Orcinus: there may be a violent right-wing backlash if Prop 8 is overturned

Tired of This Meme

"3. The fact that the deed was done by a bunch of California liberal activist judges"
This is a standard line that is not true.  The California judges are more right than center, and this line is false.

Pam,
J'aime ma Peau

---

by: Blonde Pam @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 14:24:53 PM CDT

The judges may be more right than center.

But through their decision about marriage they are now considered liberal activist judges. And they are, of course, considerably more left than the white racist and sexist right wingers.

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 14:38:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If it does, they're in for a NASTY surprise...

A lot of gay men I know aren't the stereotypical "sissy". If these assholes try to lash out at gay men, they very well could get their heads caved in. And if I were in that position, I sure wouldn't want to mess with a lot of gay women, either. Also, this would defuse the whole "they didn't get their way, so they're throwing a tantrum" line. And we'd use that against THEM, just like they tried to use it against us.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 14:39:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But what about the part 'better armed' and 'go down in fighting'?

---

by: Chris From Old Europe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 14:43:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually....

They're bullies. They talk a good game, but when someone challenges them, they run. This won't be any different. Sure, they're talking about 'going down fighting'-that doesn't mean they will. Look at Hitler, for example-HE talked about going down fighting, but other Germans either surrendered to the Russians or ran like hell for the American side of Germany.
I'm not saying it COULDN'T happen-these people are crazy enough to try it-but I'm saying they might not get as far as they think they will-we're tougher than they think.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 14:48:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What'll likely happen

Well, I'll tell you what'll happen up here in Washington if that occurs to me.

Me: opens door and steps partly out of the car on a grocery store run as pickup truck pulls up
Bashers: Are you one of them queers with that "I support marriage equality" bumper stickers on your car?
Me: Steps out of car completely and closes door, openly carried pistol on right hip now completely exposed and visible Yep, got a problem with that?
Bashers: Holy @#%^ that queer has a gun! drives off fast

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 15:48:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A similar scenario here in Alabama...

...but just HAVING a gun wouldn't stop them idjits... I'd have the opportunity luck necessity to shoot 'em.

---

by: GraciesDaddy @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:43:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

True, the California judges are conservative

but they are the type of conservatives (rather libertarian) that don't seem to exist anymore. At least they are not recognized as such by the right wing bigots that don't even know their own history.

Remember, that conservative history begins with Ronald Reagan as far as they are concerned.

---

by: kevinchi @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 14:42:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a matter of simple definition

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:17:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oops--hit send key too soon.

As I was going to say:  ANY judge who makes a decision the right-wing doesn't like is, by definition, a liberal activist judge.  If Antonin Scalia himself were to concur in a decision saying that gay people have a right to buy flowers for their mothers, then HE would suddenly be labeled an activist liberal judge.  Analysis beyond that would be quite pointless.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:21:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

exactly right

Judges are only "activist judges" when they make decisions we don't agree with -- though I've never heard a liberal use that term.  Bush v Gore was as "activist" as any decsion could be, and I never heard a word of complaint about it from the "activist judge" crowd.

---

by: suigenerousla @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 17:57:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Other Way Around

I seriously don't think Prop 8 will be overturned, and I think there'll be riots in CA. I won't condemn it either.

---

by: GrrrlRomeo @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 14:48:09 PM CDT

I do too....

I think they'll uphold both Prop 8 and the marriages that have already been performed. And I won't condemn riots either.The middle needs to have the shit scared out of them. It's sad, but true. I'd like to think that there won't be riots-just a concerted effort to win at the ballot box. BUT-there's a LOT of pissed off people here, and all the calls for 'peaceful demonstrations' won't work.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 14:51:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thirded

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 15:06:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Riots only...

if they invalidate the marriages.  That would be the ultimate smackdown by the majority over the minority, and I think it's a lot more possible they'll rule this way than people seem to think.  Frankly, I can't see how they could uphold both prop 8 and the marriages with a straight face...it'd be a rather ridiculous solution.

---

by: Bruno @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 15:14:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, obviously they're just as concerned about riots as we are....

Although Newsom denied it, they're saying he asked the CA Supremes to wait until after the aniversary of the White Night riots to issue said decision. He knows something we don't.
I don't think it's going to matter if they invalidate the marriages or not-if Prop 8 is upheld, I suspect there will be some rioting.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 15:51:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They have to prepare

for a riot or a celebration, because they know 100% one of the two is going to happen.

If it's true that Newsom asked the Supremes to delay the ruling, it's telling that they did, but I doubt they ever explicitly told Newsom how they're going to rule.

---

by: Bruno @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:03:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Er...

I shouldn't say necessarily a riot, but some sort of rally, gathering, riot, etc.

---

by: Bruno @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:03:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't think they did...

I personally think Newsom did that (if he did)to prepare for any contingency in case that ruling didn't go our way. I'm also sure they've prepared for ANY eventuality. It's good common sense on Newsom's part to do that. And after the reaction TO Prop 8's passage, I can understand why they're preparing for anything. People out there are pissed off-and anything can happen when that occurs.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:14:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly. Here in SF, we like to take to the streets.

Castro area was barricaded off last year for a big party the evening after "In Re: Marriage Cases" was released.

---

by: chiefscribe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 18:34:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wrong

If Gavin new something that we don't it would be illegal.  SF is one of the plaintiffs in the case.  If he did call the Supremes it was probably just to remind them that last thursday was the 30th anniversary of the white night riots. If the court decided not to hand down their opinion, then it was their decision and that to me is telling. Regardless if Thursday was the 30th anniversary of the white night riots, then that is not going to stop this tuesday from becoming the H8 Night riots.  If rioting is what is going to happen.

---

by: Deelishn07 @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 18:39:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I do; it's political.

The right has threatened a recall attempt (which they WILL do, I'm sure) and the judges don't want it.  If they uphold it it'll be on a technicality.  What will also happen is that whichever way they rule, it'll go to the ballots yet again in either '10 or '12.  ultimately nothing's going to be set in stone unless or until SCOTUS steps in.  

---

by: belledame222 @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:28:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pretty sure that if they overturn 8, it won't make another ballot.

If it's an illegal revision and a violation of separation of powers, then any similar initiative could be successfully challenged as unconstitutional before it got to the ballot.  

With a victory tomorrow, Prop 8 and its ilk will be dead forever in California.  

---

by: chiefscribe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 17:28:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think they'll uphold the "right" of people in CA to vote in referenda, and make a narrow decision.

I think that they'll uphold Proposition 8 but also uphold the marriages that took place before Prop 8 was passed.

They'll say that the decision is purely about the right of CA citizens to have a referendum and has nothing to do with gay equality, which they will defer.

Of course it is ridiculous, but they'll do it.

---

by: night owl @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 22:17:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

they can't...

....do that, it violates precedent, plus it would leave open any right to be subject to a ballot initiative.  They can't let it stand without addressing the resulting discrimination and ordering a way to remedy it -- that would mean that two clauses of the constitution would conflict with each other -- which they can't let stand.

---

by: suigenerousla @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 23:27:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

why?

The case* that 8 would be a violation of separation of powers and a radical revision of the constitution's guarantee of equal protection seems quite strong to me.  

*As summarized at
http://calitics.com/diary/8924/
http://www.thesweetmelissa.com...

You think the court wants the can of worms that will result from having an internal conflict inside the Constitution?  

---

by: chiefscribe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 15:54:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Internal conflicts

aren't new to Constitutions.  The courts usually interpret the more recent and/or explicit side of the conflict as the "winner," if they can't come up with any kind of mutual compromise.  If they uphold prop 8, they'll say it was the people creating an explicit exception to the equal protection clause, overruling the justices themselves in the Marriages case.

---

by: Bruno @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:01:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This would be a pretty serious internal conflict.

Do you think they want to set the precedent that the inalienable rights to liberty, privacy, and equal protection can be taken away from a protected minority via amendment rather than revision?  

I see at least four of them, maybe five of them (last year's majority, perhaps with Corrigan) as having the integrity and intelligence to see what a mess that would be.

---

by: chiefscribe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 17:37:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Have you "met" Justice Kennard?

She's pretty crazy.  She also didn't even want to hear any arguments as to prop 8's validity, just that of the existing marriages.  There's no way she'd have voted to overturn prop 8 on the day of the hearing, but she just may be unhinged enough to have changed her mind since then.  I doubt it, look for Kennard to be firmly in the camp to uphold 8.

---

by: Bruno @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 20:39:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, which is why I'm still somewhat hopeful...

That the CA Supremes will do the right thing. Besides, Iowa changed the game. I'm sure they're either have looked at or are looking at what the IA Supremes said.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:01:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What they don't want is the can of worms

of facing a recall election. Even though I think there's some legal reasoning if their decision is to uphold Prop 8.  

---

by: Kokas @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:15:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

did they somehow lose courage since 2008?

They "overturned the will of the voters" last year, and I for one give them credit for having courage enough not to prioritize the (remote) threat of a recall of their position over the Constitution.

 

---

by: chiefscribe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 17:31:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's more about their power...

now than anything else.  They've basically been asked if the voters can overrule them, and their answer will likely be "yes."  It's just kind of ironic that that decision lies in their hands anyway.

---

by: Bruno @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 17:34:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There are limits on when the voters can overrule them.

Yes, it's odd that they are in the position of judging when other parties in the gov't have intruded on judicial power, but attempts at taking away judicial power seem to get more scrutiny than attempts at tinkering with legislative power.

This isn't People v. Frierson, and Ron George is not Rose Bird.

Never before has a group been written out of the California Constitution, and I don't think they'll stand for it this time either--what could be a more substantial and far-reaching change to our governmental plan and the founding principles of the Constitution than taking fundamental rights away from a suspect class?

---

by: chiefscribe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 17:42:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it may not be overturned, but...

..if it isn't, they'll have to deal with the resulting discrimination based on precedents in CA jurisprudence -- they'll order the legisture to remedy the discrimination by changing the term, i.e., civil unions for everyone.  It's the solution that fits with all precedents, the line of inquiry at the orals, and the wording of Prop 8.  

It's the best outcome actually because it would force congress to immediately revise or repeal DOMA, and would take away the "protect the term marriage" argument away from the fundies.

---

by: suigenerousla @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 18:01:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and it would be f'ing hilarious.

I think suddenly a lot of hetero couples in California would have an epiphany about how these little details like federal gov't recognition of your relationship actually affect lives.  

---

by: chiefscribe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 18:36:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

couldn't agree more.

It would bring the whole issue as far front as possible.

Plus, wouldn't it make your faith tradition even more important -- the religious tradition vs the secular world.  

Conservatives, I say to you, if you're losing the battle with your kids -- man, or woman, up, and try harder with them -- but don't f%#k with me and my man.  It's not the state's responsibility to "faith nanny" your kids, it's yours.

When I was growing up, as a Catholic, we were taught that "civil marriage" was not real marriage -- the only real marriage came from the church.   Conservative religious people in this country should rejoice in their faiths and defend the importance of them by de-coupling them from secular marriage.  There is no state issued "baptismal license" for good reason.

My partner and I don't ever intend to ask the church to marriage us or even bless our union -- we'd rather have a secular marriage, thanks.  It doesn't mean I have to stop believing in God.

---

by: suigenerousla @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 20:00:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Especially if

it says CA won't recognize any marriages from anywhere at any time and only recognizes domestic partnerships

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:14:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Civil War?

Isn't that being a bit melodramatic? If these people want a theocracy so bad, let the Taliban have 'em. They're two peas in one f'd up pod already.

Jon aka The Angry Fag
http://www.theangryfag.com/
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TheAngryFag

---

by: TheAngryFag @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 14:55:40 PM CDT

Second verse, same as the first

Christian hate groups rant and scream and rave about how they need to be "Saturday's Warriors," going out there and "witnessing" and killing queers and abortion doctors for Jebus. The truth is, most of them are a bunch of sniveling cowards whose willingness to fight ends when they shut down their computers, and their ability to organize ends with the online donation button.

I further suggest that queers in conservative areas should go about armed and in groups. Ounce of prevention, an' all that. Jim Adkisson shot up the Knoxville, TN UU church after ingesting a steady diet of Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, and hate crimes against LGBT people and establishments have increased in the last few years. Y'all take of yourselves, and each other. Be especially careful at Pride!


God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 15:00:52 PM CDT

Don't underestimate them

There have been occasions when Pat Robertson told his 700 Club viewers to call Congress about this issue or that one, and more than a million of them called that same day.  I think you're right--they are cowards, taken one for one.  But they band together, like rats in a sewer.  An assault on a community center by a militia seems not unlikely to me, if not in the wake of tomorrow's decision then sometime in the future when they really feel disenfranchised.  I hope it never comes to anything like that (and I fully expect the CASC to uphold 8).   But they've been getting angrier and uglier, and nothing they do would surprise me.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:29:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Even if they do go that far (god forbid)

invoking "civil war" seems unnecessarily fearmongering.  I mean, unless you count what they've been doing with abortion clinics all this time as "civil war."  Terrorism, yes, and that's fucking bad enough.  eh, I dunno, why split hairs, it is bad enough.  Still, though.  Sometimes I think Orcinus steeps itself/themselves in this shit a little too much.  Again, like and respect them and take them very seriously, but I think after a while it tends to color one's perspective.

---

by: belledame222 @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:41:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree completely.

There were no riots last May after the original decision or when marriages were happening from June to November.  

There were no riots in Iowa, and none of the threatened clerks' protests (not issuing licenses) actually happened.  

No riots in CT.  No riots in MA.  

I'm sure the opposition is getting increasingly desperate, but they're also increasingly marginalized, and I'm not too worried about them.  

Plus the main drivers of the H8 campaign were Mormons, Catholics, and misc. evangelicals--I wouldn't count on big numbers of rioters among at least the first two groups and probably all three.  

---

by: chiefscribe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 18:42:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Arm yourselves

Folks,

I am also afraid of this sort of thing. I live up here in Washington State, and we're pretty progressive/liberal. However I live in a suburban area, and I drive 20 miles, you'll start seeing Confederate Flags (No joke here, I was shocked when I saw this since I lived in Florida for 13 years and saw this kind of crap all of the time there).

Folks, arm yourselves. Get training, buy a gun and a good personal safe, get a carry permit, and protect yourselves.

Here's some links:

http://www.handgunlaw.us Website about concealed carry laws. Click on the individual state that you live or travel, and you'll find out a bunch about their laws for carry.

http://www.opencarry.org Website about open carry laws, as it's legal in one form or another in 44 states.

http://www.pinkpistols.org "Armed gays don't get bashed".

One advantage of being in the "hinterlands" is that many of these states, and many of the rural areas in California, you can get a license to carry, and almost universally you can possess a gun in your home. You should buy a quick access safe (there's some good keylock and/or biometric safes now available) if you have children or untrained adults in your home.

I know that the idea of gays carrying guns may be offensive to some sensibilities, however I think myself and my partner ending up in a hospital, or in the morgue, is even more offensive, and I'm sure many of us who are not in the cocktail party political crowd would agree.

If you have any questions, especially for Californians who may or may not live in a "shall-issue" area, email me.  

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 15:13:51 PM CDT

not everyone should have a gun

just like not everyone should have kids.

Not everyone would be safer with a gun.  If there'd been a gun in my house growing up, or even now, there'd be fewer people around at christmastime, and I might be one of them.

Going Rambo may sound nice, but self-defense courses are actually a better solution in general. A gun can easily be taken away.  Your fists, however, cannot.

I'm not in the "cocktail party political crowd" either, as I have no idea what that means.

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:00:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The gun crowd,

even the Pink Pistols, tend to live in a different world -- one where "criminals" are a separate class of people with no goals beyond terrorizing "good, law-abiding folks" and the violation of property laws.  Most of the NRA-style propaganda also assumes that "criminals" are recognizable on sight by any gun-carrier -- and given the behavior of the NRA crowd, we can have a pretty good sense of what visual cues are used to identify a "criminal".

---

by: M @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:12:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's the black raccoon-mask around the eyes

that gives 'em away.

---

by: belledame222 @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:43:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm fairly sure

that there's a particularly-relevant word in there...

---

by: M @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 17:46:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Holy Loaded

What worries me is all the guns and ammo the right-wing "gun enthusiasts" have been stockpiling since Obama was elected out of fear "The Church of the Holy Magnum" would be shut down.

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:56:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You forget one particular fact

A lot of left-wingers turned "gun enthusiast" during the excesses of the Bush Administration.  There was really serious concern that the Bush Crime Family would after 2004 start going Hitler-style on gays, and later, whether or not he would release the office of President on January 20th, 2009.  It didn't happen, but Obama and his democratic successor will not be President forever.  There's always the possibility of a Neo-con thugs taking over again.  

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 22:54:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

True

I'm not against people owning guns.  Also, I believe in the 2nd Amendment just as much as anyone else.  What I'm against is the paranoid stockpiling of weapons and ammunition and the almost religious zealotry of the "God and Guns made America great" crowd.

To them, the 2nd Amendment is one of the Ten Commandments.  

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 02:51:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You think that's bad?

Jon,

The paranoid stockpiling of ammo and weapons is also causing a lot of problems for me and others like me too.   Some of my local firearms dealers (the ones who are neutral on politics) are generally completely out of ammo to the point where they can't keep them in stock.   I can't go to the shooting range to keep my skills up very well because of the lack of ammo whenever I try to go.   I've heard it's starting to ease up, however I have not seen evidence of this.

There are liberal and progressive gun owners out there.  We just tend to be too quiet.  The "Guns and God made America great" crowd hates us, and some of the progressives who are also rabidly pro-gun control hates us too.  Funny thing, though is that the founders of the Brady Campaign, along with the current Executive Director (Paul Helmke) are all REPUBLICAN.  I'm shocked I tell you, Republicans being against civil rights?!!! Who'd have thunk it?!

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 03:07:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

...

Wow, it's not every day that I get tacitly accused of being a racist because I am licensed and do carry for my personal protection.

My biggest threat factors to me are actually "good ol' white country boys" and tire irons or baseball bats in their cabs.  If you mean recognizable on sight by the fact that they are getting out of their trucks with them in hand making some statements about "smear the queer" as they get closer, you damn right they as criminals are recognizable by sight.

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 22:50:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not you personally --

just the majority of the "gun movement" people.  I keep leaning towards getting the necessary training to carry (for many of the same reasons as you), but the people who actually offer said training never fail to turn me off.  The NRA and the Pink Pistols are, two me, the two most convincing arguments for my continued lack of firearm ownership.

---

by: M @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:10:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The sane ones are growing

M,

I only use the Pink Pistols as a particular example in the sense that there are gays that arm themselves, unfortunately they are the only examples I could find, and believe me, I've tangled with some of those.

Unfortunately the loudmouths in the group who keep posting on their particular groups are the libertarians and conservative gays, while the liberal and progressive ones have better things to do, like for example, working for a living?    We do exist however we learned a long time that there's no reasoning with neo-cons.

The problem here is that besides law enforcement certified trainers and those who are certified for state training on carry licenses (some states require specific kinds of training), the NRA is the only source for civilian training with firearms.  NRA itself is a 501(c)(3) org that doesn't involve themselves in politics (they run the training instructor qualification program), however NRA-ILA (Lobbying Arm) and NRA-PVF (Political Contribution Arm) is not tax exempt.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news...

http://newsok.com/political-ti...

Kell Wolf in this particular example shows his eliminationist colors well.  He volunteered for a state hunter safety position, which is mandatory for all hunters, and then used it as a bully pulpit for politics.  He may have been doing this for years but no one caught on.  It was only when progressives started going to these courses that this sort of thing got exposed to the light.

The problem here is that there's not enough instructors on the progressive side who's willing to get the credentials necessary to be able to train folks in these sort of courses so that the eliminationists and right wing nutjobs don't dominate.

We also have the same problem with gun stores too.  Since large chain stores won't sell guns typically, that leaves small business.  Some of them avoid politics entirely, however a large majority of them were so pro-Bush and pro-"torturing ragheads" that I couldn't step foot in there again.  Not to mention VERY ANTI-GAY.  Progressives, once again, ceded an entire population to the right-wing nutjobs.

Wish there were more progressive firearms instructors and gun store owners.  They probably would make a lot of good business advertising on progressive radio as the "Gun Store which is welcoming to progressive" and "progressive and GLBT owned".  They'd make pretty brisk business in most major metro areas.

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 02:57:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

btw...

Feel free to email me off-site.  

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 02:59:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah,

I'll email.  And you're quite right.

---

by: M @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:12:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Self-defence courses

I strongly second that advice about self-defence courses.

I am a devout pacifist and would never carry a gun, even if I didn't live in Canada. However, as a former night shift taxi driver in my early twenties I wanted to be able to defend myself, so I took Aikido classes for 3 years.

As a pacifist, Aikido appeals to me because every move in the art is based on defence only -- there are no attack moves. One who is proficient in the art can defend themselves without ever hurting their attacker. You simply throw them to the ground and if they get up and attack again, you just throw them down again. Eventually they will get tired of kissing the sidewalk and go find something better to do.

The moves are easy to learn and very effective. One petite teenage student in my dojo had no problems throwing her 240 lb opponent across the room every time.

Also, a core part of the Aikido philosophy is learning how to cultivate a state of mind such that when faced with a potential threat your body language does not communicate any fear, defensiveness or counter-belligerent. This neutrality of body and mind has the effect of deflecting the attention of a would be attacker since his emotional energy is not being reflected back at him.

Our sensei gave a real world demonstration of it one night after class when we went for drinks at a red neck cowboy bar (in Calgary) and a belligerent drunk was going around the room trying to provoke someone, anyone, into a fight. The 5'8" sensei was the only non-white person in the room and the drunk never even looked at him once. I also was able to use it myself later in life when I had reasons to often be walking the alleyways of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside by myself late at night.

And, as you point out, your fists can't be taken away from you. Heck, even the TSA will allow you to take them on an airplane.

---

by: Stephanie @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 20:21:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree with the above about self defense courses

Thanks Stephanie for your insight.  Unfortunately not everyone can learn Akido or be able to physically do the moves.

My particular focus is firearms, and yours is martial arts.  Nothing at all wrong with that.  Regardless of what weapon you use, whether it be a gun or your own fists, you should still get training to be able to use those effectively.  

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 23:40:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

..

Only you can determine yourself if your own personal situation if gun ownership is right for you.  If you're not willing to purchase a gun, get pepper spray, a taser, a stun gun.  Get something, or take general self defense classes (whether it be by hands/feet or with weapons).  

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 22:37:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"A gun can be easily taken away" is a myth.

As long as you recognize the fact that a pistol is a "Stand off" weapon. It allows you to neutralize an attacker at a distance. You do not ALLOW an attacker to get close enough to take your gun.

A gun is a tool. It has NO sense of good or evil. It will not kill on its own.

Yes, it is a tool designed to kill people. And when I hear that, I ask that the speaker finish the description. to wit: Yes, it is designed to kill people. People who would come to rob, to rape, to murder, to enslave.

My life, the lives of friends and family, the lives of total strangers, are far more important and worth protecting, than the lives of those who would come to rob, rape, murder, or enslave them. Whatever fate befalls someone seeking to do me or others harm, they brought that fate upon themselves.

As for the person advocating Akido.

Ever actually HAVE to defend yourself against 2-3 people on a street? Armed with baseball bats?

Reality and what goes on in a dojo are two entirely different things, and to equate competence in the dojo, with competence outside the dojo can get you hurt very badly.

As my Tae Kwon Do sensei taught:

"In this dojo, we learn to run away with honor from a senseless fight!"

"What wins trophies in a competition gets you creamed on the street!"

"What you learn here in your first year will get the crap beaten out of you on the street!"

I hope that Prop 8 is cast down. I also hope for peace as well.

---

by: Chris Tucker @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 23:36:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Multiple attackers

As for the person advocating Akido.

Ever actually HAVE to defend yourself against 2-3 people on a street?

Yes. I have.

4 attackers, no baseball bats.

I was attacked by a man and when I successfully defended myself, 3 of his buddies jumped in.

Aikido teaches how to defend against multiple attackers.

Your sensei was right, because learning martial arts for friendly one on one competition is the same as learning boxing. You may be a powerhouse in the ring, but the guys on the street aren't going to abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Learning Aikido is not about winning trophies or facing opponents in competitions. In fact, Aikido rules forbid competitions and only allow demonstrations. Aikido teaches absolutely no attack moves and is very serious about defending yourself in the real world using ergonomics and Newton's Laws of Motion to your advantage.

---

by: Stephanie @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:07:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also

Unlike the competitive martial arts, Aikido teaches how to disarm an attacker with a weapon, whether it be a knife, gun, sword or baseball bat.

---

by: Stephanie @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:31:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

...

Aikido is fundamentally different than Tae Kwon Do in it's rule structure.

I say again, not everyone can do Aikido, however I'm glad you know how to. :)

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 03:10:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How often

is the violent homophobe on the street going to let you know from 20 yards away what he intends and make sure that there are no bystanders in your line of fire?  And who will testify against his friend who shoots you, the "obvious" (to him) aggressor in the situation?

---

by: M @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:18:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your scenario

makes little sense.  Multiple attacker gay bashings tend not be from 60 feet away.  They tend to be much closer to that.  

The average street encounter with this sort of situation is less than 20 feet, and they don't tend to occur in places with a lot of pedestrian cross traffic, as bashers don't attack in places with a tremendous amount of witnesses.  

Bashers also don't tend to use firearms on their victims, either, and never bring one to an encounter.  Their intention is sadistically torture the individual gay person, couple, or small group, and to terrorize the rest of the targeted population to make them afraid, to force them to go back into the closet, or to "eliminate them from the town" (again, eliminationist theory at work).  This is why hate crimes legislation is important, however hate crimes legislation will not mend a gay person's broken bones, or reconstruct their jaw and teeth after a curb stomping.

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 03:22:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The close quarters was my point.

Multiple attackers at close quarters are exactly the situation where a "stand-off" weapon can't be brought into play before an attacker's within arm's reach.  And here on the coasts, at least, bashers are quite willing to carry out attacks with others around.  (Ten years ago, they would also tend to carry firearms -- particularly when they were soldiers.  AFAICT, though, groups of soldiers cruising through gay neighborhoods looking for people to attack have become less common...)

---

by: M @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 08:59:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

ugh, no thanks

I live in Texas and even visiting friends who have guns in locked gun cases and ammunition in a different locked case make me uncomfortable. The last thing I want is a gun in my home. There are other methods of physical defense that do not endanger the user as well as the attacker the way guns do. As soon as guns enter the picture, all other options for non-lethal encounters go out the window.    

---

by: Solitary @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 17:00:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The most common real world use of a gun IIRC

...is that you pull it out, and the bad guy goes "whoah, whoah, don't take it personal, I didn't mean anything by it, I'll just be going now". And then perhaps you have to explain to the police why you were brandishing a gun in public.

---

by: JulianMorrison @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 21:05:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

....

Exactly.  This is one of the counterpoints to the idea that persons who use a firearm in self defense will use it willy-nilly.   Gun carriers as well as anyone else who uses any sort of force (whether it be gun, knife, or fists) have to generally justify the use of such force after the fact.   Some guy just arguing with you isn't enough.  If they got a tire iron, or a knife in there hand, that's a completely different situation.

These guys aren't expecting GLBT folk to be armed.  You see, in their crazed mentality, "gays" are "liberals" who are using the government to take away their gun rights and they don't carry themselves because "gay people don't carry because they're liberals".  No joke.  

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 23:14:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm a 62-year-old gay man and I've lived with violence all my life

as have so many others in the GLBT communities.

Whether Prop 8 remains or gets overturned we're going to be threatened with violence AND actually attscked. There's nothing new about that.

What we must do is take precautions and be prepared. And yes, our enemies think of us as low-haning fruit (in every sense of the term.

Well we're not. Never were.  

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 15:48:35 PM CDT

F#ck 'em. I'm dancing in the streets when we win tomorrow.

There was an uptick in militia activity when Clinton was president, and no doubt the racist sexist homophobic paranoid freaks are even more up in arms now that Obama is president.

Whatever that small minority of paranoid freaks does, I'm still going to push 'til we get equality, and celebrate every advance along the way, including when marriage discrimination is eradicated forever in California, hopefully tomorrow morning.  

---

by: chiefscribe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 15:59:28 PM CDT

The visibility

alone of our community tomorrow will result in increased verbal attacks and, yes, maybe even physical attacks, no matter how the Supremes rule.

Granted the attacks will be more intense and frequent if we do win our case.

But the visibility of us "uppity gays" across the nation will result in a backlash from the right wing. Make no mistake about it.

---

by: kevinchi @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:14:24 PM CDT

yeah, agree with this.

  it's not dependent on a win.  if anything I think the more "legitimate" we get ultimately the safer we are, at least from any successful organized anything.   I mean it's not as though street attacks and even pipe bombs are a new thing, you know?  

---

by: belledame222 @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:24:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

*blink*

Huh.  I always like and respect Orcinus, take them seriously, but that seems a bit fearmongery even for my fairly paranoid self.  I mean, I'm sure there will be a backlash, but civil war?  Not yet, I don't think.  and if/when there's a boiling point, I tend to expect it to come over the Immigrant/Muslim threat first.

in any case it may be a moot point because I have a feeling it's going to be upheld.  Certainly the vibe around here has been preparation for "no."

---

by: belledame222 @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:19:19 PM CDT

Also keep in mind

the possible blowback in New York as the gay marriage debate heats up there. Tomorrow's decision will (hopefully) spur our side to intensify their efforts to get that bill to David Paterson for his signature. Think about it, if California and New York flips (for that matter, add in the civil unions bill ("marriage lite") in Illinois). These are 3 pretty big states.

---

by: kevinchi @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 16:24:46 PM CDT

Reason to Celebrate

Marriage or civil unions, whichever the case may be, in Petey LaBab's home state should put a smile on everyone's faces.

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 17:00:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If the dominionists riot

...they'll draw themselves to the public's attention. That can only be to our benefit - the public won't like them one bit when it can see them as different from the stereotype of "concerned churchmen". They could find themselves much further from power than they already are.

---

by: JulianMorrison @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 17:47:42 PM CDT

Echo that.

My thought as well.

---

by: Lisa @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 18:24:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ditto

as horrible as any attacks would be, let the light shine on the homobigots in all of their hateful, anti-american glory for all to see.  it's high time the mainstream media picked up on the hateful ugliness of the theocratic movement in this country, and the threat it poses to our freedoms.  we've experienced their terrorism in the past on numerous occasions.  how many more is it going to take before the public starts connecting the dots?

The gays stole my lunch money

---

by: matt in mpls @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 20:14:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

true

..and as awful as it would be to have anyone attacked, incidents like that make the case for hate crimes laws and non-discrimination laws at the federal and state levels...

---

by: suigenerousla @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 18:28:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On that same note . . .

I sincerely hope that if the court upholds Proposition 8, we don't do anything intensely counterproductive. That lie about the old lady being pushed during the Proposition 8 protests hauted us for weeks. For the record, that old lady, Phyllis Burgess, was pushed only after she started getting physical and knocking people down. Of course folks like Mike Huckabee, Michelle Malkin and Peter LaBarbera didn't include that fact in their screechings.

---

by: Alvin McEwen @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 19:08:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Prepare to document

If you have a video camera, charge the batteries and have plenty of recording media on hand.

---

by: Hazumu @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 19:17:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I fear more bombings of our clubs than being shot at. MOST gay bashers are cowards, they travel in packs and pick on the smallest guy they see.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 17:48:57 PM CDT

You remember well

the response of the opposition to the March on Washington in 1963, don't you Petey?

I do too. Well, I've read about it anyway.

---

by: kevinchi @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 17:59:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Civil War? Goodness!

Who's Sara?

The Sky is Falling™  Again.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 18:11:51 PM CDT

It may be the only way...

I did an audio piece a couple of years ago at an LGBT Service of Remembrance.  One of my interviewees, Kathleen Montgomery, said that the LGBT community still had to go through its owm 'Mississippi Burning'  Her interview starts at 4:25 in the audio file:

http://www.flashofinsight.com/...

Her interview comments are prescient.  If there is violence from the 15~20% who are capable and willing to act, it will show the majority what they don't wish to acknowledge.  

I saw believers in the righteousness of our war in Iraq drop that support after the battle of Fallujah and the rape of a fourteen-year-old girl and the subsequent murder of her and her family.  It showed us in our ugliness.

If violence should erupt, it will be terrible.  Some will die.  Most will not come away unscathed.  But there is a very good chance that it will motivate a majority of Americans to do the right thing.  We could see federal laws that grant us the power to get and defend our complete equality.

I don't wish for it to happen this way.  None of us do.  But it may come even if we don't want it, and we may have no choice but to walk through the fire.

---

by: Hazumu @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 19:16:08 PM CDT

No violence

Kind of overdramatic, don't you think?

Regardless of what happens, I know that our side of the aisle will show our anger with righteous poise and a bit of dignity. Anything less than that will only serve to harm us in the long run.  

---

by: Alvin McEwen @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 20:05:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'd rather not die...

Maybe it's time to bring back the Deacons for Defense and Justice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 23:34:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not afraid

I agree with some of the folks here about the Orcinus piece being more than a bit melodramatic (civil wars and all - I'm surprised they didn't cite Texas's ambition to secede).

That said, I'm more than happy to talk to fundies and militia-minded troglodytes using language they can understand and say, "bring em on" (if they're really up for that). I hate violence, but I wouldn't hesitate to vigorously defend myself or a loved one from a homophobic militant heterosexual.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 20:51:16 PM CDT

I don't think Orcinus is quite saying

that a civil war is particularly likely - quite the contrary. What he is doing is characterizing the make-up of the wingnuts, and yes there is a substantial minority of them who seem to be spoiling for one. They won't get it of course, but some of those jerks will go off and commit plenty of violence either as lone nuts or perhaps in a slightly more organized fashion.  

---

by: Cicero @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 21:42:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a Civil War, a Takeover

I don't believe the right wing is planning for a civil war. That's way too much work.

If they are planning for anything, it is for a military takeover of the country, which they expect would not be resisted.

---

by: Jim @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 02:19:11 AM CDT

In measure...

The article is not that far on, and not that far off.

The problem is that this isn't going to be a civil war with some states going off.  Civil War will only be how some see it.

The issue of gays being married would, ultimately, only be part of it.  Economics, racism (a black president!?!?!), and general frustration all feed into it.

From 1994 to 2001, I was involved in a wide collective studying the potential for balkanization of the US. 9-11 killed it, as the sense of overwhelming risk crossed the barriers and allowed fear to be used. But the underlying variances still exist -- there is still a great deal of stress in the union that has only one other historical parallel.

These people are still afraid. 15%?  No.  But it won't take 15% - it will take, at most, 15 million people out of the 300 million or so in the US.

about 5%.

Driven out of the control of the ministers by fear of a new world order, the challenges of the labor market and housing, the constant bespeaking of "the worst depression since the worst" and the new information age problem of selective information and the calls for and regarding violence, they will have a greater likelihood of increased aggressive response.

Which means that 1 out of, say, 10 times they get angry, they will get enraged.

So there will be civil unrest.

Transfolk understand this, perhaps, on an intensely personal level, but I'm willing to bet that most of you who read here will also understand it.

As well you should, for if the ruling goes against us, it will be us on the other side.

That anger so many of us felt after the ENDA debacle, after the passing of prop 8, the statements by many here at PHB, on Joe My God, on Bilerico, in The Adovcate...

They are all signs of the other side.

This is an intensely emotional issue.  I have, now and again, tried to explain just how emotional it is from the other side, and instead of considering it, all too often what we see here is "they are crazy", "they are stupid", and then various commentary on their parentage, sexual prowess or lack thereof, sexual appetites, and more.

In other words, the same stuff they say about us.

That kind of emotion feeds anger, and anger is what sparks Rage, and rage does not think, does not care, does not plan or do anything but simply react, simply attack, simply hurt whatever it is that triggers that rage.

So in a few hours, one way or the other, I expect there to be an increase in violence. It will build, starting slowly, from whatever happens tomorrow, which will indeed involve clashes.

And in 12 to 18 months, everyone will be wondering why it is that the TDoR is so much larger, and why all the gay people being killed in random and horrible are either really butch women or really nelly men.

But then, I expect a victory.  And victory rarely comes without a price.

As we should have remembered on Memorial Day.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 02:22:53 AM CDT

What is likely is that anti-GLBT violence will be spurred by the decision by people who believe, like Obama does, that gawd's on the side of bigotry.

That said fears of a fascist coup or putsch are more than a little premature. There is a large right wing in the US. That, coupled with the feeble loyalty to democratic rights of right centrists like Obama and others who lead the twin parties of bigotry, makes the ultraright theocrats seem much more powerful than they are.

Hard-right christians are indeed fascists but they lack a mass base. There is a big difference between a rightwinger and a fascist.

The way to undercut their potential for harm is to form alliances with trade unions, who are the heavy infantry of social change. Secondly we have to break with parties run by bigots like Obama. And thirdly in places where violence is a real problem, and those are increasing, we have to form self defense organizations.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 02:59:31 AM CDT

as I said...

Bring back the Deacons!

---

by: Gray Coyote @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 03:26:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]