Posted by Curt on 24 November, 2008 at 5:00 am. 13 comments already!

Geoffrey R. Stone, currently a Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law, and the author of “Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism” once wrote an article on what it means to be a liberal. The number one meaning was this:

Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that “time has upset many fighting faiths.” Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

Sounds fabulous right?

But liberals in action are something entirely different:

Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8?

That’s the issue consuming many in liberal Hollywood who fought to defeat the initiative banning same-sex marriage and are now reeling with recrimination and dismay. Meanwhile, activists continue to comb donor lists and employ the Internet to expose those who donated money to support the ban.

Yes indeed….should there be firings and blackballing of individuals who supported Prop 8?

The answer is a resounding YES from the liberal left.

Most conservatives have seen the liberal left become unyielding to any viewpoint not their own. They call those who supported the liberation of Iraq “warmongers” and “criminals”. They love debate, so long as you have the same views as their own.

There is no “celebration of free and open debate.” Recall the rushing of the stage while a Minuteman stood up to talk at a college. They shut down his speech, and forced his viewpoint to be smothered. A liberal doesn’t agree with you, they will just shout, scream, and yell to drown it out. How dare a opposing viewpoint get out into the public realm.

And so it is with Prop 8. The people of California voted, for the second time, to define Marriage as between a man and a woman. Because they don’t agree with that, they take to the streets, they blackball filmmakers like Richard Raddon of Film Independent:

Raddon has been a particularly polarizing figure because Film Independent’s board includes many independent film stalwarts, including Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice and Oscar-winning writer Bill Condon. One of the group’s explicit missions is to promote diversity.

Last week, Raddon offered to resign. According to one board member, a conference call was hastily arranged, and after much discussion the board voted unanimously to keep him.

Yet the anger continues to stew.

“There is still roiling debate within the organization,” says distributor Howard Cohen, an advisor to the film festival who is gay. “Is it OK to let this go? There are a lot of gay people who work at Film Independent. The issue has not been closed.”

No one is certain how the current protest will affect Film Independent’s Spirit Awards in the spring, a popular event recognizing work that “challenges the status quo.” And there are already indications the Los Angeles Film Festival could be affected.

Gregg Araki, director of the critically acclaimed gay cult hit “Mysterious Skin” and an influential figure in “new queer cinema,” has said he won’t allow his films to be shown there, while others, such as “Milk” producers and gay activists Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, say they’re going to “study in depth all the facets of our specific situation before making a decision.”

Araki says Raddon should step down. “I don’t think he should be forcibly removed. The bottom line is if he contributed money to a hateful campaign against black people, or against Jewish people, or any other minority group, there would be much less excusing of him. The terrible irony is that he runs a film festival that is intended to promote tolerance and equality.”

Hateful campaign against black people? Huh?

It was a Democratic campaign to have the citizenery of this State decide whether marriage should be between a man and a woman. There was no hateful campaign. Gays already have the same legal rights as those who marry by joining together in a civil union. They may have to do a bit more paperwork by putting their partner on their will and so forth, but all in all….legally, its the same.

Mataharley has done a great job describing the agenda of the gay community in this debate. It’s to re-educate the public on what is and what isn’t traditional rites:

A marriage between a man and a woman follows natural laws of conception and procreation. It is the way our world evolves and grows. Were any animal species of this inclination to any serious degree, it becomes extinct.

I can easily agree with the 50-60% of the population that feels civil unions gives same sex partners legal benefits that are enjoyed by married couples. But marriage and civil unions are not “equal” in the laws of nature… unless you think premature extinction from the lack of ability to conceive is “natural”. They should be equivalent in benefits, but in no way considered equal as a traditional family.

Marriage is, and will always remain, a union between a man and a woman. It is only by the two, combined, that a child is borne of natural (not petrie dish) conception… a natural order to procreation. Just as animals will not continue to exist without the natural order of procreation, neither will man. I do not want my granddaughter taught anything different.

If same sex unions needs to be “blessed” by govt in order to achieve their benefits, that is their choice. There is no reason to muddy the waters by the govt redefining what is not theirs to define. The meddling in the traditional rite of marriage is unconcionable. Civil unions… fine. Marriage? An insult to the rite…. and to it’s traditional history.

~~~

If I choose to be married… whether “in the eyes of God”, or perhaps just a vow spoken between myself and another on a remote beach somewhere… the vow and intent bind me in a way far more powerful than a govt contract. Marriage was not created to be a govt contract, but a very personal vow between a man and a woman before God… or the powers they believe exist.

So my question to you would be… why does the govt have to sanction it as “marriage” for your “right” to be recognized?

I cannot, and will not, put govt on a par with God – enabling them to define a religious (and intensely personal) rite on this issue. The govt does not grant us rights. They pre’exist and usurp govt power.

Again, you still miss the true agenda. This is not about govt benefits for the LGBT community. It is about reeducating the public as to what is “marriage” in order to tear down traditional rites. Otherwise, they’d go for the civil unions.

That reeducation of the public is all that matters. If they have to go back to the McCarthy era and start blackballing people, then so be it.

Professor Stone wrote that to be a liberal means you “consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others.”

In a alternative universe maybe, but not in this one.

>