by Andrew Walden
When California voters approved Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage, gay activists exploded in a display of blind racial hatred directed at blacks. Is Hawaii’s smug gaggle of “conscious, enlightened, progressives” now taking a page from the same hateful playbook?
Here is what Ian Lind blogged July 7:
I got up this morning and started looking through the various comments on Gov. Lingle’s veto of HB HB444.
Many people comment on the flawed logic of putting such an issue to a vote.
Let’s put jews up to a vote? How would you like that, Lingle?
Yeah and if we did the same about women’s right to vote…instead of Governor, Lingle would be cleaning my house.
I saw several references to Lingle’s failed marriages. Here’s one from something called Frenchy’s House Party:
Obviously the twice-married, twice-divorced Lingle is so concerned about the sanctity of marriage (theoretically at least) that she cannot bring herself to let the will of the Legislature and the people of Hawai’i pass her desk.
At the popular gay website Qwerty the comment about putting “jews up to a vote” got 48 thumbs up and zero thumbs down from Qwerty readers. Besides several appeals for contributions to Neil Abercrombie and postings of the Governor’s office phone number, comments Lind did not pick included a poster who hopes Lingle “dies a screaming death in the very near future”, and graphic descriptions of rape which would be more than enough to draw the Secret Service’s attention if directed against a President. One mentioning sandpaper and sharp objects received 39 thumbs up and only three thumbs down. Frenchy’s House Party included similar personal comments and an image of Lingle in a Nazi uniform. Lind apparently did not see fit to make note of any of these comments as he picked through to find the tamer ones. Readers can see the Qwerty comments here>>>LINK.
After being criticized in his own comments section for posting ‘that garbage’, Lind did make an acknowledgement of sorts:
It’s true that I didn’t carefully choose the blogs I cited this morning.
I took advantage of Google’s blog search to come up with widely different perspectives, but didn’t really screen them.
So the criticism is not off base.
Bad dog! A whack on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for this blogger!
Right. Anybody who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, but a progressive who sees "Let’s put jews up to a vote” as a “comment on the flawed logic of putting such an issue to a vote” gets only a jocular “whack on the nose.”
Black gay activist-blogger Rod McCullom described the scene outside the Mormon temple in West Los Angeles in November, 2008 after exit polls showed over 70% of black California voters supported California Proposition 8 outlawing gay marriage:
It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at me. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.
McCullom also depicts a November 2008 online scene very similar to what Lind described as “comment(ing) on the flawed logic of putting such an issue to a vote”:
The verbal harassment follows a steady stream of racist comments left on this blog and many others across the gay virtual community. At least a dozen racist comments have been removed from this blog since Tuesday, such as, "Thank you Black people for denying gay people the same rights that you deserve and have", "Black people make me feel like a piece of shyt when it should have been a night of celebration for all," and the succinct, "F--K you niggers."
In contrast to Lind’s sublime equanimity over the anti-Semitism and misogyny among gay activists reacting to HB444, he leaves little doubt about what he thinks should be done with civil unions opponents:
“I just think that all those who attribute their opposition to HB 444 to their understanding of their own particular religious affliction need to get a head-clearing civics lesson. We shouldn’t be in a position of having to appease religious leaders and their followers on civil matters.”
Apparently Lind’s “we” consists of a minority of atheist progressives which sees themselves as …uh…ordained… to rule over the ignorant masses whose heads are muddled by “religious affliction.” Would it be overreaching to compare Lind’s call for “a head-clearing civics lesson” to atheist “reeducation camps” which forced millions to flee Vietnam as “boat people” in the late 1970s and 1980s? Consider the title of Lind’s blog posting: “Lingle says: Let’s vote them off the island.”
In the entire history of the human race there has never been gay marriage until it was invented right here in Hawaii in 1993 by the “Broken Trust” Hawaii Supreme Court. Not in any religion, not in any culture, not in any tribe, kingdom, or republic; not on any continent nor in any language had there been legal gay marriages before 1993. Now we are told it is a civil right.
Lind’s are not the ravings of an inconsequential fringe lunatic. The belief that gay marriage is a civil rights issue and therefore an absolute good against which no argument can stand—an article of faith--is joined by Gubernatorial candidate Neil Abercrombie and columnists employed by the Case family’s Star Advertiser who are committed to imposing a new family structure against the will of the people:
- Abercrombie: “Protecting people’s civil rights cannot be compromised.”
- Borreca: “Majority rule is not always best for society.”
- Cataluna: “Letting the people decide isn't always the best way to handle social issues, especially when civil rights are concerned and people get tangled up in their interpretations of religion.”
- Oi: “Would that Lingle had found the fortitude to resolve the issue rather than throwing it into the pseudo-populist contrivance of letting ‘all of the people of Hawaii’ decide.”
Without any sense of irony, Lind writes:
“It seems to me that there’s a difference between letting one’s religious values go to work in public life, and the very different approach of taking primary direction from absolutist religious doctrine.”
Lind, Abercrombie, Borreca, Cataluna, and Oi all need to take a good long look at their own “absolutist religious doctrine.”