It really pisses me off on how the MSM is focused on the LDS church because they donated the most money to the Yes on 9 campaign as well. Poor lady can't even speak to the media to tell her side of the story, and a moron screaming in her face.

Here's another video from Bakersfield, CA....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRhqgc6ZiuA&feature=related

Yes, imagine: on a day that, so far, showed mostly peaceful protests nationwide against marriage amendments, you choose to highlight one incident involving "sodomites." The "mainstream media" didn't report it because it's an isolated incident.

Mind your own business and let me lead my life, please. If legal sodomy bothers you, look the other way...unless you need help explaining why it bothers you.

Oh: "elderly, peaceful gay right activists" don't frequent "peaceful" pro-life rallies. Are you reading the right leaflets?

Duke:

Yeah, except you forgot some other things:

*Sending white powder in the mail to Mormons.
*A church invasion by gay rights terrorists last week.
*Calling black people "niggers" for supporting prop 8 all over those 'peaceful' protests that have been going on since it passed.

Most telling is your comment "mostly peaceful"...uh-huh, key being "mostly" implying that, yes, there are, indeed, non-peaceful protests happening as has been happening since prop 8 passed.

And you didn't address the key contention in the OP: if the shoe was on the other foot and some redneck did, indeed, stomp on a gay right's activist banner, it would be all over the news--just because you want to pretend that this isn't the case doesn't make it so (but you don't even do that--you just ignore the original point and then start planting strawmen all over your lawn).

Yes, their behavior was inexcusable. It's awful. I condemn it. It won't get change minds.

It doesn't change the validity of the cause, and it doesn't change what I saw at the rally on South Beach yesterday. You think "gay rights terrorists" are as numerous or pose as much of a threat as Al Qaeda members? Nowhere in Humberto's post does he express any solidarity -- it's more self-pity about media mistreatment. If he wanted to argue the merits of passing Amendment 2 and Proposition 8, we'd at least have an intellectual disagreement with which to begin a decent discussion.

OK, here's a little discussion on the issue. I voted AGAINST Amendment 2 in Florida, not because I'm a proponent of gay marriage, but because I believe it's unnecessary to amend our state Constitution in light of the current state policy which already does not allow gay marriage, also because the amendment would have threatened civil unions (which I'm in favor of) of both hetero and homosexuals - despite what Amendment 2 proponents argue.

Nevertheless, Humberto makes a solid point which can't be ignored unless you're so blinded by the issue that you can't see this reasonably. The national MSM, led by the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Keith Olbermann and NBC, would have gone apeshit if this was a poor lonely gay marriage proponent having a sign torn out of her hands and threatened by a mob. On unrelated issues, we've seen how the left has reacted to "poor CodePink being harrassed by angry, violent, intransigent and insufferable Cuban-Americans."

Brush the double-standard off if you wish, but do so at your own risk.

Robert -

I agree with all the points in your first paragraph. I'm not sure why civil libertarians and the gay rights movement didn't become better allies: we voted to add an amendment to the Florida constitution when state law (and, on the federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act) defined marriage already.

As for the other points, I don't have cable, so I can't tell you whether CNN, FOX News, and MSNBC mentioned any outbreaks of violence. Each network broadcasts 24 hours of news, surely more than most of us watch in one day, especially during weather this gorgeous. My argument's unchanged though: if the cause is just, why turn this sporadic violence into yet another indictment of the perfidy of the mainstream media? This is especially annoying when, to my knowledge, not one of Babalu's posters have devoted a piece delineating how actively campaigning for civil unions and gay marriage is, as Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has recognized, good for conservatism, and fruitful for the continued vitality of the GOP in attracting younger voters.

"... campaigning for civil unions and gay marriage is, as Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has recognized, good for conservatism..."

That's pure crock. Civil unions, whether between gays or hetero partners, can afford rights that are already in the books in most states. But re-defining marriage will be of irreperable harm to the family unit and society in general as a result. Everywhere it's been tried, gay marriage has had negative consequences, whether the UK or northern Europe, where it has been the law of the land for about a decade. Check out the stats in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and particularly in the Netherlands. A disproportionate % of newborns out of wedlock are coming into existence in these countries where the marriage index has plummeted; kids from these types of environments translate into a large prison population and all sorts of other social ills, as studies have proven here in the US time and time again.

Those are the facts. Everytime you try to re-wire marriage and sexuality to impose a homosexual agenda you lose. No one's persecuting anybody or keeping them from cohabiting any way they choose. The gay lobby is well-heeled and well financed; gays are better protected than other so-called minorities in this country, just by the amount of $$$$ supporting their cause. And I have HIV-+ gays in my family and in my circle of friends; their private actions are a non-issue with me. This is not about discrimination or disadvantage (a lot of gay people just want to live and be left alone); it's about a small militant group of malcontents who want to shove their agenda down everyone else's throats.

I think what happened to that elderly lady in Palm Springs waqs deplorable and inexcusable. And I was in LA last weekend when there were a lot of protests over Proposition 8 out there as well. There was even a protest at Saddleback (sp?) Church that sponsored a debate between Obama and McCain before the election. There was a lot of anger out there directed at LDS and Catholic Churches by the gay community.

What angered me about this anger is that it was very misplaced. While the LDS Church did direct a lot of money and direct its supporters to defeat support the proposition, it does not have enough members statewide to completely affect an election. Not once did the gay community target a prominent Black church though. Everyone in California acknowledges that it was the huge Black turnout and their support of Prop 8 that ensured its passage. Yet the gay community's anger was solely placed at the feet of the LDS and Catholic Church.

My simple solution is for government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage is a sacrament and should be conducted solely by churches. Let them regulate who they allow to marry. The government should have a procedure for civil unions that allow people to have the government recognize their religious marriages or a non-religious union. Keep church and state separate.

I agree Cangrejero. I believe government should have no business in marriage. It's sacred and religious, and should be kept that way. I assume it's law just because of the legal aspects of it when it comes to divorces.

It's disgusting how the MSM is focusing on the Mormon church and their donations. Check out this NY Times article adding fuel to the fire...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1226768514-Wk7oH3MS4mBg/fd4xCMSvg&oref=slogin

Please post a statistic -- any statistic -- conducted by a non-partisan organization that shows a direct correlation between the "imposition" of gay marriage and the rise of out-of-wedlock births. It's nonsense, as you just admitted. If you have gay family members who marry their partners, how on earth would it depreciate the worth of YOUR marriage? Please explain that to me. How would it keep you from loving your husband any less, or keep you from teaching your children the sanctity of the home? If you're as live-and-let-live as you claim (and you seem to be a good person with an admirable tolerance), then you shouldn't worry about generalities like marriage as an institution: worry about your own.

I don't know your situation, so I'm not prepared to judge, but unless your gay family members are more open about their relationships than me, you have no idea what it's like to live in a society in which marriage and the discussion of relationships are allowed at the dinner table and at Noche Buena, unless you're gay (italics mine). You have the luxury of taking the acceptance of your marriage by your family for granted, for which I do envy you. But I suppose even talking about this would peg me as a "malcontent," shoving my "agenda" down your throat. Don't ask, don't tell indeed.

As I said, I admire that you're thoughtful enough to have evolved to a state of benign neglect when it comes to this issue; but you need to consider that, just as they are gays who are content with the status quo, there are just as many who want a country in which I can discuss marriage and the raising of children with my sister without feeling ashamed of having raised the subject in the first place.

Well put, thinwhiteduke. You are very eloquent and express yourself very well. I agree with you. What's more, I don't think that there is any reason--as the original post does--to derisively call gay people "sodomites." We Cuban Americans should built bridges to other communities not tear them down. Although some gay people have a clear leftist agenda and may be confused about the nature of castro's homophobic, repressive, totalitarian regime, others are enlighted and did support us thanks to their familiarity with Reinaldo Arenas. Which brings be to Arenas, let's not forget that he was gay and yet was one of the bravest, and most effective opponents of castro that ever existed.

"Please post a statistic -- any statistic -- conducted by a non-partisan organization ....etc."

Dude, go do your own LexisNexis research and pay for it. There's material out there, although I fear that people who have presuppositions (translation: their minds are made up, don't confuse them with the facts) will reject any stats and re-interpret their results. There's plenty of that out there in the blogs, too.

Just for your edification when you do your study, the Finns were the last to get on board with same-sex marriage and their society is a little different than most of Scandinavia, so their numbers are slightly different, in terms of %, than the rest of the nordic folks.

Happy hunting.