California Protest Idea

[Meldread]

Although I live on the other side of the country, my heart goes out to those of you living in California. I know how much it sucks to have a constitutional ban pass in your state, and it was made three times as bad due to the fact that we had legal rights in the state and then they were taken away... and forced to live in limbo on top of that.

So, I have an idea for a protest, although there is a risk that it could turn against us.

Every day that it is possible, get large groups of people together and block traffic on the major California highways. Civil disobedience, but not some piddly protest where most people don't care. Make it EFFECT the average Joe. Everyone hates traffic jams, and I hear traffic in California is generally bad anyway.

At the same time have commercials air and people out talking with others. Let it be made clear: Until gays get the right to marry the state is shutting down. The state is already hurting financially, and shutting down the main infrastructure like that would only make it worse - hitting the state in the pocketbook.

The goal is to get people so angry about being stuck in traffic all the time that one of two things happens:

1. They vote for gay marriage simply because it's too damn annoying not too.
2. Those that didn't feel strongly about it one way or another blame the haters for inconveniencing their life. (Although there would have to be some propaganda involved to make it clear to blame them instead of us, to make it clear that we're the true victims and are simply fighting back the ONLY way we can.)

This campaign can be heightened by having video recorded of it all taking place. Then choice bits, where haters look like assholes (or get abusive) can be uploaded to YouTube letting the world view them for what they truly are. (Because nothing brings out the asshole in people more than road rage.)

[Ian David]

1. Free downloadable posters against Prop 8

RT @JoinTheImpact: Free downloadable #prop8 posters 4 yr #dayofdecision event 2nite! http://bit.ly/1JfRjk (thanks @larimie!) @njrugger45

http://www.against8.blogspot.com/

[Beam Me Up]

2. As a gay man living in the SF Bay Area, I'm going to disagree with that strategy.

I think the last thing we need to do is ANNOY people, especially "average Joes." We need to be WINNING people not annoying the crap out of them.

[jimlup]

3. I agree

I think we can win on this one if we are forceful but patient. We should not be resorting to random CD on this just yet. Rather convince people by winning them over. Convince people (the average Joe) that gay people are real people with feelings and stuff just like them. I think we eventually win on this person to person strategy. Unfortunately, it will be frustrating as it will take time.

[keepCAblue]

4. Yeah, that strategy sure didn't work for Martin Luther King, Jr. or the black civil rights movement.

:sarcasm:

[Beam Me Up]

5. I don't think that is a fair comparison.

I don't have time to explain exactly why. This is a different era and this is a different issue. FWIW, I understand the necessity for civil disobedience as a strategy for social change. But like all strategies what works in one situation doesn't work in another. I would much rather see a large rally of gay couples surrounding the CA State House, maybe even a sit-in at the Capitol building, than people risking their lives and limbs blocking traffic. If we're going to do civil disobedience it needs to be directed not random or arbitrary, IMO. Most important, what I want to see is gay couples talking to people outside their community, showing what effect NOT being able to marry directly has on their lives. If we can reach their hearts their minds will follow and so will their votes.

edit left out the word "couples"

[jimlup]

6. Also they weren't blocking traffic which is a little different...

Generally, as I recall the civil rights movement of the '60s was simply about insisting on equal rights. It didn't involve blocking traffic except for marches, which all protest movements do by default. The civil rights protests involved sitting at "white only" lunch counters and refusing to move from bus seats.

I've been involved in helping protesters who blocked traffic in anti-nuclear weapons testing protests back in the late '80's. It is a whole different story. The groups objective was to directly block workers who were arriving at the Nevada Test Site for a weapons test that morning. The objective of that blockade was very specific.

During both anti-Gulf war period several groups blocked traffic in both California and New York. As I understand the purpose of these was "No Business as usual" no "empire as usual". I would agree that blocking traffic in that situation was legitimate because it was a last resort to try and directly stop people from being killed in a needless war. We don't have the "last resort" situation for this issue just yet and I hope that we never do.

Again, I would agree if we were at the point of last resort. We are not now at that point. I would agree that directed sit-ins and some civil disobedience targeted to specific situations and individuals is now probably appropriate. Though not random blockades of "average Joe traffic". We need Joe's vote next time and we CAN still get it.