The relevance is this: in Ms. Brienza’s case, it’s presumably liberal nutjobs who want to force her to change her way of life and don’t particularly care if she lives in fear.
In the Prop 8 case, it’s upstanding conservative nutjobs who want to force gays to change their way of life and don’t particularly care if they live in fear.
It makes a lot of difference!
I can’t see how you can advocate this. All you’re doing is attempting to harness the masses to quash a unpopular, politically incorrect view. At best, you’re hoping to win your point through a fallacious appeal to the masses. At considerably less than that you’re attempting to use the rage of a mob to get people to knuckle under. The fact that you then couch this in a way that you think puts you on the high road is laughable.
Just a note - this debate we’re having here is being held along these same lines in the broader society.
So he recieved several emails telling him the truth? Poor Mr. Clare.
However, I do agree that some are distorting the purpose of the law. I wonder if there can be effective legislation written to the effect, “It is illegal to use in a systemic way the use of public contributions record to physically threaten, attack or harm individuals for the intent of punishing them for their political beliefs.”
I am not sure sucha law can be written effectively to be honest, but I mean we have laws against using the public mails for crimes and such. The ridiculous thing is the fringe anit-Prop 8 folks who are doing these things (violence and threats of violence) are extremely counter-productive.
And i’ll say again what i’ve said before: if they find the people who are issuing death threats and sending white powder, those people should be prosecuted. Same as i believe that we should not outlaw words like “faggot,” but should prosecute people who threaten or perpetrate violence against gays. It’s people’s actions, not their speech or their thoughts, that should be regulated.
Also, from your quoted section:
Oh. My. God!!!
The guy received EMAILS?
Call out the National Guard to protect his precious liberty.
Isn’t it already illegal to do these things, even without this list of names?
Well yes and no, it is not illegal to use the list for these pruposes, which is a different crime in and of itself. Having said that, I am not sure that such a law could effectively be written or enforced. I just threw it up there is all. Could racketeering law be possibly be used here?
Why is it “a different crime in and of itself”?
If a person is “physically threaten[ing], attack[ing] or harm[ing]” other people, then those acts should be punished, no matter where that person got his or her victims’ names and addresses from.
I know this post is a couple of days old, but since the thread is going…
Not when you start arguing in favor of them being enshrined in law, they’re not.
The human mind is nimble, and it is not at all hard to maintain that while Group X “as a whole” certainly does not deserve equal treatment, individual members of group X are quite OK and nice to be around. It’s probably not fair to characterize the guy as a piece of shit, but he’s undeniably prejudiced.
As for how he kept it a secret: He paid other people to do the arguing for him. That’s what a donation is.
They have every right to hold their bone-headed beliefs. But when specific religious views spill over into the political sphere, you’d better be prepared to to play by political rules. You sure as all hell don’t get to cry "“but it’s a religious view” to exempt your viewpoint from criticism, once you try to use it as foundation for policy. The correct answer to that is: “So what?”.
I’d have a very hard time working with someone who worked behind my back to annul my marriage as a matter of principle, and I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass that he was going from a deeply held, personal conviction that my marriage was unworthy of the name. Rather, I’d want to punch him. (I wouldn’t, of course. But I’d avoid associating with him professionally, if at all possible. What consideration would I owe him?)
Considering that marriage rights advocates have been outvoted at every turn, I find it hard to credit the opposing view as “unpopular,” or our own as the “mob.” But if that’s what it takes to secure my civil rights, then that’s what I’ll do. There are only two principles that should guide the tactics of the pro-marriage movement: Is it legal? and Will it work? Fair play went out the window when you decided you had the right to dictate the private lives of others. We will win our rights, to recall a memorable turn of phrase, by any means necessary.
Pardon me, but we aren’t talking about private lives here - your side correctly states that marriage is a public act, right? And that act has attached to it significant benefits, many of which come from the public purse.
Just pointing out an obvious flaw in your argument.
On second thought, there is a valid point here. One could argue that such a law should be comparable to “hate crime” legislation.
While it’s always illegal to beat someone up, the fact that you chose your victim on the basis of their race means you’re not just beating up someone, you’re sending a message of fear to the entire group that fits your victim’s description. So too would supporters of Prop 8 feel threatened if this list is used as a “hit list”.
I support this information being open and available, but I would also support legislation that puts protections around political donor status.
So, you’re telling us that your marriage is not a part of your private life? That what you and your wife do is fair game for public debate? Interesting. I’m going to head over to GD and start a thread where we discuss the validity of your marriage, what sort of sordid acts you and the missus get up to, and whether it should be allowed or not. I trust you’ll be along to provide details as necessary, seeing as how your marriage isn’t at all private?
The sordid acts we get up to is indeed private - the fact that we are married is not, and when we enter into certain transactions as a family unit (like buying our home or paying our taxes or getting insurance) the nature of our relationship becomes an issue to parties beyond our bedroom door.
I trust that a man of your considerable intelligence can understand this crucial distinction, right?
Jesus, you seem to get a real kick out of being purposefully obtuse in these debates.
Do you think your choice of who you wanted to marry was a matter for public debate, or was it a private decision between you and your wife? That’s the sense in which I was using “private,” as you are almost certainly aware. Are you saying that usage is not correct?
Sorry - your whole campaign has been about public recognition of certain civil marriages. For you then to turn around and criticize opposition to that as an attack on people’s private lives is misguided. There are ample grounds for criticism here, in all likelihood - you do not need to resort to something that does not make logical sense.
Our campaign is predicated on the idea that who one wishes to marry is a matter between them and their prospective partner, and is not an appropriate matter for public debate. This is not a new idea - it’s been the foundational argument of the entire gay rights movement for forty years now.
Oh, well, forgive me for not being up on your “foundational arguments”. I was making the mistake of actually listening to what was being argued in public debate.
Yes, you are using the word to mean two different things as it suits you. Mr. Moto has pointed out the flaw in your argument already. I will just ask, does not society have a right to decide what a group of people are allowed or not allowed to do? We’ve decided that a twenty-year-old can’t drink. And different states have different ages of consent for driving and marriage privileges. Why can’t society determine that they do not want a group to enter into marriage and redefine a fundamental institution. I know you don’t think they should do that, but don’t they have that right.
And I’m very surprised to see you embrace 1) an appeal to the masses, 2) the harnessing of the mob (one need not have a majority to do this), and 3) an ends justifies the means defense. Seems to me to not be a very “principled” stance you have there.
Evidentally not, if you don’t understand the most basic and consistent arguments behind our position.