Good For You, Michael

Comments

1
Good for him.

I'm guessing the TV news stations were just looking for an opposing soundbite to tack onto the Harvey Milk news, or else why the fuck would they be giving this bush-league hater (Thomasson) any coverage?

2
I'm always encouraged when people take the time to speak from the heart and stand up for themselves. Well done, Michael.

Yes, Chita Rivera is wonderful gift to us all.
3
Good on him.

Bet that shook up the assholes!
4
Harvey Milk is on my (very) short list of great Americans.

Good on Michael for not letting the lies go unchallenged.

And, yes, Chita Rivera most certainly counts.

I watched the footage of Milk's nephew accepting the Medal on behalf of his uncle, has there been any reports about what he and Obama said during the exchange?
5
Good for Michael. More such interruptions please from gays and friends.

Dan, are you still hatin' on Barack, or has that mellowed out?
6
Yeah right on!
Cheers for doing the right thing at the right time!
7
I want video.
8
Sure is nice to see gay men stand up for themselves. I think more of the public would like to see that, too.
9
Way to go for him! That took some major gonads. So much that I wince to think his boyfriend might be the bottom. Ouch.
10
Very little difference from what town hall tantrum throwers are doing. But since its a homosexual doing it then it gets a round of applause here.
Still, the people in the real world know that gays have virtually the exact same rights as heterosexuals in CA, regardless of the what people like Petrelis say.
11
Yes, Loveschild, gays have virtually have the exact same rights as heterosexuals in California just as mixed race couples had virtually the exact same rights as same race couples prior to the Loving v. Virginia civil rights case.
12
Mr/Ms Loveschild, you are wrong, I can't marry the man with whom I have raised my children
13
10 - No, Britain is an example of gay citizens having 'virtually' the same rights as straight ones - exactly the same legal rights, except they are bestowed under the civil partnership act rather than the legal entity of heterosexual marriage. The difference between the two systems is based on technicalities rather than on a vast inequality in actual, tangible rights, as in California.
14
10 - No, Britain is an example of gay citizens having 'virtually' the same rights as straight ones - exactly the same legal rights, except they are bestowed under the civil partnership act rather than the legal entity of heterosexual marriage. The difference between the two systems is based on technicalities rather than on a vast inequality in actual, tangible rights, as in California.
15
10, Yeah sure Loveschild, "gays have virtually the exact same rights as heterosexuals in CA."

Here is Loveschilds idea of "virtually the exact same rights":
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/3816…
16
@10
Sorry, Dan- it is LovesChild who "kicked a little ass"-
some prissy faggot jumps off his bike and ZAPS a news conference SPEAKING LOUDLY and INTERRUPTING so it QUICKLY CAME TO AN END and you girls get all moist in your nethers-
he is just another insecure overcompensating obnoxious rude self-inportant loudmouth stiffling the national conversation but the Pink Beret wannabes make him out to be a Hero.
17
12
Would a heterosexual man be able to marry the man either? Looks like you are all in the same boat. Next time pick the person with whom you raise children more wisely.
18
@2
Well you must be just euphoric to see all the good people taking the time to speak from the heart and stand up for themselves at healthcare townhalls all across the country...
19
17, Yes, that is how they thought in the south decades a go. "Sure a black man can't marry a white woman, but a white man can't marry a black women. Sounds like you are all in the same boat. Next time pick the person with whom you raise your children more wisely."

You are so forward thinking.
20
when did the slog become the glog?
21
Loveschild, you're missing a very important distinction, albeit probably intentionally. The people who throw tantrums at the town hall meetings don't want anyone else to speak. They don't want to discuss or debate the issues--they want the right to shout their own opinions, whether based on fact or not, loudly enough to drown out everyone else's.

Mr. Petrelis didn't stop Thomasson from speaking. He simply provided an opposing view. The reporters could have chosen to ignore him. They could have moved the press conference elsewhere. Instead they chose to listen to someone who was providing a reasonable, honest counterargument.
22
So Dan, since I tossed the faggots a few crumbs you'll shut the fuck up now, right?
23
Another difference between health care town hall interrupters and what Petrelis did is that Petrelis isn't being organized and shuttled around by a lobbying group funded by pharmaceutical companies and other special-interest groups with a vested interest in shutting down opposition. He simply happened to be riding by, and spoke up for himself and his beliefs out of personal integrity.

I object to the health care disruptors because of their fake claims to grassroots populism, when they are in fact led by corporate-funded lobbyists. Manufactured grassroots is pretty gross. It's just a falsification of values. But I don't oppose their right to keep getting up and saying what they're saying. I just don't admire them for it the same way I admire Petrelis. There's nothing inconsistent in that.
24
19
Well, Bob, Mr WhinyHomo @12 didn't complain that LC wasn't being "forward thinking"; he complained that current California law doesn't treat him the same as everyone else. As your brilliant example shows, he is full of shit. Laws against mixed race marriage treated all races equally, a white man who wished to marry a black woman was out of luck as well. The laws may have been poor policy but they did not discriminate based on race. Nor to California laws give heterosexuals any rights homosexuals do not also enjoy.
25
24, The anti-interracial marriage laws were struck down by the Supreme Court because they did discriminate, and were unconstitutional. Really, before you post and make a fool of yourself, you should take some time to take a 4th grade history class.
26
hey dan,

thanks for the attention and link. i'll soon be posting an update, with video, to my blog about yesterday's zap.

MPetrelis
27
25

Bob, you really shouldn't be so credulous.

The Court ruled that the laws were discriminatory, that does not in fact mean that they were- the court has erred before.

Do you agree with the Court decision that Dred Scott was a "being of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

Do you agree with the 1986 Supreme Court decision that said states could make sodomy illegal?

Do you really take every thing the Supreme Court rules as gospel?

Really?

Before you post and make a fool of yourself, you should take some time to take a 2nd grade history class.
28
@24 You know, if Dan's readers posted on websites you agreed with, spouting arguments you disagree with, you would say they were offensive and obstructionists (even if they left off the profanity:) Coming here and saying the things you say does not change anyone's mind, it just makes them hate conservatives more than they already do. If you are trying to turn people off of your ideas, great job man!!
29
@27

*bursts out laughing* He... HOO HAHAHAHA! This guy thinks... oh my gosh. *wipes tears* This guy actually thinks the anti-interracial marriage laws WEREN'T discriminatory! HAH!

Wow, I needed a good belly-laugh.
30
27, So you are going on the record as being for bans on interracial marriage? What about separate schools for the races? Is that okay too?

Psst, the cases you state are decisions in which rights were taken away, or denied, but later it was shown that the denial of rights was unconstitutional. We are talking about ending the denial of rights in this case. Do you not get the difference? Really? Really?

Thank you come again.

31
28
Thank You.
Thank You Very Much.

29
You're Welcome.
32
No, LC, gays and lesbians in Californian don't have anything like the same rights as straight people. Nor do they in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York or anywhere else. California is, in fact, just a subdivision of the United States, and the Federal government discriminates wildly.

Think, for example, of the thousands of gay and lesbian troops serving on California's 27 military bases, who can be summarily fired for no good reason. Or the tens of thousands of children who stand to be disinherited because of the unfair tax treatment of same-sex couples. And try not to be so damn callous.