Prop 8 Battle Hits Hollywood's Indie Community At Home
The buzz story of the day is not going to go anywhere pretty…
The Festival Director of FIND’s LA Film Festival, Rich Raddon, came up on a
April 19, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
“how do we all
To suggest that somebody’s job could be in danger because they agree with the majority of voters in CA is obscene.
Interesting. Those who support gay marriage must show if they seek civil rights and equality for all…or only for those who agree with their politics.
Which road will they take?
If people start choosing the low road, then the blatant hypocrisy would damage their cause for many years to come. It will also temper and shore up opposition against gay marriage across the nation.
That’s an oversimplification of the issue.
Perhaps, to a point. 🙂
How is shunning or excluding people who support measures to make discrimination legal a violation of their civil rights? Or hypocritical? What’s with the reverse victimization? Being gay, like skin tone, isn’t a choice. Prejudice, and helping to legislate prejudice, is.
Again, these people don’t simply hold a belief. They went out of their way to stop others from pursuing their own happiness. And that should be punished severely.
while a witch hunt isn’t a good idea, economic boycotts are an incredibly powerful tool, just ask Disney, Country radio stations that wanted to keep playing the Dixie Chicks or why AM talk radio is almost exclusively right wing.
Lazarus – but doesn’t “punishing” people – discriminating against those who believe and act differently than you – constitute hypocrisy?
This is exactly what we’re dealing with: two groups hoping to legislate their beliefs. Those who used the courts to make gay marriage legal in California seemed to think that using the legal system to enforce their belief system was just fine. Now when the opposition does the same thing, suddenly they must be “punished.”
That, my friend, is hypocrisy.
And if people start to discriminate against those who supported Prop. 8 or because they hold certain religious beliefs, then they’ve become the very monster they tried so hard to destroy.
Well that’s where the fine line of this discussion is: there’s absolutely nothing wrong with ‘punishing’ a person or an organization through a boycott or basic shunning. There is something wrong with the angrier demonstrations that are going on, or with actual ‘discrimination’ if it were to happen, which is what this blog entry is asking about.
But let’s be clear, even though the line is narrow, it’s not fuzzy.
Also, this ‘using the legal system to enforce their belief system’ stuff is not quite accurate. The whole reason for our checks-and-balances legal system is to counterbalance actions and, sometimes, errors, made by the other branches of government.
How do we feel about “seriously damaging careers of people just because we disagree with them politically?”
Well, how do we feel about the tens of thousands of gay marriages and families that have been torn apart because of Prop 8? Or the millions of other gay people affected by it?
If he were contributing to a proposition that would undo all the interracial marriages of the state, would that be good enough for you? He tried to take equal rights away from people who had them. He tried to write discrimination into the constitution. There are going to be consequences for him, just like there were for all the people he affected.
Estavares, you’re still missing the point. Gays weren’t “using the legal system to enforce their belief system”. They were pursuing equal rights.
Apparently you don’t understand that sexual orientation isn’t any more legitimate a grounds for discrimination than skin color, religion, or gender. IT IS NOT A BELIEF.
Dave
What a lame ass final question. Truly weak of you. Somebody PROUDLY paid money to help destroy the legal rights of another person. That should be known. You have stated you will not give business in Utah to individuals who did that. I will not either. If that therefore leads to this bloke’s job loss, hey, we all own our actions. He discuss with the angel MORON-I where it all went wrong for him.
its like a witch hunt with real witches.
burn them all.
Can we talk about bad The Spirit is?
And how I called this turkey out many months ago.
Had I been a California resident, I would’ve voted against Prop 8, and it saddens me a great deal that the measure passed.
However, this whole “heads should roll” attitude concerns me. Do we really want our employers deciding whether to fire us based on our Constitutionally protected political views or spending?
By the way, everybody’s boycotting the Dodgers until they cut Jeff Kent, right?
you saw the Spirit (aka Frank Miller reveals Rodriguez as the sole director of Sin City)???
why did it blow? can I have a count.
I can help start without seeing it
1-Stylized in a way the source material is not
2-Period from a time when no one is left alive
3-Scarlett Johannsen cannot act
4-Source Material very obscure even among comics geeks
5-Story line lack nuance
continue
“Interesting. Those who support gay marriage must show if they seek civil rights and equality for all…or only for those who agree with their politics.”
As disgusted as I am by Proposition 8 (and especially the retarded hysterics campaign which that $1500 went to), I still don’t think getting people fired for siding that way does anything to help the cause. It’s a feel-good kick in the nuts for the disenfranchised, but ultimately it’ll just backfire and do more to unify and energize the anti-gay marriage bloc than gain equality. You can’t win this fight by force. You have to get the hearts and minds.
But the problem this particular contributor faces is the fact that people are going to boycott the festival as long as he’s there. So consequently, his head could still roll all the same.
And besides, getting people fired over issues of homosexuality is something out of the other side’s playbook (hello, armed services!). Why stoop to their level? They can keep that gutter all to themselves.
Lazarus –
Unfortunately it IS a belief issue, because both sides act on the presumption that their point of view is both inherent AND self-evident. They both believe their side to be “truth.”
You believe homosexuality is inborn and as part of the human condition as race. Others firmly believe that homosexuality, however imprinted on someone’s life, is inconsistent with God and/or Nature and practicing it constitutes a conscious act contrary to what’s considered “right.”
One side sees discrimination. The other side sees a minority group trying to change a fundimental part of society in a direction they feel is wrong. Both sides are using our political process to see their belief system prevail.
In the end, it always boils down to competing ideologies.
Yup, “competing ideologies.” Just like in Selma and Birmingham.
Oh and, as to the “no secret about being a Mormon,” let’s be clear: It is possible to be a Mormon without being a bigot or actively supporting bigotry. “I contributed because my church told me to” (like the woman with the restaurant said, essentially) is not a good excuse.
He shouldn’t lose his job, but I would (and encourage others to) never support a venture he was involved in again.
He used his income to support discrimination. It is time to withhold ours to fight back.
Arguing equivalence is unacceptable.
“You believe homosexuality is inborn and as part of the human condition as race. Others firmly believe that homosexuality, however imprinted on someone’s life, is inconsistent with God and/or Nature and practicing it constitutes a conscious act contrary to what’s considered “right.””
As Chris hinted at, I’m sure you could bring up scientific research to prove that blacks are genetically inferior, and not worthy of equal rights.
An overwhelming majority of gay people don’t think it’s a choice, and most study has shown that to be the case. Maybe try giving them the benefit of the doubt when you’re trying to decide how they should live their lives.
Of course, those who voted for Prop 8, and many others in the United States, don’t believe that there is any such thing as a right–civil, human, equal, or otherwise–for one man to marry another man, or for one woman to marry another woman. On the other hand, those who voted against Prop 8, and many others in the United States (albeit a clear minority compared to their opponents) do believe that such a right does exist.
Hence it’s very easy for the gay rights lobby to claim they are pushing for equal rights, but that claim will not get very far when the other side will argue they are not denying equal rights because the claim they are denying is prima facie (perhaps even a priori) invalid. After all, how can one deny (or grant) that which does not exist? The two viewpoints are incommensurable. It is the stuff of political impasse.
“Yup, ‘competing ideologies.’ Just like in Selma and Birmingham.”
This idea that the “struggle” for gay marriage is at all comparable to the centuries-long quest to end slavery and compel the nation to honor its moral commitments to its citizens of African descent is complete and utter balderdash.
Hey, James Leer! He hasn’t been posting here in FOREVER! Welcome back!
Estevares: Talk about a false equivalence. You’re basically using the ‘gays are the same as child molesters’ argument, which I’m fine with labelling as bullshit.
Blackcloud: I think I asked this before, but: when did you stop being cool?
I was cool?
Touche!
Blackcloud, how about this?
What if Raddon was contributing to a movement to nullify interracial marriage (not so far-fetched, as people used to campaign against this until “activist judges” settled the matter)? Think of, let’s say, Roger and Chaz Ebert. Their equal rights would be stripped. Their marriage would no longer exist. She would not be able to visit him, should he go to the hospital.
This is a very simple argument: people were granted equal rights this summer in California, and other people contributed and voted so that they wouldn’t have them anymore. In other states, gay and single straight people were stripped of their right to adopt. We cannot let equal rights be taken away. When you read about the movements for equal rights in your history books, did you think, “I would have stood by those people?” What are you doing now?
I’m not from the US, so I didn’t really hear who advertised what to whom and how many misleading statements were used, but it is foolish to believe that, just because someone disagrees with you, they are bigots and/or evil. If you want to change someone’s mind, you have to truly understand what it is the other person believes. I would put forward that such an attempt is not being made here.
From what I understand (and I have never dug too deeply into this issue), even if you voted for Prop 8, you can easily not be anti-gay. How? Off the top of my head, I came up with the following: the proposition was only to clarify the definition of marriage, not to exclude people from getting married. No rights were being taken away, because a gay man is free to marry any woman who wants to marry him (and vice versa). I know this sounds stupid and pedantic, but the earlier decision didn’t give equivalent rights, but instead changed the definition of marriage. The judges seemed to decide on a different definition of marriage than, apparently, the majority of Californians did. I am confident that a vast majority of people who voted for Prop 8, could easily be convinced that civil union/government recognition should be given to gay couples, but that isn’t the issue here. In order to enact gay marriage, it is going to be necessary to convince the majority of people to change their definition of marriage. Not impossible, but a bit longer road to take. I would expect it within 50 years or so…
If you want my opinion, however, i don’t believe marriage is an inalienable right and I don’t believe the government should be involved at all in determining what it is. The government should instead reflect whatever it is that society decides.
I do, however, believe that freedom of thought and politics IS an inalienable right and I see such horrific hypocrisy here that I’m glad I don’t live in California.
Let’s reverse the situation and see how many people think this is a witch hunt and discrimination.
An amendment is on the ballot in California to ban Bibles. It is largely viewed by Christians as discriminatory because no other religious texts are banned, and in fact, the amendment encourages the Torah, the Koran, etc.
It is discovered that Joe Blow, the executive director of Acme Bible Publishing, has donated $1500 to the measure, which passed.
Think there wouldn’t be a price to pay?
If you supported Prop 8, and your customer base is largely gay people, what in the name of hell did you expect? You can’t slap your customer in the face, then expect they’ll understand because of your “religious convictions.”
This isn’t a vestry meeting where we all voted on whether to accept gay marriage in our church. This is a removal of constitutional rights in a democracy.
If we somehow became majority Muslim, and a referendum was held on whether to remove the rights of Christians in any way, would be amenable to the excuse that it was a “religious issue” and people were entitled to vote their conscience because of their “religious convictions”?
How about if due to my Christian beliefs, a constitutional ban was put in place by popular vote that banned rich people, banks, lending, etc., because that clearly is something Jesus railed against? Would that be acceptable to pass such a ban because it was “a religious belief”?
“He shouldn’t lose his job, but I would (and encourage others to) never support a venture he was involved in again.
He used his income to support discrimination. It is time to withhold ours to fight back.”
Same with the Dodgers, too, right?
I mean, Second baseman Jeff Kent contributed $15,000 to the Pro-Prop 8 group.
Heck, an up-and-coming Dell Computer marketing guy contributed $25,000 to the pro-Prop 8 group. Put them on the list, too (Apple Computer donated $100,000 to defeat the measure, so we can still use our Macs).
If we’re going to boycott, it makes sense to include the non-Mormon contributors and their organizations, too, right?
Voting for Prop 8 in the privacy of the voting both would be bad enough but that is your right and privilidge as an American citizen. To help finance a viral campaign that dehumanized and denegrated an entire segment of the population by publishing lies and enuendos is another thing altogether.
This campaign swayed ignorant voters into believing gays and lesbians were out to teach their children the “gay lifestyle”, force their churches to conduct same sex marriages and take away their own rights of free speech.
This man works with people on a daily basis that this amendment discriminates against. How in good conscience can he look them in the face and expect them to be civil to him. He should be ashamed of himself for discriminating against the people that work with him and support him in his job.
“This is a very simple argument: people were granted equal rights this summer in California, and other people contributed and voted so that they wouldn’t have them anymore.”
From your point of view gays were granted equal rights. From the other side’s point of view, gays were not. From its view, gays were granted a non sequitur, something which does not exist, hence
they did not lose any rights at all, the constitution was merely amended to clarify that the state of California would not recognize that non sequitur. So if it’s a “very simple argument” for you, then it is for the other side as well, except in the opposite direction.
Also, James, I’m not sure what you’re arguing by bringing up interracial marriage. The problem with that analogy is that at bottom it was still a man and a woman, which is why ultimately bans against it were overturned. That’s what the pro-Prop 8 side would (and does) argue.
“When you read about the movements for equal rights in your history books, did you think, ‘I would have stood by those people’?”
I’m a trained historian. I lost such naive, ahistorical attitudes ages ago, if I ever had them.
“An amendment is on the ballot in California to ban Bibles.”
If this sort of lazy, facile thinking is the best that the anti-Prop 8 campaign had on its side, no wonder it lost.
What disturbs me about this whole affair is the fact that the people who are now facing financial repurcussions from their choice to support Prop 8 want to claim that their freedom of speech, religion, etc. has been infringed upon.
You were free to support whatever crazy ballot measures that you wanted to. No one stood in your way when you donated money to the Yes on 8 campaign, no one kept you from voting however you wanted to.
Now that the election is over and we’re legitimately angry about the decision that has been made, you’re feeling the heat – just the way we’ve always felt the heat.
In the two instances that have been publicized, this musical theater director and the women who works for/manages the El Coyote restaurant, their businesses tapped directly into the gay community. Did they honestly think that they could stab in the backs the very people who supported them and not face any repercussions?
Please! I’m good enough to give you my money so that I can see a theatrical production or eat a meal at your restaurant, but I’m not good enough to have the right to marry? That’s just hogwash! If you’re so anti-gay marriage, why in the world are you working in the theater in the first place?
Whoa, two comments were inane enough here to deserve special focus:
Kambei: “No rights were being taken away, because a gay man is free to marry any woman who wants to marry him (and vice versa).”
Uh, seriously?
Blackcloud: “From your point of view gays were granted equal rights. From the other side’s point of view, gays were not. From its view, gays were granted a non sequitur, something which does not exist, hence they did not lose any rights at all.”
Oh, OK! So if I don’t believe in a law, I can simply call it a “non sequitur,” plug my ears and say, “Nah nah nah can’t hear you” and then it doesn’t exist! What a marvelous idea.
This isn’t a “perspective” issue. The California Supreme Court literally gave gay people equal rights this summer, and Prop 8 took them away. Blackcloud, I shudder to think what kind of “trained historian” you are that you can’t even admit that simple, indisputable fact. You might not *like* that gay people got equal rights under the law, but to say it actually didn’t happen, that it’s a “non sequitur”… whoo boy!
“From your point of view gays were granted equal rights. From the other side’s point of view, gays were not.”
What other sides’s point of view? What part of living in a constitutional democracy do you not understand?
Were you entirely asleep in Civics 101 or did you just fail outright?
What part of a supreme court decision on the protections of the California constitution didn’t you get. Earth to Blackcloud: supreme court justices have more weight than Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson. I know, it’s a hard concept to grasp, but just trust me, they do.
The constitution protects EVERYONE. That means you just as much as it does gay people. Wow. Tough concept, but try pondering that for a few minutes.
How about this? Since you don’t want to include me in the rights that you enjoy as a presumably straight (though I have my doubts) man, how about we become equal by stripping some of the privileges you enjoy for no other reason than who you find sexually attracted to. Do like they do in Canada. Taxes are taxes, and you don’t get a break because you’re married. How about going further. How about social security? What is the difference between two gay men working and struggling for decades as a couple, and on the death of one, the surviving partner doesn’t get a dime of the other’s social security benefit. Why should you? Just because you’re straight, why should I as a tax payer have to pay for your wife’s social security benefit based on your income?
Fair is fair. Either eliminate the benefits the state confers upon YOU because you’re straight, or give ME the same benefits from the state. You can’t have it both ways. That’s why we have a constitution: equal protection. That’s exactly what that term means: EQUAL PROTECTION.
James, you’re like one of my sloppy, lazy students if you read anything I wrote to imply that I am somehow unaware of the California SC’s decision. Of course it legalized gay marriage, and did so on equal protection grounds (which isn’t the same as equal rights, but it’s not an important difference for our purposes). But it had, until that decision, been illegal in California, and has (unless Prop 8 is overruled) become illegal again.
“This isn’t a ‘perspective’ issue.” Yes it is. It’s not my fault you can’t see that. The other side has a perspective. You may not like it, but it exists, and unlike you I can acknowledge that it does. Which makes me the sort of “trained historian” who looks at the evidence and recognizes that there is more than one side to the question. Denying the other side’s (or sides’) viewpoint isn’t how you win. Convincing the most people that yours is the superior one is. Gay marriage proponents haven’t done that yet. But as a “trained historian,” I also know that yet does not mean they never will.
James: My comment was not inane. I would have hoped you had read my entire comment. My comment specifically highlighted the fact that it was not the removal of a right that was in question, but how that “thing”/”right” was being defined. The immediate repercussions are the same, but the reasons the decision was made are not. Therefore, for the future, this should be noted. People still need to be convinced, not that same sex couples deserve benefits, but that is okay/good/preferable to change the definition of marriage. This is what the movement needs to accomplish. If you took anything else out of my comments, it is only because you read the intent you wanted to read.
This is what is most wrong with our society today, no one makes any attempt to understand the “other side(s)” of the argument–they are automatically wrong/evil. Instead of trying to convice them, we try to circumvent them.
This is hard. I am very liberal and consider myself open-minded. I believe that we should be tolerant of intolerant people and their intolerant beliefs, but at the same time, how do I take a stand against hatred without compromising my “open-mindedness” belief?!?!
I think it’s sad that he gave such a huge chunk of money to a hateful, homophobic cause…
That, it seems to me, DBTP, is where voting with your pocketbook comes in.
In general, I do think some compassion for posters in this thread is called for. It cannot be easy to be an intelligent person who is on a gradual path toward realizing that what you thought were your “beliefs” are actually your prejudices.
Blackcloud, I think the problem is, you’re not making your point clear (I’m not sure what it is myself). Perhaps if you stated exactly what it is that _you_ are trying to get us all to believe, instead of couching it in these long-distance ‘it’s all a matter of perspective’ arguments we could make some progress.
I mean, if you want to go that route, then the next argument would be that since the universe is likely to end in heat death in eighty quintillion years that the problems of a local ballot issue are pretty insignificant. But what would be the point of that?
“What other sides’s point of view? What part of living in a constitutional democracy do you not understand?”
Jeff, I would say this statement is emblematic of the failures of the pro-gay marriage side which I am trying to illuminate. It will continue to get nowhere if all it does is trumpet as loudly and shrilly its certainty of its own moral rectitude. Clearly, the anti-SSM crowd is equally certain of its own moral rectitude, and has been more successful in persuading those in between to agree. Both sides are convinced. Then what? Saying that one’s opponents are benighted, duplicitous, evil, nefarious, etc., feels good, but will not get you past preaching to the choir. The pro-SSM movement needs to move beyond the choir. Whether or not one finds the other side legitimate (and for most commenters here the other side is anti-SSM), it does exist, has a definable perspective, and acts on it. Denying it is futile. I’m not trying to get anyone to believe anything, beyond recognizing that both sides exist and are coherent and comprehensible in their own terms. Most of the commenters are arguing that gays have had their rights taken away. The other side DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT. However distateful that may be, that is a reality that the losers on Prop 8 will have to come to grips with if they are going to over turn it. It is not enough to say the other side is wrong. One must also articulate a compelling case as to why. So far, those on the losing side (30/30 so far on ballot inititatives) has not done so.
“What part of a supreme court decision on the protections of the California constitution didn’t you get[?]”
The person who wrote this statement is the one who doesn’t understand what it means to live in a constitutional democracy. Because, the last time I checked, the popular initiative process is one of the structures of the constitutional democracy that is the state of California. The initiative process is in a way a fourth branch of government, one which checks and balances the other three. Here, the judicial branch was checked and repudiated, as the people may legitimately do. The constitutional democracy of California functioned as it was meant to. Whining about how democracy is supposed to work is meaningless when it works otherwise, but within its constitutional parameters.
Can you clarify your stance just one more notch, please?
Holy @#$! the universe is going to end? Then why the heck and I still paying off my credit card? 🙂
I wonder at the presumption of those who think those who disagree with gay marriage (as it’s defined in such measures), they are “prejudiced” or “homophobic.” Yet more name-calling. This issue is so polarizing, supporters on both sides so convinced, I wonder if there can ever be a compromise?
Let’s make it fair: scrap marriage as a government institution and make it a civil domestic contract between ANY two (or more) people. THEN those people can get “married” in their church as they see fit. If denying marriage is considered discrimination, then every consenting adult should have that right.
If not…where is the line drawn?
Jeff, I don’t have a stance. I’m not a partisan on the issue on either side. That is probably why I come across as dispassionate, as I think you said in an earlier thread. I am approaching this analytically.
Very well, but you seem to be spending more of your efforts ‘correcting’ one side than the other. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying but I think that, given the emotional nature of the subject, an ‘analytic’ approach may not be the most conversationally fruitful.
Jeff, that’s a fair point that I’m correcting one side more, but I think that’s because the argument I’m making applies more to one side than the other. I may be mistaken on this, but the few anti-SSM commenters haven’t been denying that there is a contrary viewpoint to theirs. They reject it, but at least acknolwedge it. Whereas my attempts to point out to the a few pro-SSM commenters (not all by any means) that there is another side have been met with howls of “What other side?” That is what has irked me, and that is why I seem to have devoted my attention to one side more than the other. I’m not disagreeing with them for being pro-SSM, I’m disagreeing with how they’re being pro-SSM. I know that is a nebulous distinction to make, but to me it is a crucial one.
As for an “analytical” approach being less fruitful, I would say that given how emotionally fraught the issue is, a little detachment might not be such a bad thing. If I have a stance, that’s probably it. Sometimes when the stakes are high the best course is to act as though they aren’t.
My point is, while I agree with the ideas you’re promulgating, you need to keep in mind the reactions of the people you’re addressing (ironically, I think you’re falling into the very trap you’re trying to warn people against – not seeing how the other side thinks, in this case, why people are feeling so emotional and integrating that into your posts).
Jeff, I think that’s a fair criticism. It is not always easy to practice as one preaches, but I will strive to. Thanks.
Again, let me state that I basically agree with you – the Prop 8 fight will better be won by proving to its supporters that homosexuals aren’t to be feared, than with ‘reprisals’ and ‘punishments’.
Wow. You guys are having one of the most intelligent, respectful conversations about Prop 8 that I’ve seen on any of the many blogs that have covered the issue. I am going to weigh in just to shake it up a little. I think you’ve gone a little off topic and we should get back to discussing whether or not his resignation should be accepted.
I know Rich Raddon. I think the world of him. I have never heard him say a negative thing about gay people. He made a huge blunder. I am sure he was specifically asked to donate money by a leader in his church. All the Mormon congregations in CA had specific fundraising goals. He should have said no and cited that it would have put him in an awkward position that might potentially damage his career and bring controversy to his employer. I truly think he probably didn’t play out the potential effects, and he donated simply because he was asked to, and he felt it right to be obedient to the leaders of the church.
Clearly, Rich didn’t have to resign. He is protected from being fired for his political or religious beliefs. But by offering his resignation, is he being a coward who won’t stay and fight for what he believes in or is he being a martyr?
Personally, I think he’s going to become a martyr that the religious right, specifically the Mormons, will hold up as proof that the SSM supporters have totally crossed the line and persecuted this good, family man for doing what he thought was right. And this does not bode well for our cause.
The backlash against specific individuals needs to stop. It’s counterproductive. It only emboldens those who are against SSM, and does nothing to change hearts and minds. We need to quit laying blame and focus on moving forward so we can get past what is proving to be a very ugly chapter in our state’s political history.
Straight, you’re not the only one to make the case that targeting individuals for acting on their beliefs will be counterproductive. It’s part of what Jeff and I are arguing in our different ways, and someone on Kos proposed that it is to be avoided because what is sauce for the goose will be (and has been) sauce for the gander.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/13/142924/00
Blackcloud,
I certainly didn’t mean to imply that mine was an original idea! I just thought I would put it out there. Thanks for the link to the Daily Kos article. I just found out through a very trusted source that Rich didn’t submit his resignation, as was previously reported. Apparently, his board and his team are behind him 100%.
Straight, I wasn’t trying to imply that you were being unoriginal. I hope it didn’t come across that way.
Blackcloud,
No, it didn’t. No worries. Now, I’m off to make signs for the big rally tomorrow. And I will share my message that singling out individuals is the wrong approach!
If not singling out individuals, then who? No one? This affected tens of thousands of individuals who had no choice in the matter.
“The backlash against specific individuals needs to stop. It’s counterproductive. It only emboldens those who are against SSM, and does nothing to change hearts and minds.”
Well, it’ll sure as hell make Californians think twice before they donate to anti-gay causes, that much is certain!
Not really, JL.
Think about the proportion of people who donated to Yes on 8 whose jobs put them into daily contact with gays in an industry like film or theater, vs. the proportion of donators who believe that they don’t know a single homosexual, and if they do, whose livelihoods are not involved?
Kambei: It’s not about the right to marry someone. It’s about the right to marry the person you love. Consider your argument. Do you think a church would knowingly bless a union of a gay man and a woman who do not love one another? Or the union of a lesbian and a straight man where there was no love? Or any couple where there they don’t love one another but they just wanted to get married for the tax breaks or to be able to buy a bigger home or so that they can adopt/foster a kid (Arkansas) or basically just for the benefits associated with being married because legally they can do that? Seriously, isn’t gay marriage really a religious issue rather than a political issue? Do you think politicians would really care about gay marriage but for fear of losing their religious constituency (or due to their own religious beliefs)? Show me the report of the atheists who voted for Prop 8 because politically, atheists just didn’t believe two gays should marry, and I’ll retract my statement. The argument that the right to marry was not taken away – that you can still marry someone of the opposite sex – is Hasselbeckian. Yes, I could probably go to a chapel in Vegas or a courthouse and marry some woman I met at the blackjack table, and no one would care whether or not we loved one another. So I guess I’ll always have that “right.” But do I want it? Hell no! I, like my three straight sisters, want to marry the man I fell in love with. But I can’t do that (except for in Connecticut and Massachusetts and Canada and Spain…). With respect to the article that spawned all of the posts, the HRC puts out a shopping guide every year that recommends companies that support GLBT equality. Actively supporting GLBT supporters and actively not supporting non-supporters – that isn’t discrimination. To put it as simply as possible – that’s just taking care of the people who take care of you. Should the guy be fired? No. Can you choose not to attend his events or his restaurant or laundromat or gas station or movie theatre or shopping market or whatever, and choose to go to the man/woman down the street who supports equality? You bet.
WD–
“Actively supporting GLBT supporters and actively not supporting non-supporters – that isn’t discrimination. To put it as simply as possible – that’s just taking care of the people who take care of you. Should the guy be fired? No. Can you choose not to attend his events or his restaurant or laundromat or gas station or movie theatre or shopping market or whatever, and choose to go to the man/woman down the street who supports equality? You bet.”
I think this is a great point. What bothers me, for example, about the situation at El Coyote (their manager apparently donated $100 to Yes on 8) is that the protestors are in front of her business and they are verbally harassing people who choose to patronize the restaurant. I don’t think it’s necessary, and of course, it’s just fuel for the other side. However, we can all vote with our wallets. My friends and I will choose to to eat Mexican food somewhere else. And that’s our right.
On another note, the protest today was amazing. Everyone was so peaceful and respectful. I was very proud to be a part of it. These are the kinds of activities that we need to continue engaging in to ensure that our collective voices are heard.