Why Hollywood is torn on Prop. 8 activism

Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8?

That's the issue consuming many in liberal Hollywood who fought to defeat the initiative banning same-sex marriage and are now reeling with recrimination and dismay. Meanwhile, activists continue to comb donor lists and employ the Internet to expose those who donated money to support the ban.

Already out is Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, who resigned after a flurry of complaints from prominent theater artists, including "Hairspray" composer Marc Shaiman, when word of his contribution to the Yes on 8 campaign surfaced.

Other targets include Film Independent, the nonprofit arts organization that puts on both the Los Angeles Film Festival and the Spirit Awards; the Cinemark theater chain; and the Sundance Film Festival.

For many in Hollywood, the Proposition 8 backlash represents a troubling clash of free speech, religious beliefs and the right to fight intolerance. Many supporters of same-sex marriage view the state constitutional amendment as codified bigotry, a rollback of civil liberties for gays and lesbians.

Read the rest of the story about Hollywood & Prop. 8 here.

--Rachel Abramowitz and Tina Daunt

Comments

[Dan Dormann]

Prop 8 is not just about gay marriage, it's about a fundamentally important issue: Can the California Constitution be changed to remove fundamental rights without following the rules prescribed for such a fundamental change under the Constitution? Is removing a fundamental right from a suspect class an amendment or is equality before the law at the heart of our Constitution and requires a Constitutional Convention or a super-majority in the legislative?

Don’t be silent - speak up for equality and justice

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1976)

This is an important issue and activism is not only ok, it's essential. If we don't speak up now, whose rights will be eliminated next?

[endintolerace]

Enough already. Can you imagine if Prop 8 had lost and its supporters started targeting gay businesses for boycotts or pressuring executives to fire homosexuals who donated to defeat the initiative. The initiative passed. There is a path to getting it overturned legally and civilly. This witch hunt and the intolerance it engenders is simply wrong.

[donvey lindsey]

donvey lindsey when is this going to be ovr

[Anna Bouillon]

For heaven's sake NO! they should not be fired or blacklisted and every single company in the film and theater industry should support their employee's right to free speech. Did we learn nothing from the red scare! Please Hollywood lets not turn this into a witch hunt! If they black list and fire people who supported prop 8 they would be discriminating against their religious beliefs and I thought the whole gay rights thing was about ending discrimination or do they just want to end discrimination against them?

[justagirl]

I like what this person said

"A dollar to the yes campaign is a dollar in support of bigotry, homophobia and discrimination. There are going to be consequences. Any individual who has held homophobic views and who has gone public by writing a check, you can expect to be publicly judged. Many can expect to pay a price for a long time to come."

The writer of dream girls said this in the article. I understand this is a civil rights issue but what other people don't understand is that some people think that to allow homosexual's this civil right might cost them some of their civil rights. I don't want to argue I'm just making this point. This issue would effect alot of things such as schools and churches. However I won't get into that whole argument because some people are so closed minded on this issue that they can't see the supporting sides view. Another thing I find pecular is that before the election the media was trying to stay neutral and now that it's passed they are taking the opposing side. I'm sorry that kind of makes the media a traitor in my book but I understand because the media takes every opportunity it gets to make Christians look bad!

[The MIke]

Are you Kidding? Huff alotta Glue
This has been voted on twice...now conducting witch hunts for people who
exercise their right to vote in accordance to their beliefs? The No On 8 supporters cant seem to comprihend that the People have voted...More than Once and what a great demonstration against a minority of the votes when it came to the protest of the Mormon Church. I am not a mormon, I helped with the campaign, i did this not out of bigotry or malice, religion was not Involved. I did this in support of the Traditional family that has been in place for thousands of years. Essentially I dont want to see "gay Adoption" a society has never done this, to my knowledge, and Its not right to experiment with the upbrining of children.

So Stop with the demonizing or the cookie cutter stereo types....I am NOT against your Gay Lifestyle instead I am In support of traditional family values

and as a side note, the gays have move rights that I do in the workforce, I have seen Productivity decline dramatically due to the hint of "Discriminations" I have seen gays play up to this and exploit to get what they wanted (Some times they only wanted drama) As things stand now, A heterosexual cannot...CANNOT have their Boyfriend/Girlfriend on their insurance, even if She Is pregnant, BUT a lifepartner can be come 90 days after the probation period is over....And Is this Bigotry?

Yes on 8....its been voted on twice

[x-wizard]

Look, if a business owner donated money to a proposition to segregate schools by race, would anyone question a boycott of that business? No. Because bigotry is wrong, and most people realize that their money, through that company's profits, would end up funding that bigotry.

This is the same thing -- I know I don't want my money to be used to fund bigotry. And please don't say it's about religious freedom and free speech, because

1. the religious right regularly has boycotted business that offer benefits to domestic partners of gay employees, as well as advertisers of TV programs featuring gay characters in a positive light. It's hypocritical to boycott, buyt then call it a mean-spirited intolerant tactic when you're the target.

2. Religious viewpoints have no business being codified into law, especially not in our constitution.

3. Providing equality to everyone, including in marriage, does NOT infringe on any religious rights. It does not force any churches to conduct same sex marriages. It does not force individuals to attend same sex marriages. It has absolutely no effect on heterosexual marriage or any religion or religious institution.

4. The right to call for a boycott is also free speech. No one is required to spend their money at business which want to discriminate against them.

[Jascques]

You may not be gay, but you may be next.

"Hey, I know! Let's write a proposition! No more mixed race marriages. No, wait, black people can only have civil unions. No, any woman with fake boobies can not have a "real" marriage, just a civil union. After all, we only need 50%+1 to do whatever the hell we want."

[Cal]

I totally agree that turning this into a witch hunt is absolutely the worse thing that could happen. Some of the pro-8 posts here seem a little Pollyannaish thou. Are they not aware that business that donated to NO ON 8 were sent threatening letters even before the vote threatening a boycott because of their donation? Both sides have played plenty of dirty pool in this debate.

[Rick W]

Posted by: donvey lindsey

when is this going to be over

_________________________________________________________

It would have been over already if the Prop 8 votes had not launched their anti-gay bid. Gay people would have continued to quietly get married and live their lives. There would have been no protests, no media frenzy, just people agreeing to disagree and coexisting.

The Pro 8 folks dont seem to want to admit that they are the ones that caused this mess. Gay marriage hurt them not at all. I had a nice quiet wedding surrounded by family and friends ALL of whom were supportive. It really is pretty simple...if you dont believe in gay marriage...dont have one.

[Rick W]

Posted by: donvey lindsey

when is this going to be over

_________________________________________________________

It would have been over already if the Prop 8 votes had not launched their anti-gay bid. Gay people would have continued to quietly get married and live their lives. There would have been no protests, no media frenzy, just people agreeing to disagree and coexisting.

The Pro 8 folks dont seem to want to admit that they are the ones that caused this mess. Gay marriage hurt them not at all. I had a nice quiet wedding surrounded by family and friends ALL of whom were supportive. It really is pretty simple...if you dont believe in gay marriage...dont have one.

[Greg]

More attention should be paid to how troubling it is to take fundamental rights away from people and have it part of our constitution! It is now a permanent part of OUR constitution.

[FreedomOfInformationAct]

Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8?

Yes indeed there is...

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

[crystal ball]

Well, look at Sonja Bworn on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvG_Jk9PJIU

The idea came first from people who supported yes on prop 8. So, there is nothing wrong that we want to do the same. Freedom of speech and expression can go on both ways.

I think a black list is a peaceful way to protest against those who supported prop 8.

It makes me sad that many people contributed a lot many to stop same sex marriage, and they could have use that to stop hunger in the world.

I DO REMIND GAY ADVOCATES TO KEEP OUR BOYCOTTS AND PROTEST PEACEFUL TOWARD OTHERS, AND TALK TO YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO SUPPORT US IN 2010 IF WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE ISSUE AGAIN.

[JOSENOEL12@YAHOO.COM]

SONJA EDDINGS BROWN CAME WITH THE IDEA OF BLACKLISTING FIRST. SO, WHAT'S THE PROPBLEM.

WATCH THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvG_Jk9PJIU

[Leslie]

Redefining marriage will fundamentally change law and public policy about human sexuality, procreation and gender identification. This social "experiment" will further weaken the social fabric of society and put church and state on a collision course of free speech issues. This is a more complicated and far reaching issue than the gay and lesbian definition of "love makes a family". Further, if churches can't make a moral stand in society who can draw the moral standard?

[B Knotts]

"a rollback of civil liberties for gays and lesbians. "

No one honestly believes this. Proposition 8 was only necessary due to judicial activism.

What this whole issue is really about is an attack on traditional values and specifically, orthodox (small "o") Christianity.

[Chris]

Hey Dan Dormann

This stuff is hilarious. NO right has been taken away from anybody. All people stilll have the right to marry. People just have to follow the definition of marriage and that being to marry one and no more than one other human being and to marry somebody of the opposite sex. Simple stuff.

[Chris Chian]

"Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8?"

If the answer is yes, then the question also needs to be asked whether there should be boycotts, blacklistings, firings, and de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8? I won't be going through the No donations to see which of my employees contributed to that campaign (it would be unChristian and unDemocratic), but others might.

Folks, if you want civil society to descend into some sort of covert nasty culture war, I suspect that you will get your wish. Do you think that such abuse of people's democratic participation will not be answered in some fashion?

My hope is that the Churches will abandon their clinging to the charitable tax exemptions that keep them from a more overt participation in the Public Square. As the largest volunteer organization in Western Society, with the highest giving levels of any group, if mobilized, the Churches could ensure that we have hegemony over any other institution in North America. I'm not talking about reconstructionism or a theocracy, but rather cleaning house of the activist judges in at the state and federal level, and enacting Constitutional reforms to ensure that Secular extremists can not abuse people of faith and deny them participation in the Public Square.

You can howl all you want that we're idiots or even hate us, but we are not going to quietly acquiesce to bully politics by gay activists. The Church has weathered bigger storms than gay activism or even hostile political states. You are dreaming in rainbow technicolor if you think that the Church is going to buckle.

If you are curious about my political stance see http://www.firstthings.com/

[susan]

Writing an amendment to the State constitution to eliminate the rights of an entire group of people because of the fear and ignorance of the public will not stick. If civil rights were decided by a populist vote, slavery would have ended much later, women would have gotten the vote much later, and civil rights for people of color would still not be a reality. Just as citizens have a right to choose their religion, we also have a right FROM the religious views of others. This is a right guaranteed us in our federal Constitution. Even though Pres.-elect Obama has said he doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, I believe his admiinistration will step in if need-be to eliminate this disgusting proposition.
As for the assine fears of the yes on h-8 people: Canada has had same-sex marriage for five years. Their society has not fallen apart. Canada has ALWAYS been ahead of the U.S. in human rights. We could learn alot from the example of our neighbors to the north. And don't tell me to move to Canada if I like it so much. This is my country, too. I have a constitutional right to freedom from others' religious beliefs. (That means you, evangelicals and mormons).

[Scott]

Rick W said it would have been over if the people hadn't put Prop 8 on the ballot. Funny - it would have been over long before that if the supreme court hadn't over ridden the full 61% majority that voted in 2000.

And the fact that there wasn't all this protesting and boycotting 1 year ago before the Supreme Court decided to flex their muscles shows that a lot of these people are just jumping on the bandwagon now because it's very cool and trendy to have something to fight for. Especially if you call it equality.

As for those who say the constitution has no business saying anything regarding religion - remember that religious freedom is a two edge sword. It entitles the religious to vote based on their religious beliefs, much to your dismay. But it also permits you all the same liberties despite your disdain for religion. Early in our countries history you were only allowed to vote if you went to church. The government did not tell you how to worship, but there was never a question that you would at least worship somehow. It was all about freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion. I support the modern day view - if you think the most logical explanation is that our universe just suddenly happened, more power to you. But don't freak out when the majority looks for how it happened and bases their life decisions (and voting tendencies) based on what they view to be the most logical explanation for who we are, why we're here and where we're going. If you want to silent the religious, don't think the constitution is going to support you.

[Salem Massachusets]

The boycott is fair, a little too late, but not any different than the boycotts the christian fundamentalists have used as effective weapons in the past to forward their own agenda. It is also disingenious and fallacious to call this a witch-hunt. Witch-hunts in the past have been initiated by the majority against the minority. How can the minority have enough power and be a threat to the majority to the degree that these protests equate a witch-hunt?

It is my opinion that only civil unions should be recognized by state legislatures and our federal government instead of "marriages." However, this will never pass, because the federal government won't have the balls to deny bilateral recognition of foreign "marriages." For any of you that think civil unions and domestic partnerships are equal to marriage rights in this country, you are completely wrong. For one, only marriage automatically grants US residency, joint income tax breaks, and transfered social security/medicaid/pension payments after death. There are approximately 1,049 federal protections granted to marriages but not civil unions, but these three are glaringly important. The fight for marriage equality will not stop at the state level, it will eventually have to be recognized on the federal level as well.

Here is a short read detailing the unequal legal differences between civil unions and marriages:

http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html

Please pass on this information; I have learned from respectfully talking to many people, especially heterosexuals, that they really are not aware of these differences. Knowing so would have changed some votes in favor of Prop 8. People are more reasonable than you think, but like anyone else, are liable to fall for false propaganda and fear-mongering. Therefore, fight hate and ignorance with empathy and truth. However, also make a ruckus when they steal your rights because as history shows, if nobody takes a stand, fascists and nazis rise to power.

[Tolerant Tom]

We should just be tolerant of people and their lifestyles, no matter how significant our personal, professional, or religious views may differ. We can always love a person and respect their choices.

Unless they voted on prop 8, expletive expletive expletive...

[ya sure]

So didnt both sides had enough time to present their case to the public before the elections occurred. And when we vote isnt it so that its said and done and that is what we have chose to do and voted on. It just seems that your vote never really counts when one or the other side does not win and cant accept the fact. We live in a country where we can vote and say yes or no on that ballot. And people we have to accept what the outcome is even if it doesnt make everyone happy.

[Joseph Mckinstry]

Why is the Prop 8 backlash so intense? The stakes are high. Gays are third most likely to be victims of hate crimes (after Blacks and Jews), and Gays are MOST likely to be murdered in a hate crime. (see FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm). Gay kids are 3 times more likely than straight kids to be abused, kicked out of their homes, and become child street prostitutes to survive. Hate crimes and abuse thrive in an environment of bigotry and marginalization and Prop 8 shows that active, aggressive, invasive intolerance is OK; hate against this minority is OK. This is the legacy of those who support(ed) Prop 8. This is your Christian love.

[PK]

When the government came for the pedophiles,
I remained silent;
I was not a pedophile.
When they locked up the flashers,
I remained silent;
I was not a flasher.
When they came for the people practicing incest,
I did not speak out;
I did not practice incest.
When they came for the polygamists,
I remained silent;
I was not a polygamist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[Missy]

The gays are doing terrible things to other people, and are still doing it. Getting a guy fired, harming churches, and people is just wrong.

They're not making friends. They're causing ordinary people to DISLIKE them. I have a friend who voted against Prop. 8, but because of the behavior by gays, now says she would have voted FOR it. She's disgusted by this.

I imagine lots of the ordinary No on 8 people are also disgusted by the show of violence, the "n" word, the harassment and the attacks.

[Bob Dillan]

I love my dog. Why can't we get married?

[Zach]

Can your dog sign a government contract, Bob? You actually have a dog that can give consent?! I am amazed, maybe it's talking-dog owners who voted for Prop 8. They know what's really going on!

I guess these days we don't know what it's like to have to decide real issues in America. People act like making civil rights decisions is a little choice not much more weighty than deciding if you want the light rail to the Bay or not. If you're shocked by people being angry, you must be pretty clueless as to what was at stake with Prop 8. That's not hard to see, though, when the argument was between "We used this word first!" and "We want equal treatment under the law!"

Boycotts and protests are as American as the vote, and have probably led to more of the freedoms we take for granted in this country.

[Heidi Stevenson]

How absurd. People in the arts must resign because they voted their conscience. It seems here that anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong is automatically a bigot; while anyone who approves of gay marriage is considered noble and just. Isn't this narrow and bigoted in itself.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. Whether 4 out of 7 judges approve of it again or not, it has never been marriage and it will never be marriage. If we all rename a turkey a pig and convince everybody that they are indeed the same, the fact remains that they are different, separate, and individual. A turkey is not a pig; and a pig is not a turkey. A lawful wedding between a man and a woman constitutes a marriage. A union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman has never been considered a marriage. Whether we have convinced ourselves that such associations are normal, acceptable, and suitable for society, they still remain a deviation, a deviation that is not marriage.
While all people deserve respect and kindness, who said that anyone is obligated to void his own conscience in favor of someone elses belief? It seems that there are some in the gay community who do not want anyone to have freedom of conscience. And it also seems that there are masses in the so-called straight community that think that they must oppose their own reason in order to appear sophisticated and accomodating. We can have both straight and gay friends and still retain our conscience of what really constitutes marraige.
My belief that marriage has a set definition should not offend anyone. I am not seeking to take away the rights of people to be with whom they choose, only to preserve what little morality and integrity our society holds. It becomes me to support my beliefs in the sanctity of the tradtitional family, so that the traditional family might be preserved.

[Balster]

I have to say that I have been very curious about proposition 8 as a resident of California. My perspective is this - I have a younger brother who was gay for several years. He even had a consistent partner for about three years. When he expressed to my mother (single and divorced) that he might be gay when he was about 18 years old, she didn’t know how to respond. She just told him that she loved him no matter the circumstances. She called some professionals (this was in the 1980’s), and they told her to encourage him to accept his homosexuality and to become happy with who he was. She did exactly that, trying the best she knew how to help him.

Well, he lived a homosexual life for approximately 12 years (until the late 1990’s) and had several boyfriends, incuding the one very serious one I mentioned above. He still felt unfulfilled in life and sought professional help. He went to one therapist for about a year, and this guy focused on helping my brother celebrate his homosexuality. He was still not satisfied, and he went to another therapist who asked my brother if he had ever explored the soruce of his homosexuality, and he responded that he hadn’t really focused on the source. To make a very, very long story short, my brother is now a happy heterosexual individual who is married to a wonderful woman. They have two beautiful children. He looks at his homosexual years as lost years, as an era when society kept telling him to accept the facts and not try to change. It has been so rewarding for me to see him so happy and fulfilled now. I am sop glad that an increasing number of therapists are willing to treat the homosexual condition despite threats and criticism.

[dude]

Im with the yes on 8 people. The morality of society is determined by the majority. would the gay community be willing to allow polygamy to be acceptable. if not then they are denying people "fundamental rights". If so, then they are implying that any desire of a persons heart should be acceptable, which would take us down a dangerous road where everything goes and their is no moral foundation. If any individual is opposed then they are bigots and are hurting peoples feelings and not giving them their rights. When the gay community whines i am reminded of my teenage sisters complaining to my dad how he is a meanie because he wont let her stay out past midnight. Its ridiculous and childish how they are acting. marriage is a heterosexual institution. i am surprised with their alternative lifestyle and their clear opposition to our lifestyle that they would want to be any part of our culture and tradition. Its like trying to change Chanukah to a Christian holiday or turn wednesday into sunday. Their separate and different. if we were actually infringing on a right then i might feel bad. But they are just trying to hijack marriage from us.

[David]

Balster, before deciding that his therapy is what every gay person needs for their "condition," consider the very likely possibility that your brother is bisexual and his therapy only helped him to go from thinking he was gay to thinking he was straight. Just because some people like him form a small pool of anecdotal evidence doesn't mean there's a "homosexual condition." It means there were a few people who thought they were gay and sought help from counselors willing to engage in controversial therapies that happened to work for them.

[stanford u]

Don’t be silent - speak up for equality and justice

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
There was no one left to speak out.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1976)

It is Ironic that you sighted this quote from Pastor Niemöller, because those people who were being came for by Ernst Rohm and his SA or Brown shirts (He and the leadership were openly homosexual) hauling them off to be imprisoned and most likely killed. They were not being deprived of perceived civil rights they were being deprived of their essential civil rights and their very lives. There is not anyone coming after you, it is the other way around. You are not concerned for society or the children that must grow up in the society that we as adults have the responsibility to foster and nourish. You are not concerned about the society and its mores that afforded you life, you want to change because you want to edify and have everyone accept your method of self gratification. Your only concerns are your self serving interests. Every man and every woman has the same rights under the law there is no difference between race or the sexes. Every man has a right to marry the legally aged consenting woman of his choice every woman has the right to marry the legally aged consenting man of her choice. You have you rights secured in Civil Unions.
But like Ernst Rohm and his SA Storm troopers you are coming for us one by one knocking at our doors and hauling away the precious institutions of society and ruining young lives little by little, increment by increment, step by step.
We will not be silent, we will not let you come for our children, and the very innocence that we as adults and parents have been entrusted to protect, we will not let you come for our social institutions that support and sustain that responsibility. We will not let you sacrifice our society's health and social make up on your alter of whim and fancy and moral self interest.

[EuroTom]

"Dude" writes: "... marriage is a heterosexual institution. i am surprised with their alternative lifestyle and their clear opposition to our lifestyle that they would want to be any part of our culture and tradition"

what a magnificent cheap shot. I am American but because of debates like this I moved to Europe 10 years ago and haven't regretted it since. In the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, we have full rights to marry. And guess what? There has been NO moral decline in these countries! England and Germany have strong "civil union" laws but not yet full marriage. I used to be a "born again Christian" until I realized that the people in this cult spoke of "love" but were full of hate against anyone who was different from them. This was not a healthy message for a gay teenager to hear, and it still isn't. I am grateful to be in a country that doesn't have these rabid "cultural wars" brought on by the right wing. People here are taught tolerance.

As a small olive branch, I think it should be remembered that Gay marriage is a civil marriage. There are protections for religious organizations so that they do not have to perform marriages. I am ok with that, even if I disagree with the premise. Jesus, who was supposedly "God on Earth" never even spoke of Homosexuality. The Bible never addressed a loving, nurturing, committed relationship between two people of the same sex. We can all pick and choose verses in the Bible to make our claims but it is folly.

I wish to also state that the founding of the U.S. Constitution was firmly based in the protection of minority interests from majority power, so such actions as Proposition 8 runs counter to our own founding documents. WOW, as I read the right wing hate posts here, I am so thankful that I left my home country to find PEACE and acceptance in a place where people live harmoniously regardless of affectional orientation.

It is ironic that one person wrote "what's next, polygamy?" Had to laugh at this statement, considering the Mormon church's role in this campaign (is it time to revoke tax-exempt status for politically active churches?) Here's a little history: Polygamy was lived secretly in the LDS church from about 1831 to 1852. The first mormon prophet (Brigham Young) had 20-30 wives and was murdered for practicing plural marriage privately while denying it publicly.

Polygamy was lived openly from 1852 to 1890 by the LDS church in Utah. The church made a show of abandoning the practice in order to get statehood. It wasn't until the second manifesto about 20 years later that the church started excommunicating new polygamists. Since that time, the LDS church has taken a very harsh and intolerant stance against anyone who publicly admits that they practice polygamy, or claims that it should be practiced.. (Polygamy still happens among members of the LDS church, just so long as those practicing in it are discreet but not a moment longer.)

In closing, I am reminded of the "good Christians" who often say... "We love the Sinner but hate the sin". I can most certainly understand their point as I can honestly say "We love the bigot, but hate the bigotry"

[Chuck]

An individual has a right to express their point of view and voting is a way to do that, as is contributing to a cause they believe in. Organizations that support a cause that basically advocates discrimination should expect to be targeted for boycotts and recriminations for their actions. Religious groups like the American Family Association regularly boycott corporations such as Disney, WalMart and McDonald's for their support of "diversity" which to them is the same as gay rights. McDonald's recently changed their policies of publicly supporting gay causes and relocated one of its openly gay executives to Canada so the AFA would end their five month boycott. WalMart also changed their policies to end an AFA boycott. I will no longer support either of those corporations with my money. The AFA, the Mormons, the Knights of Columbus all may have violated their tax exempt status by being involved in campaigns for Proposition 8, and now that people are asking for them to be investigated, it's suddenly a "witch hunt." These groups want to enjoy their tax exempt status but they also don't believe in separation of church and state. You can't have it both ways. Pay taxes and you get a voice in lawmaking decisions. Don't pay and keep your opinions to yourself as a group, and don't spend money sending your people door to door to spread lies about what gay marriage is going to do to schools and churches! Anyone who was against Proposition 8 has the same right to boycott these companies that support bigotry and discrimination, but individuals should not be losing their jobs for supporting something they believe in because that can go both ways. People seem to forget that in the 70s, California tried to pass a bill that would allow all gay school teachers, those suspected of being gay, and those that supported them - gay or straight - to be fired. There were marches and riots because people knew that this was discrimination and basically a witch hunt and the bill was ultimately defeated. History repeats itself and I believe we're seeing a repeat of those events from the 70s. People who are against bigotry should be marching in the streets and letting their voices be heard instead of finding people with opposing views and having them fired from their jobs. Now is the time for those who are against bigotry to unite peacefully and rationally explain to the general population that this bill is no different than laws that made interracial marriage illegal, or those that made slavery legal. Gays have to fight for their equal rights the same as the blacks did in the 60s because we do still live in a racially insensitive country (and even though we will have an African American president, don't think the bigots are going to let up on the racist comments). The gay marriage issue was decided by religious beliefs because the churches were targeted by the supporters of Prop 8 and fed nothing but a bunch of lies. I'm so tired of hearing the religious leaders say how gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage. That's rich coming from a group notorious for adulterous relationships (straight and gay), and who allow the sanctity of marriage to be destroyed by divorce! If they want people to follow the sacred religious texts, then those unions joined by God should let no man put asunder till death do them part. Once they follow their own rules, then they can start telling others how to live their lives!

[Michael Ejercito]

Has anyone ever considered the fact that same-sex "marriage" was not seen as a civil right either during the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, the Civil War, or the Civil Rights Movement?

[Dan Dormann]

Michael Ejercito: You are right this is not a classic civil rights issue, it is more fundamental. It is about equality before the law. This is one of the most cherished principles of the Californian Constitution as well as the US Constitution and almost any other modern Constitutional document. South Africa was not only the first democracy in Africa to recognise the principle of non-discrimination (including race, sex and sexual orientation), it was one of the first democracies in the world to do so. Yes, there is popular and religious resistance but in 50 years time, our kids and most people will be shocked that anyone could have ever though that discrimination is ok. It was wrong 50 years ago and it is wrong today. It is up for us to pick whether we want to be on the right side of history- or not. The choice is yours.