THE NEW BLACKLIST: Oakland Mayor Stalls Reappointment of 30-Year Theatre Board Member For Supporting Traditional Marriage
by Big Hollywood
Oakland, California Mayor, Ron Dellums
A $26,000 contribution to the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California appears to have cost a 96-year-old former Mormon temple president his seat on the board that oversees Oakland’s historic Paramount Theatre.
Amid rising criticism from the gay community, Mayor Ron Dellums said Tuesday that he was putting on hold the reappointment of Lorenzo Hoopes, most likely signaling an end to Hoopes’ 30-plus years on the Paramount board.
“The community is asking us to reconsider, and that is what we are going to do,” mayoral spokesman Paul Rose said.
Read the full article here.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
93 Comments
You ever been to Oakland? Almost as nice as Compton. Who cares what these mopes do.
wow- Ron 'The Red' Dellums is still around?…
He was an old school communist back when the current crop of pretenders were being fitted for their first
Che t-shirts. So, no big suprise here- other than the good people of Oakland haven't yet waken up and smelled
th coffee.
California is a big heap o' trouble, friends. And silliness like this is a big part of it…
Typical application of leftist situational ethics.
Black lists are bad if they are from the other side, but tolerant and loving if they are from the Left.
I take their fanatic behavior serioulsy but as individuals they are no more than the punch line to a bad joke.
Shameful.
Thug.
So, because homosexuals don't want to be discriminated against, they have decided to bully a single man on the basis of his personal beliefs? Um, ok.
if this same Mormon had contributed to a pro-plural marriage group would he be ousted?
Thoughtcriminal!
A sort of random thought about Mormons and marriage….
Mormons actually DID have their right to marry who they wanted to marry taken away from them by law and government coercion, unlike gays who haven't had a right they had previously taken away from them, no matter the rhetoric about rights.
No one is pushing to restore the right of Mormons to marry the way they want to and their religion traditionally allowed. And they can hardly escape the understanding that it is *not* a right. Can they.
But those pushing for same-sex marriage are very very careful to specifically exclude any notion that this may change marriage to include polygamy. No! No! Couldn't ever happen. Which seems an awful lot like asserting that they have a right to redefine and make marriage whatever they want it to be while strongly maintaining that Mormons do not have the same right to define marriage the way they had traditionally defined the institution.
How illogical is it to assert that it is right to use the law and government to forbid one type of historically accepted marriage, while claiming that law and government doesn't have the right to forbid the sort you happen to want?
Yes, I can see how Mormons may lack sympathy on this.
I wonder if Ed Harris and his ilk have a problem with this?
Sounds like out and out discrimination to me. Facists!
Californians deserve whatever they get. That whole state is FUBAR, and anyone who voluntarily lives there or does not fightto get out has no sympathy from me. Liberals have utterly and completely ruined it.
To the rest of the nation, I say drive out Liberals wherever you find them. They're bad for everything, good for nothing, they spend everyone's money but their own, and they think of everyone else as obnoxious, stupid neanderthals. Let's make life so unpleasant for them that they leave for Europe, and let them see how much they enjoy living and working with the Muslims!
This is very thoughtful and logical and you said it way more eloquently than I ever could have. Thanks!
if marriage can be redefined one way, why not another?
i can't believe that this could happen in california, especially in the city that gave us ebonics. 30 years of service and the mayor puts the guy on hold? does he have to tally up the # of angry voters 1st to make such a difficult decision? heaven forbid mayor ron needs to make a critical decision.
I would slightly disagree. For me, the issue is not with liberals but with leftists. There are differences. There are good men and women who choose to identify themselves as liberal. I have many family and friends, who fit the bill. We can have discussions on issues and agree to disagree, when all is said and done.
With leftists…no such thing. My way or the highway…usually followed with a FU to boot.
There is a difference.
My two cents.
And as long as they get to write their own press, they are the victims and we are the oppressors.
This is racism, after all the Mayor is black and the director is white so he has to be against him on racial grounds. Can you say lawsuit? I would sue Dellums and the city for every penny they have.
(From the SF Gate Article: [When asked about the potential vote if put to the SF City Council,] council President Jane Brunner said, "A lot of us don't think that he represents our thinking in Oakland."
Wait, what? OUR thinking? Does the SF City Council get to decide that, too? SF is one of my favorite cities (GREAT food town), but seriously? When that mentality becomes ingrained in a community, that community is hosed.
Ummm – really? Gays didn't have a right to be removed in California? That's just polar opposite to the truth. The CA Supreme Court did rule in favor it, since somehow you're blissfully aware that it was legal for several months in '08 when thousands of same-sex couples wed.
I see you're trying to make a rationalization, but polygamy and same-sex marriage are fundamentally incomparable. One is discriminatory based on an innate quality, while the other was merely part of an ideology/religious dogma – it did not discriminate, as they still had/have the right to marry a person of their choice. It was also, however, never recognized by the state, as you fallaciously suggested, as same-sex marriage has been.
Do try again, though.
With freedom of speech comes the consequences of exercising it. I don't see what's so difficult to comprehend about that. Forcing your religious dogma onto a state and undoing a Supreme Court ruling that granted the state's citizens a fundamental right will OBVIOUSLY have consequences – nothing the mayor is doing is illegal.
What would you think of someone in the 60s who did the same thing to ban interracial marriage? After all, the exact same thing did happen. You'd probably admire the mayor who did it, even. But, no, gays are sub-human and don't deserve basic rights, obviously.
The only way he could be on the board is to be Harry Reid. Hypocrite. So much for open-mindedness. Mormons in Hollywood are being singled out.
That's obviously not the case. It's one thing to have personal beliefs, it's another thing to force that belief onto everyone else and deny people fundamental rights based on your religious dogma. Hateful actions deserve reprimand.
adam
Perhaps you aren't aware that the Constitution specifically says you cannot discriminate based on "religious dogma"…. "sexually proclivity" is not listed in the Constituion. Marriage has never been based on sexual proclivity. Please tell me where the box on the license you check is "sexual orientation?" You were given the right without the vote of the people and the said same Supreme Court has also ruled that you have no right to call your union "marriage." Same sex unions in California afford you the same legal state rights as a married couple in California barring the name "marriage."
gay gov mcgreevy married twice. what rights are violated?
I thought this Old Commie Dellums was dead…..I think I'll skip lunch.
Btw, polygamy was not illegal in all states. It wasn't until 1878 Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States that ruled that polygamy wasn't constitutionally protected under religion that outlawed polygamy for all 50 states, and largely the feds have left it up to state to state to prosecute as they see fit.
continued…
Even in Loving v. Virginia a specific group was being excluded from marriage. Caucasian and hispanics could marry but blacks could not interracially marry. Right now, NO sexual orientation can marry the same sex, hence no discrimination. Marriage is not based on sexual orientation, but on the interest of the state. The Supreme Court(the same that ruled on Loving) has already ruled as a precedent that same sex couples do not have the same "right " to a license. Baker. v. Nelson… From Wiki:
Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson[1] was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the U.S. Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as controlling precedent.[2]
Adam I posted this above, but will post it again, because you don't know what you are talking about…
Even in Loving v. Virginia a specific group was being excluded from marriage. Caucasian and hispanics could marry but blacks could not interracially marry. Right now, NO sexual orientation can marry the same sex, hence no discrimination. Marriage is not based on sexual orientation, but on the interest of the state. The Supreme Court(the same that ruled on Loving) has already ruled as a precedent that same sex couples do not have the same "right " to a license. Baker. v. Nelson… From Wiki:
Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson[1] was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the U.S. Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as controlling precedent.[2]
Adam,
California homosexuals have all the rights that married couples do with same sex partnerships. The Supreme Court ruled that the lst time they ruled. They also ruled that you do not have the right to call your union "marriage."
You mean like forcing a redefinition of marriage on everyone through a supreme court ruling? Totalitarian actions deserve opposition and reprimand, which the people of California dealt out.
There is a reason that those advocating same sex marriage fail to convince even someone like me who is broadly pro-same-sex-marriage. You've demonstrated it.
I'm not trying to make a *rationalization* but rather I am trying to see the issue from another point of view. Something more intelligent than "they're haters." If you don't even attempt to figure out where people are coming from you can't convince them.
Also, there are a lot of things comparable between polygamy and SSM even as there are elements that are different. Claiming they are completely different blows your credibility. No one else is compelled to accept your spin on the issue. I personally know more people who desire a multiple party marriage than I know gays who desire to be married. (Not Mormons.) I find their arguments persuasive where I find your argument less than persuasive, and the fact that you would discriminate against my friends contributes to that.
It also suggests that you haven't thought the issue through to how it impacts people other than yourself.
And really, how amazing is it to argue that something that didn't happen in a ratified State of the United States never existed? Mormons went to extreme lengths to maintain their right to polygamous marriages and only ever gave it up when they had no where left to flee to. It's not an issue today, but trying to find a way to claim that the Mormon church didn't have an early and harsh demonstration of the right of Government and the State and the People to impose and coerce their will concerning marriage is beyond irrational.
It's not at all amazing that they've come to accept that the Government, the State, and the People can impose and coerce their will concerning marriage. It's actually the most logical thing.
And the further idea that there is some innate quality vs. religious dogma and that matters misses a whole lot of truth… First, that our Constitution protects religious belief specifically and that still was not enough. And Secondly, that the "innate quality" of gayness is less important to the issue of SSM than the argument that people are "in love" and shouldn't be denied on the basis of that innate quality. And the law has never ever in a million years accepted "in love" as conferring the right to anyone whosoever to get married in spite of innate qualities. In fact, I'd say that the limits on marriage are almost all due to innate qualities with the single exception of the arbitrary legal requirement for serial monogamy. All other limits and restrictions are based, absolutely, on things about you that you have no control over and can not change.
So maybe you're right after all, and rather than being even remotely like polygamy, the same-sex-marriage issue is exactly like wanting to marry your sister.
>>>deny people fundamental rights
You mean like religion & freedom of speech which are actually listed in the constitution whereas marriage and sexual orientation is not?
All this bellyaching over "traditional" marriage…what homosexuals do does not even matter.
In the 21st century, so-called "traditional" marriage is a cruel joke.
Stop chasing after the red-herring of gay marriage.
>deny people fundamental rights based on your religious dogma
Like freedom of speech & religion which are actually listed in the Constitution? And you wonder why religious people fight so hard?
The freaks, perverts and pedophiles in San Franfreako that favor gay marriage should get the hell out of this country and go to some backward western european cesspit. It's time to get in the face of these gayhadist scumbags.
Obviously.
And the consequences of the freedom of speech exorcised by people who claim it is acceptable to punish those who disagree is a deterioration of sympathy among those who are wavering, who might be convinced or persuaded but who don't like thugs.
A further consequence of that free speech is the impression that the issue is a knee-jerk adolescent tantrum and even if a person is convinced that allowing legal marriage between those of the same sex is a good thing and ought to happen, that it would be foolish beyond measure to trust those promoting it not to wantonly break anything they touch out of self-centeredness and a malicious disregard for consequences.
And again… making the claim that anyone at all has a basic right to marry and then whining that there is only one possible reason not to admit this is just about the same (since you brought race into it) as the utterly moronic claim that people *claiming* to not want a huge government take-over of the economy, are really just racists and see Obama as sub-human.
This demonetization of the "other" doesn't play well with anyone.
You do realize, don't you Adam, that if Mormons were forcing their beliefs onto the people of California, there would be no adultery, no premarital sex (including flying solo), no Starbucks on every corner, no alcohol (including wine), no drugs harder than aspirin unless prescribed by a doctor, no strip clubs, no smoking anything whatsoever, no lying, no stealing, no businesses open on Sunday, no R-rated movies, not even hard PG-13 ones, etc., and that you would be expected to give 10% of your income in tithing, attend Church meetings for 3 hours every Sunday, in addtion to other meetings during the week, give to the poor, serve your community, help people move, make food for families with illness, pray multiple times a day, attend the temples regularly, read your scriptures daily (and we have four books of holy writ, not just the Bible), fast for 12 hours a month, view an 8-hour General Conference twice a year, listen to our prophet and apostles in the council they give, and try to live your life according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, etc.? So clearly, no, that's not what's happening in California or anywhere else.
Oh, I forgot, you'd also be expected to have a vegetable garden, if possible, procure a year's supply of food and emergency supplies for every member of your family, and wear no piece of clothing that wouldn't be able to cover your garments (knee-lenth, nothing low cut, with straps, backless, etc.).
"Traditional" marriage is a cruel joke these days – hence why it's absurd that anyone should be prevented from being a part of the cruelty!
For example, John Edwards' admission today does more to harm the values of "traditional" marriage than anything two homosexuals could do.
Someone should post the addresses and phone numbers of these commie perverts. They deserve to live in fear.
Thank you.
If we're going by the letter of the law (the Constitution in this case), then why should gay people be denied the right to marry? You just said it yourself – it doesn't list marriage in the Constitution.
It's not just the LDS in Hollywood, Kels. I was spit on and shouted at by a lesbian in downtown Salt Lake City, on Temple Square grounds, because I confirmed that I was LDS. I hadn't said a single thing to her or her partner, I was just standing on the street corner. I haven't been harassed and hounded out of a job because of my political or religious beliefs, but I know people who have, and they aren't all living in California.
What kills me is, this is coming from the party that claims to be tolerant and accepting of everybody's beliefs and opinions.
What does anyone expect from Ron 'Red' Dellums?!
I don't know that California deserves "it" as someone said, since there were people who voted so called "same sex marriage" down. Perhaps should look to where "marriage" came from and listen to God's definition of what marriage is as in Mark 10 when Jesus says "When God made the world, he made people male and female. That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. And the two people will become one."
Marriage has always been a state rights issue. The Constitution is a federal document. If California had voted for gay marriage they would have it now. If an individual cannot donate his own money to a cause he believes in, in the hopes of influencing government policy, then what can he do morally?
I simply do not understand why gay-marriage supporters feel that what the California Mormons did was so immoral and wrong. What more moral option do they have in this case? Their only option appears to be to simply accept whatever worldview comes along regardless of their personal belief system. If we cannot influence voters in a free society, then are we really free?
Romans 1 speaks to the hedonistic attraction to same sex…"24 People wanted only to do evil. So God left them and let them go their sinful way. And so they became completely immoral and used their bodies in shameful ways with each other. They traded the truth of God for a lie. 26. Because people did those things, God left them and let them do the shameful things they wanted to do. Women stopped having natural sex with men and started having sex with other women. In the same way, men stopped having natural sex with women and began wanting each other all the time. Men did shameful things with other men, and in their bodies they received the punishment for those wrongs. People did not think it was important to have a true knowledge of God so God left them and allowed them to have their own worthless thinking, and so they do what they should not do.." http://www.wbtc.com (Easy-to-Read Version)
"Marriage is not based on sexual orientation, but on the interest of the state."
I'll never tire of the spectacle of "conservatives" suddenly so concerned with "the interest of the state."
"The State" doesn't matter. "Society" doesn't matter. "Community," "The Collective," "The Group," "The Many" do not matter. The one matters. The self-fulfillment of the individual is supreme above all. All authority should be questioned at all times, and all traditions – yes, even marriage… ESPECIALLY marriage – should be assailed, reworked and tested constantly so as to determine whether they still have merit or use.
"Does not represent the thinking of Oakland"?
Isn't the majority of Oakland's residents black? Doesn't the majority of Black oppose same-sex marriages? It seems to me Lorenzo Hoopes is more in line with the thinking of Oakland residents than Ron Dellums.
Of course, did you expect anything different from the party of tolerance and compassion?
And this happens while that buffoon Segura (the Stanford political scientist -my, my!) is testifying in the Walker's court about the helplessness of the gay bunch –
I pity them, and I am sure Walker loudly wept when hearing this –
What a travesti the 9th Circuit has became -
That's terrible. I got the same while visiting San Francisco. We went to do a show with the Adam and Jamie from the Mythbusters (Will it Blend on YouTube). Once they found out we were from Utah, they just said "ahh, you sure did a job on Prop 8" and quit talking to us the rest of the evening.
But I wasn't spit on like you. What a bunch of babies.
I guess that would depend upon the number of beautiful people with star power involved.
The spectacle of "liberals" insisting that the State is an unmitigated good on the side of individual liberty is just about as funny.
Anyhow, actually, concern for and subjection of the individual to the community is one of the seven "conservative moralities". (Liberals have two.) Do you recall a couple years ago some study on different moralities was a big thing. I don't remember the details (I think there was a TED talk on it, and it can probably be googled). The gist (poorly remembered by me) was that liberals tended to value "fairness" and…. shoot, can't remember the other… and conservatives valued the two things that liberals did (and just as greatly, actually) and then five other "moralities" including cooperation with authority, justice, etc., Which is absolutely fascinating even if I can't remember it very well.
As libertarian as I tend to be, though, I still disagree that *self-fulfillment* of the individual is the only and highest good. That's ridiculous. I'm not concerned with the interest of the State, but I do see the value in order and in the support that a community provides. These things do matter and they matter a great deal. They may not trump the rights of the individual, but that's a different thing entirely than making the claim that they don't matter.
And really, is "I don't care what I break if I want it!" the pro-gay-marriage argument you mean to make?
That one element may trump the others, individual liberty over the supportive elements of adhering to cultural and social norms – for example, is an argument that can be made. But it can't be made by simply asserting that there is no value there. If you want to assail, rework, test and question… then you have to actually do that rather than simply assert that none of those things matter or have any value.
Or you could argue (and I think this is an almost shockingly easy argument to make) that the very real benefits to all of us from the stable and socially/culturally enforced creation of new family units *will apply to non-traditional families as well.* Perhaps, while we are revisiting the notion of marriage and its value and who ought to be sanctioned by the state (if we're going to have the state involved at all), we should revisit many of the recent changes made to laws about marriage and divorce and determine whether they still have merit or use.
When we ask if two men or two women should have access to the sanction of the State in this way, or even two couples who want that legal bond, we should also ask if the State is right to allow one spouse to bankrupt the other on a whim, or if there ought to be penalties to the person who breaks the contract and protections for the person who did *not* break the contract, the way there used to be. Maybe the changes we made to solve old problems failed to solve them and created untold new problems.
Maybe we should question that.
I can get behind most of that. I have a feeling we agree on a great many things, though I imagine I'm simply a more immediately conflict-oriented personality – I tend to see combat and/or chaos as the more evolutionarily-appropriate means in almost any given situation. Maybe I'm just impatient
Of course, I see the VALUE in order and civility – I just try to keep it in perspective. I see "order" as a thing that's nice to have, but also neither vital or of overstated import. From where I generally sit, "order" is like a big-screen TV: It's nice to have, I like it a lot, but I'm not going to give up my life in order to maintain it. At the end of the day, we never left the jungle – we just decorated it nicely.
"Order" is fine… until someone gets hurt. The moment that "order" is being maintained at the unjust expense of an innocent man's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness… then that order must be brought to an end.
There's a reason Oakland is a craphole. The people running it are one. The people that vote them in are the other.
There's gays in Oakland? Really?
I would hope the Mayor would speak out and say that his decision had nothing to do with proposition 8. I would also hope the Mayor called the man and explained his reasons and thanked him for 30 years of service. If not this is just another example of the hate and persecution by gays of straight people.
At 96, I ask you…could he get fromt he car to his seat?
Come on people, your your heads, not hind end!
Besides, the mayor has bigger problems to deal with…unemployment, and murder that occurrs daily.
Where are your priorities?
helpless? That is pathetic.
I go back to Agustus who believed the state needed to create laws to support and foster the unit that created, nurtured, supported and raised new Romans and cared for extended family. Those same views have been shared by western civilization for over 2000 years. It is that SIMPLE for me.
>>The self-fulfillment of the individual is supreme above all. All authority should be questioned at all times, and all traditions – yes, even marriage… ESPECIALLY marriage – should be assailed, reworked and tested constantly so as to determine whether they still have merit or use.
Hence why marriage has no value. We have assailed and tested it out of existence with "no-fault" divorce already. Society does not allow for "self-fulfilment of the individual.. someone's "rights" gets stepped on. The idea of the constitution is to find out actually who has the priority in the best interest of the state. You are only individualized in so far as you do not step on someone else.
What if someone's self-fulfillment involves the taking of someone else's property or murder? In many way the radical gay agenda and the religious will clash- see the beginnings in Massachusetts( and Canada and other societies who have started along these lines). One person's self-fulfillment is another's enfringement.
Ah but it has been decided by the Supreme Court & precedent…. see my below posts on Loving v. Virginia & Baker v. Nelson.
It has yet to be determined if "gay"is an inate quality .There is no genetic evidence .
"A lot of us don't think that he represents our thinking in Oakland," Brunner said.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/...
JANE BRUNNER RECEIVED NEVER ENDING SUPPORT FROM UHURU DURING HER LAST ELECTION AND SHE NEVER COMPLAINED A BIT. THIS WAS THE SAME GROUP THAT ALSO PRAISED THE COP KILLER LOVELL MIXON FOR EXECUTING 4 COPS. SHE IS UTTER TRASH.
Ron Dellums with his fist in the air… Who woulda thunk it! The pro-same sex marriage crowd knows that the large turn-out of black voters in the 2008 election is what helped to push Prop 8 to victory, as the majority of black folks are God-fearing people who believe that marriage is a sacred institution. These church-going folks voted for Obama, but also voted for Prop 8… as did Catholic folks… as did many other people of faith.
The pro same-sex crowd picks on members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because they are a group who they feel extremely comfortable castigating and worthy of their venomous, hate-filled invective.
They'd never use this tactic against black folks, because they know they would have to run for their lives if they did. So they pick on peace-loving, tolerant Mormons.
Not tolerating what he has decided is OP's intolerance? How's that work? Oh, that's right, the left can't commit sin or be hypocritical because they hold themselves to no standards. My God, what a **cked up bunch! In most cases, what the left calls intolerance is just adherence to standards, the methodolgy by which all excellence is achieved. They are driving me to be as irrational as they are–now I hate people I've never met.
With freedom of speech comes the consequences of exercising it. I don't see what's so difficult to comprehend about that. Forcing your religious dogma onto a state and undoing a Supreme Court ruling that granted the state's citizens a fundamental right will OBVIOUSLY have consequences – nothing the mayor is doing is illegal.
What would you think of someone in the 60s who did the same thing to ban interracial marriage? After all, the exact same thing did happen. You'd probably admire the mayor who did it, even. But, no, gays are sub-human and don't deserve basic rights, obviously.
Oh, that's a shame. I always liked Mythbusters. They didn't even bother to find out if you'd done anything to actively support Prop 8?
As for the Temple Sq. incident, Prop 8 passed on a Tuesday, and I was there that weekend, on the Friday or Saturday, so there was still a lot of anger over the whole thing. It probably wouldn't happen if I went downtown tonight, but it was pretty eye-opening.
Many people at 96 are more active and alert than people 1/3 their age.
Some has stated that Hoopes should not be on the public board because his private citizen opinion on a topic that has no bearing on the board's activities does not reflect the views of the Oakland. Using that same logic I call for the resignation of all public employees in California who do not support Prop 8 because the majority of California voted in favor of Prop 8, thus those who opposed it should lose their public jobs and be dismissed from membership on all public boards.
Ironically, even gay activists are beginning to admit homosexuality is not an innate genetic trait. Please read the following:
Homosexuality: it isn't natural by Peter Tatchell:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/arti...
And here is a related video report:
http://www.citizenlink.org/turnsignal/A000007949….
Yeah, it is the homosexual and bisexual activists not Mormons who are pushing for polygamy:
http://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/1808-triad...
Thus, redefining marriage one way will lead to new redefinitions in the future.
Heck, non-religious people are starting to fight hard against the pro-SSM onslaught.
For example, the Democrat regime in Washington DC has signed a bill to legalize same-sex "marriage" and blocked a people's vote on the issue. According to the city charter, DC residents like myself can use referendums to overturn or pass laws:
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/...
Why is are the Democrats so reluctant to let people vote on the definition of marriage? Because over half of DC's population is BLACK people, the same demo who strongly supported Prop. 8 passed:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/a...
The Democrat regime in DC fears a similar "pro-Prop 8" mindset exists among DC's Black voters: Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc.
So, because of true bigotry, the White homosexual snobs and their Black enablers in DC are willing to take away Black people's constitutional voting rights for the sake of "tolerance."
http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/on-marriage-y...
Note these are the SAME Democrats who accuse the "evil GOP" of wanting to steal the Black vote.
Talk about hypocrisy.
So, why do homosexuals want to join in a "failing" institution?
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of your position.
Having been on the left years ago, helps me to understand them. I had to do some growing up, which helped me along the way. Thank God.
As for the rest of the gang…I'm with you.
Most of Washington DC is Black and don't support same-sex "marriage." The only pro-SSM Blacks I've met were activists who attend City Council meetings.
In an act of true bigotry, the Democrat regime in Washington DC responded to this cultural climate by signing a bill to legalize same-sex "marriage" and then blocking a people's vote on the issue. Note that the city charter allows DC residents like myself to use referendums to overturn bad laws:
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/...
In short, White homosexual activist snobs and their Black politician enablers in DC are willing to take away Black people's constitutional voting rights for the sake of "tolerance."
http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/on-marriage-y...
Note these are the SAME Democrats who accuse the "evil GOP" of wanting to steal the Black vote.
So, it doesn't shock me that the Democrat political class in Oakland doesn't share their constituents opposition to SSM. Like Congressional Democrats, these guys are out-of-touch with the mainstream.
Read the following:
*Are White Homosexuals Protesting in Black Neighborhoods? By LaShawn Barber
http://www.bookerrising.net/2008/11/la-shawn-barb...
"is a deterioration of sympathy among those who are wavering, who might be convinced or persuaded but who don't like thugs"
Excellent comment.
Actually the more modern interpretation began as a Church issue. I'm sure it was something before then, maybe tribal elder, or shaman.
I'm not sure when the state co-opted the issue, probably around the time of the Reformation.
I hadn't understood just how many records the Church kept until myself, my wife and my sister started sorting through them while working on genealogy.
Birth records, baptism, communion, confirmation, marriage, children's births, divorce, and finally death.
This is going to sound corny, but I am serious. How many who support traditional marriage have shaken hands with a Mormon (and I don't mean the Harry Reid kind) as a thank you? That is the number one reason that gays can easily go against the LDS Church and Mormons; they know few will show support and they won't fight.
First off Mr. Hoopes should sue the City of Oakland and while that battle goes on we should build a wall around CA so these commies don't get into the real United States.
You're right. I have a few liberal friends who aren't repugnant anti-American idiots. I don't understand why they think they way they do, but I can respect them. Progressives, leftists, Commies and statists are another matter.
Adam,
You are aware that the average Black Democrat thinks the "civil rights = gay rights" argument is a myth like unicorns and leprechauns. Black Democrats' dislike from homosexual activist is REALLY going to increase after the stunt they pulled in Washington, DC.
For the uninformed, the Democrat regime in Washington DC has signed a bill to legalize same-sex "marriage" and blocked a people's vote on the issue. According to the city charter, DC residents like myself can use referendums to overturn bad laws:
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/...
Why are the Democrats so reluctant to let DC vote on the definition of marriage? Because over half of the city's population is Black people, the same demo who strongly supported Prop. 8:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/a...
The Democrat regime in DC fears a similar "pro-Prop 8" mindset exists among DC's Black voters: Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc.
So, because of true bigotry, the White homosexual snobs and their Black enablers in DC are willing to take away Black people's constitutional voting rights for the sake of "tolerance."
http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/on-marriage-y...
Note these are the SAME Democrats who accuse the "evil GOP" of wanting to steal the Black vote.
Such homosexual hypocrisy accounts for Black Democrats viewing SSM activists with scorn instead of sympathy.
To answer your question, I was saying that gay marriage ultimately does not matter, so social conservatives should stop trying to fight it — hence the "red herring" comment. It is something that ultimately does not matter.
Instead, they should focus on the ways "traditional" marriage is a bad deal for men. However, that would be far more difficult politically.
You know, a lot of people from a lot of different churches and other organizations have been really supportive of the LDS church in all this. Quite a few religious leaders spoke out in the press against the backlash the LDS church was suffering right after Prop 8, and a lot of individual members did so privately. Just so you're aware. =)
I bet a lot of us here are ex-leftists. We matured. ("Sold out" in leftyspeak!
)
Until gays are more tolerant of Christians, and less hystrionic about something they really only want because they don't currently have it, no one is really going to be sympathetic to them.
No rights are denied gays. Marriage is not a "right". Marriage is a priveledge. I cannot marry anyone I want to, just as you cannot.
Do try again though!
That's exactly how I feel about a curricula including "fisting" and other practices being introduced in public schools! That's exactly how I feel about a small minority forcing EVERYONE ELSE to accept THEIR definition of something which has been mostly unchanged for thousands of years and served humanity very well.
How is "religious dogma" any different from "ideological dogma"? (HINT: It's NOT different!)
And you SUPPORT hate as long as it's used against anyone who disagrees with YOUR interpretation of how the laws should read. You guys cry "hate" every chance you get, and practice it just as often.
That old guy just happens to represent the VAST MAJORITY!!!
Let's make sure we let out aging, "sick" terrorists ~ But harmless free thought is treated as a crime ~
or something by which you can lose your job? Yes, these "liberals" are soooooo, well…….., uh… liberal (?).
Don't they get it – we are not taking their s#_t anymore??
We need in Oakland what we just saw happen in Massachusetts. Kick Dellums out – friggin' radical .
Van Jones and his ilk are what has kept this guy in office – and NBPP "poll watchers", no doubt.
Let the man serve on the board. He only has a few years on earth. He is no threat to you whackbats.
What the h#ll are you teaching the kids??? And you wonder why Oakland is the sewer it is???
Vote this radical out of there, people. You will be gob-smacked at how much progress your city will make
without a Dem running it into the ground. Van Jones was a big shot there… we get the picture.
Oh, and if that seems too far off to accomplish, I hope this poor man SUES THE HELL OUT OF THE CITY,
AND ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A PART OF THE DECISION TO ABUSE THIS OLD MAN'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Get your horse tack!…
Not sure if this is the right place (I’m not really good with computers), but left you a trackback for your readers, if they ever need some information about horse tack….
puppy breeders The beauty of these blogging engines and CMS platforms is the deficiency of limitations and richness of touching that allows developers to apply wealthy noesis and ‘skin’ the in specified a way that with very less exertion one would ne…
The beauty of these blogging engines and CMS platforms is the deficiency of limitations and richness of touching that allows developers to apply wealthy noesis and ‘skin’ the in specified a way that with very less exertion one would never react what it…
invest liberty reserve I think this is one of the most vital info for me. And i’m glad reading your article. But wanna remark on some general things, The site style is great, the articles is really excellent : D. Good job, cheers…
I think this is one of the most vital info for me. And i’m glad reading your article. But wanna remark on some general things, The site style is great, the articles is really excellent : D. Good job, cheers…
You must be logged in to post a comment.