HawaiiStories: Christians vs. Gays -- round XIIVIIXI

July 03, 2003

Christians vs. Gays -- round XIIVIIXI

Ruling Expected on gays in Parade
I hope I'm not the only one who sees this case's existence as something very wrong.

In what could be called predictable behavior from the Christian Coalition, a case has been filed by three gay-oriented organizations to allow these groups to participate in the first "Family Day" parade to be held this weekend in busy Waikiki.

The event is sponsored by the Hawaii Christian Coalition and will be the first of it's kind in Hawaii. Thousands of parents, kids and families will be marching and watching the parade and it is expected to be a great tourist attraction. The parade was open to anyone who wanted to participate, suffice some paperwork and approvals were made. But, what started as a privately-run event quickly turned into a State-governed event as Alvin Au, deputy director of the city's Facility Maintenance Department took the helm as the co-chairman of the parade, inviting several state workers to hop on board the commitee responsible for creating the rules about who can participate. Apparently, those rules were altered on both fliers and the official website after the Gay organizations inquired about participating.

Coalition state chairman Garret Hashimoto has been noted to have threatened to cancel the entire parade should the Judge rule in favor of the Gay-rights organizations. Thousands of eager families and youngsters would be sorely dissapointed all because the Christian Coalition doesn't support these three organizations or their beliefs.

Unfortunately, I have a gut feeling that the Judge will rule in favor of the Coalition. This logic stems from the belief that the power of tourism overrides everything Hawaii stands for, including family and love. It strikes me odd that in the month that the Governor has officially proclaimed to be Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Month, we are faced with such a trivial drama.

I hope that I am wrong and the Judge will rule in favor of the gay organizations. I'm gay so I know this: what gay organizations are fighting for are not anything special, we just want to be treated as equals to everyone else.

Jordan Segundo will be performing in the Family Day events. I wonder if he'll have something to say about it? I think if I had the chance to open up hundreds of kid's minds to tolerance and acceptance, I'd sure do it.

Posted by at July 03, 2003 01:02 AM

Comments

Posted by Ryan on July 3, 2003 8:52 AM:

In what could be called predictable behavior from the Christian Coalition...

And a predictable response from gay and lesbian groups, to be fair.

The issue seems less cloudy to me. Without insinuations about big business, the question is simply who controls and sponsors this parade. If it's a Christian Coalition event, more power to 'em. GLBT groups should've just nabbed a complementary permit for their own parade if exposure that day is so important. But if the parade is backed (as some have alleged) by city funds and city employees on the job — beyond what would be provided to any other independently organized parade — then the discrimination is out of line.

The city-backed Honolulu City Lights program had to come up with a fascinating lottery system to pick what groups could erect displays each year because of this consideration. If it's a city or state parade, they should've known better.

If it's a (pardon the pun) straight Christian Coalition event, then... well, they better not be expected to be invited to participate in the next Gay Pride march!

Posted by Linkmeister on July 3, 2003 12:04 PM:

City sponsorship (implicit or explicit): full participation by any and all groups which desire it.

Private sponsorship: limit participation to whomever you damn well please (see the idiotic but understandable stance taken by Hootie Johnson at the Masters golf tournament earlier this year).

Posted by Albert on July 3, 2003 2:31 PM:

I really don't see any reason whatsoever that gay people would want to force themselves into this parade.

Or even watch it.

I've never cared much for party-crashers or for being anywhere I didn't feel welcome.

Posted by cheyne on July 3, 2003 11:25 PM:

All great points gentlemen. I do understand that if it's a private event it's up to their own discretion, but, since the city and county seems to have a lot of control over the parade itself, it does seem like a city-run deal. If it wasn't, I don't think there'd be much of a fuss.

The gay groups aren't intending to crash any party. Contrary to what some may believe, they aren't doing it for the media attention or have any other hidden agenda. Again, we're not standing up for *special* rights, just equal ones. Why would they want to march in this parade? Because they have every reason to...they're people who have families just like yours and give and receive love just like you -- isn't that reason enough? It's not like they're trying to get into the "St. Patrick's Day" Parade or something else completely irrelevant.

Why is this parade important? Why not just walk away knowing we tried? Well, opportunities to expose people's minds and hearts to tolerance are at a low, so a chance like this -- in front of thousands -- is definitely worth fighting for.

Posted by Mitchell on July 4, 2003 9:44 AM:

I'm going to tread very carefully here, because, well, as a tolerant Christian, I ALWAYS have to tread carefully, with whomever I happen to be hanging out.

The big question--and I didn't see a convincing answer either way in this morning's paper--seems to be HOW MUCH involvement the city has in this parade, because of course, there's just no way to have the parade with no city involvement at all.

Linkmeister's concise summation (and Ryan's longer one) make the most sense to most of the people I'm talking to, but people can't seem to agree on how much city involvement would be considered acceptable.

I guess the reason I'm responding at all is that I feel extremely uncomfortable with this issue. On the one hand, it almost shames me to hear some of the things my Christian brothers and sisters say in the name of Christ--they almost always come across sounding evil, or at the very least, ignorant. On the other, it makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up when gays (and other disenfranchised people) vehemently cry out for tolerance, but can't seem to extend some of that same tolerance to the groups they accuse of intolerance.

At its most basic level, the Christian Coalition's intolerance stems from a sincere belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, not from any kind of hate, nor from any kind of political agenda. I know it doesn't always seem this way, but although I've always stood against the Christian Coalition (and its dad, the Moral Majority) I have to give them this much.

As a card-carrying member of the ACLU (okay, that's a lie: I let my membership expire a while ago, but that's more a financial statement than a philosophical one), and a militant separate-church-and-state guy, I know where the gay groups are coming from, and I'm normally right there with them.

But it seems to me that this PARTICULAR disagreement is an argument for argument's sake. If it were the KKK, for example, in exactly the same situation, I'd probably do what Ryan suggested and have a separate parade, rather than try to force my own group into theirs, and while the Christian Coalition's views may be distasteful and reprehensible, they did plan this parade for themselves, and they're entitled to it.

The Christian Coalition is wrong about a whole mess of stuff in the way they organized and executed this parade, but the gay groups do, IN THIS CASE, come across as the party-crashers, and the whole episode is making everyone look bad.

Posted by Ryan on July 6, 2003 8:31 AM:

"If you have a problem with this parade, then don't come. I didn't come to your parade and yell."

Saw clips on a couple of TV stations covering the shouting match as well. Even allowing for bias, the gay activists did not come out looking good in this whole debate.

I am still a grudging member of the ACLU. I marched with Carolyn (an old friend) and PFLAG last year in the Kailua parade. But this debacle backfired on 'em. Even if, as I concede may still be the case, the gay groups are in the right, they did nothing this weekend to foster broader community acceptance.

Posted by cheyne on July 6, 2003 7:10 PM:

Sigh.

I was afraid of this. Yes, I'm having doubts about supporting the gay groups in this matter. Shouting matches and party-crashing (which is eventually what they did) is nothing I like to stand behind. The braver and smarter thing to do would have been to let it go. I don't really see what they expected would have happened from their one-day protest. Nothing good came ourt of this whole senseless affair.

Sigh. Where was the leadership on this matter?

Posted by macpro on July 9, 2003 8:37 AM:

I think some of you will find the following article interesting:

(From HawaiiReporter.com)

Heckling, Harrassment of Children in Parade is Unacceptable

Gay, Left Organizations Participating in Bullying Should Apologize, Change Leadership

By Jeffrey Bingham Mead,
7/8/2003 11:42:07 PM

The Hawaii chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, a branch of America's largest conservative republican gay organization, rebukes and expresses its shock at the heckling, bullying, and harassment of children, teenagers, and families by gay and so-called gay-friendly activists at the first annual Kid's Day Parade in Waikiki on July 5, 2003.

Read the complete article at this link.

Posted by Albert on July 9, 2003 1:37 PM:

"The time has clearly come for regime-change at PFLAG-Oahu, the Gay and Lesbian Community Center, and these other organizations in light of this dysfunctional, humiliating, and embarrassing demonstration."

Couldn't agree more. I would urge all my gay friends to withhold any support, financial or otherwise, to the people who made such asses of themselves ... and did the cause of equal rights absolutely no good whatsoever.

Posted by Sin on July 9, 2003 6:32 PM:

Yeah, PFLAG has to be more careful about what battles to fight. If the phrase "private sponsorship" wasn't a clue they do need some more akamai leaders. The spokesman for them that I've seen on tv seems too reactionary and too eager to jump on manini stuff that does the gay/lesbian movement more harm than good.

Posted by Jake on July 10, 2003 10:04 AM:

I am a PROUD PFLAG supporter and I was there at the protest and I can say from what I saw that no one on the PFLAG side was "heckling, bullying, and harassment of children, teenagers, and families". There was this other guy , Bill is his first name, that was across the street and he was totally out of line, yelling at kids and things.

The PFLAG side did go after Harris, Gabbard and Hashimoto and other organizers of the parade. And rightfully so. Far too often have I seen people just "let things go" and not let their voices be heard. This was a city funded and sponsored event. I got a chance to look at some of the documents that they had against the city and the Judge ruled the wrong way. If they (ACLU and plantiffs) pushes the issue she will have to be over turned. And just by adding "private sponsor" after these gay organizations wanted to join in on a city sponsored parade is not cover enough.

But anyways the guy who wrote the piece from the HawaiiReporter has no idea what the lawsuit is about. He proved it when he wrote that they lost the lawsuit. No they lost a hearing not the entire thing. But from what I hear I have wasted enough time on that guy.

But anyways what would have all you naysayers have done had it been your family that was discriminated against in a city sponsored and endorsed event? Would you have remained quiet? Gone about your day as usual? Or would have you taken your message to the people. Letting our elected officals know that you do not approve of city endorsed discrimination.

Lee Cataluna's column boiled it all down nicely and if you have not read it plase take the time to.

Posted by Ryan on July 10, 2003 1:08 PM:

I've noted all along in this thread that PFLAG may have had a case. I also think Lee's column bolsters it (and, checking now, I also have the same mailing). There was more than logistical support.

I do take issue, however, with their showing up and heckling after they lost the hearing. You might not have seen it, or indeed the media may have played up a tense standoff that really wasn't all that tense, but the possibility of hurting their cause by prompting a confrontation or looking like sore losers should have entered their minds.

I would have remained confident that PFLAG was in the right, and if anything just stuck with the rally scheduled to precede the parade. I would have held my own parade. I wouldn't have shown up in Waikiki to give the cameras exactly the sort of display and hostile exchange they wanted.

Posted by Ryan on July 10, 2003 1:16 PM:

By the way, while the web page in question was removed from the Mayor's site (as Lee noted), its text is still helpfully archived by Google.

It also links to this official city press release (from the Public Communications Division) that explicitly states (emphasis mine):

"The Waikiki Improvement Association, Hawaii Christian Coalition, Aloha Shriners, Pearl City Foundation, ASTON Resorts & Hotels and the City & County of Honolulu are among the sponsors of the Family Day events." (Further down, the paragraph about the parade features the alleged alteration expressly adding the Christian Coalition as its main sponsor. No other individual event has a similar disclaimer.)

This takes us back to the original article and the assertion by City Deputy Corporation Counsel Greg Swartz that the the city is not a sponsor of the event. "He said city officials wanted to be sure that the parade ran smoothly and participation does not mean sponsorship."

Gotcha?

Posted by common american on September 18, 2003 6:51 AM:

Join Us! Not hate, not bigotry, just common sense. We are tired of the statement "we're here, we're queer, and we're in your face".

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Stop_The_Gay_Agenda/

Posted by NemesisVex on September 19, 2003 9:10 AM:

Join Us! Not hate, not bigotry, just common sense.

http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/Stop_the_Troll_Agenda/

Posted by Nita on July 10, 2004 5:51 AM:

Homosexuals are Gods people like the rest of the world. However, there is no place in Heaven for them unless they repent. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 highlights that this group has no place amoung Christians. Romans 1:18-27 tells us this practice is sinful. Satan is laughing, and surely seems to be using our judges and courts to appease himself, and getting his way.
God make our hearts pure!!

Posted by albert on July 10, 2004 3:03 PM:

"Homosexuals are Gods people like the rest of the world. However, there is no place in Heaven for them unless they repent."

I don't mind. The Christian concept of "heaven" has always sounded excruciatingly boring to me.

And why should someone "repent" for being what "God" made them?

April 2009
Sa	M	T	W	R	F	Su
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

Christians vs. Gays -- round XIIVIIXI

Comments

Post a Comment