Businesses that bankrolled Prop 8: [Archive]

Franklin Johnson

11-16-2008, 02:17 PM

It sure is! This is the 'other side,' so to speak, of political consciousness, kind of like the dark side of the moon or what is really going on below the surface. Many of the people who are most influential in our government haven't served a single day in office because their astoundingly deep pockets do all of their dirty work for them. They don't need to run for office and yet they have more say than most elected officials (and they would never get elected in the first place because their characters are reprehensible).

Case in point: Fieldstead and Co., which is on that list, look them up in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Ahmanson,_Jr.
And:
https://fieldstead.com/default.html

Ahmanson, through his company, donated almost 1.2 million dollars to the Yes On 8 campaign. He has also donated huge sums to causes promoting creationism (aka intelligent design) and other extreme right wing, christian fundamentalist agendas.

Franklin

Wow, sure is interesting to browse the list of people who gave, how much they gave, who they work for, and what their job titles are. I find it amazing that these folks harbor so much animosity that they'd open their wallets to support prop eight.

-Dane

MsTerry

11-16-2008, 03:33 PM

Franklin,
Why don't you publish a list of gay people who are still in the closet, just to show that you are a reasonable and fair person, someone who doesn't prosecute others for their belief.

ps apparently these contributors are not in the closet

Here is a list of some of the organizations that financed Prop 8.

Franklin

Braggi

11-16-2008, 03:50 PM

... They don't need to run for office and yet they have more say than most elected officials (and they would never get elected in the first place because their characters are reprehensible).

Case in point: Fieldstead and Co., which is on that list, look them up in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Ahmanson,_Jr. ...

Uhhh, looks like a bad example to support your perspective Franklin. These folks support a "rescue mission" that does not require participants to attend "religious services" to receive human services. That sounds like good work to me.

No, I don't agree with them on Prop. 8 or with their "Christian" agenda, but again, I think demonizing those who disagree with you, especially when the force of [Constitutional] law is on your side, is an error. I'll bet a lot of poor people wouldn't want you to disempower this corporation.

Prop. 8 will be overturned because it's illegal. I just hope it happens in my lifetime.

-Jeff

PS. In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina it was the Salvation Army, a decidedly Christian proselytizing organization, that was first on the ground feeding and housing the hungry and sick, while our government response was in complete disarray. I know they would be in support of Prop. 8 but I'll still support them by shopping in their stores and by donating goods to them. They do a lot of good.

Franklin Johnson

11-16-2008, 03:53 PM

Why?

Simply because you don't agree with me? I think not. Remember that this is public information legally required to be available to the public. You should start working to change the laws that require transparency of information and speak to the moderator of this list to censure me. Otherwise, why pick on me?

If you don't like what I'm doing, too bad!

Franklin

Franklin,
Why don't you publish a list of gay people who are still in the closet, just to show that you are a reasonable and fair person, someone who doesn't prosecute others for their belief.

ps apparently these contributors are not in the closet

Big Bob

11-16-2008, 09:25 PM

I take issue with your condemnation of folks who disagree with you. It contributes to the unnecessary negativity on this board.
If you want to support something in a positive way, fine. If you can't say something nice then go away please.
Your negativity is not appreciated.
Bob

It sure is! This is the 'other side,' so to speak, of political consciousness, kind of like the dark side of the moon or what is really going on below the surface. Many of the people who are most influential in our government haven't served a single day in office because their astoundingly deep pockets do all of their dirty work for them. They don't need to run for office and yet they have more say than most elected officials (and they would never get elected in the first place because their characters are reprehensible).

Case in point: Fieldstead and Co., which is on that list, look them up in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Ahmanson,_Jr.
And:
https://fieldstead.com/default.html

Ahmanson, through his company, donated almost 1.2 million dollars to the Yes On 8 campaign. He has also donated huge sums to causes promoting creationism (aka intelligent design) and other extreme right wing, christian fundamentalist agendas.

Franklin

MsTerry

11-16-2008, 09:37 PM

Because you come across like a mean-spirited sore loser.

Why?

If you don't like what I'm doing, too bad!

Franklin

danejasper

11-16-2008, 09:47 PM

Isn't campaign finance law great? If you are going to back something, you have to put your mouth where your money is.

That eliminates an awful lot of sneaky back-room political manipulation - it's all out in the open. You can browse here: https://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

Notably, there was actually just one business in Sebastopol (Stahl Auto Sales) that supported Prop 8. There were only eight individuals and one business or business owner in total. One is a public school teacher, which is interesting.

CHRISTY WHITE SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-9241 SONOMA COUNTY SCHOOL TEACHER $100.00
MR. DAVID STOCKTON SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-9280 LDS CHURCH INSTITUTE DIRECTOR $100.00
LINDA LOWE SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-3138 FURMAN SOUND EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT $100.00
COURTENAY ANDERSON SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-3207 N/A RETIRED $100.00
MR. ROBERT REMLINGER SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-2213 DOW PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES CHEMIST $100.00
MRS. CAROL PASCOE SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-9666 N/A RETIRED $100.00
MRS. CAROL PASCOE SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-9666 N/A RETIRED $75.00
STAHL AUTO SALES SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-9764 $100.00
MR. JOHN TRACY SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-3170 DISABLED DISABLED $100.00
MR. HENRY SAVAGE SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-9318 N/A RETIRED $150.00
MRS. CAROL PASCOE SEBASTOPOL CA 95472-9666 N/A RETIRED $100.00

In Forestville, just two people donated, one is a elementary school teacher's aid.

DONNA KERNOHAN FORESTVILLE CA 95436-0124 FORESTHILL ELEM. SCHOOL TEACHER AIDE $20.00
DONNA KERNOHAN FORESTVILLE CA 95436-0124 FORESTHILL ELEM. SCHOOL TEACHER AIDE $20.00
MRS. ILENE JOHNSON FORESTVILLE CA 95436-9397 N/A HOMEMAKER $100.00

To Occidental's credit, no one there donated in support of Prop 8.

One out in Bodega did support Prop 8 thought:

MR. RICHARD HUGHES BODEGA CA 94922-9705 HUGHES DAIRY DAIRY FARMER $100.00

I won't bother posting the list from Santa Rosa, because it's 116 donations long (some donors appear multiple times.) There are quite a few businesses and business owners there, and folks like dentists and such.

I'm totally mystified about why so many people would not only vote for this measure, but support it with monetary donations. Vote your own feelings, but you have got to really be hateful to donate money to run ads like the misleading ones we saw in support of Prop 8.

-Dane

Zeno Swijtink

11-16-2008, 09:47 PM

danejasper

11-16-2008, 10:09 PM

I don't think the issue is just trying to censure people who disagree with ones own opinion.

These are people who are bankrolling "public opinion campaigns" that have little to do with an informative discussion, but more with using misleading images and outright falsehoods to try to shape public opinions as they want to.

Bingo. It's one thing to cast one vote, however well chosen or mis-guided. It's another to spend money to run misleading ads to convince others to join you in your hate and fear.

If folks are uncomfortable with the fact that the information about their support of these ads is public, that's probably not a position they should have taken on the public record. In other words, if they're ashamed of their support, they probably should be.

-Dane

MsTerry

11-16-2008, 10:17 PM

Maybe we can make some pink stars and sow them on their coats so every knows who those despicable people are who vote THEIR conscience.

If folks are uncomfortable with the fact that the information about their support of these ads is public, that's probably not a position they should have taken on the public record. In other words, if they're ashamed of their support, they probably should be.

-Dane

MsTerry

11-16-2008, 10:37 PM

Dane,

Help me out here, what do you want us to do with these people?
Should we stop going to public schools now?
Should we get a posse together and round them up?
Should we drive by their houses and throw things at them?
Too bad we can't talk to them anymore, otherwise we could call them up and harass them until they turn gay?

Dane, you are our moral leader now, what do we do next?

Notably, there was actually just one business in Sebastopol that supported Prop 8. There were only eight individuals and one business or business owner in total. One is a public school teacher, which is interesting.
-Dane

danejasper

11-16-2008, 11:11 PM

MsTerry,

No idea. I don't think I'll get my car fixed at Stahl though.

-Dane

StormDancer

11-17-2008, 09:25 AM

If you are looking for parity, it would be nice to get the list of who supported the No on 8 campain although in Sonoma County I can assure you it was a much longer.
What I liked seeing was the list of faith based organizations and ministers who fought for equal marriage rights.
-AnnaLisa

Big Bob

11-18-2008, 09:58 AM

Gosh, if people are so easily misled how did you see through them???

I don't think the issue is just trying to censure people who disagree with ones own opinion.

These are people who are bankrolling "public opinion campaigns" that have little to do with an informative discussion, but more with using misleading images and outright falsehoods to try to shape public opinions as they want to.

If pointing this out is "being negative," so be it. It's a harsh and sneaky world out there. Better get used to it!

Franklin Johnson

11-18-2008, 02:56 PM

And I'll add an additional observation to yours and Zeno's posts. Many people, including No On 8 folks, are overlooking the critical fact that Prop 8 is not simply 'expressing one's democratic opinion.' It is also an act of coercion because it pretends to amend the Constitution taking ENORMOUS fundamental rights away from a large minority of people, denying them hospital visits, the same kinds of property, inheritance, and common law rights that heteros enjoy with the status of marriage.

If you put two columns together with the rights of hetero marriage contrasted to the rights of 'civil unions,' you will see that hetero marriage rights number over 1,100 to the comparatively minuscule 300 rights that civil unions have. Prop 8 is obviously a law that does not respect the spirit of 'live and let live,' freedom, or liberty. Prop 8 people should mind their own business and let millions of gays live their lives in peace and get married. What in the hell is their problem anyway? What do they stand to lose? A purely ideological debate. Simply because they have a strongly held notion (that marriage can only be hetero) motivates them to cause incalculable harm to so many people, through the arm of the law. This is tyranny as well as being logically absurd.

This is a poignant example of idealism versus materialism because there are no material negative results from gay marriage. Prop 8 is pure idealism because its supporters are 'married' (pardon the term) to a mere 'idea' which asserts that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That's all it is. There are no consequences whatsoever from same-sex marriage. But Prop 8 proponents go out of their way to strip basic rights from millions of human beings. If they simply expressed an opinion, no problem, but there are wide ranging consequences ruining the lives of millions of people with the implementation of Prop 8, forcing a huge number of citizens to live under useless, troglodyte ideas, and against their will. This is ridiculous, barbaric, and tragic.

Franklin

Bingo. It's one thing to cast one vote, however well chosen or mis-guided. It's another to spend money to run misleading ads to convince others to join you in your hate and fear.

If folks are uncomfortable with the fact that the information about their support of these ads is public, that's probably not a position they should have taken on the public record. In other words, if they're ashamed of their support, they probably should be.

-Dane

Sylph

11-18-2008, 05:34 PM

I'm appalled. If just one of these people... possibly a little, old lady, who donated because her church influenced her to, gets a nasty call from some unbalanced person on the Wacco board and it scares the hell out of her...this is on the side of 'right and justice'?
I'm anti-8, but this thread is unconstructive, to say the least. Just makes 'our side' look hateful.

Franklin Johnson

11-18-2008, 06:52 PM

Ditto here. There are plenty of auto care shops that will do a fine job who will get my business instead.

Franklin

MsTerry,

No idea. I don't think I'll get my car fixed at Stahl though.

-Dane

Valley Oak

12-21-2008, 04:30 PM

Sylph, you have attributed some kind of unreproachable quality to old ladies who allow churches to tell them how to behave and think, including to behave in a grossly discriminatory and bigoted manner that very severely hurts hundreds of thousands of good people.

You are in essence saying that if a person is elderly, female, religious, and doesn't think and act for themselves then this is a source of legitimacy and therefore have the authority to seriously damage the lives of others without recrimination. (When in reality this person has deferred their authority to church officials and their religious agendas).

Conflict is an essential and inevitable element of social events and change. You cannot stop, much less with poor arguments and even poorer assumptions such as the ones you asserted here.

People need to be tapped on the shoulder and criticized for being bigots and discriminating against other human beings, especially when it is as atrocious as supporting neo-Nazi legislation like Prop 8.

No one is a 'holy cow,' such as you imply this fictitious person is in you post. Everyone makes mistakes, such as your old lady, and no one has a right to implement prejudice against others because of their affiliations or demographics, or because they can't or won't take responsibility for themselves.

People need to know the truth and to act accordingly. People must and will reap the consequences of their words and their actions, especially when the raise their hands against another.

If you defend little old religious ladies without a mind of their own then you are enabling gross discrimination. Why not defend anyone else who does this? There is no justification for doing this kind of harm to a huge number of people, such as the LGBT community, Jews, African-Americans, or anyone else. And the conditions of being elderly, female, religious, and without a mind of your own do not give you the authority to do so.

Edward

I'm appalled. If just one of these people... possibly a little, old lady, who donated because her church influenced her to, gets a nasty call from some unbalanced person on the Wacco board and it scares the hell out of her...this is on the side of 'right and justice'?
I'm anti-8, but this thread is unconstructive, to say the least. Just makes 'our side' look hateful.

theindependenteye

12-21-2008, 05:40 PM

>>People need to be tapped on the shoulder and criticized for being bigots and discriminating against other human beings...

I haven't been following everything on this thread, so I'm not sure what's meant by "tapped on the shoulder." Wacco postings? Picketing? Boycotts? Putting dogshit on the tray of the lady in the nursing home or spray-painting a church altar? -- I dunno. I can't imagine that any anti-Prop. 8 people are objecting to the other side being "criticized," but the issue of tactics is another thing altogether.

The right wing has, more and more, adopted a traditional tactic of the left: crying victimhood. Witness Palin's implication that her political foes burnt down her church, or the Mormons protesting gay "violence" and "hate" against them.

This is an argument that's been going on a lot longer than I've been alive, and it'll continue. How hard do you do that tap on the shoulder, and what's the consequence? I'm a very non-confrontational guy, and I swing both ways on it, so to speak. On the one hand, to me the whole argument that the Vietnam War peace movement "ended" the war is totally wishful thinking — I think we *prolonged* American public support of it every time the TV showed a bunch of screaming or cavorting protestors: being anti-war meant being pro-hippie, and people couldn't stomach that. On the other hand, gay rights wouldn't be an issue now without the Stonewall riot, or something like it: it required guys actually fighting with their fists.

But Edward, be cautious of statements like "I thought better of your ability to reason" and such, to people who are essentially in agreement with your politics but may oppose your tactical orientation. The ax in Trotsky's head did nothing to bring about the socialist utopia.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

MsTerry

12-21-2008, 10:55 PM

HOMOSEXUALS ARE CALLOUS MURDERERS
Please note the viciousness in this statement below!
It shows that HOMOSEXUALS are deep down inside deprived and are willing to kill ANYONE who doesn't agree with them.
If you know of any HOMOSEXUAL business please list it and stop giving your money to support those murderous cowards!!!

Sometimes I'd like to see their churches burn with all of their pro Prop. 8 fanatics in them.

Edward

MsTerry

12-21-2008, 11:04 PM

Did you used to get your car fixed at Stahl or is this just one of those non-hurting commitments?

MsTerry,

No idea. I don't think I'll get my car fixed at Stahl though.

-Dane

Sara S

12-22-2008, 07:03 AM

Very good statement here, Valley Oak; there was an article in Harper's mag a couple of years ago which said that, before the last election, "visiting" preachers went to hundreds of churches all over the country and essentially just told the congregations to vote for Bush. Since for many churchgoers the preacher is considered to be "speaking for God", they followed directions.

Sara S.

Sylph, you have attributed some kind of unreproachable quality to old ladies who allow churches to tell them how to behave and think, including to behave in a grossly discriminatory and bigoted manner that very severely hurts hundreds of thousands of good people.

You are in essence saying that if a person is elderly, female, religious, and doesn't think and act for themselves then this is a source of legitimacy and therefore have the authority to seriously damage the lives of others without recrimination. (When in reality this person has deferred their authority to church officials and their religious agendas).

Conflict is an essential and inevitable element of social events and change. You cannot stop, much less with poor arguments and even poorer assumptions such as the ones you asserted here.

People need to be tapped on the shoulder and criticized for being bigots and discriminating against other human beings, especially when it is as atrocious as supporting neo-Nazi legislation like Prop 8.

No one is a 'holy cow,' such as you imply this fictitious person is in you post. Everyone makes mistakes, such as your old lady, and no one has a right to implement prejudice against others because of their affiliations or demographics, or because they can't or won't take responsibility for themselves.

People need to know the truth and to act accordingly. People must and will reap the consequences of their words and their actions, especially when the raise their hands against another.

If you defend little old religious ladies without a mind of their own then you are enabling gross discrimination. Why not defend anyone else who does this? There is no justification for doing this kind of harm to a huge number of people, such as the LGBT community, Jews, African-Americans, or anyone else. And the conditions of being elderly, female, religious, and without a mind of your own do not give you the authority to do so.

Edward

Sylph

12-22-2008, 11:58 AM

So Edward, what do you propose should happen to these misguided people who contributed money to push Prop 8? Should they get angry phone calls, hate mail, burning crosses on their front lawns? Some were disabled, many were retired, so I am sure there are quite a few 'little old ladies' among them. What shall be their punishment?
Let's say you convince some righteous, angry Waccos to call them and talk to them about acting like a 'neo-nazi'. How does this advance your cause? Do you think that the little old lady and her children and grandchildren will have a good feeling about the 'pro gay marriage' folks after such an experience? I can imagine a scared and pissed off elder person contacting the authorities and the news media about being confronted by an angry zealot. Think it through, what is the benefit of castigating the Pro 8 contributers?
The grandchildren, the youngest voters, were overwhelmingly against Prop 8. They are the future and will be the champions of civil rights for gay people.

Conflict is an essential and inevitable element of social events and change. You cannot stop, much less with poor arguments and even poorer assumptions such as the ones you asserted here.

People need to be tapped on the shoulder and criticized for being bigots and discriminating against other human beings, especially when it is as atrocious as supporting neo-Nazi legislation like Prop 8.

No one is a 'holy cow,' such as you imply this fictitious person is in you post. Everyone makes mistakes, such as your old lady, and no one has a right to implement prejudice against others because of their affiliations or demographics, or because they can't or won't take responsibility for themselves.

People need to know the truth and to act accordingly. People must and will reap the consequences of their words and their actions, especially when the raise their hands against another.

If you defend little old religious ladies without a mind of their own then you are enabling gross discrimination. Why not defend anyone else who does this? There is no justification for doing this kind of harm to a huge number of people, such as the LGBT community, Jews, African-Americans, or anyone else. And the conditions of being elderly, female, religious, and without a mind of your own do not give you the authority to do so.

Valley Oak

12-22-2008, 12:23 PM

Like I already said, social conflict is inevitable, even if you don't understand it, or even if you are unaware of it, or 'disagree' with it (kind of like disagreeing with the world being round or roundish). Although Prop. 8 is not the only example of social conflict it is certainly a blaring example of it, a very important one.

I didn't say that violence is necessary in this particular situation but confrontation is. Conflict is often positive when it brings the necessary social changes that a nation requires. Prop. 8 is no different. Should people burn crosses on the lawns of the bigots? No. But there are other more constructive ways of challenging peoples' backwards attitudes that result in the consequences of discriminating against the LGBT community.

The more serious the issue, the more serious the confrontation needs to be. Without confrontation and conflict, we cannot achieve the necessary change and the necessary growth, and society will continue to be one where women don't have a right to vote, African-Americans are still slaves, and Jews are still being executed in death-camps.

The achievement of great strides in social evolution often require ugly street fights, which is what we need to overcome the enormous crowd of religious fanatics like 'Butch,' many of which are very well monied and very well organized. That's how Prop. 8 passed, with enormous support. Conflict and confrontation is a kind of growing pain for a culture.

And in some cases violence is necessary. You support it too but you don't see it that way. Do you feel that fighting against Adolph Hitler with non-violence would have succeeded? I don't think so but I'll let you answer.

Edward

So Edward, what do you propose should happen to these misguided people who contributed money to push Prop 8? Should they get angry phone calls, hate mail, burning crosses on their front lawns? Some were disabled, many were retired, so I am sure there are quite a few 'little old ladies' among them. What shall be their punishment?
Let's say you convince some righteous, angry Waccos to call them and talk to them about acting like a 'neo-nazi'. How does this advance your cause? Do you think that the little old lady and her children and grandchildren will have a good feeling about the 'pro gay marriage' folks after such an experience? I can imagine a scared and pissed off elder person contacting the authorities and the news media about being confronted by an angry zealot. Think it through, what is the benefit of castigating the Pro 8 contributers?
The grandchildren, the youngest voters, were overwhelmingly against Prop 8. They are the future and will be the champions of civil rights for gay people.

Zeno Swijtink

12-22-2008, 01:48 PM

The achievement of great strides in social evolution often require ugly street fights, which is what we need to overcome the enormous crowd of religious fanatics like 'Butch,' many of which are very well monied and very well organized.

Edward

As a student of politics it should be no hassle for you to illustrate this with a handful of well chosen examples of great strides in social evolution and their pivotal street fights???

Big Bob

12-22-2008, 01:51 PM

Edward,
How dare you compare chaniging the behavior a murderer who killed most of my family to changing the minds of voters who happen to disagree with you on a political football?
Your militant approach is making me far less tolerant of your views, and I'm a pretty liberal person. You best go back in the closet for the benifit of all concerned.

Like I already said, social conflict is inevitable, even if you don't understand it, or even if you are unaware of it, or 'disagree' with it (kind of like disagreeing with the world being round or roundish). Although Prop. 8 is not the only example of social conflict it is certainly a blaring example of it, a very important one.

I didn't say that violence is necessary in this particular situation but confrontation is. Conflict is often positive when it brings the necessary social changes that a nation requires. Prop. 8 is no different. Should people burn crosses on the lawns of the bigots? No. But there are other more constructive ways of challenging peoples' backwards attitudes that result in the consequences of discriminating against the LGBT community.

The more serious the issue, the more serious the confrontation needs to be. Without confrontation and conflict, we cannot achieve the necessary change and the necessary growth, and society will continue to be one where women don't have a right to vote, African-Americans are still slaves, and Jews are still being executed in death-camps.

The achievement of great strides in social evolution often require ugly street fights, which is what we need to overcome the enormous crowd of religious fanatics like 'Butch,' many of which are very well monied and very well organized. That's how Prop. 8 passed, with enormous support. Conflict and confrontation is a kind of growing pain for a culture.

And in some cases violence is necessary. You support it too but you don't see it that way. Do you feel that fighting against Adolph Hitler with non-violence would have succeeded? I don't think so but I'll let you answer.

Edward

Sylph

12-22-2008, 02:16 PM

Edward, surely you are not equating supporters of Prop 8 to Hitler?? You did not answer my question…what should be done to these people?
Of course violence is necessary when innocent people are being persecuted or killed. But, in this situation, trying to win support for a sweeping social change like gay marriage, violence will just harden the hearts of the opposition.
What good will violence or hate rhetoric do at this point, but make gay rights opponents determined to contribute even more next time?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102903209.html
"In the worst of the rhetoric, the president of the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative group supporting Prop 8, publicly compared the fight against same-sex marriage to the fight against Hitler
Supporters of same sex marriage need to remember that marriage equality can't be won in one state. Federal law prohibits U.S. government recognition of same-sex marriage so even gay couples legally married here don't have the full rights of opposite-sex married couples. Those of us who favor same-sex marriage must keep our eye on the ball: the rapid expansion of same-sex marriage to all states and the repeal of the federal ban.
To accomplish that, same-sex marriage supporters need to build broad consensus in favor of such marriages. In the process, they must be careful not to harden opposition to the point that same-sex marriage becomes a perennial wedge issue like abortion. Same-sex marriage supporters need to convince a broad swath of religious voters that gay marriage deserves respect or that, at the very least, such unions pose no threat to their faith. But it's hard to make that argument when same-sex marriage supporters are making an issue of the religious affiliations of their opponents.
The movement for marriage equality should adopt a rule of never speaking ill of anyone on religious grounds. When confronting appeals to anti-gay bigotry, same-sex marriage supporters need to resist responding in kind. Call it the "turn the other cheek" method. Or to put it another way, when it comes to dealing with intolerance towards gay couples, the wisest long-term political strategy may be: hate the sin, love the sinner. "

Valley Oak

12-22-2008, 02:17 PM

I don't believe, at least not right now, that Prop. 8 deserves ugly street fights. Successful social change through violence is the exception, not the rule and other means are exhausted before it deteriorates to the worst possible scenario.

Nonetheless, such examples might include American War of Independence, The American Civil War, labor riots around the turn of the 20th Century, more unrest during the 1930s Great Depression (yes, there was violence on the streets), again in the 1950s Civil Rights Movement, which went far into the 1960s, the counter culture movement and anti-war movements and so on in the 1960s. And these are just a few example in US history alone. Not to mention around the world, which has a much, much longer history than the very short one of the US, unless you want to count the Native Americans, who were not originally US citizens.

But I really do digress because an event or movement remotely similar to the ones I mentioned above are hardly appropriate now, at least not yet for the fight over Prop. 8 (and yes, it is a fight). It just hasn't gotten very violent and I hope it doesn't.

Right now, it's in the courts. But if the California Supreme Court wisely does throw out this diatribe called Prop. 8, its supporters have sworn that they will mount a large-scale campaign to oust any judge who voted to void this comic book legislation. And they will do it! Believe it. And this time, we had better be ready so that they don't kick the ball into our goal posts like they did last time, primarily because we sat on our laurels, so to speak.

There's at least a hundred different levels of confrontation, just to give you an idea of what may be necessary to achieve social change. Right now it consists of organizing into groups such as nonprofit organizations against Prop. 8, donating money to the ACLU, which is one of the groups that have filed a friend of the court brief (I hope I got the lingo right). An occasional or frequent public demonstration, writing legislators and others, urging their opposition to Prop. 8, etc, etc, etc.

Conflict for social change takes place even if we are not aware of it or don't recognize it when it is happening. And very often people disqualify it as such, dubbing it something different like like an unfortunate outbreak of violence or whatever might cross peoples' minds when they don't understand what they're witnessing.

Conflict for social change can be as simple as a short, casual conversation with a stranger (or someone you know) and disagreeing with them on an issue, such as Prop. 8. Or, Conflict for social change can get as ugly as those other examples I posted at the beginning of this message. Some people call it class struggle, others call it defending their country, others call social conflict for change by many different names.

Fact is, conflict is a natural, inevitable part of life and science, social or otherwise. To effectively deny this would be far more destructive in the long run by delaying a necessary process that has to take place. Even if it gets ugly in the short run, the change must take place. Most people make the mistake of trying to delay necessary change by making huge, unjust concessions and sacrifices, which makes the cost of change down the road much more expensive in the long run.

Edward

As a student of politics it should be no hassle for you to illustrate this with a handful of well chosen examples of great strides in social evolution and their pivotal street fights???

Valley Oak

12-22-2008, 02:20 PM

I did answer your question; read my post more carefully. In any case, if that doesn't satisfy you, please read my reply to Zeno (the previous post to this one).

Also, you might suggest a strategy yourself. I'd like to hear what you think can be done now regarding Prop. 8.

Edward

Edward, surely you are not equating supporters of Prop 8 to Hitler?? You did not answer my question…what should be done to these people?
Of course violence is necessary when innocent people are being persecuted or killed. But, in this situation, trying to win support for a sweeping social change like gay marriage, violence will just harden the hearts of the opposition.
What good will violence or hate rhetoric do at this point, but make gay rights opponents determined to contribute even more next time?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102903209.html
"In the worst of the rhetoric, the president of the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative group supporting Prop 8, publicly compared the fight against same-sex marriage to the fight against Hitler
Supporters of same sex marriage need to remember that marriage equality can't be won in one state. Federal law prohibits U.S. government recognition of same-sex marriage so even gay couples legally married here don't have the full rights of opposite-sex married couples. Those of us who favor same-sex marriage must keep our eye on the ball: the rapid expansion of same-sex marriage to all states and the repeal of the federal ban.
To accomplish that, same-sex marriage supporters need to build broad consensus in favor of such marriages. In the process, they must be careful not to harden opposition to the point that same-sex marriage becomes a perennial wedge issue like abortion. Same-sex marriage supporters need to convince a broad swath of religious voters that gay marriage deserves respect or that, at the very least, such unions pose no threat to their faith. But it's hard to make that argument when same-sex marriage supporters are making an issue of the religious affiliations of their opponents.
The movement for marriage equality should adopt a rule of never speaking ill of anyone on religious grounds. When confronting appeals to anti-gay bigotry, same-sex marriage supporters need to resist responding in kind. Call it the "turn the other cheek" method. Or to put it another way, when it comes to dealing with intolerance towards gay couples, the wisest long-term political strategy may be: hate the sin, love the sinner. "

Valley Oak

12-22-2008, 02:23 PM

Bob, I apologize for what the horrible tragedy that has devastated your family.

I've edited this post because your reply, the way it is written, is hard for me to understand and is very emotionally loaded.

If you seriously want to debate me on this list, I need to understand a little more clearly what you are trying to say. There are some grammatical errors in your typing that make more than one meaning possible.

If, on the other hand, you are simply trying to insult me in anger by telling me that I should go back in the closet, then my answer is, no.

Thanks,

Edward

Edward,
How dare you compare chaniging the behavior a murderer who killed most of my family to changing the minds of voters who happen to disagree with you on a political football?
Your militant approach is making me far less tolerant of your views, and I'm a pretty liberal person. You best go back in the closet for the benifit of all concerned.