The backlash over prop 8 gets ugly

[galaxy21]

A supporter of Proposition 8, fed up with what he believed was the gay community's and "liberal media's" refusal to accept the voters' verdict, fired off a letter to the editor.


"Please show respect for democracy," he wrote, in a letter we published.

What he encountered instead was an utter lack of respect for free speech.

Within hours, the intimidation game was on. Because his real name and city were listed - a condition for publication of letters to The Chronicle - opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search engines to find the letter writer's small business, his Web site (which included the names of his children and dog), his phone number and his clients. And they posted that information in the "Comments" section of SFGate.com - urging, in ugly language, retribution against the author's business and its identified clients.

"They're intimidating people that don't have the same beliefs as they do ... so they'll be silenced," he told me last week. "It doesn't bode well for the free-speech process. People are going to have to be pretty damn courageous to speak up about anything. Why would anyone want to go through this?"

Let the record show that I absolutely disagree with the letter writer on the substance of Prop. 8. I believe that same-sex couples should have the full rights and responsibilities of marriage. In my view, the discrimination inherent in Prop. 8 is morally and legally indefensible in a society where the concept of equal protection is supposed to safeguard the rights of the minority.

But let me also say that I am disturbed by the vicious, highly personalized attacks against the letter writer and others. Protesters have shouted insults at people headed to worship; temples and churches have been defaced. "Blacklists" of donors who contributed to Yes on 8 are circulating on the Internet, and even small-time donors are being confronted. A Palo Alto dentist lost two patients as a result of his $1,000 donation. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned to spare the organization from a fast-developing boycott. Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the Sacramento theater group and a Mormon, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8.

This out-of-scale attempt to isolate and intimidate decidedly small players in the Yes on 8 campaign is no way to win the issue in a court of law or the court of public opinion.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/21/INOQ147155.DTL


I do agree with this man: I think prop 8 was morally-and legally- wrong, but the backlash over this has been very disturbing. I said on another thread: you can't fight intolerance with intolerance, and I agree with man that its just alienating people. I think the people that voted yes will eventually come around, but not if stuff like this is going on.

[mondo joe]

1. Sorry, but those people are not entitled to our purchases. We, however, are entitled to not

give our money to people who use it against us.

[anonymous171]

2. Nope. They need to get a taste of their own hatred.

[galaxy21]

3. And then what? Are they suddently going to change their minds?

We can win support for gay marriage. but only if we try a different approcch. What you're talking about is payback. And that not going to solve anything.

[mondo joe]

5. Then what is that they reconsider financially supporting attacks on our rights and our families

because they realize what can happen as a result.

[galaxy21]

8. If you changed hearts and minds, it wouldn't matter how much money these groups poured into it

[mondo joe]

9. Are you familiar with the Montgomery Bus Boycotts? Did you think that was a bad

idea and that they should have worked on changing hearts and minds instead?

[galaxy21]

19. The problem is we're not dealing with 1950s rednecks

We're dealing with (in many cases) democrats who happily voted for Obama, but for whatever reason couldn't bring themselves to vote for gay marriage. If all the people that voted for Barack had voted against it, it wouldn't have passed. These are not freepers we're talking about. These are moderates. People who have gay friends or gay family members, but just havn't come around to the idea of gay marriage yet.

These people can be reason with, talked to, educated about why gay marriage isn't a threat to them.

[mondo joe]

21. No, we're dealing with bigots in 2008. And we're teaching them the consequences

of financing attacks on us.

Stop making excuses for bigotry.

[Cronus Protagonist]

22. Good answer!

And where is it written that persuading bigots is more effective than taking money out of their pockets? I think history proves that the latter works, the former does not.

[mondo joe]

26. Who could seriously think I would knowingly give my business to someone who attacks

my family?

Or worse, that I SHOULD?

[Cronus Protagonist]

29. Apparently, the poor, hard done by bigots expect your wallet to stay open as they bash you

And people on here are offended that you close your wallet in response to bigotry. I guess some are only skin-deep Democrats.

[mondo joe]

35. galaxy21 apparently thinks I'm fool enough to give my money to people who use those $

to attack my family.

[galaxy21]

28. Barack doesn't agree with gay marriage either

Are you going to call him a bigot as well?

Honestly, if I met someone that was uncomfortable with the idea, I would talk to them about it. Explain that it doesn't make a difference and you can;t save marriage by banning marriage (I stole thta line from colbert)

I wouldn't start yelling things or calling them a bigot. Where's that going to accomplish? A lot of these people aren't homophobic, they just have have trouble getting their head around it.


And yes, I would try and get more high profile democrats to come out in favour of it. Biden already has, and we should work on Hillary and Barack.

[gollygee]

30. He said he would have voted against Proposal 8

AND he didn't give money in support of it. Giving money to support something like that is beyond just "having to get used to the idea".

[galaxy21]

34. If Barack had strongly supported gay marriage, many black voters would have followed his lead

So strong is his influence in the black community.

The democrats seeming indifference towards gay marriage has done a lot more damage than these outside groups could have ever done. But no one wants to hear that.

[mondo joe]

38. You're straying from your "point" of defending bigots who funded attacks on gays.

And why you think we should give them our money to attack us further.

[galaxy21]

45. I'm not defending anyone

Although nice way to avoid the question.


I wasn't talking about the boycotts. Again, whatever you want to do with your money is up to you. But its all this other behaviour that I worry about. I was reading that minorities (not big businesses or religous groups that gave the money, just regular people) are now worried that they will face a backlash because of it.

[mondo joe]

46. If it's not the boycott, what is the backlash you fear and what is "disturbing" about it?

Be specific.

[galaxy21]

56. I feel there is a real villification of minorties going on here

On the days after it passed on here, there was a huge amount of anti Mormon stuff on here, and a lot of crticism aimed at Hispansics and blacks.

As for the guy in the article, maybe I read it wrong but he was just giving his opinion (even if I disagee with it). I don't think he gave money.

[mondo joe]

58. Where did you get that in the article?

And why are you making shit up?

[gollygee]

59. Then why didn't you post an article about backlash toward minority groups?

This article has nothing to do with that.

[donco6]

80. Nice dodge. Too bad it isn't working.

The OP has nothing to do with gay backlash against minorities. You can try to stir that pot, but it won't work here.

[gollygee]

42. Yes that would have been lovely but it's still a fallacy to say that he's in the same boat

as people who GAVE MONEY IN AN ATTEMPT TO TAKE AWAY PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.

Some people might be in the position of "just having to get used to the idea", but not people so hateful as to give money to support this. And he did publicly say he opposed Proposal 8. Which isn't everything, and obviously he isn't perfect, but him not being perfect doesn't excuse bigots who funded the rights of other people being taken away.

I get to choose where I spend my money, and that is an absolute.

[galaxy21]

47. But its not just the people that gave money that being punished

Again, there are lot of blacks and Hispanics that are worried they'll about the consequences of this for them. They didn't give money.

[mondo joe]

48. What consequences? Be specific. NT

[gollygee]

49. That is completley irrelevant in regard to this article

if that's what is bothering you, why did you post that article. Start another thread. Nobody here is arguing that minorities should be boycotted, only that bigots who gave money should be, and that's what the article is about.

[mondo joe]

53. galaxy21 is all over the map, changing tacts from the OP to be about Obama, about voters,

about all sorts of thing not in the original article.

[galaxy21]

60. The point I was making was less about the articles and more about the tactics people are using

Which doesn't just include the boycotts. I was suggesting a different approach.

I think Obama is significant because everyone on here is railing about 'bigotry' and 'hate' but don't seem to realise the indifference (and rejection) of gay marriage by democratic politics probably did more damage than Mitt Romney's pals.

[mondo joe]

61. No, you didn't suggest a different approach. You said the response was "disturbing" in reference

to the article which was about boycotting.

Stop moving the goal post. There's a written record.

[galaxy21]

64. I didn't suggest a different approach? Go back and read my posts.

All I've been suggesting is different approaches.

[mondo joe]

66. Let's review your OP: You cite an article about boycotts and say it is "disturbing".

You later run away from that and start talking about different approaches.

Then you run away AGAIN and say it's not about the boycotts but about minorities who didn't fund 8.

Stop pretending we're too stupid to see what you actually wrote and when you wrote it.

[galaxy21]

71. "You cite an article about boycotts and say it is "disturbing".

The article wasn't just about 'boycotts' it was about the other stuff: publishing his personal information, verbal attacks..etc.


"Then you run away AGAIN and say it's not about the boycotts but about minorities who didn't fund 8"

I think that's a bigger part of the conversion. I wasn't running away from it, I was talking about two subjects at once.


"Stop pretending we're too stupid to see what you actually wrote and when you wrote it."

I was always refering the the tactics (not the boycotts). When did I say 'I think the boycotts are wrong?' If done reasonably, I have no problem with it. Sending hate mail and publishing personal details is not acceptable to me.

[mondo joe]

74. Not the boycotts? NOT THe boycotts? But when I referenced the Montgomery Bus

Boycotts you just said those were different people and we should do something different now.

So you WERE referring to the boycotts, but now you've changed again.

[galaxy21]

82. "Boycotts you just said those were different people and we should do something different now"

I was referring to the 1960s civil rights era as a whole, rather than that one event.

[mondo joe]

84. That's not what your words said. Stop pretending.

[gollygee]

75. It didn't say he got hate mail

The personal information was info about his business. That's relevant for a boycott. I think anything related to kids should be left out, but anything related to his business is fair game.

What hate mail are you talking about? Are you talking about the online responses to his LTTE that gave the personal information? That isn't hate mail unless they made threats or something, in which case that would be wrong and I would think illegal. But simply saying, "This is where the guy works so you can include him in your boycott" isn't "hate mail".

[mondo joe]

77. "When did I say 'I think the boycotts are wrong?'" In post 19.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4526958&mesg_id=4527039

[galaxy21]

101. Again, that wasn't in relation to the boycotts, rather I think the black civil rights/gay civil

rights comparision is a flawed one.

[donco6]

97. HE published his own personal info -

He wrote a letter to the editor, which requires your name and city (no anonymous letters). HE constructed a web site with his family on it. HE listed his phone number and address. HE opened himself up to responses in the paper and on the web site. The fact that anti-Prop-8 folks found the info is hardly "evil" - it's just good sense.

You make it sound like someone threatened his family. When did that happen?

[rasputin5]

114. Uh, the newspaper published the bigot's name. He was certainly aware of their policy

before he wrote the letter. So fuck him, I hope he goes bankrupt.

[Maven]

119. You don't think it's an invasion of our privacy to have our PERSONAL RIGHTS put to a vote?

[Sub Atomic]

157. I get the feeling that Galaxy21 would like for us all to just go back in the closet

and stay there so that it doesn't have to deal with us or our demands for equal rights.

[gollygee]

63. If you posted this article and said you agreed with this guy,

I have to assume that you are opposed to boycotting people who gave money in support of Proposal 8.

You can NOT assume that people in this thread are giving any kind of backlash to random people because they are minorities or support that. That's ridiculous. The two issues are completely unrelated.

It sounds like you don't want people to boycott people who gave money in support of Proposal 8, and you're trying to make people feel guilty by tying it into random racism issues. BUT THE TWO THINGS ARE NOT RELATED. Your article is about something very specific. You need to start a new thread about minority groups who have had backlash if that's what you're worried about. I haven't read anything about that and I am not aware that it is even happening.

[galaxy21]

65. The original guy was a supporter of prop 8, I don't think he gave money

[mondo joe]

68. Your endless twisting efforts to defend Prop8 bigots reminds me of Michelle Bachmann and

the way she kept trying to twist her way out of what she said.

[gollygee]

69. So?

He wrote a LTTE in support of Proposal 8. His feelings became a matter of public record, and he opened himself up to a boycott.

People get to choose where their money goes.

And you keep changing the subject. How is backlash against random minorities involved with this article?

[galaxy21]

72. " He wrote a LTTE in support of Proposal 8. His feelings became a matter of public record

and he opened himself up to a boycott."


The guy deserved to have his personal information published and be sent hate mail? For giving his opinion? Reminds me of the freepers and the dixie chicks. That's how they justified their unreasonable behaviour. Sometimes people have a different opinion. Reasonable people don't send hate mail over it and try and ruin the guy's life, though.


"And you keep changing the subject. How is backlash against random minorities involved with this article?"

Anytime I try and talk about it I keep getting told I'm 'running away' from the original subject.

[gollygee]

79. The original subject is an artcile about boycotts

If boycotting "ruins his life" then what really ruined his life was that there were consequences to him being a bigot. Wah wah to him.

If he got some kinds of threats, which is what hate mail is, then that is illegal and he should call the police. But saying, "This is where the guy works so you can boycott him" isn't hate mail.

[mondo joe]

85. You ARE changing topics from your OP. Do you support full legal marriage for same

sex couples in the US?

[galaxy21]

90. Absolutely.

[mondo joe]

92. Do you support people making informed choices about their purchases?

And do you support free speech?

[galaxy21]

94. Informed choices? Yes. Free speech? Yes.

Can they do this? Yes. Do I think (and I'm not talking about the boycotts) they should be using these tacits? I question it.

[mondo joe]

96. Then you should have no problem with what's happening.

We're using our spending $ and our free speech.

Fuck off if you don't like it.

[donco6]

67. "Mitt Romney's pals" - i.e., Mormons.

Just say it right outloud. What's the problem?

Your premise is pure conjecture - that if Obama and the Dems had come out strongly for gay marriage, Mormons and minorities would suddenly have changed their minds. I seriously doubt it. It's all about religion invading the government, not about parties or politics.

Plus, yes, other people besides the business owner get hurt by boycotts. But that's just the nature of the biz. When you work for a bigot, sometimes there's a price to pay. To eliminate boycotts - one of the few useful tools a minority can use against the powerful - would be too emasculating.

I don't find any of the tactics used so far to be out of line, in comparison with what these "religions" are doing to us. Screw 'em.

[galaxy21]

78. I think it would have made a difference with black voters if Barack had been more open about his

support. Hillary has huge sway in the hispanic comminity as well.


Would it have definetly ensured it passed? No one knows. But it would have helped, you can't deny that.

[gollygee]

83. Them not being pefect doesn't excuse people for being bigots

or mean that bigots shouldn't be boycotted.

We choose where our money goes.

[galaxy21]

86. "them not being perfect"

If we go by what your saying, they're bigots.

You're willing to cut Hillary and Barack some slack, but no one else. Its hypocritical.

[mondo joe]

87. Hillary and Obama did not support Prop 8. Prop 8 is what this is about.

As you know.

[galaxy21]

93. But Barack saying a 'marriage should be between a man and a woman'

Its hypocrtical to ignore the damage he did by saying that.

[mondo joe]

95. Priorities. Those who support Prop 8 financially are the first priority.

You're being a hypocrite by pretending to support equality while defending the enemies of equality.

[galaxy21]

99. Now you're the one avoiding the question

Barack tried to play it safe. He could never come out and say he supported gay marriage because it would piss off all the people in the red states. But he couldn't say he agreed with prop 8 either or it would cost him california.

You won't criticse him, but you will attack everyone else.

[donco6]

100. Now you're trying to get us to attack Obama for Prop 8?

Sheesh. Give it up.

[galaxy21]

104. No, but there is a real hypocrisy regarding that

But if you want to fight for gay marriage, you need high profile democratic support. You didn't get it this time, and that's partly why it failed.

[donco6]

105. I'm not going to attack Obama.

Sorry, won't work.

[galaxy21]

107. But you will attack everyone else who disagrees with gay marriage?

That's not hypocrisy?

[gollygee]

110. No one is "attacking" people who "disagree" with gay marriage

People are BOYCOTTING people who VOTED FOR and GAVE MONEY IN SUPPORT OF taking away the rights of gay people.

[galaxy21]

122. The guy in the article didn't give money, he was getting attacked for giving his opinion

[gollygee]

124. Again, once he wrote a LTTE giving his opinion

it became public record and he was open to being boycotted.

[galaxy21]

127. They did a lot more than boycott him though

[gollygee]

129. No, not really

What you're calling "hate mail" appears to be online responses to his email giving information for boycotting. If he got true hate mail, which involves threats, then he needs to call the police. But I didn't see anything about that.

[galaxy21]

131. And getting his phone number and publishing personal details?

[gollygee]

132. "Personal details" was info about how to boycott him

Info about his business. Phone number is public information unless it's unlisted, which apparently it isn't.

[donco6]

152. His info was already public information.

HE published it.

[donco6]

156. Not stopping galaxie from repeating that lie . . .

. . . over and over and over . . .

[donco6]

115. Not at all.

I'm boycotting people I *know* are responsible. Simple.

I'm sorry there are a high priority of Mormons on the list. But that's the way the Jello jiggles, I guess.

[rasputin5]

118. I won't attack Obama but I will say I'm disappointed he didn't do more for us.

I'm willing to see how he handles the issue once he's on the OO. He's no bigot but he did employ a little (probably necessary) hypocrisy. There's a subtle difference and politics does require it sometimes.

[gollygee]

102. I think you're trying to use this as an excuse to let bigots off the hook

They're politicians and politicians say what they think they have to say to get elected. He would have voted against Proposal 8, and I think that speaks more to his true feelings. But it's still not really relevant. I recognize that things would have been better if he would have said that, but it doesn't change my right to spend my money how I choose.

Why are you trying to make excuses for bigots?

[galaxy21]

106. "They're politicians and politicians say what they think they have to say to get elected"

So, bigotry is okay if its poltically convienient?

Look, I love Barack, but he made a big mistake in playing it safe.

[gollygee]

108. They didn't and wouldn't have voted to take away anyone's rights

and they didn't give money in an effort to take away anyone's rights.

NOT THE SAME THING. And it doesn't get anyone off the hook or make boycotting wrong.

[donco6]

111. What's this have to do with the dumbass in the article?

First, you were upset about boycott tactics in general.

Then it was some made-up "threats" and "indimidation".

Then it was your fear that it would lead to backlash against minorities.

Now your wanting us to be upset with Obama.

I sense a pattern here . . .

[gollygee]

112. Uh-huh

[donco6]

113. Right where I was going.

Purple hair and all.

[galaxy21]

125. "First, you were upset about boycott tactics in general."

I was never against the boycott tactics, people just jumped on that after I said I didn't think they would work and I questioned the comparision between the black civil rights battle of the sixties to what's happening now.


"Then it was some made-up "threats" and "indimidation"."


Which was part of the article. And what I was objecting to. The man wasn't being boycotted, he didn't give money to then (or at least, not that it was mentionedm but he was a supporter)

"Then it was your fear that it would lead to backlash against minorities."

That was covered in my first post when I question the tactics and whether they would aliente voters.


"Now your wanting us to be upset with Obama."

I'm questioning why everyone is so eager to blame outside forces, when a lot of the blame lies with people in our own party. Of course its difficult to pass gay marrriages laws, no one in the democratic party has the balls to piss off the rednecks.


"I sense a pattern here . . . "

Check my history. I've been here for almost a year.

[kevinbgoode]

126. No one is ignoring the damage

and his campaign, I'm sure, is painfully aware of how that statement was used against our community. We'll handle things, thank you - and in good time - including confronting Obama about his own commitment to separate but equal.

In the meantime, we will deal with the hysterical claims of "intimidation" by supporters who openly imtimidated our families.

You know, heterosexuals must not think marriage is very important. When I read how confused and frustrated those suffering through the "backlash" claim to be, it makes me wonder how they'd react to having THEIR marriage forcibly dissolved by some stranger - and worse - on the goddamned ballot.

[galaxy21]

130. "We'll handle things, thank you - and in good time - including confronting Obama

to separate but equal"


But you won't give that to anyone else? My point is, everyone is willing to cut Barack some slack and give him time to 'come around' to the idea, but no one will no that for anyone else. We have to show the same patience to voters that we do with him.

"In the meantime, we will deal with the hysterical claims of "intimidation" by supporters who openly imtimidated our families."

The man in the article was only giving his opinion about why he felt it should be upheld. Complaining about the publishing his personal details and threatening his business partners (and again he didn't give money that we know of) was not 'hysterical.'

The man in this incidence was wrong, but he wasn't 'evil' or 'wicked.'

[kevinbgoode]

141. Oh puhleeze...stop promoting a double standard

How many heterosexuals campaign to the "voters" for their INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to marry?

[gollygee]

143. Obama said he was opposed to Proposal 8

He said his personal feeling about marriage is that it should be between a man and woman, but he didn't desire to deny people rights over his personal feeling. You don't see the difference between having an ignorant idea on one hand and actively taking away the civil rights of a group of people on the other? He was opposed to taking away anyone's rights.

These issues are simply not related. And his personal feelings on marriage have no relevance to the boycotts.

[donco6]

153. There WAS NO THREAT!

Who "threatened" his business partners? What did they say to "threaten" them?

[mondo joe]

166. Obama is at least a nominal ally. Fuckers who funded Prop8 are not. That's the

difference.

And the guy you're talking about wasn't threatened.

[donco6]

88. You can't support OR deny. It's utterly unknown.

What I *do* know is that individuals who came out in vocal support of Prop 8 don't deserve a dime from me or anyone I know. Their support deserves to be highlighted anywhere possible. They deserve to be picketed and put out of business. If they publish letters in public newspapers, they deserve to have responses posted to those letters.

It's really that simple.

[galaxy21]

134. "What I *do* know is that individuals who came out in vocal support of Prop 8 "

But someone who comes out in vocal support against gay marriage, like Barack and Hillary did, doesn't?

I was very disapointed that Barack (and Hillary, and John edwards) couldn't come out in favour of it. But I understood it would take some time, like it does with everyone who has apprehensions about gay marriage.

[gollygee]

136. They came out in opposition to Proposal 8

And the people who gave money (or wrote LTTEs) in support of Proposal 8 are beyond "apprehensive". "Apprehensive" people might have voted for it but wouldn't have given money or felt strongly enough to write letters to the editor. These people are hateful and deserve to be called out. And people have a right to choose to spend their money where they want, and it's perfectly understandable for people to not want to financially support bigots.

[galaxy21]

138. "They came out in opposition to Proposal 8"

Yeah, and the problem was this came months after making a point of saying 'I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman'. So, no wonder no one really knew what to make of it.

They want it both ways.

[gollygee]

140. They're politicians

But it's still irrelevant. This boycott has nothing to do with them and your attempts to tie these things together is ridiculous.

[donco6]

155. I realize you're still trying to get us to bash Barack.

But I'm not gonna.

Typical Freeper tactic and all, you know.

[mondo joe]

167. Your posts just prove this is not a serious issue to you. It's a time killer on a message board

for you.

[mondo joe]

31. On this issue, yes, he is bigoted. He was also, however, opposed to Prop 8 so there is hope

for him.

There is less for you.

When you actually care about this issue and have an investment in it, let me know.

[galaxy21]

139. "There is less for you."

Apart from the fact I'm actually strongly for gay marriage. But, hey, nevermind....

[mondo joe]

168. I can tell someone who is serious about equal rights from someone jerking chains on DU. NT

[Cronus Protagonist]

33. Obama is a politician, he HAS to lie in public

And he is NOT sending bigots CASH to BASH gay people. Take your mealy mouthed logical fallacies elsewhere.

[anonymous171]

41. FDR stayed neutral on Civil Rights as well.

A nationally elected politician needs to have a very wide coalition, which sometimes includes those fucking bigots and knuckle draggers.

[gollygee]

27. It isn't even just people who voted for it

We don't know who all voted for it because we have secret ballots.

These are people who were so opposed to gay people having rights that they donated money to stop it from happening. That's a big big step further than just voting for it. Someone who hates gay people so much that they *donate money* in an attempt to stop them from having rights deserves to be called out for it.

[GodlessBiker]

50. Yes, it's about money. What should we do with those who contribute to the KKK? ...

Assuming we could find out that info, wouldn't some kind of response, similar to the response we see to those who financially supported Prop 8, be in order? I think so.

[gollygee]

54. Absolutely

Bigotry is bigotry. I can damn well tell you I would never knowingly spend a dime on someone involved in any way with the KKK.

[GodlessBiker]

7. Go talk to them about payback. Our rights were recognized and Prop 8 was payback.

[GodlessBiker]

4. I disagree. The backlash has been in proportion to the hate and violence that has been perpetrated

against the LGBT community through Prop 8 and the continual negation of our rights.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Why do you hate the first amendment right of these people calling him up?

:eyes:


The bigot publically listed his phone number and his name in the letter.

Fuck him.

[Oeditpus Rex]

24. His phone number was not in the letter

Because his real name and city were listed - a condition for publication of letters to The Chronicle - opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search engines to find the letter writer's small business, his Web site (which included the names of his children and dog), his phone number and his clients.

[Maven]

120. So what?

[Oeditpus Rex]

121. So an error was made

and has been corrected.

[Newsjock]

10. Let the Yes on 8 goons rot in a steaming, pus-filled hell

Continue to publicize the names of every "person" who supported taking away the rights of their fellow citizens. I don't want to do business with them, I don't want children to be around them, and I don't want to see any mercy for their hate-filled actions.

Let them experience a small taste of what it's like to be ostracized, hated, and disrespected just because of who they love.

[Deja Q]

14. And what is wrong with New Jersey?

:yoiks:

[Nederland]

11. I disagree

People that vote to have other people's rights taken away should be prepared to defend those actions. If that means walking through a group of angry protesters on your way to church, so be it. I mean really, what's worse: having to listen to a bunch of people shout at you from time to time, or being told that you can't marry the person you love?

[gollygee]

12. To the dentist who lost patients - people get to decide where their money goes

That means you and that means them. That's just how it goes.

I will say that posting info about his kids is too much. But boycotting is FAIR GAME. Why do right-wingers like capitalism so much until it doesn't work for them? I get to choose where I spend my money, and I wouldn't spend it with someone who donated money to Proposal 8 either.

[mondo joe]

16. Exactly. THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO OUR BUSINESS.

When did people decide we're just money spending cogs with no choice of our own?

[yardwork]

146. I wouldn't go after someone's family, either, but this attitude that boycotts are wrong is absurd.

Apparently, the man posted the photos of his kids on a public website. Not very bright, especially he also wrote a letter full of hatred and bigotry to the editor. He should have protected his children better than that. How do we even know that gay people picked on his kids?

I won't allow my children to have facebook pages, and I wouldn't dream of posting their names and photos on a public website.

[gollygee]

160. I agree with that

I had just skimmed the article the first time and hadn't seen that the only reason the kids' photos were involved was because they were on his business website. The article is trying to garner sympathy for this idiot by suggesting someone was attacking his kids, when that's simply not what happened.

I've read the article more closely now to try to find these supposed "threats" that one poster keeps talking about.

[yardwork]

165. There are a lot of hysterical accusations in editorials and op-ed pieces that are unsubstantiated.

First, we heard that Mormon Temples had been vandalized. Has anyone non-Mormon ever tried to get within spitting distance of one of those suckers? Even a lot of Mormons aren't allowed inside. You have to have special clearance. They're guarded around the clock and they aren't open to tourists. Somebody vandalized one by writing on the walls with paint? Riiiiiiiight.

Next, we hear that there are "vicious, highly-personalized attacks" on supporters of Proposition 8. Then we find out that these "vicious" attacks consist of responding to letters to the editor. Guess what? Anybody who writes a strongly-worded letter to the editor about a controversial subject is going to get responses.

Then we hear that people's children are being outed on the internet!!! Oh noes!! It turns out that the man had his children's names and photos on his own public website. Not too bright.

[LeftyMom]

13. Nope. boycotts are totally acceptable.

Moderation in defense of equal rights is not a virtue.

[donco6]

15. It's called "consequences" baby.

Take your "free speech" whining and stuff it, along with your soon-to-be-failed business.

[Le Taz Hot]

17. Oh, poor baby.

Doesn't like the "viciousness" of the attacks. Did you see the "Yes on 8" ads? They were vile and filled with outright lies. Now they're crying foul over the backlash? Tough shit! Live by the sword . . .

[Cronus Protagonist]

18. We ned a BIGGER backlash

Under no fair system of government should bigotry be institutionalised and those who support that and finance that should pay the price. Free speech is free, but all speech has consequences, particularly if your speech is nasty, bigoted and oppressive.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. They voted their beliefs with their money. I have every right to do the same.

I will not support anyone -- especially Democratic candidates -- who will not support my legal, civil and human rights. End of story.

If these bigots don't like that, fuck them. The right to speak freely, the right to petition for a redress of grievances, the right to assemble... last time I looked, I still had them too.

[mondo joe]

23. What exactly doyou think is "disturbing" about people being choosy about where we spend

our money?

Please be specific.

[Book Lover]

25. "Out-of-scale"? I think not.

Why should only families headed by same-sex partners suffer because of this goddamn proposition? And why on earth should I feel sorry for (for example) some dentist who lost patients over the issue? Are people supposed to fund their own discrimination?

[Cronus Protagonist]

36. Apparently you're supposed to keep paying them and talk nicely

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!! That will work... NOT!! :P

[yardwork]

147. If that worked, then Dick Cheney would be a model of gay rights.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

32. People have a profound misunderstanding of what free speech is.

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from public censure or criticism. No one was "intimidating" the pro-Prop 8 letter writer. They simply looked up and posted information about him and his business that he had made available on the Internet. It's amazing how people who had no qualms about imposing their religious views on everyone else and depriving a group of people of civil rights believe they should be immune from any backlash.

[RedLetterRev]

37. I have to agree with #1 and #2

Anti-gay bigotry has been tacitly approved by allowing it to continue to slink around in the shadows for so long. Sunlight is shining on it and the perpetrators are whining at getting called out.

I, too, refuse to give money to anyone who is liable to turn it around and use it against me. I've felt that way for years and have shopped that way for years. I've long, long done research on products and firms. Sometimes I've done without things I would really have like to have had. Too bad. Again, I will not patronize anyone who has shown a propensity to take my money, smile in my face, then use it to bury a knife in my back the second I turn around.

If they get called on their bigotry, perhaps rather than whining about it, they should undertake an amendment of purpose. Not calling them on their bigotry is exactly equal -- has always been equal -- to tacit approval of it. The only reason so many people went for Prop H8 is that they thought that bigotry was just peachy-keen, perfectly acceptable behavior as long as they could get away with it.

Consider the reaction an exercise in behavior modification.

There are consequences to hatred. They declared war on us first. They didn't think we'd have the nerve to pick up the glove.

If this had been a proposition to take an existing civil right away from any other minority group, the reaction would have been far, far worse. Californians had best count their lucky stars that the LGBTQ community is being this civil about it.

[Mari333]

39. I noticed that the authour of the article

did not say he supported gay marriage. he said he supports the rights of LGBT people to have the same perks that marriage provides. What I gleaned from the article is that he supports civil unions and thats all. He did not state he supports gay marriage at all.

[mondo joe]

40. The author further says what we are doing is "disturbing" but then goes on to

pretend it's a disagreement about strategy.

[galaxy21]

43. He said he disagreed with prop 8 and found it 'indefensible'

I took that to mean he was for gay marriage.

[mondo joe]

44. What does the author find "disturbing" about boycotting?

[This One]

51. He's probably one of the ones being boycotted

[EFerrari]

103. The Editor of the SF Chronicle seems to be saying he disagrees with

going after small contributors. I think he's probably wrong about this and I've disagreed with him in the past.

But, I hope that before campaigns are mounted against anyone, the facts are checked CAREFULLY.

[Lyric]

52. I don't think the "backlash" is the LEAST bit disturbing. In fact,

it sets my heart on fire with happiness to see it.

You said, "I think the people that voted yes will eventually come around, but not if stuff like this is going on."

I think that's bullshit. You're trying to intimidate gay people and their allies by implying "consequences" if we dare to speak up and confront the bigots by hitting them where it hurts--their wallets. To hell with that noise. The worst has ALREADY happened--didn't you notice? Marriage is already gone. The time for politeness is over.

Bigots do not have a right to our gay and allied dollars--especially when they turn around and spend those dollars to take away our rights. It is outrageous and unfair to expect us to be politely silent while our friends and family members UNKNOWINGLY contribute to businesses that helped take our rights away. We have the ability to help educate and inform people about businesses that oppose gay rights; why on earth would any rational person think that we shouldn't make use of it?

People have the right to KNOW how their money is being spent--and that goes for business as well as government. We have the ability and the duty to identify bigoted haters so that innocent, GLBT-supporting people do not accidentally spend money at a store owned by someone who opposes GLBT rights. That is the ENTIRE POINT of a boycott.

Bigots also do not have a right to hate in privacy if they choose to donate money to a public campaign. These people, these business owners--THEY made that choice. And they can live with the consequences now.

I'm sick of people Tsk-Tsk'ing at us about this. If a Mom & Pop business down the street donated money to an initiative to get rid of interracial marriage, nobody here would have a problem with a boycott. It's sickening that because it's "just the gays," we're suddenly supposed to be polite and civil.

God this pisses me off. If you want to be polite and civil, go right ahead. But leave the rest of us who actually HAVE a spine alone.

[galaxy21]

89. Do you really think its going to work?

I hope for the best but I would be very surprised if it did.

[Lyric]

98. Yes I do.

Nothing brings home the realities of discrimination faster than being discriminated AGAINST by consumers who refuse to buy your products until you renounce the hate and embrace equality.

It would work a lot better if "concerned" people weren't trying to constantly undermine the efforts, though.

[yardwork]

145. I'm not trying to become friends with people who took away my rights.

Why in the world would I feel obligated to spend my money on enemies of human rights instead of friends?

If I learned that my dentist was a homophobic bigot, you bet I'd take my business elsewhere. If I want to buy ice cream or go to a play, why would I choose to patronize an establishment run by a bigot, when there's an alternative across the street?

You seem to be missing a fundamental concept here. I get to decide where I spend my money, just like everybody else. Businesses struggle to survive every day. Why would I support businesses run by bigots and let the businesses run by friends of civil rights languish?

[Bunny]

55. The author is disturbed by "vicious, highly personalized attacks"

against the letter writer and others? Tough shit. Prop 8 was nothing if not a highly personalized, and yes, vicious attack against the GLBT community. What is more "highly personalized" than legally barring individuals from marrying the person they love? What is more "vicious" than spreading outrageous lies (and yes, they KNEW they were lying) about Prop 8?

These lying hypocrites can go eat a shit sandwich and I hope they all lose their livelihoods over it. Maybe then they'll learn that their bigoted and immoral behavior can bring unpleasant consequences. Assholes.

[yardwork]

148. I don't see any evidence of any "vicious, highly personalized attacks," either.

Apparently, deciding to spend our money elsewhere constitutes a "vicious, highly personalized attack." But spending $20,000 to take away the rights of millions is just hunky-dory.

[JerseygirlCT]

57. Yes and no

I disagree with those who would publish his personal information - such as home address, information on his family, etc. The threat of violence is totally unacceptable and always, always is.

But, I think it's absolutely acceptable to make public someone's business when that person has financially supported Prop 8. They have chosen to spend money to disenfranchise people; others should be free to have to information to do business elsewhere. So I do not feel at all sorry for the theater executive, for instance. He made a choice; he's living with the consequences.

I also think a vote is one thing. Publicly speaking out and financing the vote are another step entirely, I think. And when one takes that step, I think it's naive to expect there might be no consequences.

I don't think boycotts are intolerance. They can be a useful tool. I think there's some need for level responses here, too: make a donation, expect that donors to your theater will drop off. Make a donation, expect that customers will drop off. Speak out, expect that others will speak out on the other side.

[Malikshah]

62. Intolerance of bigots is to be lauded and applauded.

Why folks cannot see that says more about them than it does on the those who are intolerant of bigots.

[HeraldSquare212]

70. I disagree. I think threats of violence are wrong, but anything else goes.

It impresses upon people that these are not abstractions they're playing around with by supporting Prop 8, but real people's lives.

[kaygore]

73. I disagree with the threats and lack of civility; HOWEVER, I will NOT

spend my precious few dollars at establishments that gave money to Yes on Prop 8. If there is such a large number of people who support Prop 8, let them buy from these companies, groups, and individuals. I don't even care if the person or group gave directly or indirectly through contributions to the Mormon "Church."

First, the Mormons should have their tax-exempt status revoked. But since that is not likely to happen, the next best thing is a boycott.

But I do not condone threats or violence. That does the cause no good.

[xchrom]

76. i see -- i'm viciously, viciously attacked by 'The Majority Rules'

mind set and i have to play nice?

no thanks.

[mondo joe]

81. galaxy21, do you support full legal marriage for same sex couples in the US?

[galaxy21]

135. For the second time, yes fully

[trashcanistanista]

91. Good. Put them out of business and

kick them out of California. I would say the backlash is going well. There are no small players in this. A bigot is a bigot no matter how rich or poor. Shame on them all.

[rasputin5]

109. Oh boo fucking hoo

:grr:

[Maven]

116. "The backlash has been disturbing...?" THE BACKLASH? DISTURBING?

No, what's fucking DISTURBING is contributing money and speaking out to DEPRIVE another group of citizens equal rights.

Fuck this guy. Let him think next time he opens his mouth or his wallet to advance hate.

[gollygee]

117. Yeah right

The action isn't disturbing, no, only the fact that there are consequences to the action. Wah wah to them. They suffer so in their hatred.

[kevinbgoode]

123. I love the double standard here. . .

It's apparently NOT intimidating to attack the families of over 18,000 couples by a ballot referendum effectively removing their rights, but it's imtimidating to call out the people who financed the heinous act.

What is even more hilarious is the heterosupremacist attitude (also shown by the writer of that column) which seems to think that the gay community is supposed to give a damn what some stranger across town thinks of them - or their marriage. Like straight people go through this all the time, right? Why, millions of them refuse to marry because some clown across town doesn't think they have an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to choose their spouse.

I'm really sick and tired of heterosupremacists who have this assumption that my constitutional rights are somehow GIVEN to me at THEIR pleasure - and then I'm supposed to be some kind of house faggot begging all the time for them to like me enough to award them to me.

What is more astounding to me is that, all over this country, conservatives stockpile weapons, claiming they are only trying to "protect" THEIR FAMILIES - and yet the gay community isn't even supposed to boycott someone who financed an attack on our own?

That's right - Proposition 8 was both legally and morally wrong - and the proponents engaged in the lowest form of campaigning for it - through intimidation, deception, and manipulation. And many Democrats stood on the sidelines during the campaign, rarely opening their mouths over this awful behavior until it was OVER. You can damn well bet I'm not going to spend my money at any business supporting this amendment of religious tyranny - and a good Democrat would do the same.

[anonymous171]

128. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

No group of people ever got its civil rights by sitting down and "waiting their turn." They forced the majority to recognize them as humans and as citizens. This is what the gay community needs to do. This is not the time to back down and play it safe. This is War.

[Maven]

133. What I'm wondering is where this OP and the author of the article he posted were

when the supporters of Prop 8 put it on the ballot and then poured millions into their hateful, lying ads to get it passed.

Where was their concern then?

[yardwork]

149. Who did the Chronicle endorse for president?

What was their stance on Proposition 8?

[donco6]

158. I have a feeling his butt was planted in a Mormon pew somewhere.

Just my thinking.

[Gormy Cuss]

137. Perhaps the Chronicle should stop publishing names and towns of residence.

Diaz's tone seems to suggest that having someone publish links to a LTTE writer's businesses and websites is unusual. Long before the internet age LTTE writers were subjected to nasty letters and phone calls by people who disagreed with their opinions.

What's different about the Prop. 8 backlash is that the supporters are shocked that anyone is taking them to task for it and it's not always in polite ways. Tough. When I wear wore an anti-Bush button or a "No on 8" button and some stranger felt the need to lecture me on it, I'm not surprised -- not happy about it either, but that's a different issue.

[Downtown Hound]

142. Well, you're welcome to your opinion

I however, am thrilled at the backlash. I hope those haters get harassed and ridiculed until either their dying day or the day that discrimination is legal no more, whichever comes first.

You step on people's rights, be prepared for the backlash. And if you're not, don't step on their rights.

[yardwork]

144. So I am obligated to spend money at businesses that hate me?

I'm not allowed to boycott businesses and people that discriminate against me? I have to spend my money on them, INSTEAD of the people who supported human rights?

Come again?

[ColbertWatcher]

"Why would anyone want to go through this?" Oh, this is rich.

The "Great Self-Appointed Martyr of All Things Christian" has proclaimed that his bravery in exercising his free speech has somehow made him an unintended victim (again) of circumstances!

O lamentations!

What a fucking idiot.

Didn't this ass choose to create a website for his business?

Didn't this skidmark choose put the names of his kids and clients on the internets?

Didn't this professional victim choose to send a letter to the newspaper, knowing full well that his name and city of residency would be included?

I do believe this unnamed "Joe the Letter-writer" chose his lifestyle and should live with it.

BTW, here is something else from the article,

Opponents of same-sex marriage should not be let off the hook for their post-election tactics. There is already talk of a recall campaign against California Supreme Court justices if they overturn Prop. 8, reminiscent of the unsuccessful attempt to oust Chief Justice Ronald George and Justice Ming Chin after they voted to overturn a law that required parental consent for minors to receive an abortion. The judiciary must not be intimidated in this nation of laws.

[donco6]

151. If the judiciary must not be intimidated . . .

. . . then change California's law that allows for recall of judges. That is not universal.

[ColbertWatcher]

154. I think you're missing the point.

Some things should not be up to a "majority rules" vote.

The law, just like the judges, shouldn't be intimidated by mass hysteria.

[TexasObserver]

150. "Protesters have shouted insults at people headed to worship" - GOOD!!

People on their way to their churches need to feel the hate they've sent out coming back at them. It puts the LIE to their so-called "worship."

[Orsino]

159. Out of scale?

If you mean that the "victim's" marriage wasn't attacked, I guess so. He gets to walk away married.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

161. Erm...a dentist lost two patients? And he lists that as some sort of oppression?

If my dentist supported prop 8, I would find a new dentist too. That's my right. It's my money and my mouth.

[gollygee]

162. Oh, but this is Opposite World

If people vote and give money to take away the civil rights of a group of people, that's "just the Democratic process", but if people choose to find a new dentist, that's "an attack".

[SemiCharmedQuark]

163. I guess nobody paid attention to the real victims of the bus boycotts: the bus companies.

[Bluenorthwest]

164. Why in the hell do you think people would

work for Scott Eckern, knowing he holds religious based prejudice against them? Do you think that artists should be forced to do so? Donors should be forced to give?
What is disturbing about refusing to work for a person who holds you in contempt? What is intolerant about chosing other work or organizations to suppport? Why should anyone pay his salary so he can hand it off to Hate Inc?
Tell me how you'd get people to work for that man, force? And what is disturbing about refusing to work for him or donate money toward his salary? He lived by public hand outs and a talent pool more gay than most. And you think he ought to have forced artists to work for him at gunpoint or what?

[Creideiki]

169. Just another post demonstrating the real failure of NCLB

We don't test for logic skills. If logic were required for graduation, this type of thing wouldn't exist.

[bean fidhleir]

170. It's pretty simple: people who oppose equal rights for all are fair game for being shown

what it feels like. Don't like having your rights ignored? Don't ignore those of other people.

"What is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole of the Law, all else is commentary". Rav Hillel of Babylon, alav ha-shalom

"No one is a real Muslim who does not wish for his brother what he wishes for himself." al Rasul Mohammed, sall allahu alayhi wa sallaam

"Love thy neighbor as thou lovest thyself" Matthew, quoting Jesus