Hate for Hate’s Sake

Marriot Hotel photo by José Carlos Cortizo Pérez

Marriot Hotel photo by José Carlos Cortizo Pérez

At Last—The Truth.

First they came after those who donated big to prop 8.  Then they came after the ones who donated a hundred dollars or less.  Now they’re coming after people who didn’t donate at all.

Is it principle or hate at the core of the boycotts?  Comments I’ve heard have couched all kinds of behavior in the comfy blanket of victimhood.  Everyone is excused from unconscionable behavior when they feel they’ve been wronged, right?

What if the target of the hate has done nothing?  Does it matter?  Or is the guise of victimhood just another excuse for the free exercise of blind fury?

Bill Marriott and his family own the Marriott Hotel chain.  They have come under fire from gay activists recently, not because of something they’ve done, but because of their religious affiliation.  What is their crime?  Bill Marriott and his family are Mormon, and they refuse to state their unequivocal support for the gay marriage movement.

See these quotes from the Huffington Post’s Marc Gunther on the boycott of Marriot Hotels:

“… why go after Marriott? According to my friend Bob Witeck, who runs a consulting firm called Witeck-Combs that specializes in gay issues and advises Marriott, neither Bill Marriott nor members of his immediate family donated to the campaign on behalf of Prop 8. What’s more (and this is undisputed), Marriott as an employer has an exemplary record around diversity in general and LGBT employees in particular. “

“… it would appear that the Marriott Corp. is under fire only because the family belongs to the Mormon church. Bob Witeck says this is unfair. “Their policies and practices have been good for a long time,” he told me. “This notion of targeting people because of their faith is deeply troubling.”

“… silence or neutrality is unacceptable… Either you’re for us or against us…”

Certainly anyone who has a wallet is free to use it however he chooses, but consider the motivation here.  Those proclaiming to be victims of hate are proving the case of the proponents of prop 8 who said that the gay marriage movement was about religious persecution as much as anything else.

I read a quote this morning from an LDS commenter at the Salt Lake Tribune that is particularly prescient:

“Just because a person is gay, I don’t assume they have AIDS,  just because I’m Mormon, don’t assume I hate gays.” 

Even reporters have been attacked.  Steve Lopez, who interviewed Marjorie Christoffersen (Mormon target of the El Coyote Restaurant boycott), had this to say today on the virulent reaction his readers gave him:

…I’ve never been called a bigot so many times as I have since I wrote in my Sunday column about the boycott of El Coyote, the Los Angeles cantina whose Mormon manager donated $100 to Proposition 8, the successful November ballot initiative to ban gay marriage.

No doubt these hate-dripping commenters are among the same group who believe that prop 8 was all about hate.  All the rainbow wavers with signs proclaiming peace and love, was all that a sham?  a show?  What about respect and diversity?  What of tolerance and love? Who truly owns the hate?

Maggie Gallagher writes of her experience on the Dr. Phil Show:

“…I sat next to a powerful politician — Mayor Gavin Newsom — who ritually rejected violence but refused to decry these extraordinary threats to ordinary voters’ livelihoods. I also sat next to Joe Solmonese, head of the Human Rights Campaign, when a young Mormon in the audience asked him, “Why are you singling out my faith when so many other people supported Prop 8?” Did Joe, an amiable guy, take a moment to call his troops to back off from religious bigotry, to refocus on the larger problem — 7 million Californians disagree with his organization’s gay marriage civil rights dogma?

No. I sat silent, dumbfounded, next to Joe when he pointed at the young man and cried,

“We are going to go after your church every day for the next two years unless and until Prop 8 is overturned.”

My mouth dropped. This was Joe’s response just a few days after white powder was sent to LDS temples in Utah and California.”

Hate is hate, and it’s never justified.  It’s clear that advocates of same-sex “marriage” present the idea as a step forward for tolerance and respect—but their actions present a different case, especially if you happen to be Mormon.

Please Teach Me—This provocative video response to the anti-Mormon religious intolerance was created by a first-year LDS college student.

Just a reminder that the nation is watching.  —Beetle Blogger

Advertisements

32 Comments

  1. Taylor said,

    December 18, 2008 at 11:56 pm

    That was an amazing video, thank you for posting it.

  2. beetlebabee said,

    December 19, 2008 at 12:04 am

    This video is one I’ve been mulling over for a week or so, looking for the right opportunity to use. I thought the whole “Mormons are scum” line was pretty much old news, but here this came along just today.

    Not a lot of creativity on the opposition side is there?

  3. Aggie said,

    December 19, 2008 at 12:21 am

    The only thing I would add to the end of the video is the word “AGAIN”.

  4. December 19, 2008 at 1:10 am

    The homosexual agenda seems to be well financed but they still are very much a loud minority.

    When I first read your post especially this bit

    “… silence or neutrality is unacceptable… Either you’re for us or against us…”

    It made me think of Nazi Germany.

    Bill should hold his ground and refuse to commit. They are only trying to force a showdown. I guess he could donate $10 and quietly give a few 1,000 to pro marriage groups.

    In this war it pays to be subtle. It would be very difficult to engage head on and run a business at the same time.

  5. December 19, 2008 at 2:15 am

    Beetle,
    Thanks for the update about Marriot. That’s so pathetic. And the video is quite inspirational!

  6. Pearl said,

    December 19, 2008 at 2:38 am

    More of the same. I remember learning in one of my university family science classes that if something is not working, a family is most likely to try harder to fix it in the same ways rather than searching for more productive solutions. The former is extremely frustrating and produces anxiety. The latter promotes an atmosphere of peace and calm. Gee, I wonder which the gay rights activists take after?

  7. beetlebabee said,

    December 19, 2008 at 11:45 am

    It’s thuggery pure and simple. They want to punish churches, businesses and individuals so thoroughly that they will never stand up again.

    No way is that right.

  8. Liberty Belle said,

    December 19, 2008 at 11:50 am

    Your comment is so true Beetlebabee, I work with NOM and got this in my email box just this morning from one of the guys over there:

    “Here’s my message to you, my dear friends: Have faith. Stay strong. I’m asking you to rise above the hate and refuse to be bullied into silence.

    This most recent campaign to drive Christians and other people of faith from the public square is part of what we warned you about: the attempt to equate belief in marriage as the union of husband and wife with racism has real consequences for every person of faith in the public square.

    I know that in many cases radicals are targeting your businesses and livelihoods. In my own case, they have deluged the president of the university at which I teach with e-mail messages urging her to take action against me because of my chairmanship of the National Organization for Marriage — one of the groups that fought hard to pass Proposition 8.

    Anti-Prop 8 forces are trying to achieve by a campaign of intimidation a victory that they could not obtain at the ballot box. Their goal is to frighten and demoralize anyone who would join the effort to protect marriage in the United States. They are trying to make examples of you and me. They want to impose on us a cost so high that others will think twice and decline to get involved in the defense of marriage in their states.

    That is exactly what they’re trying to do. It’s not principled, it’s hateful and they’ll not have my silence.

  9. James R. said,

    December 19, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    “… silence or neutrality is unacceptable… Either you’re for us or against us…”

    Wow. That is telling.

  10. urbzen said,

    December 19, 2008 at 12:12 pm

    I don’t feel one drop of sympathy for whiner-in-chief Margie. I guess gay Californians aren’t good enough to marry, but the sure as hell ARE good enough to spend their dollars at Miss Margie’s restaurant. Convenient.

  11. beetlebabee said,

    December 19, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    Urbzen, People being good enough has anything to do with it. People are people. Equal.

  12. James R. said,

    December 19, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    Civil Unions in California have every right the state can give. You’re not fooling anyone here Urbzen. This isn’t about rights or Californians like Margie wouldn’t be attacked like this because all the rights are equal.

    Only the name is different.

  13. Rick said,

    December 19, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    Same-sex marriage is not a natural right. End of argument. However, it can become a civil right by government action. I think a great many folks are getting confused between these two rights.

  14. December 20, 2008 at 12:57 am

    […] skipped the three DNA headquarters sites and began with Beetle Blogger and commented about same-sex marriage not being a natural right. California Crusader for […]

  15. Todd said,

    December 20, 2008 at 2:03 am

    James,
    “Civil Unions in California have every right the state can give. You’re not fooling anyone here Urbzen.”

    California doesn’t have civil unions. California offers domestic partnerships. There are differences, for example, the requirements to be recognized in a domestic partnership are different than that of a civil marriage such as requiring a common residence and intimate relationship.

    “Same-sex marriage is not a natural right. End of argument. However, it can become a civil right by government action.”

    Are there any ‘natural rights’?

  16. Greg said,

    December 20, 2008 at 4:00 am

    Hi Beetle Blogger. Thanks for an excellent summary on this ongoing issue. I thought you might be interested in a different perspective on this issue. See for example:

    Proposition 8, Mormons, and the New Statesman

    and

    a href=”http://www.believeallthings.com/1481/hegelian-dialectic”>Hegelian Dialectic

  17. Greg said,

    December 20, 2008 at 4:01 am

    My bad – here’s the link to the second article:

    Hegelian Dialectic

  18. beetlebabee said,

    December 20, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Todd, the founding fathers believed there were inalienable rights. Do you?

  19. Stirred to Action said,

    December 22, 2008 at 1:26 am

    Hate is hate, and it’s never justified.

    And yet you still voted for proposition 8. You started the hate, and now you cry foul when that hate is turned back on you. I expect you’d be outraged and up in arms if a proposition were passed outlawing your marriage. Yet, wrapped up in the egotistical belief that you have the right to tell other people who they can and can’t marry, you expect them to meekly accept your will. So, what, you have spoken, and you’re warming the furnaces for anyone who dares to disagree? Hatred of bigots is justified. Hatred of fascists is justified. You have tried to impose your will on everybody else, to force everybody to live according to your views, to stamp your boot on the face of humanity. We shall resist, we shall fight, and we shall overcome. And not just for ourselves or for marriage equality, but for all the people and all the the rights and liberties we will eventually lose if you succeed.

  20. { Lisa } said,

    December 22, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    Stirred to action,

    What other rights would you be talking about?

  21. rubyeliot said,

    December 22, 2008 at 10:39 pm

    stirred. you are being very dramatic. that doesn’t work on the people in this forum.

    Yet, wrapped up in the egotistical belief that you have the right to tell other people who they can and can’t marry, you expect them to meekly accept your will.

    is it “egotistical” to tell siblings they can’t marry?

    marriage has always been regulated. it’s supposed to be exclusionary. this way children are encouraged to have a mom and a dad. (marriage for government’s purposes has never been about love or sexual expression).

    that just makes sense to me. doesn’t sound very hateful.

  22. cwredden said,

    December 23, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    Isn’t the attempt to start, basically, a boycott of Campbell’s for advertising in gay publications the same thing? Threatening to not purchase _____ because you spend money in the _____ community? I don’t know…just seems a little hypocritical to me. *shrug*

    #20 – With regards to what benefits Stirred might be talking about. Marriage licenses, while issued and regulated by the states, provide couples access to more than 1,000 state and federal rights and protections; few of which can be secured through private contracts; that safeguard their families.

    Among the state rights, protections and responsibilities of marriage (which vary somewhat from state to state):

    automatic inheritance
    child custody/parenting/adoption rights
    hospital visitation
    medical decision-making power
    standing to sue for wrongful death of a spouse
    divorce protections
    spousal/child support
    access to family insurance policies
    exemption from property tax upon death of a spouse
    immunity from being forced to testify against one’s spouse
    domestic violence protections, and more.

    A marriage license also confers 1,138 federal protections, rights and responsibilities upon married couples in the areas of:

    Social Security benefits
    immigration law
    the Family and Medical Leave Act
    health insurance and continuation of health coverage (COBRA)
    Medicaid
    retirement plans
    federal tax laws, and many more.

    These federal protections are denied to same-sex couples, including those married in Massachusetts. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act excludes gay and lesbian married couples from these protections, declaring that only opposite-sex married couples can access them.

    *waits for someone to pull out the ‘But you have the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that I do’ line – because that makes SO much sense*

  23. beetlebabee said,

    December 23, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    cwredding, your lists got caught in the patented Beetle Spam Filter, but I dug you out.

  24. cwredden said,

    December 23, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    Thanks =)

    Spam! The “other” “OTHER” white meat!

  25. lahona said,

    December 24, 2008 at 1:18 am

    cwredden,

    This list that you have provided, if I am not mistaken are all on the federal level and have nothing to do with the passing of prop 8. In order to receive those rights, you will have to take your arguments to the national level and change the federal laws that govern those rights. Legally at the state level, there is no difference between Marriage and Civil Unions. The difference between them is the definition of the word. Marriage is between a man and a woman, Civil Unions are between homosexual couples. Legally in California there is no difference.

  26. lahona said,

    December 24, 2008 at 1:20 am

    Oh my original thought was going to be about the video….It was like a breath of fresh air to watch it. And it was put to some wonderfull music. Very relaxing and refreshing.

  27. a. mcewen said,

    December 29, 2008 at 8:46 am

    Wait a minute, how can you attack lgbts for boycotting the Marriott and then put up something protesting against Campbell Soup?

    Isn’t that hypocritical?

  28. a. mcewen said,

    December 29, 2008 at 8:49 am

    Let me clarify – how can you attack lgbts for boycotting businesses and the like and then talk about boycotting Campbell Soup yourself.

    Your actions strenghtens the cynical view of religion in this country – the idea that it’s not about right or wrong but how skilled your p.r. campaign is and what you can make people forget.

  29. lahona said,

    December 29, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Marriot hotel has stayed very neutral on this whole situation. The only reason marriot hotels are being targeted is because Marriot and his family are mormon. We are talking about not buying from cambell soup because of their support of Homosexual marriage. Same is true of McDonalds(which isnt real food if you as me).

  30. ruby said,

    December 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm

    You are right lahona, marriot hotels have said nothing about gay marriage, it’s because the CEO is mormon.

  31. ruby said,

    December 29, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    Again, mcewen is commenting before he/she knows all the facts of the discussion.

    also, the AFA does not call for a boycott in their letter, they call for a letter writing campaign.

  32. Jason Miller said,

    December 31, 2008 at 4:58 am

    This business of calling people “bigots” is nothing more than a lame sales tactic. It is the same tactic that scientologists use when you take their “test” – you end up agreeing with all the answers because you don’t want to look stupid. Everyone sees through the motive and it doesn’t work – so give it up! With the bizarre line of reasoning, I guess because I don’t approve of pedophilia, that makes me a pedophilia bigot. Or because I don’t approve of children being disrespectful, that makes me an oppositional child bigot. Lame, lame, lame, lame.

    I know this is a source of frustration for homosexual activities, but you will never convince faithful Christians to go against their faith and support your lifestyle. Sure, a few outliers may move in that direction (as are the ever dwindling number of Episcopalians), but 99% will not. The Romans couldn’t make us, the Greeks couldn’t make us, and the Nazis (the early brown shirt movement and many high ranking Nazi officials were homosexual activists) couldn’t make us. We will become martyrs before that occurs. And it isn’t because we “hate.” Homosexuality is objectively associated with skyrocketing rates of HIV, anal cancer, hepatitis, drug use, domestic violence, suicide, etc. To approve of “marriage” would be like handing the homosexual community a loaded gun to shoot itself. It would be irresponsible, thoughtless, and truly hateful for us to do that. We won’t have any part of contributing to self-destruction. We believe everyone is made for greater things. You can nail us on a cross for believing that – it will just make us closer to the Lord. And here is the kicker – nailing us to the cross has consistently over the past 2000 years only caused the faith to grow. The gay community has succeeded in one thing all across the world – uniting denominations and even other faiths for a common cause.


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

%d bloggers like this: