Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Last week's election contained a lot of bad news for those who advocate legal equality for gays and lesbians. California voters passed an amendment to the state's constitution that overturned a state supreme court ruling allowing same-sex marriage. Voters in Florida and Arizona passed similar measures, while Arkansas voters passed a referendum prohibiting gays and lesbians from adopting children.
Those events have prompted a good deal of entirely understandable anger and led to many protests around the country. Many of those protests have been against the Mormon church in Utah, which spent millions of dollars in favor of the California ban amendment, but there are others as well. Unfortunately, some of those protests have gone too far, including here in Michigan.
A group calling itself Lansing Bash Back held protests at Mt. Hope Church, a Lansing-area megachurch during their Sunday morning services last weekend. According to the City Pulse, the protest involved two different groups of protesters, an inside team and an outside team. The outside team held a legitimate protest, holding signs and chanting; the inside team, according to the report, dressed to blend in so they could disrupt the service:
A gay anarchist group infiltrated the Mt. Hope Church in Eaton County Sunday morning, disrupting a service by pulling a fire alarm, dropping leaflets and yelling at parishioners, a pastor said.The group, Bash Back, was simultaneously picketing outside the church, beating on buckets and using a megaphone to shout "Jesus was a homo" and other slogans as confused churchgoers continued to enter the building.
Members of Bash Back issued a press release Tuesday saying that it targeted Mt. Hope, a church that claims a flock of around 5,000, because it is, "complicit in the repression of queers in Michigan and beyond."
No one was arrested. Had they stopped at protesting outside, I would happily cheer them on. They would be exercising their own right to speak out in protest without violating the law or violating the rights of others. But by pulling a fire alarm and infiltrating a church service to disrupt it, they crossed a line that should not be crossed.
Perhaps they should have followed the example of a group that protested outside a Baptist church in Dallas the same morning.
About 100 people stood in front of First Baptist Church of Dallas on Sunday morning to protest Dr. Robert Jeffress' sermon, "Why Gay Is Not O.K."Carrying signs bearing the words "I'm Gay and It's OK" and "Christ Taught Love Not Hate," the protesters lined both sides of San Jacinto Street in front of the downtown church.
They sang "Jesus Loves Me" and cheered when passing motorists honked their horns and waved in support.
"Most of the people here are Christians, and they're taking offense at the Baptist Church trying to say how Christ's love should be interpreted," said Patrick Hancock, who attended the peaceful protest. It was organized earlier this week when someone noticed the sermon topic on the church marquee.
A peaceful protest that does not violate the rights of others or violate the law is a far better idea for several reasons. Engaging in more extreme forms of protest undermines the credibility of your message and allows your opponents to define you as radicals who need not be listened to. Your anger, even if entirely justified, should not be used to justify taking actions that will inhibit your ability to achieve meaningful change.
Unfortunately, even legitimate, peaceful protest is too much for some on the other side. Even the peaceful protests will provoke outrage and false claims of persecution. One prominent conservative blog, Rhymes With Right, responded to the Dallas protests with precisely such claims:
When one boils down the argument of the protesters, it is essentially that not only may Christians not seek to have their moral values on the issue written into law, but they also may not preach them from the pulpit, teach them in a Sunday School class, or in any way disseminate them. I'd have to argue that theirs is a pretty crabbed view of religious tolerance, given that they were doing nothing less than protesting a religious service.
But in reality, the blogger expresses an absurd view of religious tolerance. He makes the common mistake of equating protest with censorship, but there is an obvious difference between condemning or criticizing what was being preached and declaring that it may not be preached. The group did nothing to censor the sermon, they criticized the content. In doing so, they were exercising their own rights without violating the rights of the pastor or the congregation.
Religious ideas are no different than any other type of idea. All ideas are open to criticism, including religious ideas. To draw a line around religious ideas and claim that protesting those ideas amounts to censoring them is irrational and unjustified.
We must respect the right to express one's beliefs regardless of whether we agree with them. Ministers have an absolutely protected right to preach their beliefs and parishioners have every right to hear them. The same principle defends the freedom of others to condemn and criticize those beliefs, as long as they do so in a manner that respects the rights of those they oppose.
Jason Kuznicki's reaction to the Bash Back protest is right on the money:
People who do this stuff, or approve of it, have no right to call anyone else a bigot. Ever. It's disgusting and shameful.This is real intolerance, and it should be described as such. Here, "we" are the bigots -- and I use that term as loosely as possible, because I have no desire to be associated with these sorts of protests. These people aren't me, not any more than Fred Phelps is the face of "real" Christianity.
Think about this: There are pro-gay churches out there. How would you feel if those were vandalized? Oh wait. You already know. How can you do this to someone else?
Spare me your weak arguments about how violence against them is justified. The fight isn't against "them." It's against a vision of the world, one in which everyone is walled off into little, isolated groups, and each is set against the another over trivial differences. That's what we're fighting. Don't even bother trying to explain how desecrating someone's church will help. It won't. Do you think you made any friends that day? You made them thankful for the walls that divide us.
Some days, I'm not sure which is more dispiriting: That I have to beg evangelical Christians for equal treatment in a purely legal and in no sense religious matter -- or that I must do it standing next to people who are just as intolerant as they are.
Hear, hear.
Politics
Comments
anarchists believe in direct action.
peaceful protests have never changed history
Posted by: anon | November 13, 2008 9:53 AM
Normally I would have met this post with a "Well said". But a book I've been reading regarding (in part) the 60's Civil Rights movement have caused me to change my mind somewhat. I think disrupting the church service was counterproductive and stupid, but I don't think it was morally wrong.
How long is it morally incumbent upon a group of people to respect the rights of the people who are working hard to deny them of their rights? How can one group take refuge behind a right to freedom of speech on one hand, and deny equal protection on the other while STILL maintaining a moral high-ground? Our rights are not "God-given", they are seized from tyrants by the people for themselves. If anti-gay bigots refuse to grant gays their equal rights, why should we expect gays to have any moral responsibility to grant heteros their rights?
I don't condone what was done at that church. I condemn it as stupid and counterproductive. But I can't condemn it as morally wrong. If and when gays have equal rights and are opposed only with lawful protest, THEN I will condemn actions such as the Mt. Hope Church incident as morally wrong.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 13, 2008 9:59 AM
I'm really confused by the reference to "arguments about how violence against them is justified" because there was nothing violent about what Bash Back did and no argument that violence is OK. Use of "violence" is referred to here and elsewhere (the many conservative blogs that claim churchgoers were "assaulted" which is a total lie). What happened was not much more than when folks stand up during military budget hearings or speeches by racists and homophobes elsewhere.
Bash Back doesn't look interested in "gay rights" and nothing suggests they were motivated by the prop 8 vote.
Posted by: ah | November 13, 2008 10:07 AM
(rant starting)
Watching all this from afar I find the whole response to same sex marriage in CA to be absurd. If the Mayor of San Francisco wasn't so eager to start campaigning for governor and start this whole fiasco - the legislature would of granted the rights by now (matter of fact they did - but the Governor vetoed it citing the court cases). Secondly the campaign against Prop 8 was a complete joke and failure. Personally I was appalled that No to Prop 8 was running so many badly made commercials and the HRC did its usual lackluster job of reaching out to voters (reason number 352 not to give a cent to that organization).
Regardless of the tactics used now - its time to close up shop, go back home, and start collecting the signatures to get it back on the ballot in 2010 before you piss off more voters.
(end rant)
Posted by: yoshi | November 13, 2008 10:10 AM
Ed stated:
Preemptive strike on my part: In terms of political candidate advocacy, ministers do have the "right to preach their beliefs and parishioners have every right to hear them." All they have to do is forgo their tax exemption.
Minority groups must learn from the examples of Jackie Robinson, MLK Jr., and I believe Barack Obama: if you are serious about winning rather than merely feeling good about your cause, you must always be markedly better than your opponents. The blowback on the Mt. Hope attack is that it provides ammunition for a fallacy of balance argument by conservatives; who can now argue they are the victims of "fascist gays" (it's already started).
It's tough being a minority and it's tough fighting for individual rights against majority tyranny. Coupling that reality with stupid behavior does not help the cause. Reminds me of the old saying, "life is tough, it's tougher when you're stupid".
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 13, 2008 10:15 AM
peaceful protests have never changed history
Those who marched on Selma would disagree, especially in light of the fact of recent empirical research showing that their peaceful resistance to the violence of Bull Connor was a turning point in the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
Posted by: Chuck | November 13, 2008 10:17 AM
Ed, I have one thing to say about your whole post today...
AMEN!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | November 13, 2008 10:19 AM
Shygetz-
Freedom of speech (which includes the right to listen) and freedom of religion are fundamental principles of a free society. A "protest" which denies people of these freedoms is an attack on these fundamental principals and is an attack on our free society. I call that morally wrong.
Posted by: Alan | November 13, 2008 10:19 AM
Shygetz, what your argument boils down to is that if somebody is bullying you, it's morally justified to bully them right back. We can go back and forth all day on whether stooping down to somebody else's level is justified, but it's definitely not practical.
Ed is right, there is no way in hell that gay rights activists are gonna get church-goers to sympathize with them if they keep interrupting their services. The last thing they want to do is validate Christians' beliefs that gay people are a threat to them. This so so amazingly obvious to me that I'm stunned at how many people on Scienceblogs don't understand this concept. I'm sure a hundred people are gonna comment on how that's "appeasement" and make some comparisons to Neville Chamberlain. But ask yourself, how many of these commenters genuinely believe what they're saying, and how many just want to morally justify doing what feels good?
Posted by: Brandon | November 13, 2008 10:22 AM
I agree that the "good guys" should no give anyone any excuse to dismiss them out of hand.
That being said, as a Connecticut native, I did take a lot of pleasure not just in my state's acknowledging the rights of gays to marry, but in the misery that those "pro-family" bigots must be experiencing. As such, I sent a little note to the Family Institute of Connecticut yesterday:
To whom it may concern,
This is not a position I often find myself in, but today, I can't help it. Surely, you all worked very hard to prevent gay marriage from coming to Connecticut, and it gives me great pleasure to know that all your work has been for naught. Your miserable agenda has failed, and I don't know if it's because of the poison of your agenda or simply your incompetence, but that doesn't really matter.
What matters is that your religious extremism has been marginalized as Connecticut made a great stride in the battle for civil rights. I wish you many similar failures in the future.
Most Sincerely,
Barry etc. etc.
Posted by: barry21` | November 13, 2008 10:25 AM
Anon,
You're a gutless coward who's only brave in front of a computer keyboard. And does the name Martin Luther King mean anything to you?
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | November 13, 2008 10:37 AM
peaceful protests have never changed history
In a way I agree. Peaceful protests plus persuasion plus political pressure plus lawyers change history. Violent protests violate the right of others and may change history, but not in a way you would like.
Posted by: Susan Cogan | November 13, 2008 10:47 AM
I hope that people will realize that these violent protests aren't what most of us want. We really, really don't. It tarnishes our goals for equal rights. Sigh. I'll be participating in a PEACEFUL protest this Saturday.
Please know that the majority of us are angered and saddened that there have been people taking these protests to a violent extreme.
And thank you, Paul, for reminding me that this election wasn't ALL bad for gay rights. Go Connecticut! They stepped it up and I'm so very proud and happy!
Too bad Arizona, my home state, and California, my sister state (I grew up right on the border, so I consider both to be home) have disapointed me so. Sigh. I hope in 2010 we can change history!
Posted by: marilove | November 13, 2008 10:48 AM
Susan, you got it!
Posted by: marilove | November 13, 2008 10:51 AM
Paul Lundgren:
It probably would not mean as much to any of us, if it were not also for the work of Malcom X.
Posted by: VicVanity | November 13, 2008 10:53 AM
> peaceful protests have never changed history
I think a reasonable argument could be made that _only_ peaceful protests ever change anything in a proactive way (as opposed to fighting back on others transgressions).
Try this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharasana_Satyagraha
Posted by: David Durant | November 13, 2008 10:53 AM
I'm not sure about the moral argument about non-violence, partly because the blanket statements "peaceful protests have never changed history" and "violent action never gets the result you want" are a tad simplistic.
Sometimes the other side doesn't understand anything but violence, or won't listen. If someone is coming after you with a gun, stuffing flowers in it may just get you shot. Many protest movements have remained non-violent in the face of that, but some haven't, and the reason is that there is only so much people can take -- or should be asked to take.
The Mayans in Chiapas finally got fed up, for example, and thus you had the Caste War. Nonviolent protest simply wasn't going to work, because the government in Mexico City had an official policy of extermination. The same was true more recently in Guatemala under Rios Montt. Or in the US, which had an official policy of eliminating native culture as well until the 50s. (The last Indian massacre was in 1911 -- not so long ago).
Conversely, MLK noted that black people in the US simply weren't in a position to make a violent movement work, both because of the numbers (there aren't enough of them) and the lack of a geographical base, and the fact that the government's policy, while awful, wasn't at the level of awfulness that convinces ordinary people to fight.
All that said, the kind of protest Ed is describing strikes me as a little juvenile, but not completely out of line. We haven't gotten to the point where anyone needs to worry about serious violence from their government. They do have to worry about serious violence from the Klan and other right-wing crazies. I haven't got a whole lot of sympathy for megachurches that preach that my friends should be killed -- which is exactly what they are saying, if we take the biblical literalism seriously.
On the other hand (I am running out of hands) there's a whole strategy argument to be made. One of the things that came up in a proposal to fight prop 8 many months ago was that one should approach black churches with the concept of fairness, which gets a lot of support, rather than acceptance.
That is, it's a lot easier for a gay rights activist to get across the message to a conservative (in the religious sense) black church that not allowing gays to marry isn't fair, just like it wasn't fair to deny civil rights to black people. By denying gay people those rights, you privilege a certain kind of family, and that has hurt black families too.
Note that in the above there is nothing about "gay is ok" or "you should accept me." You will never get the acceptance. But to the people on the receiving end that isn't the point. The black churches don't accept Islam either but they damned well understand that racial profiling is wrong and have been against it. And once on board they have been an important source of support for gay rights.
Of course, the campaigners in California didn't listen to any of that and got outmaneuvered big time.
(Interestingly, the vote for prop 8 wasn't determined by race at all-- education was a much bigger factor, see a post I did on the subject here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/12/75832/151/320/659707
Posted by: Jesse | November 13, 2008 11:13 AM
Of course it is practical in many instances. Case in point--WWII. People were violently attacked by an aggressor, they fought back. Justifiable AND effective. Pacifism is a losing strategy unless you are facing a pacifist opponent (or can convince your opponent to become pacifist).
Using your logic, slave revolts were wrong, as America claimed to be a free society and yet slaves, in fighting for their freedoms, sometimes violated peoples' fundamental freedoms by killing their masters. And your morality dictates that this is morally wrong. Needless to say, I disagree with your morality.
Equal protection is also a fundamental principle of a free society. We do not have a free society when we deny equal protection to a subset of our citizens, which we are currently doing to homos. While we as Americans deny them their fundamental rights, what obligation do they have to allow us ours? Not only that, but their response was proportional. No people were injured, their right to assemble and worship was temporarily disrupted, as homos' equal protection right to marry is being denied. There is no moral wrong here; while it was stupid tactics, it was not immoral.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 13, 2008 11:16 AM
I'm a big fan of nonviolence, and I'd try to talk people out of excessively hotheaded stunts if I had the chance, but just to play devil's advocate. . . man, those nonviolent protests of the Stamp Act sure helped us colonists avoid taxation without representation!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 13, 2008 11:18 AM
You make a lot of good points, Jesse.
I don't think violence is the answer when it comes to this issue, though. Too much in the way of media, for one. It'll just make us look angry and bad and will alienate a lot of people that would have otherwise "converted" to our side.
Posted by: marilove | November 13, 2008 11:20 AM
Are you seriously comparing the Allies' and Axis' campaign strategies? Seriously? I'm not gonna shoot down your general point here, but seriously, find a better example. Seriously.
Seriously.
Posted by: Brandon | November 13, 2008 11:21 AM
"A peaceful protest that does not violate the rights of others or violate the law is a far better idea for several reasons"
And what of Rosa Parks, who broke an unjust law? People were furious at her for her actions.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 13, 2008 11:42 AM
I think that the protests are bringing the fight directly to the people who are trying to impose their view of morality on our laws. I think the gay communinty has had enough.
Posted by: DobyGS | November 13, 2008 11:47 AM
No, I will not find a different example, because this starkly demonstrates the fact that responding to violence with violence is NOT pointless or impractical. It has nothing to do with "campaign strategies", it has to do with refuting the naive idea that violence never solves anything, which was simply reworded in your original argument "if somebody is bullying you, it's [impractical] to bully them right back."
Posted by: Shygetz | November 13, 2008 11:54 AM
"And what of Rosa Parks, who broke an unjust law? People were furious at her for her actions."
Rosa Parks disobeyed a law that denied her and others equal rights. She was reacting to a law that directly effected her everytime she rode a bus. She did not disrupt other people's activities.
Posted by: Bill in NC | November 13, 2008 11:57 AM
A small but important point:
Technically the church didn't spend anything, it asked its members to donate.The No on Prop 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes campaign ($38,432,873 against; $36,122,538 for), and more of its money came from out of state (60% against; 30% for).
I opposed Prop 8, but I don't think it's right to exclusively blame the Mormons because it won.
Posted by: Mike Parker | November 13, 2008 12:02 PM
Yes, she did. The bus had to be stopped, people had to wait for police to come in, not to mention the poor white people who didn't get to sit there. Rosa Parks most certainly DID disrupt other peoples' activities to protest her loss of equal protection. If Bash Back had wanted to be even more analogous, they would have sent a homo couple to the altar during a wedding and refused to move until they were legally married.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 13, 2008 12:15 PM
This is a huge strawman. I never said that all violence was bad. Nobody who can dress themselves would ever argue that every instance of war and violence in human history was unjustified. My much more nuanced point was to stay at least one level above your opponent. The Germans and Japanese committed horrendous atrocities on their enemies, even without bringing up the Holocaust. The Allies (with the exception of the Soviets) certainly had their share of civilian casualties, but they at least treated their POWs with some human dignity and put considerable amounts of money into reconstruction efforts. In my opinion, the only truly shameful acts the United States committed were the internment of Japanese citizens and the atomic bombs. The former was one of the biggest mistakes in US history and accomplished nothing, the latter was a horrible tragedy that was only justified because it ended the war early.
So yeah. Gay rights activists are perfectly justified to fight back and protest. But they aren't going to accomplish much unless they have some standards and dignity. And World War 2 doesn't contradict this.
If you're going to respond with either
*OMG but your argument totally had an exception this one time
or
*I heard that this American soldier was really mean to some German guy
don't bother. I'm not going to read it.
and if you respond to that with
*Well if you're not going to read what I post then I automatically win!
then I'm not going to read that either.
Posted by: Brandon | November 13, 2008 12:19 PM
The difference is that Rosa Park acted in a public space where laws affected her. To clarify myself, I should have said that she did not disrupt other people's private and personal activities. Rosa Parks didn't crash a Daughters of the Conferderacy luncheon. Bash Back is more like the anti-abortion protestors who enter clinics.
Posted by: Bill in NC | November 13, 2008 12:23 PM
Mike Parker - while I didn't do any research myself to point towards, I doubt your stats on out-of-state percentages accurately portrays a wide perspective on influence in that campaign.
The Mormon Church supposedly spent $20+ million, that's been widely reported, breaking your 30% figure. My guess is that your numbers might be technically correct, but practically wrong if money from Utah was funneled through local CA Mormon churches and the CA churches then spent $$$ on state media buys.
If your gross numbers are correct and my $20+ million number is also correct, that also argues that the Mormon church subsidized 55% of the effort for a Yes vote, which is an observation admittedly from a different perspective but I think a more relevant one.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 13, 2008 12:24 PM
Michael Heath:
I'm Mormon, and while I don't live in California, I've been pretty close to people to do and have been involved in the campaign.
To the best of my knowledge, the church donated no money directly, nor did it "funnel" cash through local congregations. The Mormon donations, in-state and out-of-state, were from individual Mormons who responded to the church's call to donate.
My larger point, though, is that the No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes campaign, and more than twice as much, percentage-wise, from out-of-state donors. Mormons may have provided a large chunk of the Yes on 8 money (I've read 80%), but the No campaign could be accused of using out-of-state influence to a much greater degree than the Yes campaign.
Ultimately this amounts to sour grapes. The No campaign wasn't as organized, didn't get people running phone banks and going door-to-door, and didn't get voters to the polls on 11/4. The Yes campaign won because they pulled off an organized and effective ground-level campaign, using less money than the No campaign.
I personally think that's a shame, because I believe Prop 8 should have lost on its merits.
Posted by: Mike Parker | November 13, 2008 12:38 PM
I agree that the Mormon Church didn't directly donate much money. It however strongly urged its members to donate to separate organizations set up to fight for prop 8. They will also be front and center on the urging in future campaigns either in California or elsewhere. The same with the Catholic church which also fought for prop 8 in the pulpit.
The supporters of same-sex marriage are going to have to fight better, but, I don't think they've had as much experience. They will know better next time.
Posted by: Erp | November 13, 2008 1:14 PM
A group calling themselves Bash Back should be in the streets hospitalizing gay-bashers, first of all, disrupting a church service will do nothing but mobilize the sheep against us. If the California courts find that what occurred on Nov 4 is perfectly legal within our system, then there's really nothing else to say. My government officially believes that having same sex attractions is not natural, and not OK. I should not exist as I am. But of course my federal government already codifies this in law anyway, so it really shouldn't matter. There is no argument that was made by Prop 8 supporters that couldn't be used to take away our right to raise children, or hell, to force conversion therapy on us, as long as a majority of the state agrees. I love how some people are advocating a "wait for the right time" approach. It's gone and past, folks. I was almost a casualty of this society's judgment because I didn't know how to handle growing up gay around bigots, and I'll do everything in my power to make sure that that doesn't happen to another generation. But a personal rant doesn't really carry the weight of an academic discussion of whether or not these good church folks' rights were trampled.
Posted by: paul | November 13, 2008 1:39 PM
That's different than your original it's-impractical-to-bully-a-bully argument. So your argument is that it is impractical to not stay at least minutely morally superior to your opponent? This is still idealistic nonsense of a different flavor that boils down to "Good will always triumph over evil." In order to accept your current argument, you have to ignore all of the ruthless, cruel, and immoral yet thoroughly effective dictatorships that have existed in this world. The costs of maintaining moral superiority can in fact often outweigh the practical benefits.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 13, 2008 1:41 PM
The Mt. Hope Church is an open (hell, even prostelytizing) private space, not a closed party like a DotC luncheon. But I like your analogy of the anti-abortion protesters who enter clinics and peacefully disrupt the goings-on--that fits very well. Ineffective and illegal, but from the point of view of the aggrieved, morally justified.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 13, 2008 1:48 PM
but from the point of view of the aggrieved, morally justified.
Which is hardly a useful way to classify protests or civil disobedience.
But I do agree that the analogy of disrupting an abortion clinic seems just about right.
Posted by: heddle | November 13, 2008 1:56 PM
I was at the Dallas protest and I have been absolutely amazed at how the church, it's members and even those outside of the church have tried to make themselves a victim by all this. It was 100% absolutely peaceful, nothing even resembling an altercation happened, we moved out of the church members way even when they made it a point to try and walk through us instead of the clear walk ways that were there to allow them to pass unfettered. The police stood quite a bit away from us looking bored and the only time they god involved was when someone stood in the street to take a picture of the protestors and we were on public property, we never set foot onto their own.
Yet still they want to say that we were somehow suppressing their right for free speech by exercising our own. I was absolutely amazed that they wanted us surrender our right to free speech and peaceful protest for some imaginary right that they felt they had to have their religious views go unchallenged.
Posted by: John McKee | November 13, 2008 1:57 PM
I don't know about that. It's often of use to understand what motivates people. A big part of the problem in many conflicts that seem to defy resolution is that one side assumes the other sees the world in the exact same way as they do, but they are just evil.
For example, pro-choice people often think all pro-life people know damn well that a fertilized egg is not a person, but they just want to control women's bodies. Similarly, pro-life people often think all pro-choice people know damn well that fertilized eggs have souls and are beloved by God, but they just want to keep having consequence-free sex and are willing to murder innocent children to do it.
It's far more productive to be able to see things from other people's point of view. In this case, while I think that Bash Back was being very stupid from ANY point of view, I can't say that they were being immoral. Similarly, while I think that people who PEACEFULLY disrupt abortion clinics are wrong (from my point of view) and illegal, I can't say that they are morally unjustified from their point of view.
But then again, that's moral relativism which is anathema to so many people.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 13, 2008 2:57 PM
Regardless of what people think, the gay community is tired of these constant repetitions of "if you calm down and stay peaceful, you'll get what you want".
Since that doesn't seem to be enough, Violence seems to be the only answer. Perhaps when it is as scary to use the word 'faggot' around gays as it is to say 'nigger' around blacks, we'll get somewhere.
Posted by: Anan | November 13, 2008 3:52 PM
Shygetz,
My point is that, to first oder, all protesters see themselves as aggrieved and morally justified. So if seeing yourself as morally justified means that you are not acting immorally, then no protesters act immorally. Ever. It seems like a definition without a meaning.
Posted by: heddle | November 13, 2008 3:55 PM
The vote this time in California was much closer than it was just 8 years ago, and by all accounts the no on 8 campaign was so badly managed that bad campaigning probably accounts for the whole margin of loss.
If you really think gay marriage will come sooner to California by acting violently, you're just a plain fool. Go bomb a few churches and see how that works for your goals--it did wonders for the segregationists.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 13, 2008 4:54 PM
Mike Parker - I stand corrected. I should know better than to depend on the TV media to report exactly how the money was spent by the Mormon Church or its members.
Also thanks for your perspective. I agree with your assessment on who was better organized and who executed a better game plan in this campaign regarding Prop 8. From my perspective it was as if the No supporters thought that just because they had the upper hand morally on this issue they'd win; which is not how their opponents and most Californians perceive this issue.
While they lost, along with AZ and FL; I've finally come to accept the optimism that the "people's will" is now inevitable.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 13, 2008 5:29 PM
Shygetz:
I'd say that the point to having a civil society is to ensure that opponents remain pacifist, generally.
I also agree that violence has contributed to good causes. But rarely good causes where the "wrong" side hasn't thrown the first punch.
The inside protest wasn't violent, as far as I can tell. However, it was uncivil--that is, it violated the rules set up to keep busting heads from replacing political discourse.
Posted by: Metro | November 13, 2008 5:47 PM
American Revolution History
-as told by me, Gary Evans 11/2008
Between the late 1600's and the Declaration of Independence in 1776, our forefathers grew tired of the mistreatment by England. The British government was completely controlled by the domineering, prejudiced, discriminatory and hateful Church of England.
Well we didn't really like that much so we started peaceful demonstrations, protests and started civil disobedience tactics. This pissed off the British so they sent troops to America to put us in check. We said "Look man this shit ain't going to cut it. We hate your oppressive Church and your government and we ain't paying you shit. Get out of our country!" Then in 1773 we threw a shitload of tea into the harbor. Needless to say that didn't go over well with the British so in 1774 they closed the Port of Boston and made up a bunch more repressive laws that really pissed us off.
In 1775 we had enough and kicked their ass in the Battles of Lexington, Fort Ticonderoga and Concord, the first battles of the war. Later that same year the British were really embarrassed that such a small band of rebels could make them look so bad and so they sent reinforcements and REALLY kicked our asses good at the Battle of Bunker Hill, which really didn't happen entirely at Bunker Hill it was just called that because of the bunkers we built on Breed's Hill. The British lost 1,150 men, out of 2,500 engaged, and 92 officers but won the battle.
In 1776 we said "This really sucks!" and drafted the Declaration of Independence. We sent that to the King and said "Look here King we're not giving up without a fight so can't we all just get along? You give us independence and we will sell you stuff that you need and we will both make a butt load of money!" The King laughed at us and told our delegation to get out. We snuck out the back door and down the alley cause the King was beside himself with being pissed off and tried to kill our delegates. Since we were better at sneaking than his guys were we got away! That really put his panties in a wad so he sent more troops to America and really started f-ing with us hard.
After we got our butts handed to us on a platter at Bunker Hill, we told this guy George Washington to come over here and take charge of these troops and let's kick some British butt! Well he didn't do so well at first and lost the Battle of Long Island and the white wigs ended up with New York.
Then George had a vision or something and said "Hey I got an idea! Let's sneak across the Delaware when they ain't looking and take New Jersey!" Now Americans were good at sneaking so that's what we did and won the Battles of Trenton and Princeton!
So in 1777 the British decided it was time we stopped making them look like pussies and they kicked our ass again and took Philadelphia. Our Continental Congress saw em coming and skedaddled outta Pennsylvania just in time. Well we said "Oh Yeah? Watch this!" and took back New York at Saratoga. For the rest of the year we traded victories and defeats with them and George's army was really whittled down by winter and harsh conditions from 17,000 to just a few hundred. There was a mutiny and he had to hang a couple to keep the rest in line. After winter he got a bunch more troops and had about 10,000.
Now all this time the French had been watching what was going on and were still trying to trade with us in the back door, but the British started f-ing with them too. In 1778 we got another bright idea and said "Hey France, come help us with these bastards and we can trade stuff you need and we can both make a butt load of money... oh and you can kick the shit outta the British!" Now that sounded real good to the French and they went to their trading partners the Spanish and got them on board too. Then we REALLY started giving the tea totalers hemorrhoids!
We decided to give the British one more try at peace and sent a delegation to the King offering him to quit kicking his ass if he would grant us independence and a few other things we wanted. The English Parliament was seeing how much money the war was costing and how bad they were starting to look in front of the rest of the world so they put the thumb on the King and said "Take their offer man!"
Well the King didn't like being told what to do so he told the American delegation that they could have all the other stuff they wanted but not independence. We pointed our fingers at our asses as we walked out the door and then ran like Hell back to America so they couldn't catch us. Then they beat the Hell out of us at Savannah, Georgia in late 1778. Then for good measure in 1780 took Charleston South Carolina and got control of the South.
In 1781 we finally got our shit together with the French and the Spanish, got a little help from the Dutch and the Russians and some others and took back North, South Carolina and Georgia. This is about when the Loyalists in America, (those people who were Americans but sympathetic to the British), looked around and thought "Wow this isn't the way we had envisioned this!" They decided to get out of Dodge while the getting was good and about 100,000 of them headed north to Canada.
The year of 1781 saw the final major military episode of the American Revolution. The French and American forces over a vast region of North America and the West Indies: a French army in Rhode Island under the comte de Rochambeau, an American army outside New York City under Gen. George Washington, an assortment of American regulars and militia in Virginia under the Marquis de Lafayette, a small French naval squadron at Newport under the comte de Barras, and a formidable French fleet in the West Indies under the comte de Grasse who together kicked major simultaneous ass. Seeing he was going to die, General Cornwallis and the British surrendered at Yorktown. There were a few other small battles and we didn't lose any more so they mostly just surrendered or stole our sneaking tricks and went to Canada in the night.
Well in 1783 we sauntered over to the King and said "Give us our Independence now or we are going to have France invade England and make you eat Foi Gras!" Since they were already fighting on several other fronts against us, the French, the Spanish and every other country that could put together an army and wanted a piece of the King's ass, he finally gave in and gave us independence and the other stuff too.
Well this kinda pissed off France and they were upset because we made an agreement with the British without checking with the French first. So America fresh off of a victory at the King of England's place said; "You saw what we did to them do you really want us to get Spain and the rest of the already pissed off world and come to France and kick your ass and force you to eat hamburgers?" Well they didn't want that so they looked at each other and said "Hey let them have their country and we will go and have our own revolution and get rid of that snooty King of France!" So we signed the Treaty of Paris with the French and the British and with Spain and the French went and had the French Revolution.
Now in 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed by the delegates of the Constitutional Convention but not all of the founding fathers were happy with it. Ben Franklin and a few of his buddies formed the Anti Federalists and started protesting and threatening another war because the original Constitution looked too much like the government they had just gotten rid off. For the next 2 years they and the Federalists talked, argued, fought and got drunk together and eventually agreed that they needed to add The Bill of Rights and the original 10 Amendments (that started out as 12) to the Constitution.
In 1789 everybody was on the same page and the Constitution of the United States was ratified by 9 of the then 13 States and became effective. Now today, 219 years later in the year 2008, we are fighting the same domineering church. Different names but the same oppression against minorities.
"Hey you guys! Remember the first revolution? Want us to do it again?" This time we can call it the . . .
RAINBOW REVOLUTION!
Posted by: sacgary | November 13, 2008 6:43 PM
Hmm. So forcing through a law to strip people of their rights is equal to "ZOMFG! They set off a fire alarm and we can't pray!!!!"?
Otherwise it wouldn't be suggested they were "Bringing themselves to their opponents level".
I had to giggle a bit when I read that.
I'm curious...Were Bash Back picketing funerals, beating people to death, getting them fired, and in general attempting to turn their lives into a little pit of misery?
Didn't think so.
There were an awful lot of white people that were kinda sorta sympathetic to black people when they fought for their rights. I say "kinda sorta" because they told black people they supported them, then anything they did to disrupt the status quo was 'going too far'.
Can't imagine what made me think of that.
@Anan: Victory won't happen when they're afraid to say faggot. It will happen when the vast majority don't want to say it.
Posted by: JThompson | November 13, 2008 6:44 PM
sacgary,
Fantastic summary of the Revolutionary War. I loved it.
Posted by: heddle | November 13, 2008 7:18 PM
While the protest was ill-advised, I completely understand the impulse to bust into a church and scream "WTF ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING?" Especially after something like the Prop 8 fiasco. Although I generally try to keep that sort of thing relegated to Private Revenge Fantasy Land.
And while I know it isn't productive or "nice", a small part of me doesn't much care. I feel like saying "That is the what you jerks get for sticking your noses in the personal affairs of others. This is what it feels like to have a bunch of loudmouth jackasses intrude upon and crap all over the important events in your life. Ha!"
But that's the small(ish), lizard-like part of my brain that I try to keep in check for obvious reasons. I don't really feel compelled to bust in a church and protest. But I completely empathize with the sadness, frustration, rage and, no doubt, helplessness behind it.
The state I live in got one of these lovely "Protect Marriage" acts a few years back, and its passage had nothing to do with the management of either campaign. Rather, it was a result of a majority of voters feeling like it's acceptable and even good to use the government as a tool to make personal decisions for gay people. It was a foregone conclusion that it would pass, and those of us on the side of equality, the minority, never had a chance in hell of shooting it down. Sadly, I doubt any single campaign would have remedied that, whether "violent" or pacifist, and no matter how well-run.
Rather, the change will happen on a multitude of fronts. And I expect there to be some angry and unpleasant protests. Not violent, but angry. Maybe even rude and disruptive. I know they aren't "nice", but I don't feel terribly bothered by it. Primarily because I know that, in the long run, this single act isn't the face of the campaign for gay rights. That, and the fact that it wasn't violent, it was just rude. Our culture is changing, and this single act of childish outrage will not put a stop to that, no matter how hard the bigots try.
Posted by: Leni | November 13, 2008 8:27 PM
"Were Bash Back picketing funerals, beating people to death, getting them fired, and in general attempting to turn their lives into a little pit of misery?"
Could someone please point out which members of Mt Hope Church have allegedly picketed a funeral, beaten someone to death or gotten someone fired?
Posted by: Neil H | November 14, 2008 3:20 AM
I wonder how much of the opinion that the Bash Back protest should not have intruded upon the church service is because it was an intrusion of a private gathering, or because it was an intrusion of a church?
If Bash Back was instead protesting at a KKK meeting, do you think so many people would find the fact that they were disrupting a meeting of people such an anathema?
A good part of the indignation of bigots against equal rights for GLBT is righteous indignation, based on scripture and with the sacred, untouchable imprimatur of the Christian religion.
There are a lot of churches that indoctrinate hate against GLBT from their pulpits on a regular basis. Perhaps it IS time to take the protest directly to the church after all, and tear down the false wall of the sacrosanct erected by people like Bill Donohue. As ye reap, so shall ye sow.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 14, 2008 8:57 AM
Gingerbaker ,
Perhaps not. But most people would not equate Mt. Hope Church with the KKK. You, perhaps, are idiotic enough to do so.
And I have been in many conservative churches. Listened to literally thousands of sermons. I never heard one, not even one, that directed hatred toward the gay community. No doubt there are such places, but they are not the norm.
Of course, you may, like many people, define hatred as "someone with the unspeakable audacity to vote differently on something that is very important to me."
FWIW, I would have voted no on Prop 8.
But hang on GB--the day may be just around the corner when a pastor giving a sermon who states that he believes that homosexual activity is sinful will be subject to hate-speech charges! Won't that be a glorious day for the Republic?!
Posted by: heddle | November 14, 2008 9:34 AM
Gutless anon coward said -
peaceful protests have never changed history
Ever hear of Ghandi?
Leni -
I too understand the urge to get in their faces and scream "what the fuck!?!" But then, I would also understand the right wing nuts (and a number of moderates) getting up in arms about it. The problem with idiotic protests like this one, is that they are entirely counterproductive and divisive.
Like any other church, I am certain that there are those at Mt Hope, who don't really care much, one way or the other, about gay rights. And there are probably those who do care and to a degree support gay rights. I can guarantee you that this juvenile stunt did nothing to convince those on the "eh, don't really care" side, that they should give the gay rights side any of their political support.
Don't believe there are folks there who actually feel that way about gay rights? I attended an Assemblies of God church (similar in theology and makeup, to Mt Hope) as a child. As an adult I have reconnected with several people from that church and discovered to my pleasure, that several of them (even a few who believe homosexuality is sin) run from ambivalent to being strong supporters of gay rights.
One of the more solid supporters of gay rights, was once a leader in the church. His daughter had gotten into research into HIV/AIDS and convinced him that gay rights were important, because closeting them was a big part of why HIV/AIDS had run rampant through the gay community.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 14, 2008 9:35 AM
Heddle you stated:
First, asking a hypothetical is NOT equating. Hypothetically water could not be wet, this does not imply I'm stating water isn't wet, merely posing a hypothetical.
Secondly, what some churches do is all very fine, but since we are talking about a specific church, a specific sermon and a specific preacher, what another church does or does not do is irrelevant.
HYPOTHETICALLY if a protest group infiltrated a KKK meeting would the chorus of complaint be more, less or the same? IF you think the level of outrage would be different, why would that be so? - in anticipation of your brilliant sophistry DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 14, 2008 9:55 AM
DJ,
Thanks for the compliment but I'm tired. Today I couldn't muster anything more than mediocre sophistry, and you deserve better than that.
Posted by: heddle | November 14, 2008 10:13 AM
Heddle - "Flattery will get you everywhere" :)
Tomorrow perhaps? Get a good night's sleep.
Don't let the bed bugs bite -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 14, 2008 10:17 AM
I love how you say that, with so much concern for the pastor whose life isn't affected by homosexuality at all, he just feels he needs to pass judgment on others lives... but then I guess that's what religion's all about, huh? What a wonderful idea to cling to, they're persecuting him, free speech, free speech!! When homophobia has gone the way of racism and sexism, then any yahoo can stand up and say anything they want. As it is, if a gay teen from this son of a bitch's congregation blows his brains out because of what these whackjobs do to his mind, I think they should be brought up on charges of murder and psychological torture. But given that this is wildly unrealistic, let's keep the goddamn helpless Christian persecution complex to a minimum. Thanks.
Posted by: paul | November 16, 2008 4:04 AM
Normally I'd be against this type of protest, especially since I probably know a few of the people involved in the protest (being a former resident of Lansing and seeing some of their tactics & targets), but I grew up down the street from Mt. Hope Church and saw the church's activities directly ruin more than a few families. Also the pastor is somewhat of a megalomaniac & conspiracy theorist who takes advantage of his 'flock' in numerous ways, i.e. requires new members to submit their bank info prior to joining, has a huge messiah-complex, and bought 1 hour of time on local tv in 1999 to get people to join the church before armageddon was supposed to occur from the impending Y2K disaster and asked the kind folks of Lansing to buy up gold after their money became useless after the impending Y2K banking collapse to give to the church. If they were protesting any other church - bad. But for this particular church, any interuption makes me smile.
Posted by: Jim | November 16, 2008 10:14 PM