View Full Version : The New Blacklist Freedom of speech--unless you annoy the wrong people.

03-17-2009, 11:12 PM
Strange times we live in when it takes a ballot initiative to confirm the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Stranger still when endorsing that definition through the democratic process brings threats and reprisals.

In November, the San Francisco Chronicle published the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of California's Proposition 8 marriage initiative. All available information, plus the amount donated, was broadcast. My name is on that list.

Emails started coming. Heavy with epithets and ad hominems, most in the you-disgust-me vein. Several accused me, personally, of denying the sender his single chance at happiness after a life of unrelieved oppression and second-class citizenship. Some were anonymous but a sizable number were signed, an indication of confidence in collective clout that belied howls of victimhood. New York's Gay City News asked for an interview because I was "one of only four New Yorkers who contributed more than $500."

I ignored the request, trashed the emails, and forgot about them. But the West Coast bureau chief of the New York Daily News did not forget.

One night in early February, I drove home to find two cars, two men, waiting for me, unannounced, in the dark. Reporters for the Daily News, they were publishing a story on me and Prop 8 the next day and wanted a live quotation. Serious interviews are arranged ahead of time. Besides, I had filed enough newspaper pieces on deadline to know that copy is well into the can
at 7 P.M. This was intimidation, not fact-gathering.

Where is the story, I asked, if I have not said anything? The response was: "We have documents." Sound familiar? For half a second, I thought of saying that Prop 8 left intact all the legal advantages of civil union. It took nothing away. But I was too surprised by having been singled out. After a few heated words--none of them equal to what, in hindsight, I wish I had said--I went into the house.

Next day, I discovered in the Daily News that I am known as a painter of gays and lesbians; gay activists felt betrayed by my contribution. It was a sparse article. The only accurate quotation to appear was a sentence cribbed from my own website, which seems to be the "document" from which the story was spun. (The sentence, from an old interview about a gallery show of my paintings, referred to New York's gay pride parade as "an erotic celebration loosed for a day to keep us all mindful that Dionysus is alive, powerful and under our own porch.") Compensating for the interview that never took place, the reporter constructed an exchange over the question he obviously wanted to ask but never got the chance. The article reads:

When asked how she could have donated money to fight gay marriage after making money from her depictions of gays, she just said, "So?"


03-17-2009, 11:48 PM
I hate this. I wish I'd donated to that cause just to have the satisfaction of confronting these people.

It's the worst sort of tyranny. It isn't for the State or for liberty or for anything important. It's intimidation for the express purpose of attempting to co-opt a traditional state-of-life to an excluded group. It's like demanding that contemplative nuns accept momentarily female-feeling men into their congregations.

The only thing that will put a stop to it is if opposite-minded people confront and attack those who have given money to the opposition. When they get confronted, outed, heckled and so forth maybe they will think twice about this tactic.

03-18-2009, 12:40 AM
heterosupremacist Now there is a fun term. OF COURSE BREEDERS are superior to mules. :rolleyes: dumbass. Without breeders the species dies. Mules don't grow on tree you know. It takes breeders to make you. And since we are the source of the next generation - heterosexual unions are of course superior.