Say what you will about why we lost in Maine, you have to admit that lgbts have learned the lesson from the aftermath of Proposition 8.
After that vote last year, some lgbts allowed their anger to rule their minds, acted the fool, and created a few events that folks like Mike Huckabee, Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, and the rest replayed continuously as proof of "intolerant angry lgbts."
Well that didn't happen this time when NOM head Maggie Gallagher showed up at a DC rally protesting the marriage equality loss in Maine:
It appeared to bother some attendees of tonight's rally that Gallagher would appear at a pro-gay marriage event, yet the estimated crowd of 120 mostly left her alone as she observed the hour-long protest.
Gallagher said she had just been at a nearby building and it was by "great coincidence" that she was passing by. She stated that she was not attending the event as part of a professional capacity and did not wish to go on camera for an interview.
Just who is she trying to fool? My guess is that Gallagher went to that event looking to exploit anger as more ammunition for her tired narrative of "gays label people who want to protect the sanctity of marriage as bigots but it is the gays who are bigots."
No doubt she came to that event looking for new stuff to use in television interviews.
I'm willing to bet a paycheck that if someone tossed a paper cup in the trash which may have been next to where she was sitting, within minutes Gallagher would have been twittering about how she "had objects thrown at her."
The folks in D.C. should be commended for not prey to Gallagher's game.
They clearly show how it should be done - harness the anger against the wrongs done to us and not the folks behind it.
6 comments:
This turning the other cheek approach is absurd. Look how well it worked for jesus?
We will keep losing as long as we keep bringing a knife to a gun fight.
What finally got black people civil rights was when people like Malcolm X finally stood up and said enough was enough and fought back.
No one ever got civil rights by saying please.
Anonymous,
1. I suggest you pick up a copy of the Autobigraphy of Malcolm X and read it. You will then understand just how you have misinterpreted his words. He never advocated or implied ANYTHING that you said. True he didn't believe in nonviolence if someone is kicking your ass but he also advocated self-help and self-love. He advocated not waiting for a "fierce advocate" to give you your rights with the stroke of a pen. He advocated going out and working for your rights, taking care of yourselves and each other. He advocated speaking with intelligence and laying down meticulous groundwork; not spouting off revolutionary catchphrases.
2. I would also suggest you read book on just how complicated the African-American civil rights movement was. It took more than people going out in the streets and marching. It took planning, strategy and years of hard work.
It seems that you are trying to push out a rush strategy - "how to gain lgbt equality in 10 easy lessons."
Such is the problem of some vestiges of lgbt equality. Too many people want to yell, too many people want to shout. But where is everyone when it comes to doing laying down the framework? If many of us do this BEFORE votes happened in Maine and California, we wouldn't be in this state, would we?
Civil rights have only ever been won through the courts.....whether women, blacks, etc.
This idea that we should go state by state is an incredible waste of time and money.
You want a structure? We pour our money into court battles and we start negative advertising against our enemies, just like they advertise against us.
Defending your ass against it getting kicked IS self help and self love.
You criticize me for mentioning Malcolm X and then you go on to mentioning that he defended himself.
Sorry if defending yourself is "too revolutionary" for you but fights get messy.
Maybe you should just stand aside and let us fight the battle?
We'll let you know when it is safe to come out.
Now you contradict yourself. You imply violent revolution then you say that civil rights legislation has been decided by the courts. Which is it?
I basically criticized you because you spout off in ill-informed anger. Your words show that you have absolutely no conceptulization what Malcolm X or the 1950s/60s civil rights movement stood for or accomplished.
You are too indicative of so many who will spout off in anger because of lack of success of past strategies, which by the way I never even mentioned.
You got words, my friend, but nothing behind them. They are noting but empty firebrand rhetoric. If I do stand aside while you "do the fighting," it's only because I don't want to get in the way of your self-destruction.
Yeah, Anonymous, I'm going to have to side with BlackTsunami here. Do a bit of reading. (A huge part of Malcolm X's impact on the civil rights movement was also that the "radical" ML King's movement was downright appealing compared to the Black Muslims.)
What was she doing, trying to pull a Phyllis Burgess, sans styrofoam cross, so she could pretend the mean homos attacked her? What a tool she is.
Post a Comment