If they don't want marriage or military service rights, then aren't they already liberated? Time to declare victory and go home.

Hmm. They are against capitalism and all forms of state power. What type of economic system would meet with their approval? Anarchy, it seems to me, would result in absolute free market capitalism, no?

They ought to be careful what they wish for.

"Who can, may" is awfully harsh for the weak and unarmed.

As a gay man and a proud American, I am absolutely appalled by these people... but then again, I've always had more in common with my conservative compatriots than with the "transgressivist" lefty activists. (I call them transgressivist because so many of their actions seem dedicated to transgressing and destroying cultural norms for the mere purposes of offending the average American.) I've read comments from these same activists on other (less rational) blogs that claim the answer to the passage of Prop 8 is to become MORE antagonistic and in-your-face. I wish I could just shake these people by the collar, it's so frustrating! They can't conceive that the more they "act up" and scream "Civil rights!" the more people will recognize them as extremists and simply tune them out. They don't understand that only by rational and mutually respectful discussion can they hope to ever make any progress on this issue. Their success lies in showing how gay marriage will benefit gay people, marriage itself, and society in general. This being the case, they will never achieve success; because they (unlike I and many of my silent fellows) do not actually believe in the value of marriage, they will never be able to articulate this case to the American voting public. Their cause is doomed from the start by their own extremism.

This anarchists are just confused immature people rebelling against comfomity and want to an adolescent rebel.

So they try to shock and invade the church just for the glee of doing something shocking and bad and getting away with it.

Well they might not recognize the law but the law just might recognize them. The church membership might not file but a district attorney might not let that stop him.
If they think civilian society has unjust ways of treating gays.....and I doubt any of the Black, Latino, or Aryan tops will let them join up for protection, or use protection.

They're just your basic garden variety nihilists, is all, who have pegged themselves with a gay identity. What they believe and what they do and what they want is not relevant to being gay. For whatever reason they have placed themselves outside of society and want only to destroy it, or failing that, to disrupt it, hamstring it even temporarily. They have no respect for others' property and privacy because they have no respect for others at all. Narcissistic sociopathic nihilists - sounds like a winning combination.

We've seen their type before. We'll see them again. They won't bring down society, but they might for a while make life difficult for "mainstream" gays (by which I mean gays happy to be part of society).

>>>and the result was the landslide victory in 1972 of Richard Nixon.

And the election to the presidency of one of their most prominent leader's disciples in 2008. I think you need that to keep it in proper perspective. So maybe persecuting Christians is the wave of the future. Sweet - what novel ideas will radical leftists come up with next?

lemme guess, you probably think MLK Jr, Rosa Parks and other civil rights leaders were anarchists too, eh?

Discrimination is rooted in bigotry. If you're against marriage equality, you're a bigot, plain and simple.

The choice is yours: do you want to be remembered as the modern-day Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms?

Writing discrimination into a state's constitution is wrong.

Against gay marriage? Don't marry someone of your own sex. If you really want to perserve marriage, go after no-fault divorce.

lemme guess, you probably think MLK Jr, Rosa Parks and other civil rights leaders were anarchists too, eh?

Discrimination is rooted in bigotry. If you're against marriage equality, you're a bigot, plain and simple.

The choice is yours: do you want to be remembered as the modern-day Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms?

Writing discrimination into a state's constitution is wrong.

Against gay marriage? Don't marry someone of your own sex. If you really want to perserve marriage, go after no-fault divorce.

If anyone could guarantee that tinkering with marriage laws to allow just homosexual marriage would be the end of the tinkering I might reluctantly go along. However we all know that it will not stop there. Next is polyamory, then the influx of Muslims then Sharia then gays begging Christians to protect them from being stoned or hung at the end of cranes.

Everyone dismisses gradualism but a few years ago it was Lawrence vs. Texas and now we're here.

I don't know why the anarchists don't move to Africa. There are plenty of areas of Africa that already have anarchy. They could live in their paradise and leave the rest of us to live how we want.

Also it could be an exchange program: any Africans who don't want to live under those conditions can take the place of the kids we send over, even at the homes of their middle class suburban parents. After all the college anarchist kids probably wouldn't want anyone around who didn't truly believe in anarchy.

I suggest that these "fierce as fuck" types try their routine in a mosque. There are lots of them in Dearborn, MI. They might not get treated so well. We'd see how brave they are then.

Childish morons.

This is all very instructive but you have to recognize that they are winning. Where is the "law" during these provocations? If I were to step across the street and bash my neighbor for having purple hair you know the flashing lights would be clogging the streets. Disrespect for the law by the people is enhanced by disrepect for the law by those that are paid to enforce it. We're in for some interesting times!

Of course it's defeating for gay rights! But the primary mover behind these riots is LA Answer, the anti-capitalist, anti-American group. http://www.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANSWERLA

It's not about gays, it's about destabilizing and defeating the Great Satan.

A lot of "enlightened" European countries have civil unions rather than gay marriage. Are they all homophobic bigots? Or does it just make sense to define marriage along gender lines. I fail to see how calling it civil unions instead of "marriage" is some great travesty. Most of the same people opposing gay marriage would fight FOR gays to have equal rights if it didn't mean radically redefining an ancient tradition with deep religious meanings for so many people. This is why they never actually talk about their actual "rights" like visitation and legal stuff. They know the same people they scorn would bend over backwards to make things fair under the title civil unions.

kyleb: perhaps you need to take a look at marriage history, which was "invented" sorely for property rights. also, the old testament is full of polygamy, so to suggest a religious aspect is dubious at best.

and the CT supreme court rightfully decided that civil unions don't equal marriage. if the state is offering up benefits to some, it needs to offer them up to all. otherwise not all men are created equal.

if you're against marriage equality, you are a BIGOT, and you will be called such.

if you're against marriage equality, you are a BIGOT, and you will be called such.

The problem with this persuasive technique is that grownups don't really care if some screaming idiots call them names.

I don't mind gay marriage or whatever; I don't care about polygamy or anything else, either, when it comes to the law.

But you might want to note that the "PC scold" technique didn't work too well in California -- and it was a hilarious mistake when the No on 8 campaign used Diane Feinstein in commercials. Do they live in such a bubble that they don't know that the people they most wanted to persuade can't stand Feinstein, and might vote against anything she's for?

I'm pretty sure all my anarchist gay friends are thoroughly embarrassed by Bash Back, and by the likes of the troll who posted the previous comment.

Correction: the troll above "BarryD."

I don't know a lot of gay anarchists, but I know gay libertarians who live relatively conservative lifestyles, i.e. just like straight couples who have houses, businesses or jobs, and friends in the neighborhood.

These are the people who will persuade the opposition. These are the people who already have (note that the support for Prop 8 was far smaller than for Prop 22 just a few years ago).

I believe that people who count gay couples in long-term relationships among their friends tended to vote No on 8, even if they tend towards other socially conservative views.

The bottom line: this isn't a philosophical battle so much as an emotional one. It's possible that all the minds that can be easily won, have been. A few more hearts, and Prop 8 would have lost.

The No on 8 campaign did a terrible job (exemplified by its TV commercials) of winning over the hearts of the opposition.

Hmm. They are against capitalism and all forms of state power. What type of economic system would meet with their approval? Anarchy, it seems to me, would result in absolute free market capitalism, no?

No. Free market capitalism is not an absence of government; markets are a *space* which is defined by the ban on the initiation of force. Only a government can enact and enforce that ban across that space.

Seeing as the "free" in free markets means "free of corcion", anarchism would only result in freedom for the brief space of time between its inception, and when the first thug realizes that there is nothind and no one to stop him, and reaches for his weapon of choice. It is thusly a state of endless war.

Discrimination is rooted in bigotry

Actually, no: to "discriminate" means to observe differences, a necessary step to making choices between alternatives. Freedom of association specifically means the right to choose one's associations, by one's own standards.

That is why I have always considered it revealing that this was the word that the Left chose to redefine as akin to bigotry.

Have to disagree, BarryD. You don't need a government to deter force. The first thug who reaches for his weapon will be stopped by everyone around him who unholsters their weapons.

An armed marketplace is a polite marketplace.

Oops, I meant Seerak. Sorry.

LOL

I was wondering what I said to get that comment, since "an armed, polite marketplace" is a concise definition of the sort of society I would advocate. :)

Oh for heaven's sake, they sound like a bunch of wannabe college wonks who have been smoking too much weed and indulging in too much 1960's literature. Anarchy indeed. This whole thing is so your grandparent's generation. Grow up for heaven's sake and stop being so sure you are right just because you are gay or liberal, or what ever you call yourselves.

Their manifesto sounds like a good excuse to use the F word as much as possible while trying to be pseudo intellectual. Gag a maggot people, life has moved on since the hippies died in the 1970's. Time to get over yourselves.

Since it is related to the "gay community", shouldn't they call themselves "Barebash Back"?

My ex-wife decided when we were married she was gay.kicked me and my 3 yr old daughter out of our home so she could move in her lesbian lover. The local lesbian community and her lesbian friends did'nt see anything wrong with that. As a matter of fact within the month I closed the bank account, stopped paying the bills, and filed for divorce. I was bashed, harrased and everything under the sun from these people as being abusive and not supporting her new lifestyle. Bullshit I say! I am sure some gays are not like that but most I have seen have a derranged since of morrality.