Marjorie Christoffersen Resigns

el_coyote_12_08_08

El Coyote Says Goodbye to a Sweet Lady

Many of my readers may remember Marjorie Christoffersen, the woman who was targeted by gay marriage activists for her $100 dollar donation.  Marjorie resigned from her position at the El Coyote Restaurant rather than bow to pressure from gay activists to renounce her faith and belief.  See part one of Marjorie’s ordeal here:  Gay Rights Vigilantes Strike El Coyote.

A friend of mine who attended Margorie’s church yesterday sent me this email just as the news of her resignation broke:

“Our family attended the Wilshire Ward this morning to witness the blessing of my new baby nephew. While in that fast and testimony meeting, we had the unique opportunity to hear the testimony of Marjorie Christoffersen (El Coyote Restaurant). She expressed gratitude for all of the members of her ward and the church, who have been supportive of her since Prop 8. She specifically stated that she was grateful for this trial and that she was doing her best to find the joy in it all. But, what struck me the most was when she said that she hopes she has not disappointed any of us (meaning the congregation and larger, the church members as a whole). I was thinking that each month we sit in testimony meetings often hearing of people whose lives have been changed and even blessed because of their trials. And that sometimes we know of the trial that member is referring, and sometimes we don’t. But it made a distinct impression on me that in her case, her trial has been so public. That she has been made a sort of “example” (for lack of a better word) of what so many of us were feeling privately. I am no scholar, but I can’t think of anyone in the recent history of our church, whose trial has been almost a modern day scripture account. By that, I mean that  by simply following the prophet, she has been publicly persecuted and no doubt has had to do an unfathomable amount of prayer, soul searching, etc .  It was an inspiring testimony and it was a joy to feel of her spirit.”

Kudos to you Marjorie for standing for something you believe in, and for not backing down.

—Beetle Blogger

Restaurant manager to leave El Coyote over Prop. 8 controversy

BY CHRISTOPHER LISOTTA

Frontiers magazine learned Saturday Marjorie Christoffersen is stepping down as a manager at the Los Angeles restaurant El Coyote. Bill Schoeppner, a fellow manager at El Coyote who has been with the restaurant for 26 years, told Frontiers Christoffersen was also resigning as a member of El Coyote’s board of directors.

“She no longer works here,” Schoeppner said on Saturday. “She just told me tonight.”

Christoffersen created a firestorm of controversy for the 77-year-old L.A. institution after local blogs broke the news she had donated $100 to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. Long a popular destination for the LGBT community for its cheap Mexican food and generous Margaritas, El Coyote found itself the target of boycotts and demonstrations after Christoffersen’s donation went public. In a press conference hosted by the restaurant days after the news of the donation broke, Christoffersen tried to explain her donation did not have to do with animus for gay and lesbian people, but was instead tied to her Mormon faith. Christoffersen did not apologize for the donation and did not indicate she would support any No on 8 organization. Boycott organizers and demonstrators were not impressed, and have argued online and in the local news media that Christoffersen’s support for the ban of same-sex marriage was reason to shun El Coyote.

Schoeppner said Christoffersen tended her resignation to her mother, Grace Salisbury, who is described on the El Coyote Web site as the “matriarch” of the restaurant. Salisbury’s sister-in-law founded El Coyote in 1931.

“Everybody is kind of used to her walking around the restaurant with a water pitcher going from table to table to table,” Schoeppner said of Christofferson. “I guess that part is no longer going to exist.”

More:

Marjorie’s Turn to Speak

L.A. Times Promotes Gay Vigilantism

El Coyote Targeted for $100 Donation

81 Comments

  1. December 9, 2008 at 6:57 am

    She must have an inner piece within her because she has suffered for Jesus and for the truth about marriage.

  2. beetlebabee said,

    December 9, 2008 at 10:51 am

    I can hardly imagine being called to go through something like that. It’s the epitome of intolerance. Had she been forced to leave because of her sexual orientation, there would be no end to the howls for retribution.

  3. Ryan said,

    December 9, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    You don’t know what the world “intolerance” means. Refusing to give Margie any more of our money is not “intolerance”. The fact that you think we should lower our gaze, slump our shoulders, and continue to give our money to someone who has nothing but contempt for us is laughable. And BTW, she was not “forced to leave”. Those of us boycotting El Coyote have no hiring or firing authority at El Coyote. The only thing we have power over is our own pocketbooks. Just as you would refuse to shop at a restaurant that had an outspoken, anti-Christian owner, we have every right to do the same. There’s nothing more American and noble than standing up for one’s beliefs.

  4. beetlebabee said,

    December 9, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    Ryan, I think there is a fine line here between mob thuggery and conscientious spending, and the difference is all in how it’s done. Perhaps you have not seen the video of the elderly Marjorie quietly speaking words of peace and conciliation to those who took personal offense at her 100 dollar donation? A private donation, I might add, not one made through her employer. She had to have a daughter on each side of her to hold her up while she spoke because she was so emotionally overwrought at the thought of people being upset with her that she visibly shook as she spoke. Her words were not at all demeaning to anyone.

    Intolerance is the inability to allow someone a differing point of view, and this case is the picture of intolerance my friend. The characterization of her actions by you as browbeating or putting you into slavery, second class citizenship etc. is either reprehensible or unconscionably ignorant.

    You don’t have to believe my characterization. See the video here as it happened:

    http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/gay-rights-vigilantes/

  5. lazarus said,

    December 9, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    It’s called public relations. Anyone who runs a business should be familiar with the concept.

    Marjie Christofferson offended her customers by donating money to an anti-gay propaganda campaign, and now her gay customers have taken their money to another establishment. This is how a free market economy works.

    Nobody asked her to renounce her faith. Marjie, of her own accord, told her customers that she would take back the donation if she could. But when she was asked if she would donate to a pro-gay organization — which would in effect negate her anti-gay donation — she refused, sparking another PR disaster.

    You can’t insult your customers and then expect them to continue supporting your business. The lesson here is that if you run a business that relies on gay customers, don’t give money to anti-gay causes. If you’re conscience tells you that you must give to an anti-gay cause, don’t whine about it when gays stop frequenting your establishment.

  6. Ryan said,

    December 9, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    I’ve seen the video. I was not impressed. Her words were of “peace and conciliation” were simply words. As no doubt your parents taught you, actions speak much louder. Your character assasination (“mob thuggery”) is way off the mark. No one has physically threatened or attacked Margie or anyone else at El Coyote. And if someone were to do so, they should be severely punished to the fullest extent of the law.
    And Margie is of course allowed a differing point of view. No one has come close to saying she is not allowed her point of view. What you seem to think is that we should be obligated to financially support her point of view. And we are not. So your charge of “intolerance” is without merit.
    At no point did I characterize donating money to Prop 8 as equivalent to “browbeating” or putting us into slavery. Your Straw Man argument is quite transparent.
    The bottom line is, you guys thought you could take our rights away and we would simply roll over and accept it. . You were wrong. This is in no way over.

  7. blacknright said,

    December 9, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    I missed Sunday’s service, the first time in over year. Now, I really regret not going, I would’ve loved to have heard her testimony. In any case, we are not disappointed in her. We all have to do what is best for us. She has shown she has the tenacity to stand by what she believes even when it causes personal hardship. She is quite amazing. And she shouldn’t let bullies and thugs diminish her in any way. For the people did try to force her to go back on her beliefs and give to organizations she does not believe in or else suffer their wrath. Sounds like browbeating and intolerance to me. They went after Margie because she was an easy target and for no other reason. It was none of their business anyway, what she does or does not donate. Gay activists are always talking about privacy but feel no qualms invading someone else’s private donation. If the same tactics had been employed for the No on Prop 8 group we would’ve been touted as Nazis and rightly so. Doing such underhanded and conniving maneuvers is nothing more than Brown Shirt thuggery.

    These militant, radical and angry gay activists, don’t know anything about personal sacrifice, putting your belief in God before anything else or anything that resembles true nobility and character. They only understand force and hatred. But the more hate they throw our way, the more our pews fill up week after week. Your hatred for our church is actually bringing more people to Christ, so thank you. God bless you Marjorie we are behind you all the way.

  8. { Lisa } said,

    December 9, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    I wonder how the gays would like it if people found out who their parents were and started harassing them, chasing them out of their houses, clinging to their fences while they gnash teeth, shout, scream and cry like babies, just because their kids are gay….??

  9. beetlebabee said,

    December 9, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    Blacknright, couldn’t have said it better myself!

  10. Ryan said,

    December 9, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    “For the people did try to force her to go back on her beliefs and give to organizations she does not believe in or else suffer their wrath.”

    You’re lying. In the name of the God you claim to believe in you lie without shame.. No one tried to force her to do anything. We don’t have that kind of power, no one does. She is entitled to her own choices, and we are entitled to ours, which include not financially supporting hers.

    “Doing such underhanded and conniving maneuvers is nothing more than Brown Shirt thuggery.”

    This is just so cute! Boycotting is neither “underhanded” nor “conniving”. You guys do it all the time yourselves. (But I guess it’s noble and just when you do it, huh?)

    “If the same tactics had been employed for the No on Prop 8 group we would’ve been touted as Nazis and rightly so. ”

    If you frequently eat at a restaurant where the owner donates money to anti-Mormon causes, then you are justified in criticizing us for not eating at El Coyote. But somehow I don’t think you do that.

    But by all means, call us names and look down your noses at us, all the while having the gall to claim that *you’re* the oppressed ones. It’s amusing. That is your right. But when you’re like Margie and you also have your hand out…well, think again.

  11. lazarus said,

    December 9, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    Campaign contributions are a matter of public record. No one invaded Marjie’s privacy. When she donated money to a political campaign she was making a public statement. This stopped being about privately held relgious beliefs the minute the Yes on 8 campaign started running anti-gay ads on TV.

    And spare me the righteousness over her religious convictions. She made a living selling alcohol even though her church says drinking is a sin. What hypocrite! She opposes one form of sin while profiting from another. I guess the Mormon church is okay with sin if it can find a way to make money off it.

  12. Ryan said,

    December 9, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    “I wonder how the gays would like it if people found out who their parents were and started harassing them, chasing them out of their houses, clinging to their fences while they gnash teeth, shout, scream and cry like babies, just because their kids are gay….??”

    That would be awful. It also has literally nothing to do with El Coyote.

  13. rubyeliot said,

    December 9, 2008 at 3:41 pm

    so ya’ll think its okay to protest/boycott a business because of a personal donation– in no way associated with the company.

    i’m okay with not eathing there. seriously do whatever you want. but protesting outside, visibly, etc….seems a little over the top. for a $100 personal donation.

  14. beetlebabee said,

    December 9, 2008 at 3:46 pm

    She isn’t even the owner of the business, or the manager. She’s just tangentially related to the woman who owns the business. Good grief. Over a hundred dollars….can you even hear yourself Lazarus?

    Turn the issue around and you wouldn’t be so eager to have your personal associations and life looked into for every cause you donated to. Those issues are made public record for campaign finance reasons, the intent is to keep politics clean by making sure large corporations and donors are publicly known so they can’t expect special favors. It is absolutely not for the politics of personal destruction and intimidation of donors. It may be strictly legal to use this information this way, but it’s not right by a long shot.

  15. lazarus said,

    December 9, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    beetlebabee and rubyeliot, are you at all familiar with this establishment? Marjie Christofferson isn’t just another employee. Apart from being related to the owners and a board member, she was the public face of the restaurant. She was the Ronald McDonald of El Coyote.

    And if I contributed to a propaganda campaign that spread lies about a minority group with intention of “eliminating rights” for a minority group, I would expect that minority group to boycott my business. But this isn’t a problem for me because I know better than to link my business to controversial causes.

  16. rubyeliot said,

    December 9, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Good job then. SUCCESS!. They did an excellent service (since the “right” was exactly what was under debate).

    I bet the boycotters feel real good about themselves. too bad they can’t do the same for the other millions of people who voted for the initiative and the thousands who donated.

    This is really good PR for GLBTQ cause of tolerance and respect. Meanwhile. Margie’s life will continue.

  17. Pearl said,

    December 9, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    Woah Lazarus and Ryan,

    You two seem to have a personal vendetta to fulfill here. Take it easy. Nobody is attacking you, just defending Marjorie and the way her personal, $100 donation has led, through a series of harassments and intimidations by boycott participants and protesters, to her resignation. That is a travesty. No one, absolutely no one, deserves to be heckled into resignation from their livelihood simply for participating in a democratic process. Withholding your patronage is one thing; sending hate mail and making unrealistic demands, and boycotting an entire establishment for their one employee who PERSONALLY donated to a cause she believes in, is wrong.

    Now, Lazarus, some of your statements would suggest that you are hell-bent on misunderstanding the Yes on 8 side of this equation. If you are gay or a strong gay marriage supporter, I can understand your disappointment with the vote results, but that does not make it okay to mud-sling and falsely accuse. You said:

    “This stopped being about privately held relgious beliefs the minute the Yes on 8 campaign started running anti-gay ads on TV.”

    The Yes on 8 campaign never ran “anti-gay ads.” They ran anti-gay marriage ads. There is a world of difference; namely that we who support traditional marriage are not necessarily anti-gay, just pro-traditional marriage.

    You also said, “I guess the Mormon church is okay with sin if it can find a way to make money off it.”

    I say you’ve got it backward. It is Hollywood’s Marc Shaiman, along with his “all-star cast,” who suggests we accept sin in order to profit from it. According to Prop 8 – The Musical, we should embrace gay marriage in order to boost our economy. Ridiculous notion.

    You say, “She made a living selling alcohol even though her church says drinking is a sin. What hypocrite!”

    Her living was made serving food. It was the restaurant’s choice to offer alcohol. As a server, her role was never to attempt to persuade people to drink. She simply served what people ordered. Your accusations are getting wilder, but you’re not done yet.

    You say, “I guess the Mormon church is okay with sin if it can find a way to make money off it.”

    So now Marjorie is suddenly “the Mormon church.” Boy, that was a leap. The Mormon church has nothing to do with this entire story except that Marjorie is a member of it. The Mormon church does not own El Coyote, they gain nothing from the selling of alcohol there.

    You boys seriously need to simmer down and try to understand what the rest of the world is slowly but surely beginning to realize. Gay rights activists have gone too far in their fervor and gotten too caught up in their own hype. There are proper outlets for all disappointments and frustrations; intimidation and mob rule are not among those outlets.

  18. GrammyPammy said,

    December 9, 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Oh ha ha. I’ve been silently following this thread since its inception…until I saw this new gem from Lazarus. You are doing nothing for your cause, young man/lady. I hate to sound rude, but you really should just stop talking. You sound so foolish saying things like, “Marjie Christofferson isn’t just another employee. Apart from being related to the owners and a board member, she was the public face of the restaurant. She was the Ronald McDonald of El Coyote.”

    The notion of comparing Marjorie Christoffersen to the mascot of an International fast food chain is just so absurd it’s comical. Does she have regular television spots and statues built in her honor? Is she plastered on huge sales ads on the sides of buses and does she have her own charity house in every huge city around the globe?

    Nothing you say here is convincing anyone that what has happened to Marjorie was justified in any way. Good luck though, if you choose to continue with these ridiculous accusations.

  19. Russ (and former long-time customer of El Coyote who will never eat there again) said,

    December 9, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    1. Marjorie Cristofferson is entitled to her beliefs, and to make donations to causes she believes in.
    2. Gay people are entitled to feel deeply betrayed by Marjorie when she takes their money with one hand, and then stabs them in the back with the other hand.
    3. Marjorie, when asked if she would change her position, stuck to her beliefs and did not cave in.
    4. Gay people, now faced with the finality of Marjorie’s decision, now elect to no longer patronize Marjorie’s establishment.
    5. Everyone has behaved in accordance to their beliefs.
    6. Marjorie (and others who voted yes on 8) believes she and her religion can take rights away from people, and donated to such a cause.
    7. Gay people believe in equal rights for everyone, protested briefly in front of El Coyote to make their voices heard, and now elect to no longer spend their hard-earned money at an establishment helmed by a person who seeks to take rights away from gay people and make gay people second class citizens.
    8. We all make decisions in life, and we all bear the consequences of those decisions.

    END OF STORY.

  20. beetlebabee said,

    December 9, 2008 at 5:03 pm

    Russ, I wholeheartedly support people’s right to choose where to spend their money based on the moral choices of the business: http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/think-with-your-head-vote-with-your-feet/

    However, where our paths diverge is the extent to which this God given expression of free speech has been taken. El Coyote obviously made a clear distinction between the beliefs of it’s management and the beliefs of it’s staff. Marjorie does not represent the interests of El Coyote, as illustrated by the…..get ready for this…..TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR donation the restaurant made to gay causes in order to appease and “prove” their loyalty to the gay community.

    If this were about El Coyote, the story would have ended there. The problem is, it’s not about El Coyote, or your feelings being hurt by their business, it’s about persecuting an elderly woman who made a lunch money donation to a cause she believes in and is now unemployed for the Holidays because of that persecution.

    If that is the way you think is fair to play, so be it, but I’m telling you right now, this issue is the face of the gay community right now and it is an ugly one.

  21. ben said,

    December 9, 2008 at 5:13 pm

    ryan – you are my hero. everything i think of to say, you have already said it. thank the good lord for someone with a BRAIN to respond the sheer idiocy in these comments.

  22. Russ (and former long-time customer of El Coyote who will never eat there again) said,

    December 9, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    The face of the Yes on 8 campaign, my friends, is what’s ugly here. Yes on 8 stole rights from a minority and made that minority second class citizens. To me, that’s what’s ugly. Majorie’s unemployment (if you can call it that — let’s be honest, she’s still profiting from the restaurant’s business, she’s just not showing up there for work as of today). The gay community did not call for her to be fired. She resigned, no doubt encouraged by the restaurant management, for the sake of the business. You probably don’t know that this restaurant thrived and prospered because of the gay community and its friends and family. A simple lesson here is that you don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Majorie bit, and she did it to herself (granted, her right to do so, and again, gay people’s right to react whether you agree or not). If Marjorie has donated one penny to the yes on 8 campaign it would have been too much. Her actions are no better than KKK members who hide behind their sheets to avoid recognition of their vile acts. Majorie no doubt never knew her sheet would be torn from her head and she would be revealed. Again, she betrayed the very customers she pretended to support. Had she be open about her beliefs and prejudice against gays, people would not have been blindsided by her actions. Instead, she sought to skulk around in the shadows, under her KKK sheet if you will, and take money from gays, and then use that money to attempt to hurt gays. She can’t for one second deny that she knew her actions would hurt people. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous on her part. Don’t assume Ms. Cristofferson finds herself standing in a breadline. She still benefits greatly from the restaurant, and still tithes to her religion which supports unwarranted attacks on gay people. This is why gays will no longer spend their money at this restaurant. Marjorie expressed herself in a way that is far uglier and more disgusting than a simple one-night protest and a permanent boycott. The problem with all of this is that one religion assumes its word is the word all should follow. There are hundreds of religions and each has its own book/bible. Rather than force your religious beliefs on a people, you should practice your religious beliefs, and allow others to practice theirs. We should all be in harmony. The way to do that is to stay out of each other’s business and quit trying to dictate morality. Imagine if we all just lived together and said “live and let live.” Then none of this would be happening now. This entire event and the fallout lands squarely on the shoulders of those who would seek to deny the rights of others based on religion. So tell me, who would Jesus discriminate against? Who would Jesus hate? We are all children of God. Once that message gets through the thick skulls and brainless among us, our world will finally be at peace. Until then, we’ll fight.

  23. beetlebabee said,

    December 9, 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Religion? World domination? Who are you talking to? Take a look around my friend, Beetle Blogger is not based on any one religious viewpoint, nor are it’s readers, so who are you responding to?

    The El Coyote incident is about the battle of ideas, I grant you, but it’s not about one religion persecuting another unless you are talking about secularism squeezing out moral decency.

  24. Russ (and former long-time customer of El Coyote who will never eat there again) said,

    December 9, 2008 at 6:42 pm

    Nowhere is “world domination” mentioned in anything I wrote. And you cannot deny that organized religion is behind the yes on 8 campaign. If you are going to attempt to put words into someone’s mouth, then you lack any sort of credibility and cannot be addressed further.

    Equal rights for all. It’s simple. Jesus Christ would agree. That’s all anyone asks for, and it costs nothing. $40 million+ was spent on the yes on 8 campaign. Imagine what good could have been done with that money. Instead, religion used that money to spread hate. It’s shameful.

  25. beetlebabee said,

    December 9, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    Jesus would agree? Are you among the religious? and who says hate has anything to do with it? Isn’t the “8 is hate” argument just a cheap emotional shot to get out of debating facts?

  26. GrammyPammy said,

    December 9, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    Ben,

    Therein lies evidence of our society’s sad decline – that you would choose for a hero someone who, while begging for love and acceptance on the one hand, is a proponent of revenge and spite on the other.

    Calling the respectful opinions and brave defense of an elderly woman “idiocy” is unkind.

  27. GrammyPammy said,

    December 9, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    Sweet Beetle Lady, methinks Russ is a disrespectful fanatic who ought not to be allowed voice in this respectful forum anymore. Equating anyone’s contribution to Yes on 8 to members of the KKK is deeply offensive and should never be a part of this conversation. Russ is the type of person who seems to want to mouth off without affording anyone else the respect of actually listening. This is not a soapbox from which you can indoctrinate the good readers of Beetle Blogger, Russ. (Not that they would give you the time of day anyway – you’ve written yourself off because of all these inappropriate accusations about Yes on 8 association with the KKK).

    Ah well, it’s up to BeetleBabee. This is her blog after all. I am just appalled that one who wishes the world would accept gay marriage under the excuse that we shouldn’t legislate love, then turns around and writes these scathing accusations about an old woman who donated a mere $100 to something she believed in. Apparently gays have a patent on victimization because they certainly can’t stand it when someone else warrants that status.

  28. Russ (and former long-time customer of El Coyote who will never eat there again) said,

    December 9, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    Those who claim to believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ invoke his name when they seek to deprive others of equal rights (as was done with the yes on 8 campaign). You cannot argue with that. My point is this: If indeed you believe in Jesus Christ, then you couldn’t possibly support anything in life that deprives others of the same rights you enjoy. Am I among the religious? I was raised Catholic, but do not, as an adult, believe in organized religion for me. As far as 8 being hate, my opinion is that it is not a cheap shot. It’s how I feel. As far as debating “facts,” what “facts” are there to debate? This is simple: A majority vote sought to deprive a minority of its rights. My position is simple: Equal rights for all. If you want to debate that, then of course go right ahead. My opinion however will always be equal rights for all. As far as my feeling that Jesus Christ would agree, well I suppose that’s just my feeling as well. Obviously, Jesus didn’t speak to me. Equal rights for all. Costs nothing, yet reaps huge rewards for all of us. All of us. Imagine.

  29. Russ (and former long-time customer of El Coyote who will never eat there again) said,

    December 9, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    And goodbye to you all. I see what this website is now, and it certainly is not for those who believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. It’s a catchall for the deeply bigoted among us. If indeed there is a judgment day, I wouldn’t want to be any of you. Go forward and hate away, since that’s all you really want to do. Shameful.

  30. { Lisa } said,

    December 9, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    Ryan,

    I beg to differ here. She is to “el coyote” as gays are to parents. It is wrong for people to go after anyone for what they believe in. But to then go further and go after people that know the people… Seems to me with all the talk about hatred, and bigotry, that gays run that show.

  31. GrammyPammy said,

    December 9, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    Oh brother, Russ (patent holder on victimization). Enough already. You certainly know how to dish out the ugly and hateful, but you have serious problems with anyone respectfully disagreeing with you. If we do and if we call you out on inappropriate parallels, you simply stalk away like a petulant child, flinging more wild accusations and hateful, hurtful presumptions at those who have smacked your little behind back into line. Good luck in your search for happiness. You will not find it in debasing and diminishing others and their beliefs that are not in line with yours.

  32. Ryan said,

    December 9, 2008 at 9:36 pm

    Lisa, I have not heard of any instances of Margie or anyone else who works at El Coyote being chased out of their homes, etc. Nor have we done any of your offensive and quite rude characterizations. If you were speaking metaphorically, then you were still way off the mark.
    Everyone who has ever gone to El Coyote knows she was not simply an “employee”. She was the face of the restaurant. And although since this incident has occurred, El Coyote has pledged to make a donation to GLBT causes, but thus far no donation has occurred. Your “10,000 dollar” line is false.

    Pearl, please do not tell me to “calm down”. It is patronizing and rude. At no point have I lost my temper. You have literally no idea what it’s like to stay up late on November 4th, nervously checking vote results, wondering if and when your own marriage will be torn apart.

    “This is really good PR for GLBTQ cause of tolerance and respect”

    Seriously, that line there? Utterly absurd. You would have us show “tolerance and respect” to those who have shown us neither. Unbelievable.

    But this debate here, this topic is not about “gay marriage”. This is about whether it is okay to boycott a business who’s values you do not support. You people seem to think it is not okay when we do it, but just fine when you do it. It’s a real testament to your low opinion of gay people that you seem to be *genuinely surprised* that we chose to stop giving our money to a company who’s owner uses that money against us. I wrote earlier suggesting none of you would ever consider eating at a restaurant who’s owner donated to anti-Mormon causes. All of you blithely breezed past that statement, knowing that I was right and you would never do any such thing. I would suggest that if any of you were capable of standing outside of this argument and looking at it objectively you would see that I am right. Not about gay marriage, we’ll obviously never agree about that. But about out right to stand up for our beliefs.

  33. waltzinexile said,

    December 9, 2008 at 9:59 pm

    @GrammyPammy said:
    Good luck in your search for happiness. You will not find it in debasing and diminishing others and their beliefs that are not in line with yours.

    ROFL thanks for the laugh – I needed that.

  34. rubyeliot said,

    December 9, 2008 at 10:03 pm

    Marjorie is not the owner.

    I don’t think anyone in this forum has issues with boycotting a company for its support of causes with which they disagree. But I think it’s interesting that the GLBTQ community chooses to blacklist individuals for private donations. and punish the company they work for.

    seriously, boycott away…as your image of tolerance goes down the drain. (not that people ever thougth GLBTQ community was really tolerant).

  35. rubyeliot said,

    December 9, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    if my point wasn’t clear:
    people are “surprised” because the boycott punishes the whole company for one woman’s private $100 dollar donation.

  36. lazarus said,

    December 9, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    GrammyPammy, you’ve just proved that you’re not familiar with El Coyote and Marjie’s uniquely personal relationship to the community. She was an integral part of the business. She used to mingle with customers. When it celebrated its 75-year anniversary, Marjie was the one who gave interviews promoting the restaurant. Most of the people who are now boycotting El Coyote thought of Marjie as a friend, and they’re now staying away because they feel personally betrayed by her.

    The food at El Coyote is bad. Really bad. Famously bad. Nobody goes there for the food. They go for the atmosphere and sense of community. But Marjie destroyed that sense of community by supporting a measure that eliminates rights for some of her customers and by funding a propaganda campaign that attacked some of her customers.

    The official title of Proposition 8 explicitly states that it’s about eliminating a right given to same-sex couples, so spare me these self-serving justifications about how it wasn’t an attack on gay people but a defense of traditional marriage. If Prop 8 was about protecting traditional marriage, it would’ve abolished divorce. And those Yes on 8 ads with their ominous music and insinuations about gays coming after children were clearly an attack on gay people. There’s no way around it. You can’t align yourself with hatemongers like Dobson and groups that want to eliminate every legal protection for gay people and then pretend that the Yes on 8 campaign wasn’t about attacking the gay community. Instead of whining about the backlash, Yes on H8ers need to take responsibility for their slimy, Rovian tactics.

    BTW, the boycotts and protests aren’t about changing minds. They’re about serving notice. Welcome to the new “new normal”. Anyone who runs a business and publicly supports anti-gay legislation will pay a price in terms of lost customers.

    If you put a rainbow flag in front of an establishment, the homophobes and religious zealots are sure to stay away. If a company has gay-friendly policies (Disney, Levis, etc.) religious groups organize boycotts. The bigots even danced on Heath Ledgers grave — with no regard as to how his daughter and family would feel about it — just because he once played a gay guy in a movie. So please spare me the sanctimonious “how would you feel if straight people did this to you” arguments, because gay people are already living with that reality.

  37. lazarus said,

    December 9, 2008 at 10:26 pm

    “Marjorie is not the owner.”

    Nice try. Her family owns it, and she was on the board of directors — meaning, aside from being the public face of El Coyote, she ran the place!

  38. December 9, 2008 at 10:39 pm

    BTW, the boycotts and protests aren’t about changing minds. They’re about serving notice. Welcome to the new “new normal”. Anyone who runs a business and publicly supports anti-gay legislation will pay a price in terms of lost customers.

    that’s cool, but it doesn’t help the GLBTQ cause. (Didn’t Mayor Newsrom sound like this?)

    But go for the boycotts. Go for it.

  39. { Lisa } said,

    December 9, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    Ryan, apparently you didnt watch all the coverage on how the gays behaved when the vote went against them!! Looked like a fight at the zoo.

  40. Ryan said,

    December 10, 2008 at 12:12 am

    No it didn’t, Lisa and shame on you. The protests have been by and large very peaceful with very few exceptions.

    [BTW, the boycotts and protests aren’t about changing minds. They’re about serving notice. Welcome to the new “new normal”. Anyone who runs a business and publicly supports anti-gay legislation will pay a price in terms of lost customers].

    “that’s cool, but it doesn’t help the GLBTQ cause.”

    Oh yes, it does. Protests have historically been shown to help political causes. You guys boycotted McDonald’s for donating money to a GLBT group. And you succeeded. And good for you! You took a moral stand. I don’t agree with your stand, but I agree that you have a right to take it. (Notice how, unlike the despicable Lisa, I didn’t call you an animal)?
    Do you really think Dave Leatherby (whose business is suffering now as much as El Coyote’s) or the CEO of Cinemark will be so quick to donate money when this goes up again in 2010? Think again. Good will triumph.
    And even if it *never* works, I will *never* give money to a company that despises me. Neither would you. Neither would anyone who has any self-respect at all.

    Again, please any of you tell me the name of the anti-Mormon restaurant you frequent on a regular basis and if you cannot, kindly stop criticizing us for not going to an anti-gay restaurant. It makes you look like hypocrites.

  41. Happy Warrior said,

    December 10, 2008 at 12:36 am

    So, Ryan, the new “new normal” is a return to McCarthyism? Because that is exactly what you are proposing. Though many people here have tried to point this out to you, you still cannot seem to grasp the enormous difference between punishing a company for its policies, and punishing a company for an individual employee’s beliefs. The examples you state of religious groups boycotting companies with “gay-friendly” policies proves your confusion. It is totally legitimate to boycott a company when it chooses to make a moral statement. It is not legitimate to punish a company when an employee of that company makes a moral statement, and it’s unquestionably wrong to insist that the only reparation for the “damage” is that the individual in question renounce his conscientiously held beliefs or lose his job.

    So, by all means, hunt down and destroy the Communists… er, “religious zealots” in every organization and business in California if you want, but be clear about what it is you actually advocate and understand that it will make this world impossible for individuals with differing beliefs to coexist.

    And to answer your hypothetical: If there were a restaurant with ONE employee on its staff who voted against my personal interests, I would NEVER behave this way. And the simple truth is, you have an extremely difficult case to make that Marjorie is “anti-gay” (as your hypothetical situation insinuates). In fact, this just illustrates the major problem with the entire Prop 8 debate: both sides have individuals that either can’t understand or refuse to understand the complexities involved in this issue and who instead resort to name-calling and stereotypes.

  42. zone said,

    December 10, 2008 at 1:20 am

    I think the animalistic mental picture you’re referring to is this one:

    http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/pride-predjudice-prop8-rage/

  43. beetlebabee said,

    December 10, 2008 at 1:21 am

    It’s curious to me that here in California, where gay couples have every right that the state can give, the hate argument still has sway with some voices here. It’s obviously not about “rights”, but acceptance.

  44. December 10, 2008 at 1:30 am

    I’m not sure how many mormons are actually on this forum… I’m Christian, does that count?

    I agree with happy warrior…don’t really care if there is one person, even two or three, or five, who are anti-christian, people can believe whatever they want. If the establishment itself treats me with respect, then cool. If someone is rude to me, by saying something, possibly screaming in my face, or failing to bring me a coke refill (on purpose), I probably wouldn’t go back, but donating money on behalf of themselves even for a theoretical anti-christian initiative?

    I don’t really care.

    But if it was on behalf of the business, yeah, I might care more.

  45. shannon said,

    December 10, 2008 at 2:13 am

    Beetle, thanks so much for this post. I like the title. I think it fits Marjorie. She is sweet. Tomorrow I’m going to write her a little note.

  46. Eric said,

    December 10, 2008 at 4:02 am

    I agree with Ryan and Lazarus about their right to boycott a business that they perceive to be contrary to their beliefs. That only makes sense. As a “Mormon”, I don’t frequent establishments that are known to be meeting places for gays, as I’m not in the market for that type of relationship. Including, from what it sounds like, the El Coyote restaurant. I think it is important to distinguish between being “anti-gay”, and simply supporting the definition of a word, in this case “marriage”. Perhaps, Ryan and Lazarus, you could do as Elton John has done, and be comfortable with your relationship enough to call it by it’s own name, and not try to borrow credibility by insisting that we all use the same word. I applaud Mr. John for unapologetically claiming his relationship as, “a civil union, not marriage”.
    As for Jesus’ so-called “tolerance” of people’s “rights” to do as they please, I’m sure that the retailers that He threw out of the temple would certainly not label that behaviour as tolerant. I suggest that Marjorie proudly leave her job, as she will no doubt be blessed for being persecuted for Christ’s sake.

  47. Setting the record straight said,

    December 10, 2008 at 11:12 am

    Wow, El Coyote restaurant is the place I will go every time I am in Southern Cal. I will also start to promote this to all who have my same standards. A place I can actually take my kids to and not have to see two guys acting like two middle school kids. This “boycott” can go both ways and will. I have not spent a dime in San Fransico for five years……..and that will not change. So please keep telling me where you people will not be, and that is a place that I will go and give my money to.

  48. DnC132 said,

    December 10, 2008 at 2:25 pm

    @setting the record straight:

    Good luck with that counter boycott. Are you planning to buy margaritas for your kids too? Because that was the main reason to go there, not the food.

    You might not see “two guys acting like two middle school kids” inside the El Coyote, but since it’s located right smack in the middle of the gayest part of Hollywood your kids are going to see all kinds of gayness outside the restaurant.

    And do tell your waiter how you feel about gay people. I’m sure the openly gay management and waitstaff won’t hold it against you while they’re preparing your food.

  49. beetlebabee said,

    December 10, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    aaaand all this from a place that hates gays. hm.

  50. { Lisa } said,

    December 10, 2008 at 5:45 pm

    busted!!

  51. Setting the record straight said,

    December 10, 2008 at 10:49 pm

    @DnC132
    thanks for the update on how life is at the El Coyote. So…..let me get this straight……….from your post, some/most/all of the staff are openly gay, and ONE woman poring water to all of the gay customers gives $100 to a cause that she thinks is worth supporting…….and this is OUTRAGEOUS. Those who want to boycott this establishment are going to put more “gay” people out of work than this one woman, who had the guts to give $100. I wonder why the people who work there aren’t up in arms about this…….not her giving the money, but their own kind boycotting their place of employment. Never mind…..I would rather find this brave woman a job myself…….and stay the heck away from Hollywood all together.
    Oh, and no I don’t let my kids drink alcohol, I would just order double the food. Unless the wait staff new who I was……..

  52. setaf said,

    December 11, 2008 at 12:04 am

    I have read most of this article and its’ subsequent posts. I did not donate to yes on 8 side of the battle, but as I continue to read the hate and scorched earth type posts from the “gay” side of things, I am more and more resolved to donate next time. Most of you would rather cut off your nose to spite your face. The true colors are coming out of the closet too. For people who preach victimhood all the time, you sure do help rally the forces arrayed against you. You are your own worst enemies.

  53. KevinQC said,

    December 11, 2008 at 2:40 pm

    Ryan, you talk about freedom, but to you it only means that everyone is “free” to agree with you. Or else. I’d also confidently bet that, like me and most other gays and lesbians in this country, you’ve never know one day of actual “intolerance” in your life because of your sexual orientation. And no, being called names doesn’t count – that happens to everyone.

    I happen to be gay and appalled at the way Marjorie has been treated. Again, I find myself compelled to apologize for the childish, brutish, and irresponsible actions of far too many of my fellow gay and lesbian citizens.

  54. sean said,

    December 11, 2008 at 5:27 pm

    These comment posts are maddening. Thank you for your reasoned and tempered arguments Ryan, but when you have posters like GrammyPammy to deal with, it’s clear that it is a losing battle. What was one of the largest determinants of who supported for prop 8 across racial/gender ideological lines? Education, or lack of it. 69% of those with highschool or lower education only, supported prop 8. Sad but true.

    It’s like debating Koko the gorilla. Your arguments make so much sense, but they can’t get past the the primitive brain stem, into their underdeveloped neocortex.

    While empathy allows me to understand that many of those who voted for prop 8 did so with “good intentions” and according to their conscience, whether they stemmed directly or indirectly from religious indoctrination, ignorance, or “soul searching.” It seems difficult for some to realize that on the other side, the LGBT community are being denied what many consider a fundamental human right that crosses boundaries of religion and nation.

    So while you may not agree with the LGBT desire to be recognized as equal in every way under the law, please understand that when something as important as your ability to be seen as completely equal in the eyes of the nation, is being threatened, that they don’t just roll over, and move on with their slightly below equal lives, but choose to fight in whatever legal and constitutionally protected ways they can.

    That some continually point to denominations of money as if it mattered if it were 1 dollar or a million or “poor sad lady”, “mean mean gays,” when what are perceived to be fundamental human rights are at stake, shows just how little the yes side is in being able to comprehend what the LGBT community sees as at stake here.

    Everything. EVERYTHING is at stake here. Access to complete equality, without shame. Protected not just here in California, or even just in America, but as a human. Protected like our right to not be tortured, to own property, to practice a religion, to have a fair and public trial….

    But let’s be real, you are not that stupid. You know full well what is at stake here. So let’s not play, poor little privately bigoted marjie. When some members of the LGBT community withhold their pathetic sums of money, at one institution.

    I know that in the future more people will be educated, and people will see that sexual orientation doesn’t detract from the fundamental humanity of that person. They will look back in wonder and look with shame at how people cold have voted prop 8 to pass, how they could have crusaded to take away fundamental human rights from another group of people, much as we look back in shame that as late as 1965, 16 states still had laws preventing marriage across races.

    But your future shame is not enough. Not when what is at stake is as important as this: True equality, in every way, for all humans.

  55. DnC132 said,

    December 11, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    I know it’s been explained more than once — including in a post that was deleted by the moderator — that Margie isn’t just a person who works there. She’s upper management with family ties to the business. She holds such a prominent position at El Coyote that most people thought she was the owner. The quoted CHRISTOPHER LISOTTA article even says she was on the board of directors. So stop pretending she’s just some anonymous employee.

    To recap: her family owns the business; someday she’ll probably own the business; she’s on the board of directors; and she acts as a public representative for the restaurant. Do some googling and you’ll find old interviews where she speaks on behalf of the restaurant. Someone in her position has a unique responsibility. Her actions reflect on the business because she cast herself as the public face of El Coyote.

    What’s happening here is analagous to what happened to Anita Bryant after she launched an anti-gay crusade while she was the spokesperson for the Florida Citrus Commission. Her actions provoked a boycott. Gays stopped buying oranges and orange juice. Anita Bryant was bad for business so the FLCC dropped her as a spokesperson.

    At the press conference that Margie held, she and her daughters made the mistake of telling her customers that Margie was going to do whatever her church told her to do. That currently means Margie will support any political campaign her church chooses to wage against her gay customers. As a devout Mormon she’ll also be giving 10% of her El Coyote earnings to her anti-gay church. Any gay person who spends money at El Coyote while Margie collects a paycheck from it will be indirectly funding future efforts to overturn legal protections afforded to gays.

    It’s unfortunate that gay employees will be hurt by a boycott, but Margie should have thought of that before she flushed the goodwill of her customer base down the toilet. El Coyote is not a charity case. Customers are not obligated to eat there. The employees are Margie’s responsibility, not the customers’. She should’ve thought about them before she took a public stand that was sure to alienate her regulars.

    Incidentally, the Mormon church has a history of supporting sexist and racist political causes. In the ’70s it campaigned against equal rights for women. In the ’60s it was against equality for black people. I’m sure the prophet would love to open up a public discussion of the Negro Doctrine. Let’s shine a light on that dispicable aspect of the Mormon belief system. Her church’s shameful, bigoted record is why I won’t give Margie brownie points for sticking to her beliefs. Margie followed the orders of her church leaders without thinking about the consequences. No one who does that deserves respect.

    @the person who compared this to McCarthyism…

    McCarthyism = government action against communists, suspected communists, and/or anyone even remotely associated with a communist or suspected communist. Those who were targeted by McCarthyism were presumed guilty and persecuted as traitors with or without evidence.

    Prop 8 boycotts = consumer driven action against businesses run by people who supported Prop 8. People targeted for boycotts actually did what they’re being boycotted for.

    The two things aren’t even close to being similar.

    @whoever mentioned Elton John…

    I’m an American. That means I’m not going to let some British queen tell me how to live my life. If Elton and his partner want to move to the U.S. so they can live under U.S. domestic partnership laws his opinion will matter to me. Until then it’s irrelevant.

  56. beetlebabee said,

    December 11, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    The fight isn’t about rights. In California, where El Coyote is, civil unions have all the same rights as marriages.

    All this nonsense is over a word only.

    New Jersey has the same rights for civil unions as well, but that isn’t enough. I think we ought to at least be honest with ourselves here, rights have nothing to do with this issue….

    http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/camel-in-the-tent/

  57. sean said,

    December 11, 2008 at 5:58 pm

    Ignorance….it hurts more than just you.

    Marriage confers over 1000 protected and codified rights MOST of which are not conferred by civil unions. There are clear differences, within the state of California. Marriage is federally protected, and recognized across state lines. Marriage is a recognized fundamental human right, with legal protection in almost every nation, not conferred to “civil unions”. Having access to that word is all important. Trust me, it’s not about the word, it’s about all the rights that that word confers, and no other word will. It’s about equality.

    Quit playing stupid, it’s very unbecoming.

  58. beetlebabee said,

    December 11, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    You are welcome to comment in this arena Sean, but you need to keep your language respectful.

    The thousand rights you are referring to have nothing to do with marriage rights in California, those other rights are federal, not state given rights. Marjorie Christoffersen is a victim of angst over a name, not rights. Proposition 8 neither gave nor took away any rights, federal or state. It merely preserved a definition.

  59. DnC132 said,

    December 11, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    beetlebabee, if marriage is just a word why are you fighting so hard to keep certain people from using it? That argument actually helps the no on 8 side and proves that your side is promoting discrimination.

    The reason civil unions aren’t good enough in New Jersey is because people in civil unions aren’t getting the same benefits as marriage even though the law says they should. Partly because they’re being denied at the federal level. New Jersey is proving that separate is NOT equal. And the fact that civil unions are denied rights at the federal level is why you can’t say civil unions give all the same rights as marriage.

    But then if you think civil unions are so great why don’t YOU get a civil union? After all, marriage is only a word, right?

  60. beetlebabee said,

    December 11, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    Two reasons, One moral, one legal.

    The word marriage has a sacred connotation that gay unions will never have. It brings with it the aura of moral acceptability that is ultimately what the gay activists desire for their movement. Not rights given by the state or country, but moral acceptability is the true goal of this endeavor. If it were about rights, this fight would have ended back with the passage of partner laws in California.

    The second reason is because fiddling around with legal terms and creating special legal classes is a threat to my freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

    In New Jersey, separate is equal under the law of the country, all you demand is there that a state can give. Yet they want more. What they want, the state can’t give, moral acceptance.

    Gay activists hope to gain moral acceptance by forcing all people of all religions to bless their unions with the word and sacred title “marriage”.

    I have no problem with gays using their own words for their unions. Take a title, build it up, make it wonderful. I don’t personally agree that the gay lifestyle is a healthy one or moral one, but I don’t have any problem with consenting adults making their own judgements on that.

  61. sean said,

    December 12, 2008 at 4:29 am

    Ah now we are getting to the heart of the matter, aren’t we. Thankfully we can stop dancing around pretend issues when we all know exactly what is at stake here.

    In addition to the legal benefits that the word marriage confers across state lines, and national boundaries, benefits that civil unions can never hope to totally equal, we come to what it is that the LGBT people want, and what organized religion refuses to give them. The LGBT community want total equality, and the ability to live life with love, dignity, and happiness. There are many battles to be fought, but right now this one is the key. This one confers moral acceptance, moral equality, that the religious community can’t stand to give. Beneath that sugar coated veneer of protecting tradition, and feigned tolerance, seethes that palpable level of disgust. Disgust that you’ll have to see two men or women holding hands and ..gasp…have to explain to your kids …what? that those two love each other? Does it really kill you to do that? To just say, no matter my personal belief, You as a human are entitled to EVERY right that I have, without judgment, without condemnation, without disgust.

    And which traditions are we talking about? The traditional marriage of Abraham, and his harem of wives? Oh no not that one? The tradition of slavery?

    “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way”. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT))

    So even if you believe that the bible condones slavery….which seems quite clear to me, you would still say, that is my personal belief, but within this nation, where religion and state are separate, other religions might not condone slavery, that everyone is entitled to a life of freedom. So while you remain a citizen of this country, you’ll forego your biblically given right to own slaves.

    Or how about the tradition that says,

    “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

    Yup, in the good ol’ new testament. I know I feel shame for those women, that have to nerve to….excercise the constitutionally protected right to speech, in defiance to word of God…..

    So yeah tell me again why two men in a commited loving relationship is more disgusting that a woman speaking in a place of worship. I know that the Protestant God, doesn’t judge sin on a sliding scale. Sin like your judgment of others also makes you “fall short” of the glory of God.

    I digress, those writings are indefensible, whether biblical or not.

    Not in this modern world, where we believe, in the equality of all humanity, whether they be a women, man, black, asian, white, disabled, handicapped, gay, or straight, where religious beliefs against equality are checked at the door to this great nation.

    So thank you Beetlebabee, for letting us get past the smoke and mirrors.

    And now we can see why they don’t just “get over it.” Why some choose to not spend money, in a place where that disgust and intolerance still seethes. Where people work against the moral equality of a minority group, that just seeks to live their lives in peace and love. When rights as fundamental as those are actively opposed, when an attack as cutting and flat out unconstitutional as Prop 8, is allowed to even make it onto the ballot, you’d be sorely mistaken in thinking that anyone who believes in fundamental human equality, would not go down without the fight of their lives.

    Oddly I think Prop 8 will be the catalyst that now allows the window to pass permanent laws mandating human equality, and completing the civil rights movement. Trust me, there is no way that a simple majority of yokels, many of whom barely made it by highschool, will be allowed to rewrite a state constitution to remove rights once granted to a minority group true equality, both moral and legal. No way in your hell.

  62. { Lisa } said,

    December 12, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    You quoted alot of scripture there but what I want to know is where are the scriptures that say we are to tolerate sin? Or the one that says being gay is ok? or how about the one that says you have to have an “education” to have your vote mean something?

    You talk about human equality? Well we ARE already equal. What you are talking about is sin being equal. Your choosing to be gay has nothing to do with human equality.

    And for people who scream bigot, and intolerance you sure are not very tolerant of our opinions and right to express them. If you do not like what you are reading and seeing here then leave. You are FREE to do so:)

  63. beetlebabee said,

    December 12, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    Sean, moral acceptability has nothing to do with disgust, the ick factor or any thing of the sort….and it doesn’t even necessarily have to do with the bible. There is no culture of gay people anywhere among all the independently evolving societies of the earth that has succeeded. Most cultures of the earth don’t use the bible. Whether you believe the bible or not, most cultures still consider gay behavior to be immoral.

    Bashing the bible isn’t going to get you anywhere. Why don’t you try arguing the case for the gay lifestyle rather than trying to guilt or shame people into accepting it?

    The gay lifestyle doesn’t have all that much going for it. It’s not healthy for people and it’s not healthy for society.

  64. sean said,

    December 12, 2008 at 9:12 pm

    —-8<———-snip! Moderator edit.
    BeetleBabee, since when does having “most” of the people do or think anything make it right or wrong. Most of the Germans allowed the holocaust to happen, most of the south saw nothing wrong slavery at one time, including the christian world. Most of the world thought the world was flat and that the sun went around the earth, The inquisition even forcing the scientist of the day to recant from their discovered truths. Please don’t go to that place where that becomes a valid statement of fact. And for you as well, please address the immorality of women who dare to talk. But whether you believe homosexuality is immoral or not makes no difference. No one is asking you to start having sexual relations with other women, even if you were gay. What we are asking is that for those that feel that they were born inclined to be attracted to the same sex, that you don’t impose your morality, but afford them the same respect and view under law.

    I don’t know of any culture comprised of purely disabled people among all the independently evolving societies of the earth. And while I certainly would disagree, you might argue that it is unnatural. You might argue that being disabled “doesn’t have all that much going for it. It’s not healthy for people and it’s not healthy for society.” But I would hope that you wouldn’t pass a law rewriting a state’s constitution to no longer recognize a marriage between two disabled people, and further recognize How the world would be a sadder place without the Stephen Hawkings and Frida Kahlo’s in our world

    The point here is that your opinions shouldn’t figure into this, and I hope that you recognize that you are not presenting facts. Just because you or even religious texts say it is “unhealthy”, doesn’t make it so.

    What I think is unhealthy and destructive to society, is bigotry, and ignorance. Guess you guys are lucky we don’t write referendums to exclude “people living those lifestyles” from getting married.

    While I would hope that you would recognize that Michelangelo, Herman Melville, Oscar Wilde, Plato, Pope Benedict IX, Pope John XII, Pope Julius III, Pope Leo X, Pope Paul II, Pope Sixtus IV, Rudolph Valentino, Socrates, Saint Augustine, Vaslav Nijinsky, among a host of others, has made the world a richer place, I’d think we all just settle for people keeping their bigoted opinions out of the constitution.

  65. beetlebabee said,

    December 13, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    Sean, A note on the moderator edit, you are welcome to post as long as you show respect for other posters. Personal attack should not be necessary if your position is factually secure. Your comments to Lisa breached that line.

  66. beetlebabee said,

    December 13, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    “BeetleBabee, since when does having “most” of the people do or think anything make it right or wrong.”

    Sean, There is no culture of gay people anywhere among all the independently evolving societies of the earth that has succeeded. That is extremely significant because time is the test of viability. The gay lifestyle is not equal to traditional marriage because beyond just physical sex, it does not provide the necessary glue to hold the fabric of societies together. It’s not physically healthy either, do your research. Even setting aside AIDS, there just aren’t people running around touting the health benefits of the gay lifestyle. The truth is, self destructive gay unions are not merely another choice in a smorgasbord of equal options for marriage choices.

    Don’t confuse equal people with equal actions. People are equal, but their actions are not necessarily equal.

    The various successful cultures of the earth have similar things in common, one is a reverence for the family and an interest in it’s stability. The whole thing about gay culture is that any idea of right and wrong is tossed on it’s head if it interferes with self interest. Self interest unchecked can’t create societal stability. For instance monogamy.

    Monogamy is a concept that the gay culture has openly scorned, regardless of it’s devastating effect on children and families which are the bedrock of societal stability:

    http://leftcoastconservative.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/have-a-helping-of-group-marriage-with-your-gay-lifestyle

  67. sean said,

    December 13, 2008 at 4:36 pm

    Beetlebabee, It’s difficult to argue with someone who believes that sexual orientation is a simple choice, that you somehow chose to be attracted and pursue a member of the opposite sex, where you could easily decide to pursue sexual relations of the same sex. I would have thought that we were so far past that….

    So I am not quite sure why you are bringing up gay societies, as if whole societies could up and choose to become gay…

    And I would also ask you not to confuse when something is just an action, and when something is intrinsic to that being. If a Black person CHOOSES to marry a white person, that choice is protected, because we protect their right to pursue happiness, in a way that doesn’t physically hurt another being. When a women CHOOSES to vote we now protect that choice, because we believe in fundamental equality. So while marriage in the LGBT community is a choice, please don’t take us back to a place where you argue that their attraction to members of the same sex is a choice. Was yours a choice?

    Further you make some strong assumptions and throw out some pseudofactoids.

    1 Lesbians in America actually have the lowest promiscuity rate, having less sexual partners in their lifetimes than heterosexual males and females and homosexual males.
    2 While I agree that Aids has been devastating to the gay community, it is a sexually transmitted disease spread most often by unprotected sex and intravenous drug use, and it does not recognize sexual orientation. Aids currently is affecting mostly heterosexuals and children throughout the world. The gay community is vast, please don’t make the mistake of gross generalizations. It is akin to equating the “black lifestyle” as unhealthy isofar as the black males lifespan is significantly shorter than their white counterparts. They are still able to marry.
    3 Recognizing the LGBT community as equals, with the right to marry, is not at odds with “reverance” of family, and certainly strengthens a trend to monogamy.

    While I might agree with you that many if not most within the LGBT community currently have no desire to marry, when a commited couple chooses to commit to one another, however, why wouldn’t you, especially with the views you do hold, not want to celebrate and support that?

  68. sean said,

    December 13, 2008 at 4:53 pm

    Wow I see you edited my comments about women and silence in the church, drawn from the bible, and my absolute support of the freedom of speech.

    I am sure you will be pleased that this will be my final post. After Lisa begs for tolerance, of opinions, which I STRONGLY supported, I am still not suprised to see my comments partially censored.

    It was the one Freedom I claimed to be willing to fight for, even on her behalf.

    And don’t you even dare to suggest that quoting scripture is offensive, Beetlebabee, I see that both you skated by my demand that you address that one verse in the new testament with censorship. How convenient.

    Enjoy your pretty little fascist world, where you pick and choose your morality devoid of any other thought.

  69. beetlebabee said,

    December 13, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    I’d like to see research for any of those “pseudofactoids”.

    The choice is in the way you behave, not in having SSA. If you have SSA, you don’t have to act on it, just like many other urges and impulses we as humans curb every day. Just because you feel like doing it, doesn’t mean you should, and in the case of homosexuality, it doesn’t mean it won’t have serious consequences for society.

    The idea that there are armies of monogamous homosexual couples is a myth, and it goes back to the point in the New Jersey story that the interest is not for rights or we wouldn’t be talking about it anymore because both New Jersey and California already afford gay unions every right available. Bar none. It’s telling that this is not enough.

    The point is not rights, or ability, it’s moral acceptance. I would not celebrate or support gay unions because they’re inherently self destructive to family and society.

    Your numbered points are veering right back into the idea that equality is about choice not inherent in the person. Every person is equal, but not all actions are equal. Gay activists are trying to change what actions are acceptable. On the merits, the gay lifestyle doesn’t measure up, and I’d like to see any studies you have that show that it is equal on its merits.

  70. Troyrock said,

    December 16, 2008 at 8:08 am

    Sean,
    Here is some data to counter your pseudofactoids:
    1) Same sex relationships are shorter term than traditional marriages between a man and a wife.

    Some Dutch AIDs researcher, published in 2003 in the journal AIDS, reported on the number of partners among Amsterdam’s homosexual population.

    http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/pdfhandler.00002030-200305020-00012.pdf

    They found that the average duration of committed relationships among gay steady partners was 1.5 years. One and a half years does not sound to me like a “mutually supportive and healthy family relationship.”

    Divorce magazine says the average length of marriage in the US is about 8 years.

    http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

    Data from the Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census shows that only 29% of relationships last more than 7 years.

    http://glcensus.org/press/02052004.html

    The American College of Pediatricians say that “homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years.”

    http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

    The Family Research Center has a compilation of some good data. I need to look more at this one, it is data for the United States.

    http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

    Same sex relationships are less than traditional relationships:

    2) Same sex relationships are much more prone to domestic violence:

    According to Statistics Canada, Canada’s National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005, “Violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples.”

    http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/85-570-XIE2006001.pdf

    The American College of Pediatricians indicate that the number should be 2-3 times rather than the Canadian 2 times.

    http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50

    3) Homosexuals are 10-25 times more likely to be child molestors.

    The number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%. (Statistics Canada found only 1% of the population who described themselves as homosexual.) However, the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%. (Blanchard R et al. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000; 29: 463-78.) Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.

    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/aseb/2000/00000029/00000005/00225154

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/hh300395g834h386/

    Another more extensive survey was done of lots of other studies. Don’t be misled by the typo in the beginning paragraph, it unfortunately claims the opposite of what they are trying to show. I think it was just a mistake in the quote that they make as the rest of the paper makes clear.

    http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

    4) Homosexuality is at least partially determined by choice. The myth that there is some kind of “Homosexual gene” has long been disproved. I am especially interested in any data that you may be able to dig up to support that claim. According to JM Bailey, “Environmental influences play a significant role in the development of gender identity and sexual behavior.” (Bailey JM. “Biological perspectives on sexual orientation”. In: Garnets LD and Kimmel DC: Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences. Columbia University Press, New York. 2003)

    In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

    Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, “Gay Gene?” The Wall Street Journal announced, “Research Points Toward a Gay Gene…Normal Variation.”

    Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that “homosexuality is genetic.”

    But two other genetic researchers–one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard–comment:

    While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment. Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.

    The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:

    … the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple “violence genes” and intelligence genes” touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors. Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.

    There have been ABSOLUTELY NO studies that show that same sex unions are beneficial in health or well-being to those involved. There have been ABSOLUTELY NO studies that show that homosexuality is innate and unaffected by the environment as being female or being black are. There have been ABSOLUTELY NO studies to show that same sex sex unions are good for children. People are equal, choices (such as the choice of indulging in homosexual behavior) are not. Same sex unions and marriage are different, they should have different names.

  71. beetlebabee said,

    December 16, 2008 at 10:56 pm

    Well, if that doesn’t say it…….

  72. ruby said,

    December 16, 2008 at 11:44 pm

    1.) Lesbians in America actually have the lowest promiscuity rate, having less sexual partners in their lifetimes than heterosexual males and females and homosexual males.

    “America” is the key word here. I would also like to see some sources. In a study done in an australian std clinic lesbians were 4.5 times as likely as exclusively heterosexual controls to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners.

    They were also more likely to have sex with std high risk males (only 7% percent of them had never had sexual contact with a male).

    Gay and Lesbian Medical Association Press Release, “Ten Things Lesbians Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers” (July 17, 2002), http://www.glma.org/news/ releases/n02071710lesbianthings.html.

    Katherine Fethers, et al., “Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 347, (2000).

  73. frenchduck said,

    December 18, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    This is kinda belated but I’m new to this post, so bear with me. beetlebabee, you said that you didn’t disagree with homosexuality itself, saying it wasn’t exactly a choice. You then said that what you disagreed on was the choices that people make, the homosexual lifestyle if you will. You seemed to condone sexual repression in gay people. Would you deny yourself something your body told you to do, even if you didn’t choose it, so long as it didn’t harm you, or anybody else for that matter? When you were a teenager, did you repress every sexual thought you had because the church says you are not to have premarital sex? I’m not going around calling people hypocrites like some other people on this forum, but it does seem a bit incongruent when you advocate love for your fellow man (Jesus’s commandment) and then turn around and take bigoted actions against a group. “If God had wanted me otherwise he would have created me otherwise” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Who are you to say that we are sinful and intrinsically immoral when no one speaks to God directly and the references to homosexuality in the Bible all refer to codes of conduct to separate the Canaanites from Israel. And don’t you even mention Sodom and Gomorrah, because that’s a folk tale and its one “moral” family committed incest, so that’s hardly a moral guiding light.

  74. beetlebabee said,

    December 18, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    frenchduck,

    I think you have misunderstood my position. Although I am a religious and moral person, that is not the sole basis of my position on homosexuality. I believe in God, but I understand many people have many interpretations of how God relates to our actions that don’t necessarily agree. Rather than bash God and religion, I choose to fight the moral fight through fact and principle.

    I would disagree with Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. People have natural human tendencies that we suppress all the time in the interest of civility. Just because you feel it, doesn’t mean God meant you to act on it. Don’t we also have control and reason? In the battle between emotion and reason, there are choices. Reason is the higher control.

  75. ellen said,

    January 2, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    beetleabee – you’re a sick twisted FREAK. seriously. the way your brain works is positively evil and purely freakish. i’m not gay, and i am not even close to anybody who is. but i have read every word from top to bottom of this post and comments and you’re just sick. i hope god treats you with mercy when you pass, because you have shown remarkable lack of compassion for fellow man. you’ve written semi-politely, but you and several others in here are downright undignified.

  76. beetlebabee said,

    January 2, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    Now ellen, is that any way to make a first impression??

  77. Pearl said,

    January 3, 2009 at 3:46 am

    Woah, Ellen. Easy there, tiger.

  78. alicebea said,

    July 21, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    I just want to add while no one ever said they wanted her to denounce her faith it was implied when they wanted her to donate to a no on 8 organization. it’s been over a year at least since this happened. I wonder what peoples perspective on this is now. Does anyone know what Majorie is doing now?

  79. tommy said,

    February 16, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    The greater point about homosexuals: it isn’t just there sexual behavior that is repugnant, it’s also their cool, narcissistic, vindictive personalities and their incessant need to promote and advertise deviance at every turn.

    A sane society would be asking why gay men choose to congregate at children’s amusement and water parks for so-called “gay days” but, alas, we’re a long way from a sane society. The truth is that your average homosexual is a lot closer to the lewd type you encounter at gay pride parades than the “we’re just like you” type promoted by Hollywood.

    And, no, sorry homosexuals, I’m not a Christian. I’m actually an atheist.

  80. Michael said,

    June 28, 2014 at 11:21 pm

    I would hope that no one, NO ONE, in this thread is ok with the illegal leaking of Prop 8 donor information, which facilitated the outing of Ms. Christofferson’s donation.
    ….But I suspect strongly that said hope would be misplaced. It’s pretty awesome to utilize the corrupt state as a weapon when said weapon is on your side.
    In that event, it is absolutely correct that this is not over. Our journey to a dark place of jackbooted thuggery, and a dead civil society, is just beginning.

  81. beetlebabee said,

    June 29, 2014 at 6:09 am

    Agreed Michael. It is interesting to see where it all has led since this story became public. We know so much more now than we did then about who was leaking information and why. It’s good to see the truth come out. It won’t help Marjorie, but maybe it will help protect citizens like her in the future.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: