So you're finally admitting that you agree that gays deserve fewer rights than straights? Well played sir.

Travis, honestly - try being honest. It's fun!

I miss bobs blog, when did this become Lees blog.

So true. Millions of people believe there is a difference, morally, between gay and straight. Instead of judging (so easy to do, I do it myself), how can we re-tell our story? I have an idea. These hard-core Christians are following what they believe is the definitive truth, the bible and their pastor. Well, Rick Warren said that God doesn't make mistakes. I agree, the 10-15% global population that is gay/lesbian is not a mistake. God did not make those people as 'less'. Instead, I believe he made them perfect and their job, like every single human, is to live fully. Why would god make someone who isn't supposed to live fully? Therefore, God loves gays and wants them to live gay, freely. All these judgments today made in Jesus' name? I believe Jesus is going to kick some butt when those people pass. The whole point of Jesus' life was love, not judgment. He threw out the moneychangers in the temple, yet many Christian evangalists are always asking for money. He was a simple man, yet the big churches are richly built and the Pope wears Ermine fur. Perhaps if we looked at all of our brothers and sisters as perfect in god's eyes, we'd heal from our hate and judgement and let people be, as they were born to be, as God made them.

Jon Stewart on The Daily Show gave just sort the sort of debate with Mike Huckabee I think we need.
Although how do you expect us to debate with this? He's making a speech at the Inauguration, not a debate on Prop 8. I agree with what you are saying but how does it apply to Warren's speech?

>>Although how do you expect us to debate with this? He's making a speech at the Inauguration, not a debate on Prop 8. I agree with what you are saying but how does it apply to Warren's speech?

It doesn't, but Lee ran out of defenses for the speech itself yesterday.

Thank you Lee,
You know I've been really struggling with this all week long. This election has caused an old unfamiliar process back into my soul, that is reason. for the past 8 years it was easy to take a side, anything the President did was bad, anything Republicans did - bad, anything anybody did that didn't agree that anything Bush and Republicans did was bad was in turn; bad. Red vs. Blue, critical thinkers vs everyone else .

But then Obama got elected, and all of a sudden I was faced with the hard truth that everybody did that, even those "bad" people, without them we couldn't have elected him, so where did that leave me? It left me happily understanding that I could now have honest debates, mostly with myself. I would now have to actually consider all sides - which brings us to my current dilema of this Warren issue.

For the past 8 years we (progressives) lost on nearly everything that we fought so hard for, no war, no tortue, no Blackwater, tearing down our DOJ, you know the list, and during that time I fought for our Consitution, I fought for ALL americans rights, not just mine. And this January I just wanted somebody to stand up for something that really mattered to me, something nobody would expect, something symbolic. and we got Warren. And I cried.

And I'm torn, I agree with your arguments, and I agree with Bob's, and within myself as a Gay woman I just really am sad, not mad, not hateful, just really really sad, so here I sit.

I will continue to make my argurements, they usually work; e.g. when the comment "we are put on this earth to procreate" I reply "and there have been gay men and women on this earth all the while you have been procreating - so thank you, I mean this won't change, we won't be preventing you from having babies, there will always be just as many of us born gay we just want in on the whole equal rights thing".

But this time I can't wrap my head around having a man up there that because of who I love doesn't want to afford me the same rights he has, I just can't do it, not this time.

But thank you and bob for talking it out, it's where all great movements come from, sharing of ideas. I get that.
Peace,
Marybeth

While I'm no fan of the Rick Warren decision, Lee has made some unbelievably valid points. Can we tackle this thing without the fist-waving and the hate-mongering? That's what we (liberals) railed against for so long. Let's make forceful yet intelligent arguments without being complete douches. Bob, has been a perfect example of this: He forms sane, rational counterpoints and delivers them without the insanity.

On related note, Travis, your comments are everything that is wrong with the Internet: Nonsensical sarcasm for your own sad amusement in the hopes someone will one day read your blog. Try making a relevant statement for once sans the assholery. People might actually want to read more of what you say. That's a freebie :D

Mary, excellently stated. Thanks.

I believe if we start adhering to the Constitution (again), we would realize this is a non-issue.

No one has the right to take away someone else's basic human rights based on their religious beliefs. No One.

Fact: Rick Warren has broadly insulted and denegrated law-abiding American citizens by comparing their relationships -- married or not -- with one of the most awful crimes a human being can commit (child rape).

Unless I missed something, embracing the president-elect's red-state/blue-state change message had nothing to do with accepting and swallowing the aggrandizement of people who unapologetically make such ridiculous and dangerous statements.

This isn't a gift at all. It's a distraction. It's unnecessary drama at a time when drama (of the economic sort) is more than abundant. America was- and will be vocally debating same-sex marriage for some time to come. Insulting the gay community by elevating Warren as a means of stirring up the debate seems like overkill.

>Nonsensical sarcasm for your own sad amusement in the hopes someone will one day read your blog.

You're right, if I didn't have a blog I'd think putting a vile hatemonger on stage with the incoming president is a brilliant idea.

I'm loathe to throw around "sock puppet", but...

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution:
Section 1. (snip) No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; (snip) nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Denying gays and lesbians the RIGHT to marry is not in keeping the the 14th Amendment. If the state allows Joe & Mary to marry, it cannot deny the same right to Joe & Bill. Bill and Mary are entitled to equal rights & equal protection of those rights.

From the CT Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage:
We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of
marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm. We also conclude that (1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
(2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our
statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3)the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage.
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf

Equal protection. And separate is not equal.

Personally, I don't agree with the interpretation by most of the 2nd Amendment. BUT it is in the Constitution and the Constitution is the law of the land so we abide by it - even the parts we don't particularly like.

I'm not sure what other argument against same sex marriage is necessary.

well, shit. I screwed up the final sentence. I meant:
I'm not sure what other argument against banning same sex marriage is necessary.

But it's all so NEW, ceu. Gays were only invented in 1976 or so.

>You're right, if I didn't have a blog I'd think putting a vile hatemonger on stage with the incoming president is a brilliant idea.

Thanks for proving my point.

Bob,

I never said accept Warren's argument. I understand it and state it fairly so it can be argued against properly.

Use your example that Warren equates gay marriage with child rape - that's not what he's saying. If it were, he wouldn't be in favor of equal rights for gay people on inheritance and visitation, which is is. Warren isn't calling for equal rights for child rapists.

You can quote him all day but you're throwing your interpretation in there, too, so it's not a fair quote. You're doing exactly what Obama's opponents did over and again in the election - distorting what someone is saying to make your point.

Warren has also compared gay marriage to a man and woman living together - he says neither is the same as a marriage.

So again I'm suggesting you try this - give Warren's quote the absolute fairest reading you possibly can. Give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not crazy or evil - just wrong. Then argue against his point from THAT position.

And I'd argue strongly that this isn't a distraction if one of the major goals of Obama is changing the nature of political discourse.

Ignoring Lee's guardian angel, this sentence jumps out at me:

>>This gives everyone who supports marriage equality about three weeks to do what they didn't go in November - form cogent, compelling arguments that might actually change the minds of some people opposed to gay marriage.

There is nothing that will change Rick Warren's mind, he said it right to Anne Curry's plastic face. He's fully in the "God Said It" column, and he himself has sworn that nothing is pulling him out of it. As the leader of what is alleged to be the liberal wing of the evangelical movement, his opinion serves as a barometer for what the rest of the Orange County types are thinking.

The fact is, as Lee himself has demonstrated, that bigotry is not something people can be talked out of. There's a reason that the government had to force integration of public schools, and look how much better the world is for it. Hell, I'd say that without the intellectual elite shepherding the nation away from the trajectory of the unwashed masses, there would be no President Obama.

To pretend that these people have any malleability in their view points is either pollyanna or willfully ignorant. Can't decide which Lee is, but based on his pearl clutching over Edwards, I'd guess it's a frothy mixture of the two.

Okay, despite Warren's shocking inability to engage in a grown-up discussion about equal rights (see: name-calling, insults, etc.), let's accept this as Obama's bridge to a new level of discourse. Problem settled.

Now, there's the matter of Warren's Premillenial Dispensationalism. The inauguration of a president who will likely have to deal with a rapidly dissolving nuclear Pakistan as well as a potentially nuclear Iran AND saber-rattling from nuclear Russia is going to be kicked off by a man whose opinion of nuclear warfare is "Neat! Heaven here I come!"

Not to mention, one of Warren's mentors was Wallie Amos Criswell, one of the men that inspired the schism in the southern baptist church during the civil rights movement. Criswell was on the exact opposite side of the argument from people such as, oh, Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery!

I phrased that sentence well - "form cogent, compelling arguments that might actually change the minds of some people opposed to gay marriage."

I never said you could change Warren's mind. Maybe it's possible but it's nothing I'm counting on.

Warren states a bunch of common arguments against gay marriage that has proven compelling to millions of people. Some of those people are open to counter-arguments...if you try.

You can quote him all day but you're throwing your interpretation in there, too, so it's not a fair quote. You're doing exactly what Obama's opponents did over and again in the election - distorting what someone is saying to make your point.

Warren has also compared gay marriage to a man and woman living together - he says neither is the same as a marriage.

So again I'm suggesting you try this - give Warren's quote the absolute fairest reading you possibly can. Give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not crazy or evil - just wrong. Then argue against his point from THAT position.

Absolutely.

QT

>>Some of those people are open to counter-arguments...if you try.

So the way to persuade them is to reward bigotry? Not a great example to set. You're kind of setting a strawman here, as you're claiming that the Warren appearance at the inauguration is somehow the opening of a grand dialogue, when in reality it's simply Obama endorsing a hatemongering ignorant bigot.

There will be no Q&A segment, simply that fat fuck standing on stage with the person who was supposed to bring a change of attitude to a country that over the past 8 years has run screaming away from progress on science and social issues.

You're fucking right I don't want to talk to evangelicals (best of luck to me on that living where I live), however my objection to Warren appearing at the inauguration has absolutely dick to do with it. If you want to make a bunch of DLC flavored posts about embracing conservatives (because their ideas have worked out SO WELL), that's your right, but don't pretend that the outrage over Warren is anything other than what it is- a direct slight to no less than 10% of law abiding tax paying American citizens, virtually all of whom helped elevate Obama to the place he is now.

Quoting myself from another site:

...tolerance means (to me) a lot more than just acknowledging and then ignoring the existence of others who differ from you. It means understanding where they are coming from, so that when you actually do have to deal with them, you aren't projecting opinions onto them that aren't actually theirs.

Easily said than done, but necessary.

Let me do this as well - it is just as unfair for Rick Warren to say this:

But to me it is kind of a charade in that people say we believe abortions should be safe and rare. Why do you believe it should be rare? If you don’t believe life begins at conception, it shouldn’t be rare. That’s an illogical statement. Don’t tell me it should be rare.

QT

Travis, I don't think anyone wants you talking to evangelicals. You can't even talk to people you agree with on 97% of issues with civility. Your 'fat fucks' can go hang out with the people whose arguements against Michael Moore's ideas revolve around his weight.

Excellent post Lee. That is the reality of the whole situation.

And Travis D, your attitude is a prime example who the supporters of Prop 8 were able to win. Instead of trying to educate people, you instead choose the easy route of labeling them homophobic bigots when in many cases it's not true.

Keep up with this attitude, and you guy will be fighting for this for a very long time.

>>Travis, I don't think anyone wants you talking to evangelicals. You can't even talk to people you agree with on 97% of issues with civility.

You have no idea, but knock yourself out making assumptions Stranahan. Just because someone uses invective for embellishment doesn't mean they're incapable of dialogue.

>>And Travis D, your attitude is a prime example who the supporters of Prop 8 were able to win. Instead of trying to educate people, you instead choose the easy route of labeling them homophobic bigots when in many cases it's not true.

The easy route was easy because it's true. Also the Mormon church illegally funneled tons of money into the campaign. But what's a little violation of tax exemption rules amongst people who believe that the native Americans are jews and that when you die your corpse flies to a heaven planet where your wives will be waiting for you.

"Travis, I don't think anyone wants you talking to evangelicals. You can't even talk to people you agree with on 97% of issues with civility."

Oh thats just utter and complete smelly stinky bullshit.

yea, none of this is helping.

It would just be nice to have a President stand up and say "I am my brothers keeper, I am my sisters keeper, gay, straight,black, white,Native American, etc" and mean it.

But I knew what I was getting when I voted for him, he never said he was for gay marriage, he doesn't believe I deserve the same rights, and I voted for him, how sick is that? But really - I couldn't take the chance.

sigh.

Travis: what are your views on the subject of tolerance? Indeed, I'd like to know that of everyone.

QT

Lee, I really would like to have better arguments to discuss with him and others like him. It's difficult to do in sound bites. When people get to know me and my family that changes their minds. Yet it seems the only gay people he knows are either all single and promiscuous (they probably wouldn't be interested in getting married anytime soon anyway) or are not really in a committed relationship with a family. If he really had examples like this in his life I think he might have a different take on all of this.

Do you know what the argument was to allow for inter-racial marriage? Seems like the same thing - bible says you can't - well depends on how you read it - oh separation of church and state so courts and lawmakers step up and do the right thing.

I have a hard time welcoming this "gift" of Warren. Not angry really just sad. This guy doesn't need more attention. I wish we were talking more about Rev Lowery

Jenny - How many times do I need to let Travis's snide, snarky insults before I get to call him on it? I'm not the only person who's noticed it and I'm not the only one he talks to that way.

Plenty of people disagree with me on here with resorting the tone, attitude and rhetoric that Travis employs in just about every post.

Travis is obviously intelligent, so I have to believe it's a deliberate choice on his part.

And Bob asked me to blog here, Jenny. If you're keen to censor my ideas, please take it up with Mr. Cesca and I'll be happy not to pollute your thoughts with concepts like tolerance and treating other people with respect. I've asked Bob about it and he's indicated he's happy with my contribution.

But I believe in free speech, which is why I've never asked for Travis to be banned, censored or wondered out loud when it became Travis's blog.

I thought progressives believed in open dialog. I thought O'Reilly was nuts to talk about how liberals are shrill politically correct censors who like to shut down opposing views. But between being banned from Kos and this bullshit, I really wonder if Billo is on to something.

I am not very tolerant, not anymore. I used to be, I worked against Reagan, I lost, but I understood why - I could see the other side, I was tolerant of other views, even though they were views that I felt would harm us as a nation.

I remained tolerant during the 80's when Aids was claiming my dear friends, every week I was at a funeral, or bedside, or holding a broken partner up from collapsing grave side only to be at their death bed a few months later. I was tolerant of the names I was called, the hatred I I endured, and the shear fear of being found out. I was tolerant by working alongside those that felt "my kind" were being cursed by God, I loved them anyway, and tried to make them understand.

I was tolerant to the teachers that felt my partner and I shouldn't both attend Open House at our sons school - I was tolerant when told by the Boy Scouts of America that I could no longer be my sons troop Den Mother.

I was tolerant when I marched on Washington for Peace prior to our invading Iraq and was spit upon by people holding "we love our country why can't you?"

I was tolerant for a long time - and then I just couldn't take being tolerant of "them" when they had absolutely no interest in being tolerant of, or "my kind". And the straw that broke the camels back, Bush. Not once but twice "they" voted him in. And I had to tolerate it. Well I didn't tolerate it. I fought it, and have been fighting straight for 8 years. I have never worked so hard against someone. And now, I have to be tolerant?

I came to this discussion not sure where I stood. I don't question it anymore. I'm mad as hell. And I'm tired of being asked to understand, to work with everybody, my tolerance level is low - it many not even be functioning.

so, I'll instead be patient. But I will not tolerate it.

marebare - curious to hear your definition of tolerant, as QT asked..

You're absolutely right Lee, it's all clear to me now.

I should accept my status as a second class citizen, whose rights can be denied by a simple majority vote.
I should be thrilled with the opportunity to plead for these rights on a the national stage.
I should realize that respecting peoples religious beliefs is far more important than my basic human dignity and rights.

Well, no. but you are right that there's obviously a long way for this country to go.
And sadly, we're going to have to fight smarter.

>>Give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not crazy or evil - just wrong. Then argue against his point from THAT position.

I fully believe in giving him the benefit of the doubt. Rich Warren and other evangelicals should be engaged in debate when possible. But Obama isn't going to be debating Rich Warren on stage. He's giving him the prestige of the U.S. Presidential Inauguration. No one is trying to silence Warren or be intolerant of him. I just don't want him giving an invocation from his hate-filled mouth at what should be a celebration of progress. I know that those who support the decision to have Warren speak will immediately fall back to the free speech issue, but this is not a matter of hearing his side out. We've heard his side out for eight years. And I've personally heard enough of it. I'm not going to shut him up, but I certainly don't think our Democratic President-Elect should be giving him the soap-box on his first day in office.

That being said, it easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to convince a "God-said-it-and-that's-final" evangelical that gay marriage should be legal.

Lee, I think people are just angry and have to shoot that anger out at someone or they will just explode. Some people just don't know how to be constructive with their anger.

Also Lee, contrary to some people want to believe, the extreme left is just as bad as the extreme right. It all comes down to extreme ideology, which by its very nature means you have a closed mind.

I bet our good buddy Travis will swear up and down that he's better than anyone on the extreme right because his ideology tells him so.

It's a wild scene up in here today. It's like watching a piece of theatre unfold spontaneously and frankly I'm enjoying it quite a lot.

My two cents. The interesting part of this comment thread has been the fact that Bob and Lee have established the poles of the debate and everything else has worked off of that as either polite side-taking or fairly contentious sniping. I waver between Bob and Lee on this, though I have to admit I've been a little more in Lee's corner. I can see from yesterday's discussion and a post since then that there is a general disagreement on the meaning of tolerance as well. I really don't think there's a right or wrong in that discussion since there has to be a degree of interpretation for any abstract concept. I think Bob makes excellent points bringing up Rick Santorum. Even typing that name makes me little angry. But for some reason, I think there's a difference in Santorum and Warren. I may be wrong. Again, interpretation.

For me, here's how it works. I was brought up in a traditional Southern household. I was taught about God and what was right and wrong and all that jazz. I remember knowing without a doubt that gay was wrong. I didn't think I was a bigot. I didn't feel hate toward anyone. I just believed that God, whom I believed in unflinchingly, said it was an abomination and that made it so.

That was a long time ago, and I'm a very different person. I don't believe any of that nonsense anymore, but I also have a hard time calling people who do bigots simply because they do believe those things. I never felt any malice when I believed it. Do I think I was wrong to have believed those things? Yes. Do I think my family is wrong for currently believing those things? Yes. Do I think my family is a bunch of bigots? No. Do I think my family would just as soon welcome a gay person into their homes as anyone else? I know they would.

It's not as easy for me to rule that anyone who believes what Warren does is an evil bigot as it seems to be for others because I've been there and I still know and love people who are there. I do talk to them and try to convince them and it may surprise you to know that in some ways I've managed to sway some of them. I certainly didn't convince them of anything by hurling epithets at them, though.

I fully admit to being a little pollyannish sometimes and I'm okay with that. I like to hope there's a chance people will come around. I don't think there's anything wrong with believing someone is wrong and not believing they're evil. If you've never been religious, it's hard to understand how much influence that has over you. In fact, it's impossible to understand how much that guides you. Even if you personally think there's nothing wrong with being gay, if God says there is something wrong with it, you MUST come to the conclusion that you are the one who is wrong and not God. It's weird, I know. I'm just trying to add another perspective to our unfolding drama.

sdrDusty - fight smarter is exactly what I'm saying. I've never argued that anyone should accept anything - fight smarter. Don't ignore Rick warren or try to hide hide him or distort is position because it's easier. Fight smarter and win.

Wow lee you got all defensive. Go figure. I'm sure i'm not the only one (cuz ive talked to others who post here) who's noticed the ever increasing, intentionally stick poking blog posts from you and yeah its Bobs blog and he can do whatever he wants with it. I'm just super surprised at the frequency and manner in which you have attempted to take over this community.

I think your intentions are much more to feather your own publicly seeking nest....but hey that's my personal opinion.

As far as Travis goes, i personally enjoy his snark, though i don't always agree with him, hes a very interesting communicator and hes funny. I dig the funny, one of the reasons i like this blog and started reading it was because Bob is funny. Jumpy pants, is funny and Elvis, was funny. You Lee are never funny.

From someone who's always preaching "tolerance" even in the face of being terribly discriminated against its amusing to see how easily someone who doesn't agree with you and has no issues tell you so in no uncertain terms, gets under your skin.

I have engaged Travis outside of here and found hes rather open to it. so pffft. maybe you should try that instead of trying to publicly flog him cuz he takes you to task in a manner you are uncomfortable with.

Part of the problem is your idea of tolerance.

I tolerate racists. I live in a small town in the south, and I often overhear racist comments. I don't lash out at these people, I usually try my best to ignore them. As long as they aren't physically hurting anyone, I have no right or intention to intervene and restrict them from speaking.

However, I do not invite these assholes into my house to celebrate Christmas with me.

Clear enough for you?

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in the blogosphere.

But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations.

Without having taken time to read through all the previous comments (which I intend to do after I make my comment), I really want to thank Lee for saying this. Agree with him or not, but cooler heads really need to prevail here. We REALLY need to get past this thing instead of letting it rot us from the inside out. It is counterproductive for ALL of us. I refuse to let anger in Government continue to control my life. It makes no sense and it simply gets us no where. Now I am going to go back and read all the comments in the hope that I am not the only one here thinking this way. I personally really have to let this go.

Lee,You asked: marebare - curious to hear your definition of tolerant, as QT asked..

Sorry; I kind of went off there - I get worked up some times, and things just start spilling out. I guess this conversation has sparked a lot more emotion then I originally gave it credit for.

I fully understand the meaning of tolerance as attitudes and practices that prohibit discrimination against those practices or group memberships that may be disapproved of by those in the majority. Being a member of the minority in this case I depend on the majority's tolerance. I just seem to always be on the side of having to practice tolerance, and not so much on the side of receiving it.

>>>I have engaged Travis outside of here and found hes rather open to it. so pffft. maybe you should try that instead of trying to publicly flog him cuz he takes you to task in a manner you are uncomfortable with.

The problem, along with misplaced anger, is the presence of internet anonymity. Would he be talking like this to people if he had to do so face to face. Something tells me that's not the case.

>>>Agree with him or not, but cooler heads really need to prevail here. We REALLY need to get past this thing instead of letting it rot us from the inside out. It is counterproductive for ALL of us.

EUREKA, somebody gets it!

We're all being tolerated by someone. It's not tolerance to be okay with things you agree with or have no issues with. The fact that we're not slapped or punched or shot or cursed out on most days shows that someone bit their tongue and tolerated us for some reason. I don't think anyone here has the problem of being non-confrontational or too quiet.

On the larger scale, I do agree that the gay community has been asked to be more tolerant in recent years; to be more patient; to let more things roll off their backs. But change is slow. You don't go from 0 to light speed in a flash. Ask the women in the earliest years of the suffrage movement--the ones who threw themselves in front of carriages to make a political point. How many years after that did that actually receive the rights they were dying or being mangled for?

LTMidknite wrote:
Lee, I think people are just angry and have to shoot that anger out at someone or they will just explode. Some people just don't know how to be constructive with their anger.

That's just insulting.
Marybeth

>>The problem, along with misplaced anger, is the presence of internet anonymity. Would he be talking like this to people if he had to do so face to face. Something tells me that's not the case.

Sure I would. Neither of us is really that anonymous, Stranahan (for some reason) is just better known.

Someone quoted (sort of) MLK's Birmingham Jail letter earlier. There is another part, that seems to be lost on many ears here.

----

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

----

The homosexual population of this planet didn't spring up yesterday. Homosexuals have been repressed to the point of being jailed simply for being a homosexual, and well into this century. The gay rights movement was started in large part due to people getting fed up with being asked to tolerate intolerance.

Bravo Kyle, Bravo.

@marebeth

It may be a little insulting but it's the truth. And I'll prove it.

You're angry about the situation, right? What do you plan to do about it?

Nicely said Kyle.

Lee and Travis - in the words of Rodney King "can't we all just get along?"

Perhaps we have all become a little jaded over the past decade, perhaps we have become intolerant. But I know for myself that every day since the election I have allowed myself to start to explore new ideas again, to be open to differnt opinions, to really try and listen, because this old lesbian just has always believed that we too shall overcome.

>>because this old lesbian just has always believed that we too shall overcome.

And this straight man wants to be there when you do.

Kyle W, I'm so glad you posted that MLK letter.

I know it's somewhat off-topic, but I just wanted to highlight the very first sentence:

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

The reason why Prop 8 passed in California was because the gay/lesbian community felt that the rights they want should have been given to them in an arrogant mentality sort of way.

LT: don't be ridiculous.

I will do what I have been doing for the past 25 years. I work to get progressive voices elected, I have succeeded in working on the Keith Ellison campaign, Mark Ritchey, Terri Bonner, Karen Clark, Scott Dibble, to name a few in the past 3 years(MN House/Senate and Sec. of State. If you would like my list for the past 5 election cycles let me know, it'll be constructive.

I continue to volunteer and work with St. Joan of Arc Gay and Lesbian community outreach.

I wrote every one of my representatives (D/R/I) re: Proposition 8 and throughout my life other issues that were equally important, don't ask don't tell, etc.

I continually work to inform the uninformed, I hold monthly Meetup Meetings - I stay involved. I march when geographically possible, and I make a lot of phone calls.

I don't give up. What are you going to do? other then tell me I have anger that I don't know how to deal with constructively? I'll say it again, it was an insult. But being I'm trying to be tolerant, I understand your blanket statement and realize it was not a one size fit all.
Peace,
Marybeth

It is not arrogant to demand your rights.

It is arrogant to strip others of their rights.

This indeed has become a very interesting conversation. I don't really know many of you who stop by here often. I have not had the time to understand your points of view that well yet. I do enjoy coming here for the opened and honest dialogue, which to me is the MOST important element that we hold as Americans. Most of all Bob is very enjoyable to read. I love his wit and it is a good fit for me.

I have spent much time as part of other internet communities for the last few years and I have learned very well that anonymity can sometimes be our worst enemies. That is why I chose to blog. Instead of having loosely connected conversations with people who wish to just post and run this continuing dialogue is so much more productive.

That being said, the subject of tolerance has been coming up here a lot. Questions have been asked as to what your own definition of tolerance really is. I can't help but go back to the literal definiton of Tolerance:

Main Entry: tol•er•ance
sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own

What stands out for me, and what I have come to understand in my 50 some odd years on this planet, is the word "indulgence". I have tried so hard in the last few years to live by this creed. It is so much easier to condemn and to stay un-indulgent or un-sympathetic, then to try and be the opposite. I think that this is really what Lee is trying to say here. Somebody once sent me this great quote from Dave Eggers which I always keep close to home:

>>This one goes out to all the tiny people . . .
What matters is that you want to see and make and do, on as grand a scale as you want, regardless of what the tiny voices of tiny people say. Do not be critics, you people, I beg you. I was a critic and I wish I could take it all back because it came from a smelly and ignorant place in me, and spoke with a voice that was all rage and envy. Do not dismiss a book until you have written one, and do not dismiss a movie until you have made one, and do not dismiss a person until you have met them. It is a fuck load of work to be open-minded and generous and understanding and forgiving and accepting, but Christ, that is what matters. What matters is saying yes.
- Dave Eggers

Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it.

Notice the e. I'm not the rapper/singer who loves the vocoder more than life itself.

Then congrats, Marybeth. You realize I wasn't referring to you when I made that statement.

LT said:
The reason why Prop 8 passed in California was because the gay/lesbian community felt that the rights they want should have been given to them in an arrogant mentality sort of way.

The rights they WANT should have been given to them in an arrogant mentality sort of way.

Don't go into the bumper sticker business. I suppose it is arrogant to be born an American Citizen and expect the rights of an American citizen. But you know us gays, we get all arrogant and snooty, one might say elitist, and here we come prancing about WANTING something everybody else just gets. We are a kooky bunch.

But to be serious, I understand your view. I truly do and I'm not being sarcastic. As a gay woman I am not one to wear rainbow stickers, and I don't hang pride banners from my porch, it causes people to judge you without knowing you, and you become a one note. I'm a mother of a 22 year old son. I hold a very nice position as a Project Manager for a large utility company, I live in a small house, I garden, and I belong to a book club. I love to play poker, and I love to be with my family. I work on political campaigns not to just fight for my own rights, I work for the greater good of society. I work towards a good education system, clean air and water, the rights of hunters, urban development, name a good cause and there is a good chance I've worked on it or continue to. It just so happens I'm also gay. It's not my political association, it's my sexual orientation. So I see this cause from two sets of eyes, my own gay eyes and my political activist eyes. I get both sides. I get the anger. I get the feeling of entitlement, and I also understand the battle before us. But not once did I ever consider it to be arrogant to think I deserved the same rights as everybody else. Not once.

FREE On-Demand TV Shows, Movies, Music(over 6 million digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, Money, and FREE College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) @ InternetSurfShack.com 

MaryBeth, you missed my point.

Prop 8 passed because while the "Yes" side were convincing people (falsely) that gays were trying to force their lifestyle and beliefs on other people, the "No" side either did virtually nothing or waited until it was much too late to counter them.

To me, this complacency was born out of arrogance. It explain why the gay/lesbian community was so angry when it did pass. Because they honestly thought it wouldn't.

So the misplaced anger is going towards those who funded Prop 8. While they are in the wrong for what they did, it was VOTERS that allowed it to happen. You can't blame the instigator for the crimes of the perpetrator.

That's all I'm saying.

I think I really need a break. Usually I'm very capable of understanding ones point, but this truly is a lot more emotional for me, meaning I should probably just step away for a bit, and take a few deep breaths.

I understand your point LT, and I thank you for being patient and for explaining it for me.

Sorry for my ramblings, but this one really hits close to home and I'm finding it difficult to be rational and not so emotional.

MB

You know I believe a big part of why the gay community has such a terrible time in trying to organize is that many of us don't consider themselves part of the gay community. Many in my circle don't march in the Pride parades, don't go to gay bars, they don't identify themselves as gay first, we are women, or men, parents, single, or coupled, teachers, lawyers, the list goes on - being gay is just part of our greater idenity - and for many they don't want to be known for just being gay. I march in both camps, I march, and I fight in plain sight for my rights, but I fully understand how hard it is to organize ALL of us under one tent. It is not a lifestyle, it is part of our life. there is a difference.

Hey Travis D., I get the snark, too. Where's your blog?

I understand Lee's point because I've been saying the same thing to my LGBT friends since the Prop Hate victory.
I'm a San Francisco resident and I started to get worried when all the prop hate commercials were running during the election. The one where the teacher said they would be teaching children "the Gay" and arresting ministers who refused to marry gays were the scariest. I was asking my gay friends during that time whether they thought the LGBT community seemed awfully quiet. I asked whether they were getting their points out to folks outside their immediate circles. It was as if we all assumed Cali had gotten beyond fearing the gay. There was no way this shit was gonna pass right?
Lee is right. Everyone dropped the fuckin' ball on this. San Francisco's gay bubble was popped because we passively held fundraisers (at the final fuckin hour I might add) and sent out a few emails asking our friends who love and support the gay to keep doing so. It's time to except the fact that the supporters of No on 8 did NOT represent as well as they should. I'm owning it. OWN IT! Stop blaming Mormons, black churches, old people, Rick Warren and now Obama.

Nothing worth having comes without a long ass hard fought struggle. Ask a civil rights activist. You want your rights? Don't fuckin' whine about it. BE ABOUT IT! Be about the business of REALLY changing this shit. I've got the easiest part. I'm educating my 10 year old about our gay and lesbian friends and family. My husband and I are doing our best to teach our child that everyone deserves fairness and equality. The LGBT community's job is much more difficult and I am will to do my part when you're really ready to get organized and put up a newer, stronger, smarter fight. The blame game has gone on since 05NOV.
Holla at ya girl when the healing and progressive prop hate ass kicking begins.

Like Marebare this is an emotional one for me as well.
Apologies if I offended anyone. I am heartbroken for my friends suffering over this and I'm saddened that this happened along side the Obama victory.
I'm getting fucked up at tonights company holiday party.
Good looking out, Lee.

To Scribblechic,

Getting fucked up tonight is a great idea. Enjoy! I think we all need to get a little buzzed.... it hasn't killed me so far...

Ya know what? I really appreciate the dialogue here but I have to say this - I don't think tolerance demands getting spit on, any more than I think tolerance demanded accepting fire hoses. If you take that kind of treatment - you ought to be doing it strategically - as part of nonviolent protest, but that's NOT tolerance. If someone is treating you that way and you're not actively engaging them in a nonviolent confrontation - you have every right to haul off on them and beat the living crap out of them. I mean that.

Tolerance is understanding that doesn't violate anyone's person. It's finding ways to understand where someone else is coming from, and getting them to understand where you are coming from. It's getting as far as you can until you reach that point where neither of you can come any closer - shaking hands at that point and then emerging from that effort still disagreeing, but differently, more knowledgeably, more respectfully.

I think that tolerance is incumbent upon all, but I don't think someone else's intolerance is an excuse for our own. And finally, I think that tolerance is a tool for finding solutions that can be embraced by more people than an intolerant solution would have been.

I don't think that's pollyannish - I think that's immeasurably practical, and more necessary now than ever before, because we are absolutely stuck in a mud fight.

Finally - for same-sex advocates: take your case to the supreme court. Seriously... if all these nutcases can take the birth certificate issue to the supreme court - you can take the marriage issue to the supreme court. If it's not something to be voted for - then stop letting it come to a vote. Push for a decision.

QT

Also, G the spammer is back, this time at 3:11.

QT

I just find it amusing that a peacenik like Stranahan gets the most wildly vulgar discussions going.

Whereas, when Bob calls people "ratfucking rat fuckers", the comments are nothing but pictures of kitties and smiley faces.

Weird.