Gay marriage backers threaten boycotts of pro-Prop. 8 restaurants

Some opponents of Prop. 8 are threatening to boycott the businesses of people who donated money to the ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California.

It was unclear how widespread the threats were, but an latimes.com database listing contributors to both sides of Proposition 8 saw a jump in traffic Wednesday.

El Coyote, the well-known Mexican restaurant on Beverly Boulevard in Los Angeles, received calls threatening a boycott after it was reported that someone associated with the eatery contributed $100 to "Yes on 8."

Bob Montoya, a manager at El Coyote, said customers have called and threatened to boycott the restaurant, but it does not appear to have affected business. Montoya said he thought a boycott, if one was called, was misguided, as the restaurant has a number of gay employees and has always been gay friendly.

"I"m gay and I work here, and I've been here for 31 years," Montoya told The Times. "It's gay friendly. People have been coming here for many years, gay and straight, families and everybody."

Word of the boycott has spread around websites and Facebook. "We should put our money where our mouth AND support is AND NOT AT EL COYOTE," says a posting on one activist's website.

The Times also received a letter threatening a boycott of an El Pollo Loco whose owner apparently contributed to the Prop. 8 campaign.

Sonja Eddings Brown of ProtectMarriage.com said the boycott threats have extended beyond eateries.

“We have received calls today from our members in Greater Los Angeles and other parts of the state indicating that today their businesses are being hurt because they contributed money,” she said. “People who contributed have been receiving calls from people dropping their business with them.”

Eater L.A. has a spirited debate about whether it's right to boycott El Coyote.

A similar dispute is roiling the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento.

--Alexandra Zavis, Gale Holland and Shelby Grad

Comments

[Jack D. Ripper]

"GAYSTAPO". ?? So if I don't vote the way YOU THINK, your gonna try to hurt me? Go after my Buisness, Family, Religion? Sounds like SODOMITES have turned into Nazi's. I liked them better, when they were under rocks, or in the Closet's......

[Caleb]

Wait a minute. Boycotting is an unreasonable act? It’s childish? You really think you have the power to shut down Disney and Hollywood, but you won’t because you’re so high-minded and reasonable?! Please. You are not shutting them down because they’re not attacking your right to marry. They treat their gay employees fair and make movies of questionable taste, and that might upset you, but their not after YOU.

[Caleb]

It's simple. No on 8 people are exercising their voices as citizens by flexing their rights as consumers. This boycott may not have the intended outcome, but it is reminding the businesses and individuals of a very important right that they do not have: the right to be protected from monetary losses if you use your free speech to offend someone else. Are gays offended? Yes. Far be it from you to mock their sensitivity to an issue that affects them more than it affects you.

Yes on 8 people bicker that gay supporters are sore losers. Well, complaining that people are boycotting your business makes YOU a sore loser. Are you upset that you are not getting a return on your investment...those big chunks of change with which you parted in support of the marriage ban? If you lose money, it's because your support was never about money. It was about morals. Well, you won. Be content with your moral victory.

And please, stop with all the accusations that gays are further dividing society with this boycott. Had gays remained on the fringes of society, hiding and divided, none of this Prop 8 stuff would've ever happened. Also, the number of businesses and individuals that cared enough to donate to the Yes on 8 cause is a minority. Any boycotter who wishes to consume goods and services has a whole host of other businesses from which to choose, not only gay-specific businesses. Boycotting isn't as divisive as everybody is warning.

[Lance]

Amazing and gives me hope. Largely ignored by politicians, gays and gay supporters are voting with their money. Very clever.

Nothing hypocritical about it. The fact that these businesses aren't allowed to refuse employment to gays is moot. Really, idiots abound.

Money speaks louder than words. Bravo.

And please, save the fake outrage and fear that gays will harass and threaten violence to the now revealed Prop 8 supporters. Not going to happen, save for a small chance of isolated instances. Gays are more likely to use soft power, their money, than the hard power of fists. Again, BRAVO!

[Basil Fitze]

I live in Canada and gay and lesbians can legally marry with equal rights and the sky did not fall. Business go on and life is fine.

Gay marriage is big business in Canada and thousands of Americans flock here to marry thier partner and are welcomed and excepted, give us the business we give you your rights.

Wake up America, maybe gay people should refuse to pay taxes since they are not true citizens and are not equal.

The USA is a joke. I boycott the whole place, if its made in the USA its not for me. The USA IS what its claiming its fighting, terrorists. Compare Iran to USA on gay rights exactly the same more or less.

The USA is dying and draging the whole world with it.

[Amused Observer]

I love it when liberals become militant. It's the surest way to scare off support by the general public. The gay community made its greatest strides when it was cute, cuddly and lovable--the nice guy/gal next door-like Ellen. Now when it doesn't get what it wants, it tries to shut businesses down. Do you really want to start an economic boycott war?---you'ld lose. Should Christian families boycott Disneyland because of its pro-gay stance?. Or should we all boycott Hollywood because of its liberal-everything stance? We have the power to shut these industries down, but we don't. The reason, because that is not how reasonable poeple act.

[Freedom Fan]

I plan to start patronizing El Coyote to support Marjorie and others who act on the strength of their convictions. Every Mormon I have ever known was a wonderful person. Please tell me who else you are boycotting so I can support them also.

The purpose of marriage in a society is to honor and promote the lifetime relationship which best provides children with a stable home environment and male and female adult role models. It is already tough enough for a gal to get a guy to commit to a lifelong relationship without making marriage into a joke. Marriage is on the ropes because of welfare and the loss of the social stigma of divorce. Traditional marriage is as old as civilization; supporting traditional marriage is not anti-gay rights; it is pro-civilization.

Society does not have much interest in whether gays change partners. Gays through California Registered Domestic Partnerships already have all the rights of married folks. So what do gays really want? The truth is that gay "marriage" is about legislating universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle and intolerance of traditional values.

For example, in Canada and other countries they have "Human Rights" Commissions which can fine and impose lifetime "hate speech" bans on anyone who criticizes gay behavior even by directly citing scripture. This is where we are headed. This is a freedom issue. Our freedom to express ourselves is in danger.

The traditional definition of marriage is supported throughout the country -- even in California. Using a couple of liberal judges to subvert the will of the people is undemocratic.

You need to change folks' minds. Throwing your sexuality folks' faces and attacking their religion will just result in a backlash.

[Yesss-prop8-here to stay!]

We can all play the boycott game, let's see the majority of the people of this country are conservatives, hmmm, that tells me if we become just as nasty and immature as the gays/lesbians/etc., we can maybe go beyond prop 8 and change the diagnosistic manuals to define homosexuality as the deviant sexual behavior that it is. We will never accept it, it is not your right to destroy our country with a perverse sexual behavior/lifestyle. We will support those businesses that you want to boycott and America is waking up, thank you for exposing yourselves...Now you can go back to the closet.

[ProGayUnion]

Riddle: How much money does it take to scare away the Entire Gay Community? Just $100, maybe less. Who Knew! Anyone got $100?

Darn. I overpaid. I spent 10xs that. Ya do the math. $1000 down the toilet. :(

[MarjorieFan]

What is this a witch hunt?We're not in Salem anymore, Dorothys.

Give some respect to Marjorie for standing up for her long-time beliefs. She doesn't hate gays neither does her chuch. It's evident from her words and her actions. She just doesn't think it's necessary to redefine "marriage." Call it something else. New union- New term. (Atleast Marjorie didn't throw her long-time church under the bus- like our new and improved President Elect Obama did and promised he would Not!) We Love You Marjorie!!

[FreeWill]

It seems ironic to me that a person with religious ties living in what some like to call a "free society" and supporting their moral and religious convictions can be treated with prejudice by a lifestyle group like the gay community.

El Coyote was the first restaurant I ate at, that was in 1947. It continued to be my favorite restaurant for many years. Then in the late 1960's and early seventies I enjoyed it less and less. Not because of any decline in the food or the service, but because of the loss of the family atmosphere. El Coyote slowly became the Lost Angeles version of La Cage Aux Folies, and I felt uncomfortable taking my young daughter or friends and acquaitences to dine there. The public display and the fawning, by the gay clientel, were just, "too in your face". Last September I had the urge to have a good El Coyote meal so I went there. Not long after I was seated the Maitre d' showed a middle aged couple to the booth diagonal from the one where I was seated. The individual seated facing me was a middle aged cross-dresser with a five o'clock shadow, no fashion sense and bad make-up skills. It spoiled my lunch.

I consider the gay boycott good news. Maybe non-gays can feel less uncomfortable at El Coyote now. Go Marjorie!

[lesbo inflamed]

Please. This will all be mute when the Ca. Supreme Court rules. Either every adult gets to marry the person of their choice, or no one does.

You wanna protect marriage? Outlaw divorce.

[solidox]

one of the best things you can do to hit the LDS is to repeatedly request "free" literature from them. it costs them money to make it, so the more people there are requesting it, the more money they lose in free handouts.

retribution against restaurants is even easier. go to a pro-prop 8 restaurant with a large party. order the most expensive dishes on the menu with complicated requests for substitutions. when they arrive, take one bite. complain about quality, don't eat anything else, and leave. if enough people use this tactic, a place could go out of business in virtually no time.

retail stores are obvious. does a small pro-8 store have a return-friendly policy? great! go and buy something. wait until the last couple of days for valid returns and go return it. it costs them more money to process returns, and while the inventory is not on the shelf, it will not be sold to someone else, ergo they will not recover the loss quickly if at all. an alternative strategy is to have a group of friends which outnumbers the floor staff go and keep the floor staff occupied with helping fake customers while real customers go unhelped. this works in viritually any small retail environment, be it a clothing boutique or a computer store or a jeweler or whatever. remember, time is money, and the more of their time you have, the less money they have.

the fact is, it's all about money. money has been used to oppress and deprive individual rights long enough. it's time for people to use strategies that actually deliver; that's why boycotts are great, but financial disruption is even better.

they used their money and tactics to deprive a whole class of legal, law-abiding citizens of their rights. why shouldn't you use yours to let them know that you won't take it?

[Jack]

La Guy call it whatever you want but no matter how you look at the situation on hand to call someone a hater for standing up for what they believe in makes you the most ignorant person I have ever heard of. Stop with the hate crap. It is not going to last forever. And as far as I am concerned I could care less if the whole world thought I was a polygamist just because I am LDS. I am not even married and you should look up why these men were married to so many women at one time before you start spewing lies out of that big fat mouth of yours. And if people start looking back on the LDS Church as haters and what not that will be their problem and not mine.

[LA Guy]

Believe me Jack, IF it comes to another initiative, hate will lose. But that is premature. Prop. 8 could get thrown out by the courts. Or the 1.8 million ballots that are still being counted could tilt the outcome (since the vote is only 500k apart).

The real losers in the issue will be the LDS. They have outed themselves as bigoted hypocrites. The general public is going to remember the LDS role in this for a very, very long time. I guess you don't have to worry about people assuming you are a polygamist anymore.

[Jack]

I have a great idea for all you gay activists. Why don't you all save your energy for when it counts. Like for example the next election when you could possibly put an iniative on the ballot to overturn prop 8 instead of campaiging for something that does not yet exist. Where were all of you before the election? I mean really people and start doing things right. You already underestimated the power of the people of California once so don't do it again. And what you are all doing right now by bashing on other people who don't agree with you is not helping your case very much either. I have said that before and I will say it many more times again. And just so you all know, boycotting Utah is not going to affect the church. It does not rely on tourism or state revenues to keep expanding. Trust me I should know because well I am LDS. Or in other words Mormon. So save it for when it really counts and maybe next time you will have your way. For example when John McCain lost he gave an excellent concession speech and my respect for that man flew through the roof. Maybe you should do the same and congratulate the other side for a good fight and you might win over those that were sitting on the fence and could have gone either way. And when I say that I do not imply that all of those who could have gone either way voted yes on prop 8. But just some food for thought.

[Seven]

I just can't get over how stupid you pro on 8 people are. You have obviously never had to fight for any rights of your own. And, if you have, shame on you for calling us "whiners and hypocrites". The churches boycott everything from the sponsors of "Ellen" to the radio stations that play "Dixie Chicks" . They are "boycott crazy" and nobody was even coming close to taking away THEIR rights. I'll spend my money where I want. I don't give my money to support hate and discrimination. Is that really so hard to understand? I'm glad that our community can be of such great service by helping you use the boycott to find new places to spend your money. Let me know if you would like a list of pro slavery misogynist neo-nazi white supremacist restaurants to eat at while your at it. I mean, can't you people get a life. Do you really spend your free time reading the posts on these sites that have nothing to do with you? That is sooooo weird. Then you take the rest of your time rounding up friends to go out and patronize anti-gay establishments. I really feel sorry for you. I mean, where were you when Hitler really needed you. I guarantee you would have backed him a hundred percent. He was voted into office you know.

Also, did it ever occur to you that the enormous amount of money the pro 8 individuals gave to fund the prop could have been used to help needy children? what about helping women who need a shelter to take their children to when their husband from their beautiful religiously sanctified traditional marriage has been beating them too badly? You people are so worried about a boycott ? Obviously, these people must have money to burn.

[Darren]

Very well put Sam. I would have liked to have read your post before the elections.

[Michael]

The political pendulum swings the way it does from one extreme to the other because compromise is too rare a quality people practice. In the early 80's gay activists worked hard to secure basic human rights for homosexual couples, and eventually won them, securing their civil rights in state and federally recognized domestic partnership. Rational minds would recognize a hard won victory and know the importance of compromise, but hate filled minds are not rational and will not listen to reason. Its no longer about gay couples' rights, but about venting anger when the democratic process has not worked in their favor. Furthermore, rational minds would recognize that extreme behavior backfires. History is replete with unintended consequences caused by extremists like the gay activists.

For example, the 1860's congress had precious few members willing to oppose slavery, but extremists wanted to silence even the mere possibility of a voice of opposition. The extremism ended in war. We know how that ended. Hitler and the hate filled hordes ended similarly. Compromise could end extremism, preserving precious human rights, but hate filled activism doesn't listen to reason.

[Jennifer S.]

So a woman makes a personal donation to something she believes in. The total dollar amount is $100.00. She hires and works with gays for years. Some shameless whacks make the woman who has been kind to gays in her workplace for years and is not "homophobic" as she has worked hand and hand with them for years,

Her crime? Thinking marriage is this thing between a man and a woman. Sheesh what a nut.

Bullying does not work for me and I voted no. Not anymore. Shame on you.

[keith]

ok i hear a lot of people saying that we gays need to get over it and accept what has happened and stop all the boycott nonsense.....Is that what I am hearing?..........WELL some of you people had a boycott of McDonalds going on this summer for supporting gay rights..(check it out) .So how is it you can boycott and not us? HMMMM oh that is right we are second class citizens and only your views are the correct ones.....i

[keith]

ok i hear a lot of people saying that we gays need to get over it and accept what has happened and stop all the boycott nonsense.....Is that what I am hearing?..........WELL some of you people had a boycott of McDonalds going on this summer for supporting gay rights..(check it out) .So how is it you can boycott and not us? HMMMM oh that is right we are second class citizens and only your views are the correct ones.....i

[davidwf]

Wow, Sam, what a long winded, uninspiring, uninformed bunch of crap. You should be a politician, you said so much without saying anything. But first, educate yourself a bit more, we don't need another Palin.

[stevo]

No dustin. Discrimination in the workplace is illegal.

And supporting a business that uses its profits to advocate for the rescinding of your civil rights is stupid!

These things are different; and neither demonstrates hypocrisy.

[Jennifer]

LETTER SENT TO MY CONTACTS NOVEMBER 12, 2008

Dear Friends/Family:
With great sadness, I must inform you...

"No more EL COYOTE for me!"

Farewell scratch margaritas that could propel a rocket ship; So long bean burritos that are worth the stomach ache the next Am; Hasta luego (oftentimes) cocky, yet hard working, veteran waiters (some of which are openly gay, mind you).

It's not that the food at El Coyote was ever that good or that the margaritas were ever really anything to write home about. It's not as if the prices were so low, that it made up for the culinary shortcomings. It was simply the "experience" that you paid for, and the colorful, friendly, fun environment that always felt felt warm, and festive. If El Coyote was in the plans for the night, it was surely going to be a fun one. It's one of those humbling fixtures of L.A. culture that makes the horrific traffic, and plastic surgery disasters seem more bearable.

The fact that "Margie" Christoffersen (the manager, and daughter of the owner, who most of us have met and/or exchanged a "friendly hello" over the years) would "back stab" a major percentage of her repeat customers and take part in this corrupt, indecent act, is mind boggling.

This has been a "2nd home", and place celebration for the L.A. gay community for decades. It's known for this. What a slap in the face to all of us who supported the establishment "religiously" all these years, gay and straight, alike. How ironic that it was Margie's "religion", the Mormon church who raised $20 million to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry and have equal rights.

To think that one of my guacamole dollars went to pass this bill endorsing discrimination makes me ill.

"El" as I call it (because we were on a first name basis) will no longer be the place I will meet my friends to have "girls night out." It will no longer be the place I take my 87 year old "surrogate grandmother" for a special occasion. It will no longer be the spot where I throw an office party, going away party, birthday party or take my friends/family when visiting from out of town.

This legendary spot just made history in a very cruel way. And I can't be a part of it. No way, Jose.

Ex- El Coyote patron,
Jennifer K.

[Sam]

I really don't get this. Gays aren't denied any basic rights to marry by the passing of this constitutional amendment. The preservation of marriage according to its historical purpose and function still allows gays to marry. What is achieved by the passing of this measure is the preservation of the family structure through which marriage is the instrumental relationship.

I'm feeling too lazy to restate an apology so I'll just reuse my post on a Politico blog.

"Wow. From every ad to every media article against the measure to the way the language was expressed on the ballot, prop 8 had been framed as a ban to eliminate gay rights. I thought it was a measure to affirm the factual, historical and traditional understanding of marriage? The rights of gays to marry are not denied. They can marry in the same way that straights marry, according to the historical function of marriage, which function is to raise a family, which is biologically possible only between two members of the opposite sex.

"What's messed up is that a minority group hijacked what was fundamentally understood to be the basic human relationship in which a family identity is established and propagated, and reduced it to nothing more than an empty government sanction to a certain type of relationship based on sexual disposition. The kicker is that you can't advance this argument and be rationally consistent without also having to affirm any other human relationship based on sexual disposition as valid. Otherwise, we would be discriminating against that group.

"People don't need to get married to express sexuality, and they really shouldn't unless they aim to pass on a family heritage to offspring."

Niko responded to my post.
"Sam--So, according to your argument, those who are unable to bear children , and thuse create a "family," should not be allowed to marry. Also, those who CHOOSE not to bear children should banned from getting married. Marriage, throughtout history, has had many forms and variations. Before the monogamous institution of marriage we celebrate today, there was polygamy. Also, interracial marriage was not allowed. A woman was the property of her husband, not his equal. So, to say that the gay and lesbian community is trying to hijack the term is a stretch. Traditional marriage, as people love to refer to it, has changed with the times. Besides, unless you don't know anything about our government, there is that wonderful thing know as separation of church and state. A church is allowed to sanction any type of marriage it chooses and the government has no say in the matter. Likewise, the state sanctions CIVIL marriage which has NOTHING to do with religion--at least not until religious zealots decide to blur the boundaries between church and state. Gays and lesbians are not trying to force any church to recognize their unions; however, we are trying to get the government to recognize our right to eneter into CIVIL marriage just as heterosexual couples are allowed to. It is a FUNDAMANTAL right, not based on any religion or whim of the majority, but on ones HUMANITY."

In response back,
"No, I don't argue to deny hetero couples who find they are unable to bear children from marrying if they want to raise a family by adoption. The cruelty that nature played upon that couple has no bearing upon the gender identity under which they fall that marriage defines as its constituent components.

"But Niko, that there are variations to the norms does not destroy the fact that there are norms. That we have had throughout history a minority of polygamous, incestuous, and homosexual relationships does not change the function and purpose of marriage as defined by and within those norms. What we can't do is turn a blind eye to those norms and take historical marriage and toss it aside in favor of our own personal disposition towards what it ought to be by whatever private fancy we entertain. That's not civil rights, that's equivocation.

"Civil rights in the first place is concerned about the equal, unbiased treatment of different things of the same capacity without regard to those differences that have no bearing upon that capacity. In other words, where two things are the same, treat them the same way. Where having a darker tan gives one no advantage (except maybe over the personal aesthetics of certain people) over the capacity to produce offspring, vote, perform job functions, or think analytically and cast a verdict, that tan or lack thereof should not be a determining factor in choosing one over another. But it doesn't take a genius to see that there are fundamental differences between men and women such that relationships between a man and a woman, and a man and another man, or a woman and another woman, do not produce the same results.

"And like I said, you can't reduce marriage to nothing more than a state sanction of sexual expression without also validating other forms of sexual expression, as doing otherwise would be discriminating against those variant forms.

"I might also add, as a matter of civil rights, we do have civil unions and the California Family Code 297.5, which grants to same-sex couples the same basic rights that married couples have. So this isn't a matter of civil rights. It's an attempt to blur distinctions, but one that has profound effects upon our values concerning the makeup of a family.

"On the contrary, traditional marriage, despite the advances to our civilized thinking and the greater tolerance we've gained for things borne of them, not surprisingly remain intact. But even if you disagree with that view, certainly you don't save the state of marriage by abolishing it altogether through the dilution of its basic fundamental make up.

"Not that removing from the argument any religious foundation is supposed to add greater value to the argument's persuasiveness, but I hope it can be appreciated that I have not formed my argument on religious grounds, but on history and empirical observable data.

"And historically, there is no case to be made for aberrant relationships like polygamy to have been the standard for marriage. We don't allow polygamy now not merely on legislative grounds arrived at by arbitrary thinking, but because the data points to the superiority of a monogomous relationship between husband and wife for propagating a family line.

"I will repeat this point because this seems to be the thing that is missed by opponents of preserving traditional marriage, which term was forcibly coined in response to an attempt being made to alter the historical value and meaning of the term marriage much in the same way that the meaning of the word gentleman was changed so that it described one's favorable disposition towards a man and dispensed with a factual description about the man's stature.

"The fundamental right of people to marry is not denied anybody with the affirmation of the "traditional" understanding of marriage. This is because marriage IS NOT, has never been, and should never be, simply a state sanction of human relationships on the basis of two people expressing their sexual disposition. Marriage is a relationship between husband and wife that the state sanctions in order that the couple may establish their social institution through their family line. The establishment of this social institution is only made possible by the biological norms imposed upon humanity that requires the union of a male and a female person. Because the union of a male and a female person is the minimum requirement to fulfill the mandate of marriage, the state need not impose any restrictions on the basis of race for race has no bearing on the capacity of people to fulfill that mandate. Therefore, irrespective of the sexual disposition of people, so long as people desire to establish their own family line, they form this relationship which is tried and proven to be the best and only relationship in which the establishment can flourish.

"People predisposed to aberrant, variant forms of sexual relationships and people afflicted with procreative inabilities constitute a small minority of people and that they exist do not destroy the inescapable fact that there are norms through which the marriage relationship had been built.

"On the other hand, if the law is to remove the meaningful distinctions that define marriage as a separate relationship entered into for a special purpose in order to equalize sexual relationships, what is removed with it is the ability of religious organizations that are founded upon doctrines that take a firm moral stance against aberrant sexual relationships to sustain their belief without legal consequences, because any application of that belief would constitute discrimination.

"I know that the gay community simply desires for "equality under the law" and not asking that anyone affirm any aberrant, variant form of sexual disposition. But this equality had already been granted under civil unions and Calfornia Family Code 297.5. To change the value and function of marriage, reducing it to a mere legal affirmation of the relationship between any two people on the basis of expressing their sexual dispositions is to legally affirm not just gay marriage but polygamy and incest. This is the natural outcome of legislating from that argument, because how can you validate one type of sexual relationship and not validate other variant forms of it without illegally discriminating on the basis of differences in sexual relationships, which you argue is unfair and a denial of fundamental civil rights? Well, I suppose we could if we are fine with circular reasoning and reserve the right to break it and be arbitrary with the relationships that we choose to affirm and validate."

In reesponse to another poster who wrote, "However, the real, hard truth of the matter is that civil rights of any minority which is the focus of discrimination cannot be left up to majority vote," I responded as follows.

"Okay. But it can be arbitrated through and sustained by an even smaller number of votes by judges? Take this quote provided by no name taken from the Supreme Court ruling, "In the majority decision: Under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they MAY NOT BE ABROGATED by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process." Nothing said in the language is wrong, but all that it affirms is that all persons should have the same basic rights that both legislators and voters can't take away. Yet, what's being pursued and in response contested is not the rights of gays to marry, which they already can do, it's the fundamental alteration of the structure of the family through which marriage is the instrumental relationship. We can grant marriage and same-sex unions equal value with respect to the rights and benefits conferred unto them by the state. But the two relationships are neither identical nor equal in their capacity to propagate a family line, and it is on these grounds that are factual, historical, and scientifically verifiable and sustainable, that they maintain their separation. Hence, EQUAL in value, yet SEPARATE in function!"

[Alan]

OK I was getting married July 25, 2009 amd now we will wait. Maybe losing this time was not such a bad thing. How silly it is that people I don't know decided that I should not get married.

[Barry F]

They're not boycotting the business owners/managers personal views.
They're boycotting the business for using it's name and reputation in contributing to the destruction of what they believe is a right.

A hippy PETA member working at a slaughterhouse would be hypocritical.
A gay person boycotting a business where they can't be dismissed due to sexual preference is not.

[no]

I agree that we should boycott BUSINESSES that gave money to the campaign. However, you have to be very careful. Every time you make a donation, you must report your employers name.

Thus, just because it says El Paso Cantina (or whatever) next to a dollar amount, does NOT mean that company supported prop 8. It means that a particular EMPLOYEE did, and it's unfortunate that the company has to take the rap for it.

Each company will have people from both sides of the issue, in fact if you checked the contributions from employees at my company you'd probably see quite a bit of money going to each side. So, you may see 50,000 from "my company name here" going to prop 8 and 70,000 going against it. It's misleading because the money came from individual employees acting as individual citizens, not on behalf of the company nor as representatives of the company. They simply had to report the company for which they work due to the law. But my employer himself did not make any contributions either way.

[YaGottaBeKiddin]

I have a suggestion, BOYCOTT DEMOCRACY. You don't accept it anyway. Mexico glady welcomes you and your money with open arms!! BIENVENIDOS TODOS!!!!

[tz]

By the way, the “right” of the Prop 8 crowd to set up tables in front of Costco to gather signatures is a California free speech/petition right -- there is no federal right to enter onto private property to exercise First Amendment rights. If fundamental rights tossed on a simple majority popular vote, what is to stop Costco, Target, Sam’s Club, Westfield malls from putting up the money to amend the constitution because they are offended by the exercise of free speech in front of their stores. Our constitution protects all of us, not just people in minority groups to which you don’t belong personally.

[stephanie]

Remember when 'Brokeback Mountain' was boycotted in theaters? 'nuff said about that?

Stop hiding behind your children and your family. if that was your argument, then people who cheat, divorce,work too much, abuse alcohol or drugs, have mental illness, have low IQ shouldn't have their children.

Also, it is our right to boycott anyone we choose.

And what about instituitions that wouldn't let gay people adopt or get artificial insemination?

While were at it, stop calling on the bible as the end all be all. By your logic, we should have slavery, women as lower class citizens and children are beat.

And what majority? I thought you needed a 2/3 vote. I do not know what numbers you were looking at, but prop 8 was 52% to 48%. I will admit that the No campaign was a bit timid, but they were up against the scare tactics of the right wing. These are not new tactics. The 'fixed' news at fox are always trying to scare the american people about different topics.

Biggest donors were from focus on the family and the christian coalition. Why don't you religious nut balls look at them. They are behind Blackwater, the mercenary army that is terrorizing Iraq and reaping the benefits of oil, death and money.

NO ON H8!

Stop spreading your intolerance.

[tz]

If anyone seriously thinks that Prop 8 is constitutional, reflect on it honestly for a minute. Would it be ok to amend the constitution, on 50% + 1 vote, to force Mormons to wear yellow hats every Thursday? Our Supreme Court has determined that the right to marry the person of one’s choosing, regardless of gender, is a fundamental constitutional right and that gays/lesbians are a protected class. Whether you agree with the Court or not, that is the determination that it has made. How can it possibly be constitutional to deprive a minority group of a fundamental right on a simply majority vote? You may not feel that this is important if you’re not gay (I’m not), but this goes to the very heart of constitutional democracy. The entire purpose of a constitution is to protect fundamental rights from caprice and safeguard the rights of minorities from “mob rule” or the “tyranny of the majority.”

[starpower]

people can vote any way they choose.

and i can spend my money anywhere i choose.

i wouldn't give 1 penny to anyone who would vote to take away my civil rights.

[Ian]

So many of you find our fight for equality ridiculous. Why do you care? Do you see us fighting to keep you from getting divorced after a drunken Vegas wedding.
Don't take your rights for granted. Maybe one day..........

I can shop or refuse to shop where ever I like, and for whatever reason I see fit.
So can you.

Oh, if you do not believe in gay marriage, don't have or attend one. Fair?

[Joe]

More than 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon heterosexual married couples in the United States. By not being allowed to marry, gays and lesbians are denied these rights. Even in the state of Massachusetts, the only US state with legalized gay marriage, most of the benefits of marriage do not apply, because the Defense of Marriage Act states that the federal government only recognizes marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife".

CIVIL UNIONS DO NOT PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING LEGAL RIGHTS

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

[Jeff B.]

I'm glad to see that the gay community is standing up for itself. Don't give up and don't lose your anger. If there is one thing the religious right believes in more than God, it's the almighty dollar. Hit em where it hurts!

[Heidi]

I find it funny that they want to boycott a restaurant based on the owner's religion, while they demand "equality"

Anyway, Gays, I guess you better boycott TELEVISION because the guy that invented it was LDS. HAHA! So if you ask tv crews to come out and film your silly protests, it's a bit hypocritical.

[Todd]

Fred,

Go for it! May I suggest the Chicken Fajitas at El Coyote? The one– and only– time I ate there, that's what I had. And I ended up with food poisoning.

I hope you, your family & all of your homophobic friends enjoy!

[Neil in Hollywood]

Ok...I admit that I haven't read through all these comments. I just want tp make an observation. I am thankful when straight people are respectful and friendly towards me. That's all I really want. I think the equality issue is just a matter of wanting folk to respect me. They don't have to like me, but just be respectful.
I really wonder if straight people can really understand what being gay is all about. All the arguments that I hear anti-gay and/or pro-prop 8 seem to focus on just the sex thing. Sure, by its definition "gay" primarily means that I as a man am attracted to other men. But "queerness" or "gayness" is so much more than that. I don't think straight people can ever really understand gay culture. They can respect and appreciate gay culture, but that can't understand it.

[Jay]

Boycotts have often been successful in creating change. Gays boycotted Coors and made them change their discriminatory hiring policies. Blacks boycotted the Montgomery, Alabama bus system. Latinos boycotted California-grown fruit. These were all successful.

The Southern Baptists boycotted Disney because the company offered domestic partner benefits to its employees. Focus on the Family is always calling for boycotts of companies that offer equal rights to their gay employees.

[thelea]

I am upset about this erroneous finger pointing at African-Americans ansd seniors regarding Proposition 8. Why are you so quick to believe whatever you hear? If someone told me 70 percent of gay people or seniors voted against Obama my first thought would be, I don't believe it! This political year was fraught with right wing lies. These right wing religious extremists are trying to deflect their responsibility for Proposition 8 to seniors, Black people and Black churches.Bear that in mind.

"Religious organizations that support Proposition 8 include the Roman Catholic Church], Knights of Columbus, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson, American Family Association, Focus on the Family[and the National Organization for Marriage Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, California's largest, has also endorsed the measure. The Bishops of the California Catholic Conference released a statement supporting the proposition. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) has publicly supported the proposition and encouraged their membership to support it, by asking its members to donate money and volunteer time. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read in every congregation. Latter-day Saints have provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California. About 45% of out-of-state contributions to Protect Marriage.com has come from Utah, over three times more than any other state…

Still, even though gays were fighting to preserve a basic right, it was the anti-equality side in California that seemed to have the most fervor. A symbolic low point for the gay side came on Oct. 13, when the Sacramento Bee ran a remarkable story about Rick and Pam Patterson, a Mormon couple of modest means - he drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic, she raises their five boys - who had withdrawn $50,000 from their savings account and given it to the pro-8 campaign. "It was a decision we made very prayerfully," Pam Patterson, 48, told the Bee's Jennifer Garza. "Was it an easy decision? No. But it was a clear decision, one that had so much potential to benefit our children and their children.”

This is your real enemy. Don't trust exit polls. I think they are pitting one group against the other. African-Americans are less than 7% of the state population, do the math. Many more Whites voted and they put this over, not Blacks. What are the total numbers of each group that voted. Someone dug into the data and found that we're just now learning is that the exit poll was based on less than 2,300 people. If you take into account that blacks in California only make up about 6.2%, we get roughly 224 blacks who were polled. 224 blacks to blame an entire race! The truth is, I have heard that Prop 8 passed because of Republican support. 82% of Republicans admitted to supporting the proposition. They were not the ones who came out to vote for Obama.

I know someone who watches C-Span and they said most Blacks did not even address the question at all. And they do not have the money to fund a tens of millions of dollars Proposition 8 campaign. Note that they also targeted affirmative action for eradication in another state.
Rather than be upset at the phantom African-American menace, fight like hell. I cannot believe that these larger groups who came out in droves to craft and fund this legislation get a pass and Blacks are being targeted for the blame game. There is no right wing black conspiracy against gay Americans. When you tried to align your struggle with that of Blacks you inherited their enemies. These same enemies are now trying to pit one against the other because they fear the combined numbers of both. Even if Blacks stayed home it would have passed because the extreme religious right and republicans would have raised the dead to get them to vote for it. They funded that campaign, not Blacks.
How many gay activists supported the civil rights movement in the 1960’s? Then how do you automatically expect support in return? Have you asked Blacks to support you or did you just assume?

No one gave Obama anything and they will not give gays anything either. Obama stands on the shoulders of a lot of brave people who gave their lives for him to stand on that podium last night.

Never trust exits polls because in all my years of life, no one has ever been seen at a polling place asking anyone anything when they left.

Don't fall for the lies.

And the people have spoken. They have as much right not to want this as we did to want President Elect Obama. Fight this in the court of appeals and not the court of biased opinion by targeting Blacks for hatred and enmity.

Picket at the church headquarters because that is where this all started. And do so with respect and dignity like Gandhi and MLK.

The argument that this is analagous to slavery is insulting. Slavery renders people property without any rights. This is an argument for one with the others intact. If you are not married no one can whip you, sell your children, or work you to death. Please revisit your history books. And as for it being comparable to interracial marriage battles, again erroneous. Obama is biracial. So are the majority of African Americans, who do now wish to go into the sordid details of how that happened. He is not a rare bird to us.
I am Black, German, Welsh, and Native American. I am not rare either.

That is why we were so up in arms about miscegenation laws. Forced sexual relationships were condoned and loving ones were not. It was an affront and we wanted our women protected and respected.

Now let's all unite and fight this bigotry that the last 8 years has fostered and supported. It has placed a yoke around all our necks, Black and Gay.

[Ray]

We gays are upset at churches and religion because they took our identities from us when we were children by making us hide. Once we found the strength to understand ourselves, our families abandoned us because of the teachings of the church. Now that we know ourselves we want to share that with significant others, but again the church has stepped in and instructed followers to support the amendment that takes that away from us too. Gays are constantly under attack from religion and all we want is to be left alone and not discriminated against. Now prop 8 has shocked the gay community into action. We don't have a goal yet, a plan, or a unified voice, but our anger is beginning to take shape. We are apparently the last group of people that it's ok to discriminate against and that must change.

[Tim]

Jack, if you lacked the good judgment to realize that voting your "morals" would deprive others who might hold to different moral views of their constitutional civil rights and protections, then you are uneducated. If you did so knowing full well what the consequences would be if Prop. H8 passed, then you're not uneducated, you're simply an evil bigot. Your choice.

[*Former* gay]

The LGBT response to the passage of prop 8 has made me see the error of my ways and I have subsequently ended my support/activism on the LGBT community's behalf. *ALL* US citizens are constitutionally entitled to vote their conscience and their religious beliefs. Their religious beliefs long precede "gay activism," and those beliefs for believers are non- negotiable. Gays and lesbians (only 10% of the population) have the exact same constitutional right to marriage as ""everyone else" (the 90% hetero majority). Marriage is a legally binding contract between two members of the opposite sex -- it doesn't discriminate between gay or straight whatsoever. You could be a gay man and lesbian coupled in a marriage, a straight man and lesbian coupled in a marriage, a straight man and a straight woman coupled in marriage, etc. *This* is the civil right that blacks had been denied -- the right to marry a member of the opposite sex (whether they were straight or gay, or whether the opposite was straight or gay.) Yes, marriage IS a hetero thing. That's exactly the point of it. Domestic partnerships, however, are NOT gender-specific. Vote for domestic partnerships and you'll get better support from the hetero (majority) community.

[Lucky Pierre]

Christian groups call for boycotts all the time. If a company or organization does anything that is even slightly gay friendly, these haters threaten with boycotts. Why is it wrong for the gay community to fight back with the same methods?

[Al]

To the last person that posted that comment about Homosexuals being hypocritical.. There are numerous numerous examples that exemplify people who are being treated unfairly being treated "Fairly enough" by their detractors/persecutors. Are you positing that just because a business hired a waiter that is gay that they therefore cannot be boycotted by people of the same sexual orientation just because there are a few employees that the owner hired of the same orientation? That is insane and THAT shows more of that same hypocritical Hetero-CENTRIC behaviour that has plagued and stood in the way of equality FOR ALL! Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King said it best: Our oppressors WILL never step aside simply because we are uncomfortable or not being treated fairly.. WE MUST FIGHT for OUR just cause!! AND that civil disobedience and YES BOYCOTTING TOO. IS our right and our Duty to fulfill our just cause!!

[Jack]

I supported proposition 8. Although I did not donate much it was what I could give. I don't go walking aroung calling you people uneducated for standing up for your beliefs so don't do the same to me. And by the way the No on 8 campaign recieved money from Apple, Google, and other big name companies. So what. They all donated to a cause they believed in. And I hold nothing against them for that. I am a big fam of Apple products. I still continue to use them. I love the city of San Francisco and will continue to go there. Amongst other places where gay marriage is heavily supported. So I honestly don't understand what all this fuss is over to be honest. For all you gays keep fighting your fight if you feel that is the right thing to do. But do not ridicule my family and my friends because we stood up for something that we believed in.

[Robert]

I have to ask why the LA Times forgot to mention that the person at the heart of this issue is NOT just an employee, she is an owner. BIG difference. And why are there people upset that the Gay Community would boycott those who are against their rights? I didn't see anyone on the Yes side get upset when their supporters boycotted FORD, McDonald's, Disney, Google, Microsoft or any of the other businesses that supported Gay rights. And why no mention of the extortion letters sent by the Yes side to No supporters, demanding the same monetary donation or they would publish their names and business info for the same reasons?

I will NOT give my hard earned money to those who would take away my rights. If you are person enough to make donations in this type of issue, then you need to be person enough to stand by that donation.

When the Yes supporters start calling for a stop to boycotts against organizations that supprt gay rights, then maybe it will be fair to call for a stop to the No side. Until then, get over your hypocrisy. It isn't attractive.

[Brad Murphy]

People. Everyone who voted Yes on Prop 8 are okay to do so. Likewise, to those who voted No. I've been to six rally / protests over the last week. There was a terrible injustice when Prop 8 passed.

My grandson is gay and I am so very proud to stand by his side in these marches. He marches with the dignity and peace I passed to my son. I am boycotting because my grandson has the right to say, "This is my husband." He shouldn't have to validate his relationship with years. And he's had two, each more than five. When I introduce my wife, years don't matter. I could never introduce her as my lover, nor as my life partner. . . it would feel temporary somehow. . . less important.

I am boycotting and encourage my friends to do the same. I fought for justice for all when I served, not for some.

May justice prevail! Continue the fight, many great things are happening.

[Yikes]

Why is everyone lacking so much class????

For some reason I can see both sides of the issue......

I'm a gay male that would love to see "civil marriage" for same-sex couples. This would guarantee all equal access, rights, and benefits as "religious marriage."

BUT I EMPATHIZE>>>>>>with the proponents of prop 8.......you don't want to see your children inherit a world filled with people that don't have the same "moral beliefs" as you/your religion sees fit.

As for the boycott.........I don't really care.....lol

More power to the people that chose to take their business elsewhere......I get it.....money made on the backs of a people, to only be then used to put those people down.

BUT>>>>>as for me......Im not really gonna watch where I spend my money. Im not exactly gonna rush to the nearest Mormon/Catholic/Christian church and donate a bunch of money........but I may consider having a chicken taco at El Pollo Loco if the mood strikes.

LOOK>>>>>I don't want some huge revision of the institution of marriage.

HOWEVER>>>>I do want the same rights, responsibilities, privileges, and access to a union with the person of my choosing. (AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CIVIL UNION)

I reiterate......I would be fine with the ideal of Civil marriage........

THE ONLY OTHER SOLUTION I CAN THINK OF>>>>>>

Would be to only allow churches to perform "Marriage".......but then all federal rights, privileges, and responsibilities would be denied.

Under the law, "marriage" is a legal document binding one individual to another............THE LAW CAN NOT DISCRIMINATE.

SO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Government should throw out "marriage" all together. Churches can still perform the ceremony, but wouldn't reap the benefits of that union.

I REALIZE>>>>>>>>>>these ideals are far fetched.......but they are plausible.

Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law..........if the church wants to keep marriage.....FINE!!!!!........

BUT>>>>>>>We should all be equal under the law.

I'm I redundant enough>?

I don't think the "gay community" is trying to impose their lifestyle on anyone. We just want equal opportunity, and having our relationships regarded in the same way, with the same kind of reverence as straight people's relationships.....Its about being equal in EVERY WAY.

PLEASE DON'T LASH OUT>>>>>>

But I fear for the religious community.......But equal to the fear for the gay community......

With both sides being so hard headed and difficult, we lose sight of our REAL goals.....

For the religious community:
Jesus' last command was to go into all the world and teach of his father and his word........>>>My fear is that with such zealous behavior over the issue, are you yourselves hardening peoples hearts???

For the gay community:
We want equality in the eyes of the law. ......>>>My fear is that with such zealous behavior over the issue, are WE ourselves hardening peoples hearts?

THE ANSWER TO BOTH QUESTIONS:

IS YES!!!!!!!!

"Love one another, for God is of love. He who does not love does not know God......For God is love."

[Bill]

Hey Blue, I know this is a late response for you but El Coyote is not going to be firing the employee who donated to Prop. 8. She is the manager but also happens to be the DAUGHTER of the owner. Oh...and they ARE Mormons too!

[Bill]

It is really simple -

Businesses have a right to "speak" with their wallets in support of any cause they agree with.

Customers have the same right to "speak" by closing their wallets to businesses that support causes they oppose.

But that is an example of EQUALITY which is apparently a dirty word to those who believe in discrimination, like those who voted to write discrimination into the California State Consitution.

[Polly Crackers]

Get your protest gear here... http://www.cafepress.com/NoTime2H8

[Steve]

I supported Proposition 8 and I now fully support a boycott of Utah! If people against Proposition 8 have the strength of their convictions they will stay away and demand that all others do likewise.

Utah has a multitude of sites of which their serenity and beauty is simply beyond all rational description. In my estimation, there is nowhere else quite like it on earth. The State already has 10 times as many tourists as it's fragile ecosystem can support. And, there are not just Mormons everywhere, but Catholics, Evangelical Christians, and increasing numbers of Hispanics and Blacks! There are likely many other Proposition 8 friendly groups there that I failed to mention.

It would indeed be unfortunate for real Proposition 8 opponents to spend a dime in that place. Don't drive through it. Don't even fly over it! Money would be much better spent in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and at friendly locations and businesses in California or anywhere else for that matter.

[GAY FRIENDLY]

I'M GAY FRIENDLY, AND I WILL CONTINUE TO BUY CHICKEN BURRITOS AND ENCHILADAS AT EL COYOTE AND POLLO LOCO. BYE THE WAY, WHAT IS TRANSGENDER? COULD SOMEONE EXPLAIN THAT TO THE REST OF US IN DETAIL?

[Luke in Canada]

As a Canadian looking at what is happening in California it shocks me to see that intolerance and ignorance is still strong in the United States of America, a country that prides itself on freedom and liberty for all. Whenever changes in society seem to happen the mighty religous views pop in to the forefront. Just over 40 years ago I think people used religion to base their views of why Colored or Black people had to drink out of their own fountains and had to ride at the back of buses.

Marriage has always been a factor in civil societies. It is not only pertaining to the Judeo-Christian biblical view. If one stands back and thinks logically about it. Marriages can be conducted at City Halls and by many Christian sects around the world . Just because your "view" of Christianity should not govern who can get married.

I'm glad that countries in Western Europe and Canada can look beyond religious differences and allow marriage or civil unions as a civil right. By the way, in Canada, no religious official can be forced to marry gay people. And I have yet to see any people marry a horse or such as some of the comments here have suggested. Moreover, life continues as it did before.

[Tim]

"Hey, I donated a huge amount of money to the Yes on 8 proposition and I'm looking forward to the contribution deduction on this year's taxes. And by the way, I work for the United States government, so go ahead and boycott your government too while you are at it."

ROTFLMAO!!! Yeah, good luck with that. I'd recommend having someone prepare your taxes for you next year. I hope by "a huge amount" you mean tens of thousands of dollars. I hope you took out a second mortgage on your house and gave it all to the Yes on 8 PAC. Gawd, that's hysterical!

[Tim]

James Sindell wrote "The gay community should file their lawsuit in Federal, not California, courts. Why? If they truly believe that Proposition 8 discriminates against them and their civil rights, then the Federal courts should intervene for the benefit of ALL gays/lesbians nationwide and not just in California. But is is obvious that this community will not go this route because they know their case has no U.S. Constitutional merit and their argument will be struck down by the high courts. Where's the "true" justice then?"

James, I guess you're not familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1996 decision in "Romer v. Evans" which struck down a Colorado ballot initiative passed by a majority vote of 53.4% to deprive Colorado gays and lesbians of equal rights and protection. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down on a 6 to 3 vote. Five of those six justices are still on the court, and it doesn't look too good for conservative appointments anytime soon. There's a legal process that has to be followed here, you don't take it to the U.S. Supreme Court until you've exhausted your redress in state courts and move it to federal courts. If you think that gay rights groups aren't itching for the opportunity to take this to the nation's highest court, think again. It's the Prop. H8 supporters who don't want to see it go that far, because their chances would be slim to none from a court that has already decided discrimination against gays is unconstitutional.

[Tim]

PDuff, you're asking Prop. 8 supporters to think logically, which is something they have a limited capacity for. Notice how they all chime in to the same mantras and how these are primarily fear-based. Their understanding of democracy begins and ends with "majority rules" - the actual functions of state government and civil protections accorded to all individual citizens (they have a herd mentality, everything is "us" and "them") under the Constitution are beyond their ability to grasp. Educated people confuse them. Trying to inform them that equal rights and protections under the law are afforded to all citizens IRREGARDLESS of race, creed, color, gender - and yes, sexual orientation here in our state - only winds up frightening them. They have to have someone to hate, their religion demands it - Christianity is meaningless without enemies. Guess the conservangelicals will have to watch what they say about Mormons from now on! Notice how all the prominent supporters of Prop. 8 bent over backwards to say this isn't an anti-gay measure, they support full and equal rights for gays and this is only about one little word that they want enshrined in a "traditional" way. Yeah, right. The election is over, they won the vote (but will not win on appeal, which is REALLY going to hit them hard), and just look at all that pent up rage and hate that comes spilling out. It must have been hard for them to contain it long enough to get their ballot measure passed, so I guess what we're witnessing now is the emotional release, heated by the joy of having stuck it to the "pervs" yet again. Well, just look back at history to see how hard they fall. It'll will be more fun that ever to watch them deflate. It's pointless to appear to their sense of fairness, because they don't have it in them.

[divine]

Well, if the people's vote on Prop 8 is overturned, I can demand to marry my goat, right? Oh, she would look so good in a wedding dress. I'm sure we'll be able to say we have a valid marriage, and make everyone accept it. If not, I'll file a lawsuit.

[rjf]

Well I think boycott won't work anythings. The people who urging to boycott Utah because of Mormon residents are in there. Many people are still visit to Utah and they noticed no mormon things. There Utah is popular state because of beauty state, famous ski areas, and etc. I remembered that southern baptist churchs were urging to boycott of disney. The disney Co. are still very popular as big business. So boycott is not work anythings.

[FredW]

I'm going to go out of my way to patronize any business that is boycotted by the opposition to Prop 8.

We are spreading the word though our yes on 8 campaign group for everyone else to do the same.

[Jeffrey]

The people spoke, the losers act like spoiled brats. You know when the Judges overturned the will of the people, we didn't go out and protest and act like little children.

I guess it's better to go intimidate people and terrorize their place of employment rather than just accept the fact, we are not ready for marriage to be redefined.

Whatever sympathy I had for gays, evaporated the minute you started try to silence the voters, intimidate them, disparage them. If it came to a vote again, I would vote yes.

[PDuff]

Attn: historical morons. We DID have state legislation in support of gay marriages -- twice. Gov. Arnold vetoed it both times, arguing that the courts should decide (although something tells me it was more to hold onto whatever little Republican street cred he had left). And then the court DID decide -- in favor of gay marriage.

So who are the sore losers on this? I'd say those who supported Prop. 8 in the first place after BOTH the judicial and legislative branches had spoken.

WOULD YOU PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELVES??!! Finally??

[Tim]

This is pretty darned funny. How many times over the years have bigoted, bible-thumping conservangelicals threatened to boycott filmmakers, TV networks, auto manufacturers, major department stores, food brands, etc. etc etc., when there was the slightest hint that the gay lifestyle might be portrayed in even a neutral light? I've never met a conservangelical who wasn't a hypocrite - I guess that's their "tradition" and it's definitely why I left the church that two of my grandparents were ordained ministers in. I've spent hundreds of dollars at El Coyote and always had a great time there, not so much because of the food (which is so-so) or the drinks (cheap, but you get what you pay for), but because of the campy, overdone, Guadalajara-on-acid atmosphere. On a Friday or Saturday night, the place (which is large) was full of gay people. Well, I guess there won't be long waits for tables anymore. The "employee" - or rather, the OWNER, Marjorie Christofferson - has been a very visible fixture, all the regulars knew her. Yes, she smiled and chatted and was friendly to all. Kudos to her for hiring gay people. Shame on her for stabbing her gay employees and her gay patrons in the back this way. She says she's sorry, she loves us gays, she would never do anything to hurt us, and she wishes she'd never done it. Sorry she did it, or sorry she got caught? Oh, and for those conservangelicals who are vowing retribution by boycotting gay businesses - who do you think you're kidding? You wouldn't come within a mile of a gay-owned business and likely never have unless you were completely unaware of it. How are you going to like it when we start pulling our money out of California banks? It's simple to open out-of-state bank accounts and have our in-state wages direct-deposited elsewhere. As long as we have debit cards, we won't be affected. But with the drain on assets to fund mortgages and small business loans, the loan market here is going to dry up even further. Good luck going to Massachusetts or Connecticut banks to get loans.

[Randy]

When children are afraid to enter a business, a school, a place of worship, or a park it is terrorism. The terror can be caused by gangsters, creepy people, or mobs screaming about their rights. Children must have safe passage in their daily lives. No one has the right to say their personal needs and desires are more important than the children. No jihad justifies child abuse of any kind.

[Willa]

Comparing what Prop 8 supporters would have done had they lost versus what the gay community and their suppoters are doing now is intellectually dishonest. For Prop 8 supporters, the measure was a politcal and religious statement, and losing doesn't affect their lives. For gays and lesbians, they have had their rights stripped from them. They have a right to protest. That is not whinning.

[RR Ryan]

Good lord, people. You needed this excuse to avoid El Coyote? Have you ever eaten their food? Reason enough, prop 8 notwithstanding.

[Vivian]

Trying to make sense of it all -- Thank you for your civilized comment. Not everyone who voted for Prop 8 is bigoted (although that depends on how you define the word) or uneducated. However, the Yes on 8 campaign purposefully ran a deceitful and malicious campaign. Churches are NOT going to be forced to perform same-sex marriages (has any Catholic church EVER been forced to marry anyone they didn't want to?) and children heard about gays (horror!) not from the schools but from the Yes campaign and its supporters themselves. Before the deceitful ads appeared, the majority of Californians were AGAINST the Proposition. So no, not everyone who voted yes is uneducated, but the Yes on 8 people disseminated misinformation relying on the fact that many people won't educate themselves on the truth. And they manipulated them.

[TJ]

This is utterly shameful!! It is amazing how "minorities" flip out when they don't get what they want. We had an election and the people spoke. Therefore we need to accept this decision. This behavior is intimidation and shameful especially for our legislators to support this as they have. Don't confuse the difference between the judicial branch and the legislative branch of gov. Stop the intimidation of the work force. Don't disrespect religious organizations. Just as you want respect.. you are not showing any.

[Daniel]

What a shame the gay community is going to boycott all the business that supported prop 8. I have a better idea, why don't you boycott the state of California and leave. Go to Connecticut and Massachusetts and have your civic union recognized there as you are trying to get it done here. That way you can live there happily ever after. If you want to come back to California, do so knowing that your "marriage" from those states will NOT be recognized here. Live here in a civic union and leave the marriage to the heterosexuals.

What you don't want to do that. The law is the law, if you don't like this law, enact legislation to change it. The majority, even if it is only 1, have spoken twice on this issue.

Get a clue. Marriage is between a man and a woman and this has nothing to do with civil rights. It is about protecting marriage from what the majority still consider to be unnatural and whether “you like or not” it is based on religious beliefs. This country was
founded on religious beliefs, whether “you like it or not”.

As much as you want the majority of people to accept the gay lifestyle, we will not. We are tolerant, civil and respectful and can live peacefully together. How you choose to live your life is none of my business, just as mine is none of yours.

[Gemzrmine]

OK OK OK, this has gone way too far!!!! I must say we as People will fight for a "CAUSE", but is this a good cause to be fighting for?
Why would you boycott because your "Lifestyle" isn't "Righteous? That should be the question at hand. You can't force your "Lifestlye" on all Califorians. It was your right to choose and you choosed a "Lifestyle " that came with a lot of pros and cons. Unfortunately, we dont have to tolerate but accept your Lifestyle Choice. So please stop with the injustice all this anger is oonly making the Economy worst, my best friend is a promoter and he lost over $3K last weekend because of the Protesting. Not only that I sat in Traffic for 2 hours trying to go pick up my children, That's not Fair!!!!!!!!

[AK]

"Boycott Utah"

Hahahaha!!

[Eliezer]

Quote from Elton John in USA Today:

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," said John. "The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

EVERYONE BOYCOTT ELTON JOHN! DON'T BUY HIS MUSIC!!! HE SUPPORTS PROP 8!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm

[Zach]

No, YesOn8, the "call to arms" won't stop. Get used to the fact that the majority cannot simply vote rights away from a minority. That's un-American, but you're more than welcome to try to rally other people like you to counter-protest. Or you can just move to Iran - I hear they don't have any gays there, if that's more important to you than a free and equal society.

[Pro8Guy]

Wow, since when was gay marriage a right? Since when did the votes cast by Californians not matter anymore? Today apparently.

I know a homeless guy that wants to marry his pet rat, is that going to be a civil right now? The gays are quick to scream about their "rights" and all the hypocrisy surrounding this issue but the true hypocrisy nobody wants to discuss is the simple fact that the people have spoken and their collective voices say "NO!", a gay marriage is not a marriage at all. I love how gays want to tell me that I cant tell them what a marriage is, well it works both ways, YOU can't tell me what a marriage is either. Stop trying to force me to believe that a man and a man can get married. I say they can't and the majority of Californians agree with me, AGAIN! So go ahead and eat wherever you want but get off of WIlshire, go home, and let me and my WIFE live in peace.

[eye4spot]

Marriage is NOT a religious institution, it is a legal contract...ask any "hetero" where they obtained their marriage license? the county clerks office or city hall...then ask anyone getting a divorce if they hired a lawyer, and if their payments to the lawyer were tax deductible?

You say that marriage is only for heteros because "the bible tells me so" ... It is not your place to force your "moral beliefs based in religious indoctrination" on other Americans who may be legally practicing freedom of (or from) religion... Americans that feel your interpretation of "legal presidents" based on personal religious beliefs is flawed.

I personally have an issue with institution that takes tax funds from the federal government for "Faith based social programs" and turns around and spends 25 million dollars of tax exempt $$ on pushing its beliefs on everyone else.

If religions want to play politics, lets vote on a proposition to do away with their tax exemptions...Let them pay taxes just liker any American based business.

Boycott Mormon businesses & those who supported prop 8 with donations to the deny constitutional rights off all americans?? "Hell" Yeah!

[spm]

Oh dear now I won't patronize El Coyote. Too bad I long ago gave up on them because their food sucks. Darn. I really would like to boycott them or anyone else who voted yes on the stupid and cruel Prop. 8. Any more restaurants we could avoid? I eat out A LOT. BTW I am married hetero with children and friends who are political. We love to boycott twits.

[JIm]

A boycott of Prop 8 supporters is probably the worst idea the No on 8 group can come up with. This kind of action signals to Prop 8 backers that "the gloves are off' when it comes to pushing moral issues, and evangelicals and other Prop 8 supporters will enact their own plan to boycott No on 8 businesses and support Yes on 8 businesses. They have more money and more people on their side, and in the end it will be the gay community -- and those who support them -- that will lose. Peace is far better than a crushing defeat at the hands of organized religion.

[Zach]

So much ignorance here - think beyond yourselves, people! Inequality under the law makes something a civil rights issue, not just skin color. If your sister goes for a marriage license and says she wants to marry another woman, her lesbianism is as obvious as the skin color of the black man at the Whites Only drinking fountain. I'd hope no one would ever stop "whining" if the majority voted THAT back in! Further, this is not about behavior, however "deviant" you think it. This is about how gay people live their lives in California, a state with a constitution that upholds equality. Prop 8 has nothing to do with gay sex and everything to do with encouraging stable, monogamous relationships. Why would you be against that?

Above all, equality is NOT simply about giving people what they WANT, it's about giving people what's fair and appropriate under the law. That's why those rarely-seen but often-mentioned people who want to marry kids, animals, or multiple spouses can't have what they want just because they want it. Marriage is a contract between two people, and who those people are changes nothing about the contract. BUT, if those people cannot enter into a contract (like children) or are not people (horses), then they simply can not be married. Gays ARE people and CAN sign contracts, so there's no reason they ought not enjoy the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts. Nothing more, nothing less!

[SteveJJ]

Hey, I donated a huge amount of money to the Yes on 8 proposition and I'm looking forward to the contribution deduction on this year's taxes. And by the way, I work for the United States government, so go ahead and boycott your government too while you are at it.

[james]

I am boycotting California all together. I wont be traveling there unless people can build a bridge and get over it. The people voted, this is a done deal just as Obama's campain is a done deal.

[Brad O.]

I'm gay friendly and I donated to Yes on 8. Contrary to what the No on 8 camp will try to make you believe, you do not have to be against Prop 8 to be for gay rights.

All this rhetoric about "bigotry, discrimination, and hate" is nothing but a way to try to manipulate people from doing what they believe is right. Diane Feinstein is a classic example of this, "No matter how you feel about marriage, vote no on 8?" My response to Feinstein is, "You are the worst leader this state has ever had. How dare you ask me to vote contrary to what I believe?"

[Frank Stjerne]

Hey - are we living on the same planet??? Sorry Californians/American, fellew members of the western world, Nato whatever, but this is very, very hard for Europeans to understand, what is going on in your minds.

Why is it so important for some people in your society to define what is good and what is bad for other people in the year of 2008?

Why is it important looking at especially the American history to define a set of right for one sort of people and another set of rules for another sort of people?

Please make up your minds. Is this what you are fighting for when you try to teach the Iraqies what democracy and human rights is about?

Sorry, most of us over here in Europe don't understand you.

Frank Stjerne, Copenhagen, Denmark, Europe - part of the Western World.

PS: We have had gay marriages in Denmark for almost 20 years and our society still stands like the other contries with gay marriages/partnerships: Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Britain, Nederlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany, France, Spain, Luxemburg, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland - Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay, South Africa, Canada - and more I can't remember.

[Lane]

A significant portion of the homosexual community seems focused on ending marriage and simply moving to all civil unions. Marriage denotes a deep physical, emotional, and (to some) spiritual commitment that goes beyond legal responsibilities imposed by civil unions. I applaud homosexual couples who want to show their deep commitment to each other through marriage even though I feel marriage should continue to be limited to one man and one woman. Not all married couples have children but the primary purpose for the legal responsibilities and benefits of marriage is to support a cohesive unit for the raising of children. An extension of marriage to homosexual relationships not biologically designed for the rearing of children will necessarily weaken the purpose of marriage and will hurt the deep commitment marriage symbolizes, resulting in weaker marriages. Weaker marriages hurts society. I realize that some homosexual couples have adopted children and many are probably very good parents. However, I feel we have to balance the needs of homosexual couples with children with the need to keep traditional marriage stronger, and in this balancing test I feel we should keep marriage as traditionally understood: the union of one man and one woman.

[sameulberg]

Welcome to McCarthyism of the 21st century! Everyone is being investigated to uncover Pro prop 8 donations. These "violators of equality" will be flushed out and exposed for their evil doings where they will be blacklisted, boycotted and bankrupted. Even restaurants with many gay employees will be wrongly boycotted, because one of the nieces may have donated $100 to keep marriage between man and woman. Now, the totalitarians are demanding an official position by the restaurant they they are 100% behind gay marriages or face the firing squad. This is paired nicely with the acts of vandalism perpetrated upon many churches that may have supported traditional marriage. The hypocrisy within the gay community (that supports this type of behavior) is really sad and goes to show the narcissism that runs deep within. And if I hear another person compare the gay movement with the civil rights movement of the '60's, I'm going to puke. Where are the gay only lunch counters, drinking fountains and buses? How can you be pulled over while driving gay? Mon Dieu!

[Eliezer]

Some interesting things I've noticed:

Until a few years ago, no civilization in human history (including those that embraced homosexuality) had accepted the concept of gay marraige, and when a majority of Californians vote to keep it that way, they're called homphobic bigots.

The No on 8 backers want government out of their private lives, yet it is the government(the Supreme Court) who legalized same-sex marraige, and it is the government that they are begging to overturn the will of the people.

Why would gays need to redefine marraige when they already have all the same rights as married couples?

[cbk16]

Could someone post all the Pro gay marriage businesses that I can boycott? Since the majority of the most liberal state in the union voted for traditional marriage, this boycott business will hurt the pro gay crowed a lot more.

[Dan W.]

"That means that they will only go into stores that are owned by gays and lesbians, further segregating themselves."

----------------------

Not in the slightest. One of the exciting things about the 12,000 marchers in Silver Lake last Saturday was the number of straight demonstrators. There are many straights who see this as a civil rights issue and who support is. The demonstrations last night in Santa Monica was filled with mostly straight people.

Also, there are people indifferent to us who didn't give money to Yes on 8.

The only people who will suffer by this boycott are people who take money from gay customers/clients and then use the profits to fund politicians and propositions intended to inflict bigotry back on those gay customers.

[C Girl]

I am an avid NO ON 8 supporter and I completely disagree with Marjorie's personal stance on the issue. What I would like everyone to remember is that the people who will really be suffering froma boycott are the waitresses, waiters, bartenders, busboys, and cooks, many of whom are gay and lesbian. They are the ones who will feel the boycott affect their wallets.
I think Marjorie should relieve herself of her El Coyote duties and no longer be associated with the establishment and let the hard-working El Coyote employees get back to business as ussual.

[xxxray]

This is all about how the government sees your partnership. If the word "marriage" or "married" are religious terms, then the question on many, many government forms should be eradicated and replaced with the really more important term "civil union" or something similar. The term married shouldn't mean anything in our government.

The name doesn't matter to me, but the equal rights and responsibilities do.

[Dan W.]

Homosexuality is not a choice nor is it perverse to those with that innate orientation.

There is not justification for anti-gay bigotry, no matter how some people take bible quotes out of their historical and literary context and use them to justify their immoral and un-Christian hatred.

[MsAnthrope]

For gay and lesbian readers:

I am in favor of Prop 8, and my stance has nothing to do with hating gays. I am sure there are some supporters who hate gays (and I don't speak for them), but the majority of us have gays/lesbians in our lives that we love, who are our friends, relatives, or co-workers. I must say I resent being accused of being anti-gay and bigoted. It reflects on the name-callers more than the accused, and nobody with a brain is fooled.

Those of you hurling disparaging remarks at Prop 8 supporters are out-of-touch with reality, and speaking from the position of hurt and anger. In my opinion, if the judges had respected the wishes of the people to keep the term marriage as exclusively for a man and woman uniting, we would have a far smaller problem right now. Gay and lesbian couples who want to commit should have all rights that married straight couples have. But marriage the term is off-limits. The Constitution has been amended because marriage is a traditional union that the people don't want broadened. We aren't ready, and I can't say if we ever will be. I am open-minded enough to consider the possibility that things may change someday. If you want a different outcome in the future, please be sure that you have changed people's minds first. I believe the hurt and anger is because so many misjudged the minds of the voters. (Likely because we have been open to giving gay/lesbian individuals and couples protection, and we are against discrimination based on sexual orientation.)

We still love you, please don't misunderstand.

[xxxray]

Beviemay: Glad to hear you really want to learn. Go to this website: http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilmarriage.htm

It's a great place to start your education on the differences of civil union, marriage, etc.

[RickInLA]

A couple of statements I would like to pass on to the so called "Christians" who so vehemently supported Prop 8. I say "Christian" but that is a misnomer as Christ never said anything about condemning gay persons; that was the work of Paul (a man who never married and hung around men all his adult life). Anyway, that is a whole different argument and post. What I want to pass on are two statements made by the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) about condemning things (or people) you don't understand: "What we call monsters are not so to God, who sees in the immensity of his work the infinity of forms that he has comprised in it..." and he also added: "We call contrary to nature what happens contrary to custom; nothing is anything but according to nature, whatever it may be. Let this universal and natural reason drive out the error and astonishment that novelty brings us". So to the "Christians" you need to understand that we are as human as you and deserve the same rights neither less nor more. And, rest assured, in this matter we will prevail.

[Eliezer]

So... If 10 employees of a company donated to No on 8 and the owner donated to Yes on 8, would you boycott the company and possibly put alll those people out of a job?

[Dan W.]

Boycotts are a legitimate way of expressing one's opinion.

So are rewarding businesses that "do the right thing" as we see it. I would like to know who the business owners who donated to No on 8 so I can send them more business.

If a business has more than enough profit that they can give money to a proposition means to enshrine discrimination against me into the constitution, then they clearly don't need my business to prosper.

I also wouldn't patronize a business that supports discrimination against anyone on race, gender or religious affiliation either.

These businesses CHOSE to locate in and market to the gay community. If they gave money to bigots to discriminate, that's just bad business, not to mention immoral.

It's about time bigots were held accountable. People have freedom of speech but they aren't entitled to the dollars of the people they wish to discriminate against.

[xxxray]

To PR: Send all the business that you want to Yes on 8 supporters. Just be aware that the people you are hurting by supporting the "Yessers" could very well be your own current or future gay children...

[Jess]

Quit wasting taxpayers time and money. Nov 4th came and went. The measure passed. Why are homosexuals above the law?