gay k k
this whole thing needs to be prefaced with the understanding that everything spewed forth from the mouths of bigots like the ku klux klan is repugnant to me. if they want to do something useful, i would prefer they go home to their trailer parks, resume their lives of rampant incest, and produce the next generation of side-show attractions so the rest of us will have something fun to do when the carnies roll into town.
last saturday a group of klansmen ventured into austin to hold a rally voicing their support for the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in texas in a traditional way; and in effect, barring so-called same-sex marriage from our state. o.k. that is their right. they are american citizens, taxpayers, and they proceeded through the appointed bureaucratic channels to receive the required permits. a piece of city-owned property was reserved for them to perform their constitutionally protected right to peacefully gather. so far, so good.
a veritable storm of flying feces erupted when news of the approaching rally hit the streets. free thinking liberals all over travis county were up in (figurative, of course) arms. "how can this be allowed to happen in this, our bastion of tolerance?" ,went the cry. they collectively decided to stage a protest. the city approved an additional site for the protesters and appointed a section of public roadway-adjacent to the rally site- for the protesters to use for their purposes. if one is to believe the reporting of the austin american statesman -always a risky venture-there were 14 bigoted klansmen at the rally and 3000+/- protesters protesting their presence. this i don't understand. are the klan repulsive? yes. do they spread a message if hate and intolerance? yes. should their ideology be confounded at all possible opportunities? obviously. but, let us imagine that no one paid any attention to them. not one person gave them the time of day, no matter their rally site, message, or numbers. their lack of publicity would be refreshing. their visiblity would be minimal. their recruiting ability would be crippled. contrast that with what really happened. thousands of people spent their day screaming, feeling anger, and attempting to prevent a group of americans from exercising the rights afforded them by our founding fathers and guaranteed by every soldier who has died in defense of this country.
a local civil-rights coalition has filed a suit against the city of austin claiming that THEIR civil rights were violated because they were restricted in their proximity to the klansmen. according to one of their spokesmen, he is upset because he wasn't allowed to get close enough to any of these people to "confront " him. surely he isn't insinuating that physical or verbal violence would have been appropriate, is he? will someone please remind me which group is the one representing intolerance?
last saturday a group of klansmen ventured into austin to hold a rally voicing their support for the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in texas in a traditional way; and in effect, barring so-called same-sex marriage from our state. o.k. that is their right. they are american citizens, taxpayers, and they proceeded through the appointed bureaucratic channels to receive the required permits. a piece of city-owned property was reserved for them to perform their constitutionally protected right to peacefully gather. so far, so good.
a veritable storm of flying feces erupted when news of the approaching rally hit the streets. free thinking liberals all over travis county were up in (figurative, of course) arms. "how can this be allowed to happen in this, our bastion of tolerance?" ,went the cry. they collectively decided to stage a protest. the city approved an additional site for the protesters and appointed a section of public roadway-adjacent to the rally site- for the protesters to use for their purposes. if one is to believe the reporting of the austin american statesman -always a risky venture-there were 14 bigoted klansmen at the rally and 3000+/- protesters protesting their presence. this i don't understand. are the klan repulsive? yes. do they spread a message if hate and intolerance? yes. should their ideology be confounded at all possible opportunities? obviously. but, let us imagine that no one paid any attention to them. not one person gave them the time of day, no matter their rally site, message, or numbers. their lack of publicity would be refreshing. their visiblity would be minimal. their recruiting ability would be crippled. contrast that with what really happened. thousands of people spent their day screaming, feeling anger, and attempting to prevent a group of americans from exercising the rights afforded them by our founding fathers and guaranteed by every soldier who has died in defense of this country.
a local civil-rights coalition has filed a suit against the city of austin claiming that THEIR civil rights were violated because they were restricted in their proximity to the klansmen. according to one of their spokesmen, he is upset because he wasn't allowed to get close enough to any of these people to "confront " him. surely he isn't insinuating that physical or verbal violence would have been appropriate, is he? will someone please remind me which group is the one representing intolerance?
posted by cm at 11/07/2005
<< Home