Obamanation is starting to scare me worse than G-Dub’s neo-fascists ever did. Rick Moran writes in a post at American Thinker:
Opponents of gay marriage in California are suffering the effects of a childish tantrum thrown by those who lost on Proposition 8. There have been attacks on Mormons for leading the fight for the ballot initiative as well as racial epithets hurled at African Americans because 70% of them voted “Yes” to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Now these activists have taken their derangement to another level; they are publishing lists of ordinary people who donated to the “Yes on 8” coalition
This is stupid and self defeating. Rather than trying to change their opinion, they are making these people enemies for life. And carrying out pogroms like this against people who oppose gay marriage based on their religious beliefs borders on bigotry.
There are other means of protest to make your displeasure known than targeting individuals. All the gay marriage advocates are doing is sealing their fate the next time such a measure goes before the votes.
I live in California and I voted against Prop H8 because I think gays and lesbians have just as much right to be miserably married as us straight people. Unfortunately, the majority of the voters here disagreed with me, including a bunch of people who voted for Barack Obama. While American Thinker is a conservative website, I agree with Rick Moran that targeting individuals, businesses and churches that supported Prop H8 is wrong.
Not everyone agrees with me, however. TBogg in a post at Firedoglake titled “Blowback is a Bitch” writes:
The kind of person who contributes money to deny their fellow citizens their civil rights are not someday magically going to be part of the solution: they’re the problem. These are not people to be reasoned with; they’re ignorant, they’re haters and they’re bigots and the only thing people like that understand is power.
So when they stick their noses in other people’s affairs, they forfeit the right to be considered just another “ordinary person”. They’re involved and they would be foolish to expect that those other people in whose private affairs they have meddled wouldn’t return the favor. As they say: you pays your money and you takes your chances.
You “takes your chances” when you exercise a Constitutional right? When did that become a progressive principle? From the comments to TBogg’s post:
“Your freedom of speech does *not* include freedom from the consequences. Deal with it.”
“Take no prisoners.”
“If you enlist in the Culture Wars (e.g. writing a check), expect to receive fire.”
“Isn’t there some scripture verse about sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind?”
That rhetoric is not very reassuring, is it? There is a word for people who use intimidation to get their way. The word is “bully.” But it doesn’t stop at FDL. John Cole posted this at Balloon Juice:
This is pretty amusing. After actively campaigning to end the right to marriage for a large group of people, including donating money, blackmailing businesses, and turning the issue into a religious crusade, people are absolutely mortified to find out to be publicly associated with the cause. There is, after all, a reason the Klan wears hoods.
Yeah John, because people who sincerely believe that marriage is a religious sacrament between a man and a woman (a view shared by the candidate you fanatically supported and many of your fellow Obama supporters) are no different than a terrorist organization that lynched black men. Why, they deserve to be punished, not persuaded!
Perhaps we should make the people who supported Prop. H8 wear special armbands so they can be easily identified. Businesses and churches could be required to post signs identifiying them as well. I seem to recall that tactic being very effective at intimidating people in the past. I seem to recall you being outraged in the past when conservatives “outed” or retaliated against people they disagreed with. Hypocrite much?
Leave aside for the moment that targeting political opponents is counter-productive, it is also anathema to democratic principles. That’s why we have secret ballots. There is also the “Law of Unintended Consequences” to consider. Did it ever occur to anyone that targeting donors for retaliation provides a good reason to repeal the laws requiring public disclosure of campaign donations? Jeebus!
Progressives used to have principles. Liberals still do.