FRC's Tony Perkins claims gay people are 'rioting' over Prop 8
By David Neiwert Sunday Nov 09, 2008 9:00am
Tony Perkins claims on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 that gay people are "rioting" over Proposition 8's narrow success at the California polls:
Perkins: The people have played by the rules. Why will not the homosexual activists quit rioting, quit, you know, attacking Mormons, and using religious bigotry. And if they want to change the laws, get the consent of the people.
Anderson Cooper: Where have the riots been, Tony? Where have the riots been?
Perkins: Well, they've spray-painted churches in California, they've been jumping on police cars.
Lisa Bloom of In Session proceeds to give Perkins hell. You can see from the videotape that these are peaceful demonstrations.
Perkins also has a peculiar definition of "playing by the rules," considering that, as Bloom just pointed out, the rules for amending the California Constitution were clearly not followed with this vote.
Login or Register to post comments.
Why will not the homosexual activists quit...using religious bigotry.
You first, Opie.
Further proof for his opposition's argument
Next Up for Gay-Bashers: Ban Gay Adoption of Highways
Don, THAT was priceless. Very, very funny. Good job.
Thanks Don for sharing---Perkins and his ilk are truly ridiculous.
TAX TAX TAX the MORMON church. That will put an end to their meddling!
Those gays are such a violent bunch. It reminded me of the Rodney King riots out there.
I hope to see more in-your-face demonstrations against religious intrusion into state matters.
We've had enough of this under Bush, and now it's time to send a strong message to the LD$.
Tax the Mormon church for its political campaigning.
No bootlegger wants the law changed to legalize the product they are selling at a 1000% profit. No rabid homosexual minister is going to want gay rights, because it could cause his tricks to speak. He might also lose the congregation when they decide to hate him instead of his pretended target.
"and using religious bigotry"
Let's fix that, shall we? -> "and fighting religious bigotry"
Before you judge and condemn others Tony, you need to clean your hypocritical act up. There have been many charlatans and liars like you throughout time that willfully misintrepret the true intent of spirituality to condemn and marginalize others rather than lift ALL of us up as Jesus wanted. So instead of serving our Great Spirit, you selfishly serve your ego with your corrupt, rigid nonsense that you mistake for "religion".
Take some advice from a non traditional religion:
The living are soft and yielding,
the dead are rigid and stiff.
Living plants are flexible and tender,
the dead are brittle and dry.
Those who are stiff and rigid
are the disciples of death.
Those who are soft and yielding
are the disciples of life.
The rigid and stiff will be broken,
The soft and yielding will overcome.
Tao Te Ching, Verse 76
Another "oldies but a goodie" from Perkins last year:
"Being Green promotes Abortion & homosexuality"
Tony, Sweetie, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
My new motto: "No more Mr. Nice Gay!" People who believe in an Invisible Flying-Sky-Thingy who answers their prayers and sits around waiting for human adoration, are no longer going to have a say in how I live my life and who I love. It's over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE0AmdwYWu8
The problem here is that they prayed and prayed for McCain to win the election. One would think if they truly believed in their god, they'd take that as his answer. Obviously they don't believe in the product they're selling. Further proof of this is their fear of promoting the more outrageous Old Testament laws. Not once has Dobson or Perkins gone into an Applebee's on the Sabbath and stoned the waitresses to death, or the flight crew on a Sunday flight. They are complete and total con artists who use the Bible to control the ignorant and enrich themselves in the same way Bush and Cheney use terrorism. They would be kicked out of the bedrooms and schools and doctors' offices by any reasonable reading of the Constitution.
i LOVE watching the Religious Right's head explode. Their governmental influence is now JUST about zero.
And this heterosexual is gonna keep marching for Gays til Prop 8 is overturned.
can somebody find out where this guy lives? lets send a few protesters over to his sidewalk to let his neighbors know what a bigot he is.
home of another notable Rightard whack-job, Jimmuh Swaggart...
Here's jimmy swaggert's cousin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yRdDnrB5kM
Oh shut up and go put on your mother's dress.
ysbaddaden, too funny,rofl. It's clear ol Tony has at least one or two hang ups on sex, something to do with his mom?
song by Tom Lehrer
From the Bible to the popular song,
There's one theme that we find right along;
Of all ideals they hail as good,
The most sublime is motherhood.
There was a man though, who it seems,
Once carried this ideal to extremes.
He loved his mother and she loved him,
And yet his story is rather grim.
There once lived a man named Oedipus Rex,
You may have heard about his odd complex.
His name appears in Freud's index
'Cause he loved his mother.
His rivals used to say quite a bit
That as a monarch he was most unfit.
But still in all they had to admit
That he loved his mother.
Yes, he loved his mother like no other,
His daughter was his sister and his son was his brother.
One thing on which you can depend is,
He sure knew who a boy's best friend is.
When he found what he had done,
He tore his eyes out, one by one.
A tragic end to a loyal son
Who loved his mother.
So be sweet and kind to mother,
Now and then have a chat.
Buy her candy or some flowers,
Or a brand new hat.
But maybe you had better let it go at that.
Or you may find yourself with a quite complex complex
And you may end up like Oedipus.
I'd rather marry a duck-billed platypus
Than end up like old Oedipus Rex.
Why can't scum like tony just mind his own fucking buss!CEO,citizens,eyes,open
Rioting? Dude, I'd be tossing molotov cocktails into government office builfding if the government decided to unilaterally annul my marriage.
Though I wish I'd had the opportunity to decide whether Perkins could marry...
I am covinced much of the anti-gay bigotry and fear arises in those who have some measure of gay feelings within their being, and they in denial, stuffing it, this manifests as dislike for others who are liberated in that way.
If Tony is repressing gay feelings, I would not be suprised in the least. Tony should have a chat with Ted Haggard.
If???
IF???
I-fucking-F???
The problem with what is left of the republican party is the glue holding together. The only thing these people have in common is a massive superiority complex and fervent hate for other members of society. For religious conservatives, gays and muslims are the target of choice. The so called anti-government spending group is easy to identify as being racist, and against immigration, affirmative action,civil rights and by extension any social spending. These bunker mentality types cling to their gods and think the 2nd amendment will deliver them from evil. It is sheer high headedness and a holier-than-thou attitude of ultimate entitlement, to assert an ambiguous authority over which sects of society are worthy and which are not.
How would gays riot, break into homes and businesses and redecorate, then spritz us with scent?
... was the one huge disappointment on what was otherwise a beautiful election night.
What was disconcerting is the large number of African Americans who voted for it. One actually said (paraphrasing here): "I was born black. I didn't choose it. Gays choose to be gay."
Uh, no they don't. They may choose to stay in the closet, or play the straight societal game for a while out of self-preservation, but they don't choose their congenital hard-wiring.
This is the last great civil rights struggle. Carry on, folks ...
The religious right needs to be marginalized. To accomplish this we must stop reaching out the them, continue to call them the hateful bigots that they are, and insist that our elected officials not pander to them.
Fuck Tony Perkins. Fuck his group. Fuck anyone who supports him.
To marginalize the religious right do we need margerine
Or would any lubricant do?
Never fails...If it isn't some terrorist hiding in the shadows plotting against us, it's those pesky gays rioting in the streets and trying to give straight people 'the gay'. If you fear something long enough you learn to hate it. Perkins likes to talk about how 'traditional family values and traditional families' are in danger. These days if a kid knows someone whose parents are not either divorced and have only one parent or whose parent has a live-in significant other it's out of the norm. The religious fundies are losing their influence and they know it. It's about time. It's these people, the fundies, who are responsible for a good share of the hurt this nation is in right now. The FoF and FRC to name couple are dangerous people. I'm all for having some kind of faith, but when it's used oppress a group of people or to further a bigger agenda something is wrong. Besides in the video clips I've seen, it's those that oppose gay marriage/rights are the ones who start the altercations first place.
During this election cylce, there have been several women that sullied womanhood with unlimited stupidity and vacuousness, not to mention hate and bigotry. Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman were prime examples.
However, Lisa Bloom in this clip was sharp as a tack, and from the debate standpoint simply blew the "marriage sanctity" defender away. I especially liked her optimism that indeed Prop 8 and other intrusive instruments that deny civil and civic rights to segments of society, will be overturned soon enough. One great limitation of bigotry is the inability to see the inevitable, and harping upon tired talking points under the cloak of "tradition," "values," "age-old," and so on.
They do not see that they are in the shoes of those that yelled and screamed (and often committed extreme violence) against the helio-centric world; the earth being round; voting rights for all- and every other taboos and injustices that have finally fallen by the wayside.
Well spoken, Lisa. Closet gays in denial, who disparage others and wish them harm by joining bigots, must eventually stop their hypocritical ways.
Why is he such a self hating theologian? Doe he not read the Scriptures he preaches about? Does he not understands Jesus' teachings? Why oh why does he hate acceptance and adherence to the principles of religion and the Constitution?
Sad...so sad.
religion is as religion does
anyway...
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them...."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
What a pathetic asswipe.
Deal with it Tony, you pathetic sop. You don't matter anymore. Your group doesn't matter anymore.
Accept your position...your lot in life...as a hemorrhoid on the asshole of American society.
I have no problem allowing the church to put their 2 cents ($2 billion) into the politics of America - as long as they pay their admission fee like the rest of us. Tax the shit out of these bigoted churches.
And can anyone explain how a same sex marriage is redefining an opposite sex marriage? This whole arguement is pretty stupid and poorly thought out, however most of religion is poorly thought out. and everytime anyone tries to ask questions they are told to have faith.
Well, I do have faith that America is not as retarded as we keep acting and we will work to include everyone in our society
Tony's peddling the usual garbage about the "5,000 year old institution" of marriage. Where, Tony? Among the Hebrew tribes? Perhaps you should try reading the Old Testament some time. All those tribal leaders and kings with multiple wives and concubines all appear to be on the good side of Jehovah. How is that "traditional marriage"?
And since when do the marriage habits of Western Europeans define "tradition" for the entire planet? What about happy cultures practicing polygyny and polyandry? Some of them have been around a whole lot longer than your so-called traditional marriage. How many Europeans through the Middle Ages were "married" at all?
Actually, churches are taxed. The IRS has them file regular reports on their religious activities versus their business activities unrelated to their mission. The latter is taxed.
who the fuck could blame them? I feel like rioting over it and I'm straight.
Just how many hate crimes are occurring in these riots?
I just wish once someone would really take these bigots to task. Marriage has not been a monogamous for 5,000 years. Traditional marriage until recently was ownership of reproductive rights of property...see The man who mistook his wife for Chattel.
If we keep letting these nuts appeal to tradition for their oppression of gays and not taking them to task on their use of logical fallacies, we will be hearing the same BS until we die. So please, let's stop this now, and cut off appeals to tradition.
Our forefathers, thought slavery was good, women should not vote, and unless you are a wealthy land owning white dude, you don't get a say in the government. This was wrong, and thanks to their keep sense of creating a fair government, it changed.
While we are at it: next time someone uses the appeal to tradition, and mentions that Marriage is defined through religeon on tradition just remember:
Their tradition is most likely a God who:
Kills men who do not cuckold their infertile brothers. http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Gen+38%3A8-10
Kill women who, even if a virgin on their wedding night, do not have bleeding hymens.Deut 22:13-21
Thinks women should always be submissive to men - So, what is with Palin? And this is from the NEW TESTAMENT 1Tim 2:11-12
and who endorses SLAVERY -- yes again, new testament! Col 3:22-24
PLEASE feel free us use these to remind folks that God doesn't like shellfish either Leviticus 11:9-12
If they are going to appeal to tradition and their religion, they might as well be consistent...
oh wait, there is the problem...
you have access to your seperate but equal gay & straight water fountains. Why do you insist on redefining things by being allowed to the the straight ones?
The religious right is now in uproar over what Perkins claims are riots by homosexual people. Apparently, Tony hasn't learned that people tend to get angry when you step on their rights or enforce your will upon them. I guess that lesson isn't taught in the scriptures.
to have a big hot cow pie, good aim, and a clear view of Tony Perkins face. It would wonderful to see this man saturated in "natures miracle grow".
That was top-notch debating there.
At the end, when he tried to get the last word--"Don't redefine marriage"--I said out loud "It's been redefined!" and sure enough: "It's been redefined several times!"
BAMM!! She slid it in there!! Way to go!
I was curious, so I did a quick check of the CA constitutional amendment process:
Art. 18, "Amending and Revising the Constitution" provides two means to amend the CA constitution. One method (Sect. 1) requires a 2/3 vote of the CA legislature and then submission to the people for a vote, whereby a majority vote enacts the amendment. The other method (Sect. 3) permits the CA constitution to be amended by initiative and a simple majority vote.
Which leaves me to wonder who thought up a process whereby a simple majority vote can circumvent the entire legislature? What a retarded process. The constitution enacts a significantly higher legislative bar to change the constitution, and then later enacts a provision whereby the normal constitutional amendment process becomes superfluous. Why have a legislature at that point?
Of course, CO and AZ both have the same kinds of provisions. I bet the KKK wishes they'd have had these kinds of legislative mechanisms back in the 60s.
A lot of states have this process. And you're right - it's ridiculous.
Of course, it doesn't prevent Prop 8 from being overturned via ANOTHER constitutional amendment initiative.
... with or without you and your hate-filled minions Perkins.
It might not happen in the next five minutes - but it IS going to change. Not only change - but it's going to snowball and YOU are going to get run over by it if you don't get out of the way.
So I suggest you move that precious bum you're working so hard to protect, out of harm's way?
*
no, the definition of marriage has not always been one man/one woman
the patriarchs of the jewish religion had multiple wives and concubines....as did many in other cultures
kings were expected to have multiple wives for political purposes
the mormon church itself only ceased its polygamous ways a short time ago
look, the state needs to get out of the marriage biz...end of story....end of argument
and for conservatives, they sure dont have much concern as to the ease of changing a state constitution....and that is scary
... is that they approve of civil unions which is equivalent to the civil portion of what they define as marriage, the only difference being that you have to jump through hoops to take advantage of some of the features a 'marriage' gives, such as the right to hospital visits.
This smells very much like their desire to appropriate for themselves the word 'marriage'. But they have no problem with 'union members' being the partners.
The "religious right" has orchestrated this travesty of injustice - simply look at the monies that were poured into the "vote yes" campaign by mormons, catholics, evangelicals etc. (BTW, don't get me started on the gross hypocrisy of the mormons in their actions regarding "protection of traditional marriage"...)
Lisa Bloom - good work
Anderson Cooper - you are sooooooooooo gay, you should have smacked down perkins
tony perkins - isn't there a larger group you can be intolerant about - say Muslims, abortion doctors, pedophiles, or.....?
... that the California Supreme Court should overturn Prop 8 as being unconstitutional. If that doesn't work - it should - attack it at the federal level. The U.S. Constitution guarantees everyone equal rights, therefore should not be allowed to be usurped by state constitutions.
ronhohn:
It's going to be an uphill battle in the courts.
In the video, Bloom argues that it takes more than a majority vote to "amend" the California Constitution. Actually, it takes more than a majority vote to "revise" the California Constitution. And we will have to convince the courts that rescinding rights counts as "revising" instead of "amending." This is a possible, but not an easy, case to make. We must brace ourselves for a loss.
Things will not be easier at the federal level.
The Fourteenth Amendment says that no state shall deny to any person in its jurisdiction the "equal protection of the laws." If that were interpreted to mean what it says, we should win, right?
But here's how it'll go. First we will have to prove gay people are in a "suspect class." We will fail. Even Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws, doesn't say that explicitly, and in Scalia's dissent, he noted that he would use that lack of clarity against us.
Once it is determined that gay people are not in a specially protected class, the courts will ask only whether there is any conceivable "rational basis" to create the law in question. Perkins and his ilk will argue, that protecting the family is the rational basis, and the Court will bite.
The only hope will be that Justice Anthony Kennedy, a pro-gay rights jurist, considers gay marriage a fundamental right. I do not know if he does.
If all of this seems to make little sense, I concur. Equal protection does not mean equal protection under Constitutional Law. We can thank the very same conservatives who rail against "judicial activism" for such oppressive nonsense.
It's gotten so bad that it might be time for a one-strike rule. If you're a guest on a news program and you knowingly lie to advance your agenda, you never get invited back. Ever. Viewers are trying to learn something, and they don't want to write down every point of contention and look them up in google after the interview.
For pundits, I propose a 50-strike rule. If you're wrong 50 times (not lying, but wrong), you get demoted.
It isn't like there are gay men in sets of two knocking on people's doors and trying to convert people to gayism or anything.
Best comment on the whole thread ! ! LOL
I'd think I'd have much more interesting conversations with Gayists than Jehovah's Witnesses.
Is there a reason why Perkins didn't use the word "revolting"?
*
What a smart, well-spoken young woman she is. She and her mother, Gloria Allred, inspire me. These ladies take no guff from anybody.
She's been in the middle of every SoCal social struggle since the '70s.
And usually on the right side, too...And she's a GENIUS at getting 'press.'
http://www.kcra.com/news/17934538/detail.html
http://whyfame.com/gossip/gaymarriage_bans_pa...
It's not Perkins that lying.
Here's a little one...
Whence are the dialogue and tolernace, [Deleted. Knock it off. IIRC, You were banned in WordPress. It's easy enough to do that in Drupal-Sitemonitor]?
et tu, douchebag?
Interpretation of evidence in light of the source purveying it is not an exclusively "liberal" attribute, but it is scarce enough among the troolish community that it may seem so to you...
It is apparent that Perkins was exaggerating.
But to pretend that *nothing* happened is another issue.
Truth helps.
The "Riots" you're talking about were about the same size, and the same disruptive nature from all accounts that the Bushies held in Florida to stop the recount.
But, that was just a peaceful demonstration, according to the right. Why is there a different stroke here?
I provided the two links above.
There have been peaceful protests and there has been violence. Though the term "riot" is an exaggeration there has been violence.
And ...
the recounts in Fla in 2000 were not stopped because of protests but because Gore took it to court so that he could bypass federal election law. That's all there was to it. If Gore had not sued in the Fla S.C. the Bush would not have filed suit @ the US SC. That's why the first part of the SCOTUS decision was 7-2, that Gore was in the wrong. Even most the liberals on the court disagreed with him.
Gore took it to court so he could bypass the law?
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Marriage was a tool of State to assure the continuity of and consolidate hereditary authority and to ensure the orderly distribution of wealth of the elites.
All the rest, this 'religious' bourgeois-ification of the appurtenances of power, is sheer parvenu pretense.
.
When Religious organizations start paying taxes, then they can have a political opinion...
... Until then, YOU'RE EXEMPT FROM PARTICIPATION!!!
.
It won't be long before we hear a news story that tony was arrested having sex with a sheep or under age boy, no self-respecting sheep would have him, thats why he put velcro on the fingertips of his gloves, bah, bahhhhh!
broke livestock, according to Neil (Horsely?)...Don't get between a boy and his lamb...
We have at least one violent protest on record. And it was perpetrated by Mormons...
VIDEO: http://www.latimes.com/video/?slug=la-me-prot...
Violent Mormons interrupted a peaceful protest. At least one woman was punched in the face. Mormon men beating up women. Nice.
He says, "We're governed by a democracy. . . . The people have played by the rules."
So, if the people, playing by the rules, outlaw the Family Research Council by a majority vote, Tony Perkins should not go to the courts to enforce his right to political participation and free speech.
He says, "Why will not the homosexual activists quit rioting? . . . They've spray-painted churches, they're jumping on police cars . . . [at the peaceful protests] there were arrests."
So, a few wrongful, but relatively benign, incidents counts as "rioting." If so, every one of his activists, prompted by his apocalyptic rhetoric, who assaulted us as we peacefully campaigned against Prop. 8 were RIOTING.
He says, "There's no oppression here. There is an attempt to redefine a 5,000-year-old institution called marriage. . . . They have the civil unions scheme out there, which provides the same benefits . . . "
In California, we have Domestic Partnerships, which carry most, but not quite all, of the same rights and benefits of marriage. So, he's factually wrong.
If, however, he truly believes that this is all about the word "marriage," and nothing else, then he should have no problem with teachers teaching children that Domestic Partnerships and Marriages are exactly the same thing in terms of rights and privileges, and that they may enter either one if they are heterosexual, and be treated just the same.
He should also have no problem with a massive public education of the state of California in order to prevent the "separate but equal" problems that occur when the terms are different --- such as county clerks giving marriages priority when scheduling ceremonies and issuing licenses.
Of course, Perkins is a liar and a bigot, so he'll not be abiding by his "logic."
If he really did want to protect the definition of a 5,000-year-old word, he should be fighting to restore marriage to a non-rescindable, familial, property-sharing arrangement, designed by the families, and in which the woman was one piece of the property.
Thanks for sharing this. very cool.
I like Lisa. She did a great job!
I'm sick of the racism and homophobia from the right I could just scream.
I'm so glad we have a chance to take our country back!
Thanks for sharing this. very cool.
I like Lisa. She did a great job!
I'm sick of the racism and homophobia from the right I could just scream.
__________________________________________________________
That sounds kind of gay of you.
Saying marriage is five thousand years old is indicative that he's a cintelligent designm.
As a gay man, I'm not as much in favor of revoking tax exempt status of churches. Maybe punitive damages for those that violate the separation of church and state. But revoking the tax exempt status would then allow them free reign in politics. Not a good idea. I say give them three strikes, then if tax exempt status is revoked, tax them retroactively for all the years they've been getting away with murder. I personally do not want churches having legal political power in the US, just punish them severely if they cross the line.
1. The Constitution only restricts the government, not the churches.
2. 501(c)(3) http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154...
This is issue advocacy, not candidate advocacy.
It is plainly allowed under the IRS rules.
Despite the assertions in this thread there is no violation when it comes to issues. And despite the threats of, and actual, violence, the law is the law.
I'm straight and mad as h3ll that Prop. 8 was even on the California ballot to begin with. The Prop. passed and protests are occurring. I only wish those supporting "No on Prop. 8" would've made more of a ruckus before the election.
I am no fan of Tony Perkins and the FRC, but there has been defacement of an LDS church sign in Orangevale, CA--"No on 8" was spray painted in red on a marquee. Vandalism isn't peaceful.
Let's try and keep our heads about this whole thing and not go bonkers and start breaking laws. Fighting fire with fire won't work to our advantage at all.
Protesting is fine, as long as it's not breaking laws, encouraging defacement of someone else's property or belongings.
Tony Perkins looks like he has 1960's "Ken doll" hair! Let 'im have it Lisa Bloom!
I can't stand it. If two men or two women are in love and want to get married and make it official, how the hell does that hurt me? I'd be cheering them on!
As for "violating" the meaning of marriage, how often some heterosexual couples get married and divorced within 3 months? 3 weeks? Ever picked up a newspaper and seen the latest marriage/divorce in Hollywood?
Prop 8 needs to be overturned. Now.
I think Mr. Perkins may be a bit ambivalent about this whole matter. The evangelical closet is large.
But in Palm Springs there was a brawl and people were injured. It seems some lady came walking into the crowd with a big cross and some people didn't like it. So the "peaceful protestors" attacked her, call her names like "Nazi" and stomped on her cross. http://www.mydesert.com/article/20081108/NEWS...
It's a stupid issue and is only put on the ballot to benefit those who do political campaigns and make signs. Both sides are idiots.
Let's just hope the gay boys and girls don't try to disrupt any Veteran's Day events. I think a lot of old Vets won't look too kindly on that.
So when some confrontational Christian disrupts an anti-Prop. 8 gathering, the crowd's response is beyond the pale - but if gays disrupt a Veteran's Day gathering, then they'll deserve what's coming to them?
With a double-standard like that I have no doubt you are the very archetype of a modern American Christian.
Tony Perkins envisions gays rioting as a bunch of naked gay guys in the street are with whips, chains, and dildos. Tony wishes he could dive right in.
Funny, I've been to three anti-8 rallies in the past two weeks and the only "violence" I've seen was when a passing coward (I mean motorist) threw a half-filled water bottle at the crowd as he sped by, hitting the girl standing next to me in the foot.
I was down in Hollywood last night, eating at a Thai Barbecue joint when a big police vehicle sped past, lights ablaze and sirens screaming. It was a vehicle unlike any I had ever seen before. It had the cab of a truck, much like that of a large ambulance, but the back was an open bed loaded with riot cops. There were also running boards along the sides of the bed also loaded with riot cops. They had sticks, shields, helmets, guns, body armor, the works. Later that night I sought out some of the protesters making their way back up Vermont, and they said the cops just showed up and stood there, doing their duty while the marchers went past, no heads smashed, no tear gas, no nothing. There was no riot.
Now, as a supporter of the "NO" voters, and a long time SoCal resident, I have a couple of comments to make about the nature of this proposition, and what I think needs to be done about it.
First of all, because of who was behind the major funding for this proposition, (The Mormon Church based in Utah) it clearly is a religious issue, if not overtly, at least tacitly. The fact that the Mormon Church was so completely involved in what should be a political issue immediately makes that religious body a POLITICAL organization, and as such, should immediately be liable for both state and federal taxes. They should, as a whole, lose their tax exempt status. The State of California should strike down the vote on the proposition, literally purge it from the records, and if the Mormons decide to fight it, then the State of California should IMMEDIATELY levy income taxes on every single Mormon Church and organization within the borders of our state. I even have a precedent for doing this: Last year an Episcopal priest in Pasadena had his ministry declared non-tax exempt by the IRS because he protested and spoke against the war in Iraq. If the IRS can be so quick as to attack the Episcopalians for speaking politically, well, then, the Mormons should get it in SPADES.
Handled Mr. Perkins quite well. Let her continue her battle and I am quite sure that she will win against fascism.
Hey, Perkins...
GO BE IRRELEVANT SOMEWHERE ELSE...
Perkins is such a hypocrite being that he is the top GAY man in his church of Hate and bigotry.
Once again these fanatical, religious wing-nuts are wrong when they believe everyone shares their sick, narrow minded thinking.
{ Well, Bully for you. Surely you don't think all gays are responsible for such actions. If someone discriminated against you, would you be ticked off?
Do you think members of the Klan should be able to adopt?
Really, get a grip. Deleted, Homophobe. SiteMonitor}
Login or Register to post comments.