NEW BLACKLIST: S.F. Chronicle Columnist Says Tactics Against Traditional Marriage-Backer ‘Go Too Far’
by Big HollywoodChip Johnson in the San Francisco Chronicle:
I certainly understand the anger fomented by one individual’s generous contribution to the clearly mean-spirited campaign of Proposition 8. But, I’m not so sure I agree with the message being sent by gay and lesbian activists in the case of 96-year-old Lorenzo Hoopes.
96 year-old Lorenzo Hoopes
The civic-minded Oakland citizen – with more than 50 years’ experience in public service – is currently the target of gay-rights activists who say his $26,000 contribution in support of the 2008 ballot initiative that reversed the state’s same-sex marriage law makes him unfit to hold public office.
And to make their point, critics have launched a campaign to block his reappointment to the board of directors of the Paramount Theatre, a city-owned landmark in downtown Oakland.
On its face, the campaign to remove Hoopes from an inconsequential seat on an inconsequential public board appears to be as mean-spirited as the same-sex marriage ban itself. Hoopes, who is Mormon, wasn’t on anyone’s radar screen until after the ballot initiative won voter approval in November 2008.
Since then, his reappointment has become such a hot-button issue that Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums withdrew Hoopes’ nomination from the Oakland City Council’s agenda package this week.
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?
125 Comments
What a dangerous perp! Note the "come and get me, copper!" snarl… this man is obviously one of Oakland's Ten Most Wanted criminals… sarcasm\\off
NO group has so thoroughly destroyed the meaning of 'rights' than the gay movement. It is beyond bitter irony that a group that says it's persecuted for being different from straights is the same group that persecutes straights for being different from gays. If it was a sledgehammer to the forehead, the hypocrisy of the gay movement couldn't be more obvious.
Gays have become the enemy they set out to overcome. And I, for one, am sick of it.
So someone's belief that is the same as the majority of the electorate makes him unfit to hold public office.
Which means that the only people fit for public office are those in the minority?
And that minority conspires to deprive those in the majority of positions of public office.
I forgot . . . we're living in an upside down world.
Putting your money where your principles and beliefs are is not "mean-spirited": Persecuting somebody for their principles and beliefs is.
Good for the SF Chronicle; never thought I’d say that.
The push for gay marriage is a red herring. Gays have the freedom to engage in any relationship they want; they can enter into any contractual arrangement they wish. I have two dear friends who are gay and they have lived together for nearly 20 years. A marriage certificate would change nothing for them nor do they want one. If civil unions are unacceptable then the argument was never really about “rights” but rather redefining traditional marriage.
Attacking bedrocks of society is not going to garner sympathy or acceptance.
They're just following in the women's rights movement footsteps. It should be known as the "liberal women's right movement", no others need apply.
One issue has nothing to do with the other, and the last time I checked, you can still voice your opinion in this country freely. The Gay/Lesbian community probably think Mr. Hoopes will be an easy target (his age, the figurehead position he holds in the Paramount Theatre community ), but they miss the point. Mr. Hoopes didn't FORCE anybody to vote for Prop 8 – he just made the issue and its' consequences (as he saw them) more visible to voters. THEY pulled their voting handles freely – no one held a gun to their heads.
Y'know it would be easier for me to respect the G/L community if they'd just act act with a little integrity. Screaming and boohoo-ing over things that don't go their way make them look like jerks.
One of the biggest reasons to vote for Prop 8, even though I'm not actively against gay marriage, was to overturn legislation by judge. The idea that the ends justify the means is a slippery slope to tyranny. So, the new legislation got put to citizen vote and was struck down. I did vote for Prop 8, but not for any other reason than making a statement about how the law came about. That there was such an overwhelming gap in the yeas and nays should have taught activists to pull back to within the bounds of our constitution. Sadly, they're doubling down and making a lot of new enemies in the process.
The reason our country is in the shape it is now is because we keep accepting the minority opinion. How many of you think they care one second for yours?
All people that want rights and want people to respect their rights, ultimately and first, need to respect and
understand Everyone's Rights and not use "juvenile thuggery" towards fellow Americans just because they
have an opinion and might disagree with you.
it is truly breathtaking how the "tolerant of diversity" left becomes so intolerant when faced with a diverse opinion. is the tolerant gay and lesbian community going to go after every one they discover supported prop 8 or just those in their 90's or would that be discriminatory
This is exactly why the arguement was made against having cameras in the courtroom re: the challenge to prop 8 in the courts right now–the gay agenda ppl just becime unhinged and want revenge against anyone who stands against them. In the BIble it states that when Lot refused to surrender his guests to the homosexual rabble outside his front door who demanded to have sex with them, the rabble then tried to break Lots door down to get in. Same spirit of "I will not be denied and you will pay the price if you attempt to deny me" going on today.
On yesterday's article, i commented that the government should get out of the marriage biz and leave it to private institutions. (churches, temples etc)
A lefty commented that they don't want civil unions, they want the religious sacrament of marriage. Sorry Lefties, you can't use the strong arm of the government to force private institutions to bestow their religious sacraments upon you.
the example i gave was my father who was not allowed to remarry in a catholic church. He didn't meet their standards. so instead of suing, he went elsewhere. what a country.
So if being against Gay Marriage makes you unfit to hold public office, then what does that make Barack Obama?
I wonder if more and more reasonable, thoughtful people who have been in the "undecided to favorable-towards-gay-issues" are starting to reassess and maybe consider that homosexuality is a sign of a larger mental illness.
We live in the era of entitlement. Apparently far too many gays (among others!) were never denied their every wish by their mommies and now believe that this should continue into adulthood, at the expense of everyone else's rights. You'd have to be a big ole' meanie to say no to widdle Johnnie just because what he wants goes against your own moral beliefs. And to use legal, civilized methods to do so — why, it's just not fair!
"clearly mean-spirited campaign of Proposition 8"
Mean spirited? Clearly so? I thought this was perhaps satire, but reading the post, it seems you're serious?
There's nothing mean spirited about speaking out against one minority's campaign to destroy marriage as we know it. They wish to force their morality – by legal mandate – upon those of us who disagree with same-sex marriage. Again, there is nothing mean spirited against standing up against this onslaught.
Wow. What website did I come upon again? I'd better check the URL!
It's right to protect the minority opinion, but far too often today doing so comes at the cost of the majority's rights.
Well said, Carolyn.
Spot on! THESE PEOPLE – WHO RANT AND RAIL ABOUT TOLERANCE – HAVE GONE SO FAR AS TO POST THE NAMES, ADDRESSES, PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT, ETC. ON A MAP OF ALL THOSE WHO HAD THE GALL TO PUT THEIR MONEY BEHIND THEIR PRINCIPLES AND BELIEFS IN SUPPORT OF PROP. 8.
I have absolutely no sympathy for those who use said tactics. In fact, they ought to be prosecuted.
Well, for about 5 minutes they went after the black population who voted overwhelmingly against them. Soon they became afraid that they would be branded as racists (and get their asses whupped). So it was easier for them to go after an even smaller minority group who merely contributed to the campaign. The fact that it was a (non-Muslim) religious minority group made it more than acceptable. And here we are. Harrassing a 96 year old man. Sad. Is anyone looking out for his rights?
Indeed. This is not about equal rights or civil rights. It's about bullying and FORCING those who do not support or accept same-sex marriage to do so.
For a leftist, I can see how denying a Mormon public office because of his or her beliefs could be perfectly acceptable. After all, they backed Martha Coakley, a woman that publicly stated that Catholics shouldn't be doctors. Also, Methodists shouldn't be haberdashers. Jews shouldn't be night managers at IHOP. And agnostics shouldn't be roadies for Supertramp.
Are there any other reasonable declarations of arbitrary bigotry I left out?
"What does that make Barack Obama?" A liar. Everyone, especially the gay activists and leftists, knows he lied about his support for traditional marriage to get elected.
This Chip Johnson person is an idiot. There was no "gay marriage law" in CA. A judge said CA had to allow it and the governator went along with it (gotta wonder about those body builders). And calling Prop 8 "clearly mean spirited" is even more idiotic. The mean spirit is all on the pro gay marriage side of this issue. Yes, I called Chip an idiot……that' not namecalling, it's a fact.
The person who commented above about gay activists wanting their gay activities to be sanctioned by the church has it right. Gays will not be happy with "marriage" until every church is forced to honor their marriages, the bible is banned unless it edits out the parts about homosexuality being a sin, and the virtues of gayness are taught to every student from preschool through college.
I'm sorry, but homosexuality is destructive and wrong, disgusting and pathetic. We need to get back to the place where we tell it like it is.
He's unfit for a whole host of more compelling reasons.
Italians should never be allowed to reupholster furniture.
Basques make the worst veterinarians.
I was never actively against it either until… I realized it really wasn't about rights. It was about as Wally put it on another board " they want everyone to respect them and to think they are normal." You can't legislate feelings, and the way they are going about this is going after the Church which was made clear by what they did in Massachusetts. It was also made clear by the agenda of groups like GLSEN and our children. It isn't a live and let live attitude. They honestly think by redefining an institution that some think is sacred they can force people to change long held religious beliefs.
The attack on Mr. Hoopes is business as usual here in SF.
It is considered over-the-top by most fair minded Americans, but it is not close to what here in SF the Castro self-rightously believes is its right. I am not to get into specific incidents here, but if you don't agree to its perversions; S&M, communism, peophelia, drugs, et cetera, it punishes adults by trying to condition their children (as young as 2 or 3) to grow up loving those perversions.
- CONT'd Furthermore we still don't know what gay is? What if we redefine and restructure a whole building block of our society for something that ultimatly turns out to be a provable genetic defect or hormonal imbalance that is curable in childhood?
Look closer. This post is from an article written in the SF Chronicle.
Well said, but try arguing that with the activists and they'll call you a homophobic zealot.
The Left is only tolerant of people who agree with them.
.
Let's talk about mean spirited —
How about hundreds of cases of attacks, assaults and damage to property perpetrated by the GAY community against churches and individuals during the Prop 8 referendum?
How about GAYS posting donors addresses on the internet to be targeted by GAYS? — and they were.
Where's the outrage and protections by hate crimes laws?
Gays are no longer victims they're the VICTIMIZERS with "special rights"; along with ACORN and the SEIU.
.
Folks, the more violent and unhinged the Gaystapo behaves, the sooner the day that normal Americans absolutely and finally put their feet down on the insane nonsense…. just like we're beginning to see in other areas, thanks to the insane excesses of Obama/Pelosi/Reid.
As difficult as these times are, the masks are finally falling away from the Loony Left, and normal work-a-day Americans have become fed-up, disgusted, and tired of the insane infantile ranting and raving of the mentally ill known as "liberals."
Exactly—just ask Michele Bachman and Sarah Palin.
Just so all the fascist homos out there know, a whole bunch of us are keeping score. You will be held accountable. And you will not get what you want.
By all means, go do that.
Go tell every single STRAIGHT couple in America that also wants to marry but not in a Church that they no longer have that right – and that they "had to" lose it just to make absolute sure that the gays remained marginalized. Think they'll be happy about that? Furthermore, do you think straight people seeking to marry but against/unable to doing so religiously are more likely to blame the gays for this… or your "side"?
Rule #1 of trying to accomplish a political, friend: NEVER do anything that might antagonize/inconvenience nominally-secular middle-class people in their late-20s/early-30s – you'll lose. You go this route, the outcry will be deafening and you'll have legal gay marriage within five years (as opposed to the ten years it's going to take anyway.)
Good luck with that
Wow, you're right. The general back-and-forth of public political activism is EXACTLY the same as mob-enforced rape. How'd I miss it all this time?
All kidding aside, I do love the moment – in all such discussions – when the fate of Soddom and Gomorrah comes up. I love it because it's HONEST, stripped of all the namby-pamby veneers of civility and nicety, exposing the "traditional marriage" movement for what it really is: The projection of arcane superstition, and the defense of meaningless tradition and the price of individual freedom.
Show me a people governed by "morality" and I will show you a people living in secret misery.
"If the laws are to be so trampled upon, with impunity, and a minority
(a small one too) is to dictate to the majority, there is an end put,
at one stroke, to republican government."
— George Washington
Actually there is a silver lining to this:
1) those who managed to derail Hoopes re-appointment have showed that the rectal rights bunch are nothing but a collection of quarrelsome creeps who stop at nothing when it comes to press their agenda – good to remember this when dealing with them –
2) … and also, this action perfectly highlighted SCOTUS justified fears when it admonished Walker regarding the perils the prop 8 wittnesses face if he installed the TV cameras in that court – and so SCOTUS publicly expressed doubts about Walker's impartiality in this matter – hardly a good mark for a US District Court –
3)… and I don't remember reading about this in Los Angeles Times or New Times…
4) … and even so, it is quite likely that Walker's ruling will re-confirm Prop 8 – the next step for the rectal rights crowd will be SCOTUS, situation they heartily hate since they'll lose again…
Bye-bye …
I'm pretty joyful myself. You sure that you're not project your own misery (due to immorality) on others.
Your behavior is similar to how envious Blacks in dead end lives shout "Oreo" at Black men like myself who choose to succeed in life rather than play the victim.
There you go, there you go!
Of course, Muslim jihadists proclaim they'll take control of America in a few decades. So, gay "marriage" will be a moot point since homosexuals will be WAY back inside the closet to avoid being publicly executed under Sharia law. Look to Europe to see how a secular "utopia" can become a anti-homosexual nightmare when Muslims become the favored "protected class" of the Left:
Something’s Rotten in Rotterdam
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/somethings-rotten-in...
Fitna
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids...
This same-sex marriage thing and the insane Leftist rage that comes with it is one reason I concluded that homosexuality MUST be a disorder of some kind.
Gay activist need to understand this only creates and reinforces negative thoughts and feelings against them in the very people they are trying to get to understand and accept their point of view
Hang on folks! Let's face it, anyone, no matter their sexual preference, who gets a government license and has a government official perform a "ceremony" is "MARRIED". You have entered into a civil union to guarantee you rights that the government grants/upholds.
You are only "MARRIED" if you have a religious ceremony! We have a Bill of Rights to guarantee religious freedom, so that the government, nor anyone else can force a religion to do anything it doesn't want, nor recognize any marriage that falls outside it's religious teachings.
If there is a church that will recognize gay marriages, then power to them, and let them do it. But the government should stay out of it; on the other hand any same-sex, or opposite sex couple should have the governmental granted privilege of a civil union.
Stop the semantics!
Sorry, check that first sentence – should end "isn't married".
Ummm . . . they do have the right to marry outside the church. WTF are you talking about?
"Marriage" should be between two people and whatever religious or other institution they think can "bless" their union.
The only interest the state should have in two people living together as "man and wife" is how they combine or divide their taxable possessions and whether they ensure their children get an education.
Ummm… the French shouldn't be allowed to surrender?
People are getting blacklisted based on their political preferences every day… I, myself, was banned from a popular author's Facebook page (her name is Suzanne Brockmann, if anyone would like to join me in my boycott) simply for supporting Scott Brown for MA state senate. Why was I banned? Because Scott Brown personally doesn't believe in gay marriage — despite the fact that it is legal in MA and Brown himself says "the law is settled on that matter, it's time to move on." But she called me out in public as a "homophobe" and banned me faster than you can say "Up Your Alley." Let's face it, folks… in a “democracy based on individual religious and political freedoms, seeking to exclude – or completely ban – others for not sharing your politics is” NO LONGER WRONG. At least, in the eyes of the Left.
Oh, and “gaystapo”? I love it – gonna have to steal that one!
I think that most of us can take a name calling or two, but refuse to change our principles & beliefs.
I believe in God….but I'm not attacking or trying to pass "Hate Crimes" laws to throw people in jail who don't agree with me.
I think a lot of people are missing the larger issue here. Before I continue, understand I've have several gay & lesbian friends over the last 30 years. Their personal life was none of my business…. they were all great friends and good people. It wasn't until recent years that this has gotten outrageous (maybe because some in Hollywood came out of the closet, I don't know). They were granted the right to "civil unions" that protected them legally and gave them the rights they claimed they were denied. In my opinion, one reason people are against legalizing same sex marriage, is that it is a slippery slope. What's next? Men want to have 14 wives; marriage would be OK for a 30 or 50 year old with a 13 year old girl? It's the slippery slope that is the problem, not a prejudice against the homosexual community. Let's stick with principles that have worked for years.
This is exactly why I will never give up support of the grand way I was raised and that is in a family with one male father, one woman mother and the best sister in the world. You can have a Civil Union and you can have a Private Contract but you can NEVER call your partnerships "Marriage."
In the final judgement the only score that counts is the one when you are called to judgement.
you go girl.
I was willing to have a "live and let live" attitude. You don't force your lifestyle on me and I won't force my lifestyle on you. After they got "civil unions", it didn't stop. I don't think a "legal contract" should qualify you to adopt children. Oh, but I guess that's where Kevin Jennings is going to make "everything the norm" and indoctrinate children so they won't understand the difference. Hopefully parents are waking up. If you disagree, they claim hate speech. If a crime is committed against a GLBT, it is considered a HATE crime. Please…. murder is murder (or any crime) and should have the same penalties regardless of the motive.
Put this gentlemans name back in the running.
When the gist of the story here caught my eye, I thought for a moment I would wind up agreeing with the author (which is rare for me on this site). After all, like the author, I also understand the anger against the mean spirited Proposition 8. I'm angry at it too.
The blog author here would be smarter to look for the possibility of more worrisome noises to emanate from the very hostile anti-Prop 8 camps. E.g. anything having to do with actual physical violence.
Until anything like that happens (if it ever happens) toe the line on this "Blacklist" angle. We're all adults here. We can hear the complaints about this board member from the drama queen camp. Ron Dellums should sweat some bullets about p.o.ing the gays – they represent a pretty large voting block in the Bay Area. Why should they tolerate a public figure like Hoopes? Its true that public humiliation sucks. But we live in a free society with a lot of groups that are diametrically opposed in their most passionate views. "If you can't stand the heat…"
Maybe the guy shouldn't have taken such a bold public stand for Prop 8 in a very gay community. Gee, do ya think?
"Maybe the guy shouldn't have taken such a bold public stand for Prop 8 in a very gay community. Gee, do ya think?" — CgntvDssdnt
It shouldn't take a lot of guts for a 96-year-old man to stand up for what he believes in, not in America anyway, especially when he reflects the prevailing non-deviant view; but the the temper-tantrum-throwing apostles of arrested development have shown that it does after all.
Mr. Hoopes on the other hand shown he has the right stuff all the way down the line. Mr. Hoopes has "pledged his fortune" ($26,000) and made a personal public sacrifice. He has prevailed in law and in the hearts and minds of good people everywhere. His "bold public stand for prop 8 in a very 'gay' community" has only shown him to be a lion among the puss*ies, a bunch of cowardly little pukes who will stop at nothing to exact their revenge upon a 96-year-old man. It doesn't get more petty than that. Every lesbian in the bay area is feeling a little more manly tonight for having toppled a near-centenarian, and every disease-ridden "gay" is reveling in this demonstration that hell hath no fury like a puff ball scorned.
Which is one reason we no longer live there.
I've been called racist a whole lot in the last year, so I think being called a homophobic zealot won't bother me either.
Is "morality" anything like morality?
It's kind of nice to have a bit of variety in the insults now and then, isn't it?
Well, if nothing else, this case can just be added to the long, long list of reasons why the government –the government!– has absolutely no business being involved in the "arts." Sheer and utter lunacy that a mayor gets to withdraw anyones nomination to any theater board anywhere. Madness. Utter madness.
For Pete sake the guy is 96 years old. I cannot believe the depths that leftist will stoop to. They have no honor what so ever in my opinion. What I find really funny is their stance on being so open minded and their willingness to allow other opinions as long as those opinions mirror their own. What hypocrites!
Yeah, the response in almost every case by the homosexual crowd is juvenile, antagonistic and vindictive. Again, I can't help but wonder if homosexuality is an outgrowth of deeper mental an emotional problems that are indicative of a lack of emotional maturity, such as the ability to delay gratification and to be able to empathize with those you may disagree with.
Yeah, that darn integrity of thought and action must be abolished. Make sure you understand the prevailing thinking in your area and do not deviate or there will be repercussions.
Now, let's move onto those women who dress provocatively and know that they're just asking for it…..
Well said Carolyn. Thank you.
"The general back-and-forth of public political activism is EXACTLY the same as mob-enforced rape. How'd I miss it all this time?
"
That's "gay" mob enforced rape. And "meaningless tradition" is exactly what the homosexual miscreants hope to reduce marriage to through the mockery of "gay" marriage. Putting the "gay" into marriage is like putting monkeys into suits. The incongruity of it all makes no sense except as a sight gag.
Right on, DTOM.
My thoughts exactly.
" Putting the "gay" into marriage is like putting monkeys into suits. The incongruity of it all makes no sense except as a sight gag."
If you're looking for a negative comparison, you should really try to find something else. Monkeys in suits are AWESOME
While i support the concept of gay marriage. I have always felt that the gay community has a duty to educate people to seeing their point of view. And that they must accept the views of the majority till they can turn that majority to their pov. It is a long road and trying to take shortcuts will do nothing to make it happen any faster.
Pity they cannot understand that or accept it.
Perhaps we've misunderstood one-another. If you think I'm advocating forcing religious institutions to perform gay marriages, then either you are mistaken or I've failed to make myself clear. It's my conviction that religions – so long as their practices "harm" no unwilling person – should be wholly seperate from the State and vice-versa. If a church doesn't want to marry a couple for any reason, they shoud not be made to. That would be wrong.
You said "let's take that power away" in regards to the State's power of marriage, which I take to mean the ability of the State to marry people and/or issue a marriage license. Thusly, if you took that "power" away straight couples who wished to marry but not religiously would be denied that option as well, would they not?
(continued)
(continued)
My logic comes down thusly: Under current U.S. law, agents of the State – in this case a justice of the peace, a naval captain (or is that no longer the case?) etc – are empowered to render a couple "legally married' without any specific religious conotation. ALSO under current U.S. law, the State makes no legal differentiation between a "straight" couple and a same-sex couple (i.e. homosexuality is not illegal in and of itself any longer.) Therefore, I see no legitimate reason that the State can deny a legal proceeding afforded to one couple to another when in all other respects they are legally equal.
People are "denied public office because of their beliefs" all the time…. it's called POLITICS.
Plenty of people here think that President Obama ought not have been elected (read: denied public office) because of his "socialist" beliefs. I voted against Bush because I wanted to deny him office because of HIS various beliefs.
Free speech does not mean consequence-free speech. The Dixie Chicks had to accept that when they openly made a political statement that some country fans were going to stop buying their albums, speak against them or boycott stations that played them. If I say something controversial or divisive on my show, I have to accept that some people may decide to stop watching, or complain to my employer, or otherwise try to impact my ability to continue doing the show. This is the trade-off of living in a free society.
Likewise, this fellow made an open, non-anonymous donation to a political cause – which in the U.S. is recognized as a form of political speech. Thusly, it comes with the potential consequence of people knowing he did so and possibly responding to it.
"the sooner the day that normal Americans"
The precise moment in time that "conservativism" lost me – and millions like me – was when it became the party of "normal" people. "Normal" people have by and large been nothing but awful to me my entire life, and beyond that the idealization of the "average man" or 'the common man" over the exceptional is the persistent and ultimate flaw in all of modern society.
If equality for homosexuals is a blow against "normality," then it is most-assuredly a good thing indeed.
The biggest collective sigh of relief ever heard in Washington, D.C. will be heard the day a gay marriage case gets to the Supreme Court and the gavel comes down in favor of it. The spineless Democrats will finally be able to stop lying about being against it, and the spineless Republicans (the majority of whom in elected office – don't kid yourselves – either 'dont really care' or are for it) will be able to give a "hey, what can we do but if your mad please keep giving us money" shrug to the religious right.
"Make sure you understand the prevailing thinking in your area and do not deviate or there will be repercussions."
That is right. That is life. Especially in Public Office. Its called Democracy.
Let me be clear: Hoopes has ever right to take the stand that he took. He just has to face reality as he does this!
"prevailing non-deviant view"
OF WHOM?
NOT IN OAKLAND! Mr. Hoopes is pitching a fight in the back yard of the gay community. IF he wants to preach to the choir as you say, then he should do it from some place more mainstream.
Isn't it interesting that the major voting block that caused the prop to fail is Black/Latino voters due to their religious upbringing no doubt but we can't upset them as we need them to keep the dems in power!
Heard about the gerbils in butts. Didn't know the monkeys in suits had the same effect on you gays.
No better a place to fight the battle than from the belly of the beast. Take it to them Hooper Man. The choir can see from here that the man has more guts than all the gays in hell. And that's a lot of homos, boy.
Hey- you know, all that is fine! JUST DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THE COMPLAINING!
(Its all apart of democracy!)
I mean seriously, if the roles were reversed… and some old gay dude was on the board of a public works project in, like, Kansas… and he donated to some big gay initiative… well I would imagine that people in the local community there would be stinking mad and vocal. And you are going to tell me that they shouldn't be mad?! And shouldn't be allowed to express that anger?! yeah right!
That's the only dream you've got left, eh. Leave it to the homos to try it by hook or by crook. If they don't have the votes – and they don't, not even in California or Maine – then by any means necessary to subvert and pervert. You will never win the hearts and the minds of the people so your only hope left is anti-democratic administrative and judicial dictatorship. And if that doesn't work, bully an old man to scare the rest of us. No wonder so many gays were Nazis and Nazis were gays. Plus all that shiny leather and oh those riding crops. It's a natural fit, which is the only thing natural about homos.
Good post, Carolyn. Breeder! I had a couple lesbians call me that. Needless to say, I was underwhelmed by their tolerance.
The only ones making a show of anything are the "gays." They had to seek this man out and hunt him down, just as they try to do with everyone else they find on the donor lists, when they're not busy terrorizing Mormon congregations or burning down Alaskan churches. This man has no record of anti-homosexual demonstrations — much less persecutions — in his 50 years of public service, but he obviously has strong beliefs about the sanctity — and sanity — of marriage, so he gave $26,000 to the Prop 8 cause. One might presume he even voted for it. Now, the deviants can get as flapping mad as they want. In fact, I prefer them that way, showing to those who don't know them just what the stuff is they're made of. How dare anyone oppose the "gay" agenda in its own backyard! Well, Oakland happens to be Mr. Hoopes backyard, too, and it's been his backyard longer than it's been any living sexual psychopath's. And when you antagonize a decent, upstanding community leader long enough with your strutting perversions, he might just put up $26,000 to stop you from perverting marriage, too. The more the twits bully people, and the more you show what anti-democratic fascists you really are, the more likely you are to get it shoved right back up your own backyard, where it belongs.
And the "gays" have to face reality as we resent them for it. And then not be surprised when they lose every vote this "gay" marriage farce is put to.
LOL! At 96 years old, I doubt he's very worried about getting reappointed! What a bunch of trolls…they must not have day jobs!
It only took ONE woman to change the school view on religion…NO MORE PRAYER in school, even if you wanted it ! ONE PERSON!!
Yes indeed, this is why I don't go into SF anymore: they keep pushing communism and peophelia on me.
Paul, I need your help. What if fascist homo's move into my neighborhood? How can I tell for sure?!!
You are so right that they are sick. They actually believe in science. Not to mention the egalitarian thing.
That slippery slope is covered with gross….mucus? Soon we will be forced to marry those little green turtles at the pet store, and all their nasty germs as well.
Careful how you use the word "bully" Farmer Bob!
There is absolutely NOTHING un-Democratic about the gays calling for this guy to be forced out. THAT is politics. That's how it works. If his political image was so precious to him, he shouldn't have stepped out on a limb.
Like you said, the gays have every right to be mad at him.
I'm sure they will take it in stride.
umm… john… so-called "hate crime" laws regarding religion have been on the books for ages. it wasn't until sexual orientation was added to the list of affected groups that some people went into a tizzy about 'thought crimes' and such.
oh good grief .. so a few people have objected to someone being appointed to a do-nothing board. this is somehow proof that all gay folks who seek equal protection under the law are as 'mean-spirited' as the initiative that stripped them of their civil rights ?? isn't this just a weeeeeeee bit of a stretch ?
umm.. maxine…we do NOT have 'civil unions' for same-sex couples in california. we have 'domestic partners' which is something quite different and is available to others as well. while the legislature has included some protections for couples in 'domestic partnerships', they pale in comparison to being able to claim your loved one as your 'spouse' and all the privileges and responsibilities that come with that designation.
as for your rather tired 'slippery slope' argument, we have over five years of experience with equal marriage rights in massachusetts and none of the horrors predicted about 'slippery slopes' have come to pass. all we have there are happy gay couples and happy straight couples and life has gone on.
You must be logged in to post a comment.