indeed, use boycotts - nobody is stating that they are not allowed to do so.

I am stating that, and I stress it is IMHO, they may be unwise to do so precisely because it works to their opponent’s advantage. To act in such a way as to foster the whole right-wing idea of a “culture war” is the wrong tactic - this is not a case of MLK’s white liberals advocating moderation and delay in the demands.  This is a case of recognising the other side’s very real weakness - they are factually wrong and can only survive by driving up the image of an emotive division in society.

The equality side can and should press for change as hard as it can - overthrowing Prop 8 as soon as it can - but it can best do so by positioning themselves as the voice of reason and justice - the tide is on our side not theirs. Again, I refer you to Alinsky - what they want is a situation seen as activists imposing an agenda on society. Present them with a situation of a ground-swell supporting natural justice - that, on a considered view, gay marriage is the just position - and you move them outside their experience. 

They cannot argue logically for preventing gay marriage; they can only draw energy from an emotive framing.  Framing the argument as natural justice rather than two sides competing in a “culture war” gives energy to our position and denies it to theirs.

Right.  Done trying to talk reason with you.  If you won’t listen to anybody else when they tell you that anything short of stuffing gays back in the closet will be added to the narrative of the culture war, what makes me think I’m special? 

Concern troll is concerned.  Duly noted.  No need to bring it up yet again on the next Prop H8 thread.

If you won’t listen to anybody else when they tell you that anything short of stuffing gays back in the closet will be added to the narrative of the culture war,

They can try with anything they like, but will it be persuasive to the groups that matter?

*sigh*

Seraph, from your perspective:

i, Why did the majority of those voting in California vote for Prop 8?

ii, How best should a significant number of those voters be persuaded to flip, presumably by voting for a measure to overturn Prop 8 on the next ballot?

iii, And how exactly do boycotts - defined, pace MAJeff above as organised and public campaings designed to intimidate and/or coerce - fit into this?

Starve the anti-gay beast.  Do not provide any economic support to those who seek to harm us.  Publicize who they are to allow other gay people know who is trying to harm them, who is contributing to anti-gay causes.  This isn’t about a single campaign, but about an ongoing effort to be an ethical participant in a consumer society. It’s hard, but we all do it, in a variety of ways. 

I don’t give a shit about intimidation or coercion.  These folks are free to contribute to whomever they want.  I care about making sure that gay folks don’t support those seeking to harm them.  An organizing is the only way to do so. 

During the Black Freedom Movement, activists engaged in a “don’t shop where you can’t work” campaign to boycott businesses that refused to hire African Americans.  This is a similar thing.  Don’t do businesses with companies seeking to fuck you over.

PiaToR, what would you recommend instead? I’m at least the third person to ask that; I seem to recall you said you support gay rights (or at least you don’t take the side of opponents of gay rights). I can’t think of any other way of getting there that would work at least as quickly, and since we’re 220 years behind as it is, going slowly is not an option. If you can, please share.

I mean, other people may not agree on the speed or efficacy, but that’s a discussion that could be had, and you don’t sound like a bigot. Assuming you’re not one.

ii, How best should a significant number of those voters be persuaded to flip, presumably by voting for a measure to overturn Prop 8 on the next ballot?

By waiting until the older ones die.

I’m only half kidding.  That we got almost 48% is miraculous, particularly when you compare it with the results in every other state that’s had an initiative—constitutional amendment or statute—on the ballot.  I never believed the polling showing Prop 8 losing.  Hell, if Massachusetts had voted on it in 2004, the year couples started marrying, there would be no couples marrying today in Massachusetts. And, even the public opinion polling showing majorities of Americans supporting something akin to civil unions is suspect when we see voters in state after state after state banning not only marriage but any recognition.  We’ve seen tremendous progress in the past decade or so, but overturning the measure on the next ballot is going to be an issue of getting supporters to turn out. It’s not going to be an issue of changing people’s minds. It’s going to be getting allies to the polls and hoping enough bigots die or can’t make it to the polls.

PiaToR, what would you recommend instead?

One suggestion here.

By waiting until the older ones die.

That’s why you’re going to win.  I’ve been arguing these things on the Internet back from the Baehr days, and I’ve seen the tide turning against them.  Back then their arguments came down to “Gay marriage is unthinkable by definition” and “most people don’t want it”.  Now it is entirely thinkable - there are legally married gay couples in the States - and the younger generation really don’t give a toss about “defending morality”.

And that’s why they’re so on the defensive.  They have to keep on winning - and make no mistake, Prop 8 is a defensive measure.  It’s going to be contested at the next ballot, and the next, and at the next.  You win once, and that’s it - people won’t care four years afterwards.

Which is a major distinction between the conditions of the MLK advice and the current situation. Back when MLK was fighting, as in the Stonewall era, it is necessary to use hard tactics.  You have to establish that you’re there, that you’re not going away, that you cannot be ignored, and that you can make a fuss. 

That’s not the case now - Prop 8 is a reactionary response to the tide turning against them.  It’s better now to establish gay as normal, gay marriage as a matter of justice and equality.  they can’t ignore you, can’t marginalize you - all they can do is paint you as monsters.

And, even the public opinion polling showing majorities of Americans supporting something akin to civil unions is suspect when we see voters in state after state after state banning not only marriage but any recognition.  We’ve seen tremendous progress in the past decade or so, but overturning the measure on the next ballot is going to be an issue of getting supporters to turn out. It’s not going to be an issue of changing people’s minds.

I think you have a window to change people’s minds, or rather to let a significant number of those voting for Prop 8 to choose a different rationale for their voting.  The opposition clearly positioned voting for Prop 8 as standing against immorality, the decline of the family, decay in the American society. That’s emotive crap, of course, but the myth is powerful.  But the American myth of justice and equality is also powerful.  If gayness wasn’t positioned as a deviant immoral attack on the family, but as a variation within a healthy society, gay marriages not as abominations, but as people in love, then I think you could appeal to many voter’s sense of fairness.  You could invite voters to see themselves as upholding equal rights rather than as defending the family.

The ads showing gay couples as actual people were a good step towards that.

The situation and politics in NZ with the Homosexual Law Reform Bill and the Civil Unions debate were quite different.  For one thing, they were conscience votes, and for another, major churches were advocating reform rather than opposing it (the Anglicans in 1984, as I recall correctly).

The ads showing gay couples as actual people were a good step towards that.

The former director of the NGLTF, Matt Foreman, had a piece on Towleroad recently that said such ads were losers.  Audiences hated them.  Showing gay couples apparently reminds folks of gay sex and turns them off completely. I wish we would show more ads showing gay people as people, and showing gay couples as families, but Americans are bigots.

More than anything, we’re consigned to waiting until the older folks die.

And keeping our money away from the folks who would harm us.