The New Blacklist: Freedom of speech--unless you annoy the wrong people [Prop. 8 Retribution]

The Weekly Standard ^ | 3/16/2009 | Maureen Mullarkey

[Unam Sanctam]

Strange times we live in when it takes a ballot initiative to confirm the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Stranger still when endorsing that definition through the democratic process brings threats and reprisals.

In November, the San Francisco Chronicle published the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of California's Proposition 8 marriage initiative. All available information, plus the amount donated, was broadcast. My name is on that list.

Emails started coming. Heavy with epithets and ad hominems, most in the you-disgust-me vein. Several accused me, personally, of denying the sender his single chance at happiness after a life of unrelieved oppression and second-class citizenship. Some were anonymous but a sizable number were signed, an indication of confidence in collective clout that belied howls of victimhood. New York's Gay City News asked for an interview because I was "one of only four New Yorkers who contributed more than $500."

[Nextrush]

They’re just as gay and nasty as the SA Stormtrooper leader of Nazi Germany Ernst Rohm.

The brownshirting of Proposition 8 supports in California and beyond was a national disgrace but no political leader I know of has dared to address the issue.

They, too, are intimidated.

[Toki]

She could have a real case for libel.
She needs:
It was published (check)
It was about her (check)
Material is defamatory (Could cost her a business reputation, as evidanced by the emails she recieved, but I’m not sure. Is she an artist?)
Material was false (a resounding yes)
Defendant was at fault (Isn’t nessicary in private people, but again a resounding yes)

I Love FR. It makes being a Com major so much easier (Espicially when you can find cases of libel when your studying it :D)

[Toki]

Let me amend the forth part of false, because I haven’t read the article, however, it sounds like that they just accused her of supporting prop. 8; if they said other things, well then she would have a case. Sorry :D.

[HogsBreath]

I am so disappointed I sent money to McCain and the RNP, but didn’t send any to support Prop 8. I will be certain to donate next time. I hope they print my name EXTRA LARGE so the pink mafia can read it without their reading glasses!

[fwdude]

Heavy with epithets and ad hominems, most in the you-disgust-me vein.

If the emails border on harassment, the author should contact the email service provider and have the homo's account closed.

[fwdude]

I think the homo-nazis are p**sing people off with their inane tantrums - they're not gaining any support, IMO.

A proposition to overturn 8 will fail. The homo-activists had the deck stacked overwhelmingly in their favor last year, and they still didn't win. With homo-"marriage" already ensconced in "law," a sabotaged ballot initiative title, all the Hollyweird loons crowing about it, and a record turnout for the dems excited about the "messiah", you'd think they would have it in the bag.

What's going to happen with two voter initiatives saying no to marriage now being challenged as well as the momentum of a state supreme court saying that 8 is ok? I'd be surprised if the homophiles get 40% to vote for homo-"marriage."

[caseinpoint]

“What’s going to happen with two voter initiatives saying no to marriage now being challenged as well as the momentum of a state supreme court saying that 8 is ok? I’d be surprised if the homophiles get 40% to vote for homo-”marriage.”

I believe the issue before the State Supreme Court isn’t the approval of the principle of marriage but the process by which the proposition got before the electorate. They first tried to argue that gay marriage was a fundamental right which could not be taken away by initiative or any other means. That issue was settled before the election. This alleges defects in the process. And most believe the Proposition will be upheld as having been validly in the election.

Now they are attacking marriage completely, basically saying that if gays can’t be civilly married, neither should heterosexuals, One of the propositions is to force the government to stop recognizing marriage for everyone and classify all married couples as “civil partnerships” on the same basis that gays are recognized. In general, it is saying to heterosexual couples, “If we can’t join you, you must join us.” They want religious marriage to be a social institution instead of a legal institution and only civil partnerships recognized by the state so heterosexual couples would have to go through both the civil partnership procedure and the religious marriage to get what we have today in traditional marriage.

It will be interesting to see what happens. In the case of Prop 8, many celebrities and politicians were hesitant to support gays. After Proposition 8 won, those same politicians and celebrities were quick to extend condolences to gays and to “tut tut” Prop 8 supporters. Schwarzeneggar and many others publicly urged the State Supreme Court to overturn the measure. Methinks it was their way of having it both ways: not on record against traditional marriage but sympathetic to gays. Now that gays are pushing on with further actions, those sympathizers might be pressured to support the gays more substantially. Time will tell.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com

[fwdude]

Agreed on all points. Except, I think it's obvious that the celebs and politicians were already on board the homo-train from the get go - their world view demands it. They may not have initially had a direct vested interest in seeing the homosexual agenda fulfilled, but they were forced to state their position with Prop 8's passage.

The direct attach on marriage across the board that the homo-activists have now adopted reveals their true enmity toward this staple of society - a horrendous strategic blunder on their part, I believe. More and more it seems lately, they are wantonly exhibiting the mindset to society at large which they formerly attempted to keep under wraps in the interest of the advancement of their agenda. I think this indifferent showing of their hand will do untold damage to their "cause" ultimately - we can only hope so.

The justices seem to rightly decipher this issue as one of properly following a constitutional process rather than the moral merits or lack thereof of same-sex "marriage." I see this as a very encouraging development, though no one can really be sure where this is going. If the Court is true to this line of thought, they must invalidate all previously issued same-sex marriage licenses. Either the principle of "fairness" should hold sway over the whole issue or the constitutional amendment power of the people should. No amalgamation of the two would make any sense.

[caseinpoint]

You are right in stating that an amalgamation would be confusing but I’m not sure that issue is before the court at this time. If the only issue is whether the proposition was legally sufficient to be placed on the ballot, the court will not address the ex poste facto invalidation of the marriages between April and November. But, I don’t know the scope of the appellate review so it might just invalidate them. I know the gays accused Prop 8 supporters of turning their kids into “bastards”, thanks to the proposition so may it would relate back to the original law.