A couple of years ago, all the Hispanic kids walked out of school to demand equal rights for illegal immigrants, many of whom attended the school and had managed to keep their illegal status secret until their faces were featured on the evening news. Carrying Mexican flags, shouting in Spanish, and declaring their right to be treated equally with all other Americans, the concept was better than the execution because ... the illegal status of many of the protestors led to their deportation after they were arrested for the illegal marches.
This week, it's the "go without a gay for a day" boycott that is cranking up in a demographic where only 14% of the voters voted against gay marriage. The gay community is upset that the majority of Californians voted that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, so the gays are going to punish the local communities that supported their cause. The goal, of course, is that I want what I want, and I want it now!
I'm not sure how this protest logically makes sense, but the gay community is emotionally unreasonable about the issue and determined to nurture a continuous stream of demonstrations and protests until they get what they want: gay marriage. In the process, they run the risk of alienating the very demographic that supported their cause and losing the base of support that brought the issue to a close race during the recent election. Few people are favorably impressed by boycotts and strikes, which often have a different outcome than what is intended by the organizers, and voters have long memories.
Business owners who are teetering in tough economic times may not take well to the absence of employees, as well as consumers, during the critical holiday shopping season. Causing economic hardship to owners of local businesses by publishing lists of names of both businesses and individuals who contributed to the political cause and demanding all gays boycott them; harassing church members gathering for worship services; and pushing, shoving, and verbally attacking citizens who don't support the demonstrations in the street are tactics being employed locally by the gay community. What effect will these actions have on the electorate the gays need to support their cause in 2010?
Just as I was offended by the red-haired comedienne's comments that not voting for candidate Obama for President would demonstrate that racism is alive and well, I am offended by the gay community for assuming that there is sexual discrimination intended by those who want marriage to remain a union of a man and a woman. The people of the state of CA have voted, again, and the result is that we, the people do not favor gay marriage. Again. For whatever reason determines how the voter marks each ballot.
There has to be a better way to persuade voters to support the cause of gay marriage than "going without a gay for a day," an idea with a catchy slogan that may lead to a more resounding defeat the next time it comes to a vote, rather than the overwhelming support that the gay community is predicting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
What I find interesting is that CA voted overwhelmingly to allow gay marriage the first time, which prompted anti-gay marriage people to put legislation on this most recent ballot. I found the legislation to be incredibly hard to read/understand-- did voting No mean I was for or against gay marriage? What did voting Yes mean? In the end, I think those who voted overwhelming for it the first time were hoodwinked into voting the opposite way on this election.
Maybe the gay-rights groups should get a clue and follow the same tactic: put confusing legislation on the next referendum and trick the anti-gay rights voters into voting pro-gay rights!
Post a Comment