THE NEW BLACKLIST: Oakland Mayor to Theatre Board Member — ‘Do you now or have you ever supported traditional marriage?’
by Larry O'Connor“A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications.” – Tim Robbins, National Press Club, April 15, 2003
Nearly seven years after those over-the-top, melodramatic words at the National Press Club, many of us are still waiting to see the “ramifications” for opposing the Bush Administration. If you want to call winning Oscars, signing huge TV contracts (despite awful ratings), and selling millions of recordings “ramifications” then, baby, sign me up!
Mayor Ron Dellums
But, anyone with a semi-balanced view of the industry we work in will see that the vast, vast majority of repercussions for being on the “wrong side” of a political issue are reserved for those of us on the political right. And, unfortunately, it is not the rich and famous conservatives in the entertainment world who bear the brunt of it. It is the regular, everyday workers in the industry who are intimidated into keeping their political leanings a secret.
Stories like the downfall of Scott Eckern serve as a clear warning shot that if you speak out about an issue like keeping the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, you must fear for your job. That is the climate that we all know we work in and we reluctantly accept. Private companies and organizations have the right to pick and choose who they have working for them, we understand that. We don’t like it, but we ultimately understand it because … we are conservatives. We embrace liberty and freedom, for everyone.
But, when the government starts hiring and firing based on political position, it is our duty to demand justice. And that is the case now in Oakland, California.
As the San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday:
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.
I spoke earlier today with mayoral spokesman Rose and he maintained the same official statement from the Mayor. This re-assessment of Mr. Hoopes’ fitness to serve on the Paramount board is entirely a reaction to the objections expressed by “the community” and the Mayor has not made any decision yet.
Mr. Rose also said that many aspects of Mr. Hoopes past involvement on the board are being assessed, not just his support of traditional marriage, (although he was not forthcoming with any specifics). Mr. Rose acknowledged that the only objection from “the community” had to do with Mr. Hoopes’ support of traditional marriage, but he said it was “premature” to state whether this was a new litmus test for participation on the board of the Paramount, or if the mayor would be asking all of the other board members about their position on this issue.
The Mayor has said that he will make his final decision next week, and at that time Big Hollywood will have a follow-up interview, hopefully with the Mayor himself.
Mr. Rose did acknowledge that he was not aware if this sort of process has ever taken place for a nominee to the Board at the Paramount, and considering Mr. Hoopes has served on the board since the 1970s with no question of his effectiveness or passion for the theatre and the people who work at the theatre, the fact that the Mayor has taken this unprecedented step suggests that Mr. Hoopes will not be re-appointed.
Given that the President of the City Council of Oakland, Jane Brunner, was quoted in the Chronicle’s article saying: “A lot of us don’t think that he represents our thinking in Oakland…”
It begs some questions:
1: Does Ms. Brunner believe it is important that the Board Members of the Paramount represent the thinking of Oakland with regard to all political issues, most political issues, or just this one political issue?
2: Does she believe all current and future Board Members of the Paramount should be asked about their support of same-sex marriage as a litmus test for continued or future service to the theatre?
3: And, to the specific point of her quote above, considering 38% of Alameda County voters were in favor of Prop 8, is it Ms. Brunner’s position that 100% of the Board at the Paramount must be supporters of Prop. 8, or is there room on the board for representation of the 38% of voters who agree with the majority of Californians?
Those are exactly the questions I have sent to Ms. Brunner and I am eagerly awaiting her response.
Big Hollywood is watching this process unfold, and we will keep you informed as events transpire.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
126 Comments
Marriage is NOT a "RIGHT". Marriage is a PRIVILEDGE.
I cannot marry anyone I want to, just because I feel like it or because I love them. The same is applied to gays and lesbians. We are all equal in that regard.
Gays and lesbians are not being "denied rights".
They are a small minority of our population, being tolerated by the rest of us, and they should stop their hysterics and act like grown-ups.
BTW, conservative teachers often have to stay "closeted" for fear of being passed over for tenure.
How's that for "tolerance"?
Over here on our side of the Bay, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom recently came to his senses about the high felony rate among illegal immigrants in the sanctuary city. He is now openly opposed to the Board of Supervisors' recent ordinance forbidding the police to report "youthful offenders" who are here illegally to ICE until they have been convicted of a felony. Mere multiple arrests on multiple felony charges are not enough to satisfy the Supes. On the other hand, Newsom doesn't have a care in the world on gay marriage opponents, After denouncing the Supes on illegal immigration, he immediately followed up in his state of the city speech with a warning to anyone who would dare oppose gay marriage. No city contracts, no funding for any organization which has executives who oppose gay marriage. No jobs in city government for opponents or support for any entity which has expressed negative views on gay marriage or has members who gave money to the pro-Prop 8 movement. The mayor giveth, and the mayor taketh away, blessed be the name of the mayor.
I smell a big, fat lawsuit creeping over to Oakland. A big, fat DISCCRIMINATION lawsuit!
Mmm. Mmm. Mm!
Change you can believe in!
To paraphrase Henry Ford, you can have any view you like as long as it is ours.
This is religious persecution and violates Federal law as well as the First Amendment. I have no doubt that our fine "Law Enforcement" will promptly engage Mr. Dellums and convince him to cease his bigotry. Failing in that, I'm absolutely certain they will arrest him for this Civil Rights violation. Anyone disagree with that?
I would like to get the government out of the marriage business.
Let churches, temples, etc, decide who they bestow their sacriments upon and what standards they need to meet.
When my father got remarried, he wasn't allowed to do it in a Catholic church. He didn't sue them. He just went somewhere else.
I think the mayor would look better in black, with silver epilates and shiny billed hat, he could get some jack boots and a rainbow flash to wear around his neck, all he has to do is change the closed fist into an open hand and he's got it down pat.
Apparently Tim Robbins gave money to Michele Bachmann. For all the criticisms thrown at those two they should be commended for a neat and quiet divorce.
Did Mr. Robbins have an epiphany? The crushing reality that the people they propped up were nothing but who he despised?
The disturbing irony, that is now affecting conservative employees across the country, is that while it is a federally actionable crime for employers to discriminate against workers for their sexual preferences, it is perfectly LEGAL to discriminate against workers for their beliefs and speech about lifestyle choices. Yet another example of the undesirable consequences of awarding special rights to complaining groups.
So, it's perfectly ok to discuss your "life partner" at the lunch table–no matter who it offends and how uncomfortable it makes your workplace.
But, you will get fired if you talk about how this "discussion" is offensive to you or makes you uncomfortable.
Fair? You tell me. But, it's happening everyday and no one will do anything about it.
The mayor is punishing certain groups over their exercise of FREE SPEECH?
No, it can't be.
I would think the mayor of Oakland would be a lot more concerned about the murder rate of his city as it constantly rates as one of the highest in the nation.
To say this individual can't sit on the board because some in the gay community oppose him is absurd. When did we lose the right in this country to have a viewpoint – any viewpoint. There will never be 100% agreement between people much less people in the arts.
If the mayor proceeds, I will be happy to contribute to an immediate discrimination lawsuit as this simply said is what it is. I can not imagine if this situation was reversed how the press would be coming out of their shoes and screaming discrimination.
Clearly those of us in the Bay Area can simply stop funding the theater in Oakland by not buying tickets because clearly if one can't sit on the board for supporting Prop 8 then we as citizens who supported Prop 8 shouldn't have our money taken by this group.
If we withhold our financial support perhaps there will be a change of heart.
I have to tell you Tread, I've been reading your posts for some time now, but "tolerated" is not the adjective I'd use when describing my fellow American citizens. I'm hoping it's the heat of the moment.
Agree with people or not, approve or don't, but tolerate sounds like they'd better watch their step. And in that case, I'd have to be on their side.
Nobody is concerned over this older gentleman's free speech. Let him say what he wants.
However, he contributed 26 THOUSAND FREAKIN dollars just to prevent gay people from marrying.
Do each of you have that kind of money to screw over other people? I don't and I don't want such people representing us and making decisions in our government.
Money has ruined the political process in this country. When are people going to realize that they are being bought & sold by the rich, conservative media we have….
Larry, you've got it all wrong, and I guess you are as much of a bigot as Chip.
Sorry to see that….
This a stellar example of exactly why government should never, ever, under any circumstances have this kind of authority.
Even if you agree with a current office holder, that office will eventually be held by some one you don't agree with. The only way to keep things far is to keep government out of it.
If you really want to see a lib go nuts, just tell them that gays already have the right of marriage. Any gay man can marry a woman, any gay woman can marry a man.
Watch their heads explode!
And when you think that these clowns run around huffing and puffing about McCarthy's blacklisting – and now a tale of two cities:
Richard Raddon was forced out from his Los Angeles Film Festival director job by the Gay Rights crowd for having donated to the Prop 8 cause – and no one in the industry dared to say a word, busy as they were seeking oppression and injustice elsewhere –
And now Robert Redford, the one of Rendition crappy fame, has appointed as Sundance FF director John Cooper, a mighty Advocate poster boy – and yesteday's opening @ Sundance was… guess what… "Howll!
A crappy picture by some crappy open-minded dolts dedicated to a crappy writer and to an unusually cretin rant… Howl… Howll…
Even the ever-idiotic LA Times said, in a guarded language, about Howl that it's.. well… get a Roget's and look for a synonym for GARBAGE…
Nice that that citadel of liberal idiocy that Sundance is now has engaged full blast on Air America's trajectory -
Apropos de this kerk, Rod Dellums (Fresh from American Thinker)
"Another Big Democrat Tax Scofflaw/ by Thomas Lifson
The Mayor of Oakland, California, far-left former Congressman "Red" Ron Dellums, has been hit with a second IRS lien for unpaid taxes. Henry K. Lee of the San Francisco Chronicle writes:
Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums and his wife, who already have a lien on their property for failing to pay more than $239,000 in taxes to the Internal Revenue Service, are now facing a second lien for more than $13,000, records show.
Dellums, 73, and his wife, Cynthia, 55, who acts as his unpaid adviser, are named in an IRS lien filed with the Alameda County recorder's office Dec. 23 in the amount of $13,638.
Mayor and Mrs. Dellums own a house in Washington, DC assessed at 1.4 million dollars, but somehow can't or won't pay their taxes, which apparently only for suckers. [...]
more @:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/anoth...
I think you've got it backwards here Thomas.
It's not the Government trying to tell the Churches/Temples/ect. who they should and should not marry under God. It's the Churches/Temples/other groups trying to tell the Government who should be allowed to marry under the law.
There's a difference between a state marriage and a Church marriage, though the two go hand-in-hand for traditional marriages (when you get married in the Church it's both a religious marriage and a legal marriage). I don't think any state government would try to force Churches and Synagogues to marry homosexuals if they didn't want to (assuming homosexual marriage was already legal in that state).
I wish this whole gay marriage thing would just go away. I cant stand close minded bigots who get all preachy if two people they dont even know, will never know, and will never even meet face to face want to do something that makes midwestern rednecks feel a little icky. Then they use religion as the basis of their hatred. Then the hipocrates bash Islamic countries for doing the same thing. Live and let live people. If you dont like it, then dont go to the wedding.
Chip who?
My post does not mention religion.
My post is about a California State law, not the Mid-West.
My post does not, actually, express my opinion about same-sex marriage.
My post is about a mayor who is trying to keep a law-abiding citizen from continuing in his 30+ year seat on a non-profit theatre board because he made a legal contribution to a political campaign (a campaign that won the majority of votes in this state and 38% of the vote in his county).
If you equate my post and same sex marriage with sharia law and the barbaric practices contained there-in, then I think it says much more about you than it does about the "rednecks" you decry.
So a person who donates money to something you disagree with should lose his job? That's rich. Can I decide when you should lose yours?
You don't think the government would try to force Churches and Synagogues to marry homosexuals? Would you care to bet on that?
If what you say is true, badcrow, then try thinking of it from the perspective of the employers.
Discrimination has been a very real issue in the United States for over a century and a half. Only in the last fifty to forty years have African Americans and other minority groups been able to successfully lobby for constitutional guarantees on equal rights, and corresponding enforcement from governing bodies.
The by-product of this lobbying has been the construction of a legal machine which minority groups can access to fight back against discrimination (i.e., the ACLU and similar groups).
Back to the employers, they know that if a member of a minority group (a homosexual, for instance) decides to sue them for discrimination or wrongful termination, they are going to have a lot more traction in court than if, say, a 34-year-old white male Protestant put them in the same situation.
Still, you've got to remember that the reason we are in this type of climate, where employers have to fear litigation from minorities, is because minorities don't, indeed CANNOT, trust that they will be given a fair deal otherwise.
Why can't they? In the case of homosexuals, it's just like you said; a lot of people feel uncomfortable around homosexuals, and they tend to want to be vocal about those feelings.
Is it fair? No. It's not fair. It's not fair for either party.
Homosexuals have to live with the frustration that a lot of the people they meet won't understand them, and will even be disgusted by them, even though they (according to the research, anyway) didn't choose to be homosexuals and cannot change who they are. They have to deal with the fact that they will always be different, and with the fear that most people will be inclined, subconsciously or otherwise, to treat them worse than they would treat a heterosexual person.
As you said, employers and heterosexual co-workers will have to live with the fear of bringing the weight of the legal system down upon their heads if they do or say anything about or against a minority (homosexuals included) that could be even tangentially construed as discrimination.
So why isn't anyone doing anything about it? What would you have them do? What is the 'right' thing to do?
Yes, I would, because the U.S. Constitution specifically states that there will be separation of Church and State. Theoretically, the two should not be allowed to directly interfere in each others business.
Constitution aside, why would you think anyone in state government or the Federal Government would want to risk kicking a beehive the size of a mountain by trying to tell religious groups their business? As if this gay marriage debate wasn't bad enough already!
A few years ago my cousin married a Mormon girl. He had to become a Mormon in order to do so. Now, he was okay with it, but if he hadn't been, and decided to take the issue to court, my guess is he wouldn't have gotten very far (and he would have screwed up his relationship as well).
Kind of a weak example, I admit, but I think it demonstrates that religious groups already have some discretion about who they allow to marry into their groups and on what terms, and that the State pretty much leaves them alone in that regard.
I suppose a more pertinent question would be, has any branch of the United States Government ever done anything like that to religious groups in the past, and been successful? I don't know of any such scenarios, but maybe you know something I don't. I'll do some digging of my own too.
My neighbor is a teacher and I've been to a few get-togethers at her house. Let me say this- I could not be a teacher! I would have no friends, even if I kept my mouth shut, I would still be friend-less. I flat out can't fake it to those people for an entire day.
Hipocrate?
It is interesting to note the media's preoccupation with a shrill minority of a minority.
Most homosexua ls I speak to on a daily basis don't want to fight for what they see as a non-issue. They see heterosexual marriage as something they want to distance themselves from, not cozy up to.
To me, telling a homosexual that they can and should get married is similar to tellling a black man that he should eat watermelon and tap dance. It is merely an attempt to keep homosexuals angry and in the fold as 'voting' democrats and has nothing to do with rights, love and marriage.
"Yes, I would, because the U.S. Constitution specifically states that there will be separation of Church and State"
First the constitution makes no reference to the issue whatsover, the first ammendment in the Bill of Rights does the constitution does not.
Second the First ammendment does not state anything at all about seperating Church and State. It reads.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ….."
Now this actually should be interpreted that if I want to say the Lord's Prayer with friends in class I have the right to do so and when school officials working for the state deny me that right they are prohibiting free expression.
It is a later Supreme court decision around 1910-1930 I think that developed this seperation of church and state line and quite frankly I find it a bad interpretation.
As to Bellatrix point yes you are right they should not be prohibited however because of the charity tax laws liberals have taken to the court to force these churchs. Answer me this what right does the government have to tell eHarmony they have to cater to gay people even though it was not something they were prepared for. I think they very will sue and force the issue. It is what they are good at finding laws not written.
Exactly, EdSki. the politicization of all the things in life that an individual is unhappy about is tearing us a new ass. Not everything is rightfully a politcal issue. Where does that end? How is anything, related to homosexuality, government's business? The constitution was designed not to make us happy but rather to defend our right to pursue happiness. The willingness of people to invite the, historically, most psychotic power into their lives, ad infinitum, is just suicidal. The more the unhappy whiners ask government to interfere in their lives, the more they had better plan on government imposing itself on them. We must adhere to the "equal protection" provision because it is one of the more unintrusive peace-keeping aspects of the constitution. The constitution was designed to give us the freedom to do with our lives what we NEED to do not the license to engage in as libertinous behavior as we desire.
Must be talking about doctors-LOL hippocratic oath
Gotta agree with StageRight on this one; though I would also argue that Brad's post is more his general opinion on the gay marriage debate rather than an indictment of the OP.
I also agree with StageRight that Mr. Hoopes should not be denied his post just because of his feelings on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Still, I think that anyone who would drop that kind of money on this kind of issue… well… should take a look at his priorities in life. I mean, in the long run, what is really accomplished by ensuring that homosexuals are not allowed to marry? What does Mr. Hoopes stand to gain from it, or anyone else for that matter? Is it really worth that kind of investment?
Maybe that's what Mayor Dellums is concerned about/using to rationalize his position.
"Popular support aside, can we really trust the kind of person who is willing to spend that much money to make sure homosexuals are not allowed to marry to make fair, rational decisions on a public committee that, although not serving a vital function by any means, will have an affect on the community that I've sworn to serve to the best of my ability?"
And on the more self-centered side of things:
"Do I want to take a chance on brushing this issue aside, and risk looking like I condone bigotry? Because that's certainly what people will say, regardless of what Mr. Hoopes believes and what affect his beliefs would really have on his judgement."
I don't think what Mr. Hoopes is going through is fair. Still, I also don't think it's right to condemn Mayor Dellums outright when his job (i.e., his political image, because they're essentially connected) demands that he take this sort of thing seriously, regardless of his personal feelings.
Definition
tolerate verb (ACCEPT)
/ˈtɒl.ər.eɪt//ˈtɑː.lə.reɪt/ v [T]
to accept behaviour and beliefs which are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=83...
But that doesn't make any sense! Surely any two gay people who want to get married would both have each other's consent beforehand?
Or do you mean someone else's consent, and if so, then whose?
It is well known that there were more minority owned businesses in the 1950's than the 1970's and welfare and civil rights is the reason for it. Liberals love to puff their chests and strut like Peacocks about Jackie Robinson playing for the Dodgers but they ignore the fate of the Kansas City Monarchs and the Black Business men that ran the Negro Leagues. Why should Jackie leave the Monarchs to play for the white team. True integration would have been the Dodgers agreeing to play the Monarchs.
It is also accepted Micro economic theory that someone who discriminates ends up making themselves less competitive. In the 1900's there were plenty of attempts to keep Blacks out of apartments. Despite this with five years Blacks were a majority there. It is only government discrimination that we have to worry about becasue they can put gun to people's head. This is why all of these laws are counter productive they support racists and allow racism to prevail when in a free market it would not.
BTW the guy who owned the railroads in the time of Jim Crow was one of the most outspoken racists in the country.
Yet he opposed and lobbyed against the Jim Crow laws because he knew that if Black people wre forced to ride in seperate cars they would stop riding the train and he wouold lose business.
I'm all for equal rights, but gays have that already. Domestic partnerships give them all the same rights. Now leave our religious institution alone!!!!!
How much you want to bet you Oakland citizens have money taxed from you by the Mayor which is donated to this board.
>
As to Bellatrix point yes you are right they should not be prohibited however because of the charity tax laws liberals have taken to the court to force these churchs
They also pushed the Catholic church in Mass. out of adoption.
Excuse me but coming from someone in Massachusetts I know for a fact that government would go that far. They told Catholic adoption organizations that they must allow gay couples to adopt from them, instead of complying the agencies shut down. Now please tell me again that when a progressive government gets into the marriage business they won't tell churches who they can and cannot marry.
the government shouldn't be marrying anyone. it wasn't created to marry people. it's proper role is to enforce contracts.
Which makes Obama's actions regarding mortgages, share holders and debt holders of chrysler and gm so wrong. but thats for another post.
The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The modern concept is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
I am so sick and tired of the old sep of church and state argument there is no clause that tells us that churches can not have their opinions be heard.
I got news for you TanyJazz. Gay people cannot marry each other. Oh you can have a service, you can even force a government to make it legal but you can o more make it a marraige than you can make a tree a mammal.
MArraige is not about love. Yes its nice to have in a marraige but it is not required. Marraige is an institution set up so that a child would know their biological father and mother and be raised by them. This is beneficial especially in small tribes where if you did not have this arrangement you increased the possibility of incestual realationships because siblings did not know their fathers.
People who oppose Gay Marraige by and large have no problem with civil unions. So your recriminating shock is nonsense. The very reason we shouold make the distinction between marraige and a gay relationship is the fact that being "gay" is an illusion crafted by our culture. Gay people have fathered children the old fashioned way. And when that happens the right thing is tfor the parents to marry. Your version of Gay Marraige is actually the one that stifles freedom.
Wally,
You have it backwards. Marriage started in the church, synagogue etc.. It was highjacked by the state who wanted to help with inheritance rights etc. Marriage has been a opposite sex instition since it's inception, which surpasses at least 4,000 years. It is NOT the the religious who is trying to change things and put their spin on things. The religious are responding to an institution that was created by the religious(or God for those of us who believe). If it was just about legal rights then the gay lobby would have loved California. California's same sex partnership afforded them all the states rights that a married couple in California received. The union was just not called marriage.
>Still, I think that anyone who would drop that kind of money on this kind of issue… well… should take a look at his priorities in life. I mean, in the long run, what is really accomplished by ensuring that homosexuals are not allowed to marry? What does Mr. Hoopes stand to gain from it, or anyone else for that matter? Is it really worth that kind of investment?
That is your opinion, and really not anyone's business.
>However, he contributed 26 THOUSAND FREAKIN dollars just to prevent gay people from marrying.
And the gay mafia (GLSEN etc.) has spent millions trying to teach gay sex in the guise of diversity to our children. so what's your point. He has a valid political, religious and LEGAL argument. See Baker v. Nelson.
>Do each of you have that kind of money to screw over other people? I don't and I don't want such people representing us and making decisions in our government.
You mean like gay groups pushed the Catholic Church in Mass. out of adoption?
It is quoted so often that the uneducated actually think it is written somewhere in the Constitution.
So what you are really upset is the amount that this man sent to prop 8. How much would have made it acceptable? This man had an opinion and backed it with his own money, let me say this again HIS OWN MONEY.
You are acting like, because he doesn't think like you, he ought to be punished and has no right to be part of an organization that he obviously loves. The theater of Oakland will be worse off for losing him.
It's a destroy-the-reverence-for-the-family thing. If we all just agreed to accept our rightful (in the left's mind) role as state chattel (cattle?) they wouldn't push this crap so hard. I'm not stopping them from marrying, the "equal protection" clause won't let me. They want preference.
Live and let live huh. Yet it is the Gay lobby that is obviously not allowing that to happen here. Your insinuation that it is only "mid western red necks" that have a problem with gay marriage is laughable (or really sad) considering how many states now have marriage laws on the books. Also equating people that oppose gay marriage to sharia law is completely insulting and tells me that you need to get out of whatever echo chamber you are in and start talking to people from all walks of life.
The Bill of Rights IS part of the Constitution. They are constitutional amendments; changes/additions to the constitution that were approved by virtually all of the United States. In fact (if my knowledge of history serves me), the Bill of Rights was drafted specifically to quell fears about potential abuses of people's rights BEFORE the original constitution was even ratified. They both went into practice at virtually the same time.
I would assume that "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" would preclude any government bodies from forcing religious groups to allow homosexuals to marry within the confines of their religion, since that would require the enactment of a law designed to do so.
Your school officials telling you not to say the Lord's Prayer in class is wrong; at least as long as it's not disturbing anyone or disrupting the class, you should be allowed to do so.
Of course, it MIGHT be disturbing someone. An Islamic student or a Jewish student or an atheist student might be bothered by it; by you and your colleagues chanting to yourselves, parading your religious devotion out in front of the entire class like you're trying to send a message. The message that people might get from your display is, sadly, more dependent upon the beliefs of those watching you than on any intents you might have.
I went to High School, Middle School, and Elementary School too, and what you're talking about was never an issue. Not because we didn't have religious students, and not because they didn't pray, but because when they came to class, they were focused on the class, and any prayer they did was quietly, to themselves. I grew up Catholic, and I remember being taught that you were SUPPOSED to pray quietly, to yourself, preferably when nobody else is around.
Prayer is supposed to be something that is between you and God. Why would anyone want to drag their class into it by making a display of their faith? What does that accomplish?
I don't know which Supreme Court decision you're referring to in your post below, but I'll try to find it.
Thanks again for keeping us abreast of the hypocrisy!
While I agree with some part of your posts, I ask again how much money would have been acceptable? The Mayor here actually might be getting himself into an even bigger quandary by caving to this part of the community. By doing this he is setting himself up to have every organization in town know that if they make a big enough fuss they can get this guy to do their bidding, when that happens where does it all end.
As an African-American, I'm extremely offended that you would compare the suffering of my people with the current issue at hand. Your little strategy to hi-jack the civil rights movement to equate it to your "cause" is a horrible propaganda. We don't have a choice about our skin! And skin color has nothing to do with character. On the other hand, any "science" that gay groups use to claim genetic disposition has never been replicated (a requirement for the scientific method.) In fact, there are more recent , replicated studies that have debunked "genetics" than support it. So lifestyles are a matter of chioce, and there should be no legislation to denote special rights for peoples' choices. They are already protected adequately under the law. They should never have been given the same protections as "races" Imagine, if all the great civil rights pioneers knew that they endured the beatings, firehoses and lynchings so that a man dressed like Judy Garland can kiss another man in the workplace, they'd roll over in their graves.
Well, obviously it's my opinion. Who else's would it be?
"The community"…? Is that the political way of saying "Well, my friend said they hear it from this guy's sister"…?
Let's see the paperwork, Dellums.
If you look at marriages in ancient Greece, as an example, marriage was less a religious rite than it was a property arrangement. Good thing too, otherwise one could credibly argue that marriage was originally a Pagan institution and that all married Christians are blasphemers (and with insufferable smugness, no doubt).
Point is, you can't really say that marriage 'originated' from any one source, or that it was 'hijacked' by the government. You are right that the only reason that the Government got involved in marriage in the first place was because married people share property and children and you need to make arrangements for how said property and children are going to be handled under the law. There really isn't any way around it.
The 'Marriage' vs. 'Civil Union' thing is really more of an argument of equality. A 'Civil Union' is still different from a 'Marriage', even if just in name. Homosexuals don't want to be considered different. They want people to acknowledge homosexuality as normal.
I think they are justified in this respect; though if this struggle is ultimately worth all the time, effort, and money (like Mr. Hoopes' $26 grand, for instance) that's being put into it from both sides is a question we'll never have an answer to.
I'm going to look into this.
Still, from what you said, I think this specific issue is kind of in the gray area as to whether it should be subject to some government oversight.
Naturally, a religious organization should have its religious ideals inform how it operates, but it's also, effectively, making decisions about who should be allowed to adopt and raise children, which is where the Government must inevitably get involved.
It's kind of like the abortion issue, for lack of a comparison that won't risk opening a can of very ugly worms. Still, I don't think religious marriage rites are anywhere near as ambiguous.
Of course, I could be wrong… This kind of thing can get pretty crazy.
Its his money to do with what he wants Jacka** Its called freedom of speech. And based on your response, only conservatives are spending money to "screw other people" What planet do you live on moron? People like you should not be able to vote. Talk about a bigot. You loony lefties are all about tolerance as long as everyone agrees with you. Again, you sir are a JACKA**
I don't think it's really an issue of a specific quantity of money; $10 vs. $10,000. I think it's an issue of spending a large amount of money to support a stance on an issue that (as far as I can tell) doesn't really help anyone and doesn't accomplish anything constructive.
You have to wonder about what's motivating somebody to spend a large amount of money, that could have been spent on any number of things, to ensure that a certain, small group of people is not given a certain legal right.
Its called principles!
Just because you don't see the far-reaching consequences of homosexual marriage doesn't mean there won't be any. Mr. Hoopes believes, with good reason, that those consequences will come to our society, and he's doing what he can to help prevent them. You don't know how wealthy Mr. Hoopes is, and you don't know how much money $26K is to him. What about the Hollywood celebs who gave millions to the pro-gay marriage crowd? There were several. Why aren't you upset by that?
Your intellectual fence-straddling illustrates how much Progressive dry-rot has permeated the narrative to which you subscibe.
Marriage is not an arbitrary construct for which the courts or the governments can change the definitions at will. It is an institution which is rooted all cultures for millenia with many more similarities than differences. There are no cultures which have ever recognized same-sex marriages, even in societies which have been more open to homosexuality than our Judaeo-Christian culture.
There is far stronger logical and anectdotal evidence to support heterosexual polygamy than same-sex marriage; yet those who endorse the latter dismiss as ridiculous the argument that removing the bar to same-sex marriage will also remove it from polygamy. With Progressives, there is no such thing as reducio ad absurdum.
How Hoopes chooses to "drop that kind of money" is beside the point. The point is that those who claim to champion "tolerance" demonstrate that they are totally intolerant to opposing opinions.
Gay marriage is wrong. Why? Marriage, at its foundation, is about procreation and continuing the species. That requires two people of different genders. Two people of the same gender CANNOT do this. Therefore, it is unnatural.
Given that liberals go out of their way to support and promote Darwinism and evolution (which I, myself, believe) while mocking religion and its associated beliefs, one would think that they would see the obvious pitfall in supportiong such a dead-end position as gay marriage.
Can a man and a woman adopt and create a family that way? Sure. Gays will use this to support their contention that they, too, can create a family in like manner. But this misses the point. Families, by NATURE, are designed around a male and female. Natural propogation is preferred but adoption of a child by two people of different genders is an acceptable subsitute since the male-female model is still adhered to, as designed by nature.
Gays are unnatural. Any promotion of gay lifestyles is a promotion of something that goes against nature itself.
"They want people to acknowledge homosexuality as normal."
Exactly. I think that's a big part of the gay marriage debate on both sides.
There's no reason not to be polite. If you're uncomfortable, just zone out, or get really good at subtly changing the subject.
Well known to people who read Thomas Sowell, anyway. It sucks that often when the government tries to help, there are unintended consequences that counter the purpose of the help!
Freedom doesn't exist if you have to exercise it in private.
The State may not establish nor prohibit religious faith or expression.
The State may not require a TEST.
No closets. No inquiries. No requirements.
Nobody is concerned over this older gentleman's free speech. Let him say what he wants.
However, he contributed 26 THOUSAND FREAKIN dollars just to prevent gay people from marrying.
Do each of you have that kind of money to screw over other people? I don't and I don't want such people representing us and making decisions in our government.
Money has ruined the political process in this country. When are people going to realize that they are being bought & sold by the rich, conservative media we have….
Larry, you've got it all wrong, and I guess you are as much of a bigot as Chip.
Sorry to see that….
Marriage is falling apart around us and children are hurt, sometimes even destroyed by it. This is real. What does Prop 8 accomplish? Maybe supporters think that a strong statement that marriage really does matter will help people to take it more seriously. They could be wrong, but it's not an irrational thought to think.
And if it's *right* then it's worth it and more.
Isn't it?
Real people's lives are destroyed, children grow up in single parent homes because marriage is so devalued that it's not even entered into to start with, children grow up in poverty because divorced parents are no longer pooling resources but have to maintain two entire households with enough space for kids, extra bedrooms, beds, or they will be denied visitation.
If a strong statement that marriage is important does *anything* to hold back the tide… what would be worth that?
I think that it probably won't work, that it really doesn't matter what other people do… that's my opinion, but I could be wrong about that, too. I do think that we need to do something to turn the tide, not just hold it back but turn it, and doing so is *worth* a very great deal.
I think about pro-same-sex people sometimes that the reason they're so tolerant and willing to give this away is that they find no value in it whatsoever. How easy is that? To give someone a worthless thing?
>The 'Marriage' vs. 'Civil Union' thing is really more of an argument of equality. A 'Civil Union' is still different from a 'Marriage', even if just in name. Homosexuals don't want to be considered different. They want people to acknowledge homosexuality as normal
Ding ding ding ding. Give that man a prize. You said it. It isn't about rights. It is about what other people acknowledge ang feel. YOU CANNOT FORCE THAT. And you certainly cannot force that by redefining an institution that some of us still feel is sacred. It is not about rights or legalities- it is about emotions and opinions. The two shall never meet. Homosexuals are trying to FORCE religious people to change their beliefs…
Btw, I said religious I included Hebrews etc. I was not specific to Christians. I am sure you are aware that there were religious societies that pre-dated the Greeks. Even with the Greeks did not recognize same sex unions.
>Christians are blasphemers (and with insufferable smugness, no doubt).
And your true colors come out…
Obama's Safe Schools Czar..
A former schoolteacher who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse, expressed his contempt for religion and praised associats of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association)
Gay Films Shown in Public Schools…
Public School 'Gay' Day for Kindergartners…
Hollywood’s Push to Normalize Sex With Children…
Obama's Safe Schools Czar Linked to XXX Porn for 7th Graders…
Students as young as 12 given instruction in homosexual sex acts…
Hear the details of homosexual activists teaching public school children…
WARNING: THIS CONTAINS GROSS AND DISGUSTING DESCRIPTIONS.
Its all here…
http://usataxpayer.org/?0039156365
The Obama Deception – 12 Parts, Full Length
http://usataxpayer.org/?0071119896
Yes your opinion about another private citizen and how they spend their money. What may not be worth it to you doesn't matter. The man is donating to a legit. political, religious & legal cause.– and it is no one's business but his own.
Why can't you marry anyone you wanted to?
I mean, who could you NOT marry?
I'm assuming here that you would want to be in an opposite-sex marriage. Is there anyone of the opposite sex that you couldn't marry, no matter how much you wanted to?
Obviously, someone who is already married would be an example. Someone who is underage would be another.
So, who else couldn't you marry, and why wouldn't it be possible?
He hasn't "come to his senses"..he's considering running for Gov..
I think what she is refering to is consent.
Let Oakland's mayor, administration and the Oakland Chamber of Commerce know that you will NEVER go to Oakland again if they do a Stalin here, or if you do, you will NEVER spend a dime on gas, food or any other purchase in Oakland. If you go there, bring your own food, have your car gassed ahead of time and don't spend a dime. Just drive through. Say the same thing to SF. We NEVER go to the Bay Area anymore and are happier and richer for it.
"he contributed 26 THOUSAND FREAKIN dollars just to prevent gay people from marrying".. yes.. and it was his money and his business, not anyone elses.. stupid ass libs.. always gotta run everything.. gay ass-nazi's..
gaystapo at work again
obozo has the A team in play at terrorizing the real Americans
"I wish this whole gay marriage thing would just go away" I wiush all the gays would go away..
gaystapo strikes again
wait until the christians that follow the bible and the teaching about homosexuals and get locked up for it
thank you obozo
as it wont be long before, I can't say it…………………
FU OBOZO
oh look – another of the obozo hate America crowd
i quit sundance after some of the antiAmerican crap about 7 years ago
now that obozo is in charge, I am sure that sundance is overdosing on the America hatred
sundance is making obozo happy
amen brother
go away all you radical homosexual agenda types
the gaystapo principles are like the obozo principles – only those that they allow you or anyone else to have
thanks to the homosexual agenda, this is just another example of why the American way of life is gone………..gone………..gone
It will be entertaining to watch the homosexuals deal with the moooslims when they allow them a big role in the SF and oakland govt, just cuz it pisses off the real Americans
oh my, cant bring common sense into the argument – the homosexuals and the liberals have no basis to argue on that level
radical homosexual agenda goes right along with the obozo radicalization of America
Listen punk, they can call it civil unions or garrige (gaymarriage) or whatever, but it is not marrige! Marriage is between a man and a women. If gays want to have the benefits of being married(civil union) then so be it, I have absolutely no problem with that, but again it is not marriage. Why does this make me a bigot? Because I don't agree with you? And because I am a Christian and live in the midwest I am a redneck? How very tolerant of you! I would rather be a redneck than an a**hole like you. As I said to another left wing nut in an earlier post, you sir are a JACKA**
I like your instinct toward kindness Dave. I still can't commend two people who through their very bearing walked about cloaked in their own supposed superiority. "We are the experts on all things moral and right. Our lifestyle is so much more evolved than you little, backwards people". And then they crash and burn.
Maybe that's the reason for the quiet.
I can't marry someone who is already married.
I can't marry my daughters.
I can't marry if I'm already married.
I cant marry my cousin (at least in most states)
[...] NEW BLACKLIST: Oakland Mayor to Theatre Board Member — ‘Do you now or have you ever supported traditional marri… Good [...]
Hm. Something tells me you have more of a bigotry problem than any "midwestern rednecks" might have.
If you think that including same-sex relationships within the definition of marriage will not change cultural perceptions of marriage, think about this: "Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”
Still, Mr. Erbelding said, most married gay couples he knows are “for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.” From the New York Times. http://tinyurl.com/yd9e69a
The high rate of murders in Oakland is related to the large percentage of fatherless children there (from heterosexual relationships). Will a societal expectation for "casual three-ways" within marriage contribute to the stability of homes for Oakland's fatherless children? http://tinyurl.com/yddaodc
Will President Obama's message that fathers reluctant to marry should "man up" and take responsibility for their children resonate more clearly alongside a message that a father's role can be fulfilled by a second female parental figure, like maybe an aunt or grandma, with no disadvantage to the child?
Oh, well, maybe government programs can substitute for fatherly involvement. http://tinyurl.com/ykqpanl
Or, maybe not. http://tinyurl.com/ydz7z23
Same-sex domestic partnerships in California have all the (non-federal) legal rights of marriage in California. Seems to me that we are taking some terrible risks in order to confer the name "marriage" to these unions.
"I suppose a more pertinent question would be, has any branch of the United States Government ever done anything like that to religious groups in the past, and been successful?"
Catholic Church in Mass. and adoption to gay parents.
There were also several state and local level politicians in the news during the big gay-marriage amendment hoopla a few years back who said that it might be time to investigate various church's (mostly the Mormon and Catholic Churches) tax exempt status based on their stance on homosexual marriage, so the idea is already there.
Personally, I think the interpretation of the establishment clause goes too far. It's gotten to the point that you can't express an opinion if it's influenced in the slightest by your religion, or happens to coincide with a particular sect's, without some chucklenuts screaming "VIOLATION OF ESTABLISMENT CLAUSE ZOMG" and people taking it seriously.
"Tolerate" is what most Americans ARE doing. It becomes much more difficult when their beliefs and values are mocked, derided and ignored. It is very difficult to keep being happily tolerant when un-elected judges legislate from the bench because a small minority harangues and pesters until it gets its way, using cries of "HATE!" as it's entire argument.
People can really only take so much.
I'm speaking as someone with two particular people in mind; two gay ex-neighbors whom I adore. They are "married" 15 years, wonderful people, and I respect their committed relationship. To me, they are, in all regards, married. they have the same rights of property transfer that I do with my spouse. They have the same status to friends and family. They have domestic partner benefits for insurance. I respect them because they are decent people, and I don't throw my heterosexuality in their face. They don't throw their gayness in mine. Unfortunately, that can't be said for most gay activists.
Looks like Individualist and Photoman have answered the question.
Just because I love someone does not mean I can marry them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.