Town Square

Post a New Topic

Gay rights protestors block Stanford road

Original post made on May 26, 2009

A coalition of gay rights advocates protesting today's state Supreme Court ruling upholding Proposition 8 announced a civil-disobedience sit-in aimed at blocking Stanford University's key Palm Drive/Campus Drive intersetion. The sit-in is scheduled for about 12:45 p.m., according to organizers.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, May 26, 2009, 11:30 AM

Comments (34)

Posted by Sam
a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 12:54 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 1:01 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

No one has a right to interfere with another's lawful travel. We have freedom of speech, but also the corollary of freedom of not listening. To protest a perceived injustice by committing an injustice is a mob tactic, and inciting a mob is almost a capital crime.


Posted by Proud Gay
a resident of Stanford
on May 26, 2009 at 1:08 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Proud Gay
a resident of Stanford
on May 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm

So now Walter compares an act of civil disobedience with a capital crime? How do you jump from protesting an injustice to inciting a mob? Shall we execute them on the spot or give them a show trial beforehand?


Posted by WhoRUpeople
a resident of Menlo Park
on May 26, 2009 at 1:46 pm

The people spoke last November. The State Supreme Court spoke today. ANY further protests under the banner of "civil disobedience" should instead be considered CONTEMPT OF COURT and the perps arrested and prosecuted TFEL. Wishful thinking I know, but that is the way it SHOULD be--irregardless of the issue.


Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 26, 2009 at 1:48 pm

Whoa, Walter,

Whaddaya mean no one has the right to interfere with another's lawful travel? Happens all the time--particularly around construction sites.

Freedom of peaceful assembly? Remember that one? The Founding Fathers were big on protest.

Though frankly I'm glad I got through Stanford today before this protest.


Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 26, 2009 at 1:49 pm

WhoRUpeople,

There are several lovely dictatorships that are very good about prohibiting civil disobedience. Cheaper real estate too. Enjoy.


Posted by Proud Gay
a resident of Stanford
on May 26, 2009 at 1:51 pm

I was under the impression that in the US you could protest anything at anytime ( and I agree closing off streets and preventing others from speaking is not a great idea)--even after the courts make their decision. In other words, we are allowed to show our contempt for the courts.
As to the people speaking last november and the court speaking today, let us not forget that in the past the people and courts spoke about minority rights and interracial marriage and they have been proven to be wrong. BTW, WhoRUpeople, if the vote and court decision had gone the other way, would you be singing the same tune?


Posted by WhoRUpeople
a resident of Menlo Park
on May 26, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Proud Gay-yes I would be singing the same tune. Thats why I said, irregardless of the issue. I voted against Prop 8, but I sincerely believe in our democratic system and the "will of the majority". I have been on both the winning and losing side of issues in elections, and I've been disappointed when I wound up in the minority, BUT, I respect the democratic system. To your comment that "we are allowed to show contempt for the courts". Why then is there a law prohibiting contempt of court. I do believe that is why Greg Anderson, just to name one of thousands, spent so much time in jail.


Posted by P.A. Native
a resident of Mountain View
on May 26, 2009 at 2:40 pm

WhoRUpeople,

It's just regardless, no need to use "irregardless".

Prop 8 Protestors,

I'm with your cause I really am, but you need to lose the No On 8 signs because the election was last year.

Palo Alto Online,

You censor too much in these comments sections. I understand wanting to keep it clean, but it's obvious there's much more than cursing being removed.


Posted by Proud Gay
a resident of Stanford
on May 26, 2009 at 2:42 pm

"To your comment that "we are allowed to show contempt for the courts". Why then is there a law prohibiting contempt of court. "

When you are in the court, you are governed bythe rules of the court and can be held in contempt if you are not "civil". However outside of the court you are free to express contempt for the court--that is what i was referring to.

Should civil rights be decided by a majority vote?


Posted by Don G.
a resident of Community Center
on May 26, 2009 at 2:54 pm

It's funny. When liberals' cause is threatened their protests typically take form in making other people's lives inconvenient and scream they are being descriminated against (I'm the poor little guy). When conservatives rally (like the recent Tea parties) they typically peacably assemble without civil disobedience.

I agree with the previous post about putting away the prop 8 signs--that ship has sailed. Time for both camps to build up for the next battle in defining "marriage" in California.


Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 2:55 pm


Q--Does the wise SCOTUS candidates Latina experience extend to the gay experience too?

A--Not if they are white males.
Because apparently categorically none of them can relate, according to Sotomayer.

A 2--Yes because as we all know, all "oppressed peoples" think alike and have the same goals. Just ask my angry friend Mohammed here! He's brown, he must love the gays!



Re the street blocking, hope they are gone before rush hour.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

If you are prepared to overthrow a government as in 1776 or 1861, have at it. If you are prepared, as was Dr. King, to submit peaceably to arrest, go to it, but only a fool fails to recognize the consequences of civil disobedience gone amok. Your assembly is not peaceable when you illegally block my right of way. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by JustMe
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 26, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Abraham Lincon once asked "How many legs would a dog have if you called his tail a leg?" The correct answer was, of course, he would have 4 legs, calling his tail a leg did not make it a leg.

For me, and for many, the prop 8 vote came down to a simple matter of definition: Can we call a gay union marriage. I consulted my internal dictionary and said "No". It did no meet my definition of what a marriage was.

I was asked a simple question and I voted my conscience, which is what a voter is supposed to do. Calling me names and conducting militant protests is not likely to change my mind, that would take logic and discussion. I do not appreciate anyone getting in my face about it, and I would not be inclined to give in to it.


Posted by JustMe
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 26, 2009 at 4:11 pm

Oh, and to respond to this question:
"Should civil rights be decided by a majority vote?"

The governments of Iran, North Korea, and Burma all agree that they sould not be.


Posted by big Al
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 7:57 pm

hey walter-
look out your front window-
we're having a protest in your driveway!


Posted by John Connor
a resident of Palo Verde
on May 26, 2009 at 8:25 pm

Please expel those selfish students blocking the ways of bystanders who had nothing to do with it.


Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 9:19 pm

I drove past T & C at about 11.30 am and saw two groups of protestors, one on either side of the road. They appeared to be raging grannies and other aging hippies. They did not appear to be student age.


Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 26, 2009 at 9:21 pm

I don't think the students bother leaving campus for protests.


Posted by jim H.
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 26, 2009 at 9:24 pm

Walter is, as usual, partially correct. More than legal to "peacefully assemble", however, that does not include blocking streets or private property without a permit, and those assembling are technically breaking the law and can be arrested.

That's why, when you see protesters at intersections, they'll wait for the light to turn green before crossing the street.

Not sure if Stanford has a history of breaking up protests or not. I remember a few years back when protesters blocked Bush's visit to campus and Bush switched venues to George Shultz's house.

Hopefully, given that they were protesting "personal rights" they didn't negatively impact anyone's rights to obtain speedy medical care.


Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on May 26, 2009 at 9:32 pm

I don't know why they are protesting. Because the California Supreme Court upheld prop 8, now they can take it to the US Supreme Court where they will no doubt win.

And when they win in the US Supreme Court, then it becomes the law of the land, not just CA.

These protesters are too naive or indoctrinated to see that the CA court decision is a gift that will lead to their ultimate victory in the US Supreme Court...... Just ask Justice Sotomayor




Posted by Chris Zaharias
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 26, 2009 at 10:09 pm

My name is Chris Zaharias and I think everyone voicing an opinion here should state their name rather than hide behind the veil of anonymity. I, for one, am willing to state my opinion publicly and without fear of ridicule, and welcome all responses.

I am *for* society accepting other-than-heterosexual inclinations, but *against* extending the right be lawful marriage to these other-than-heterosexual pairings.

Why? Because as much as some people would like to define it differently, marriage is *not* defined simply as any two people who choose to enter a legally-defined state of cohabitation. It is an inalienable right that our founding fathers rightly deemed as deriving from a power higher than government and given to heterosexual oouples only.

If, as is the case with a minority of the U.S. population (yes, a minority) who are not religious, you don't believe in the higher power our founding fathers believed in, or in any sort of higher power, then there are still two perfectly sound arguments against same-sex marriage that:

1) There is no natural benefit accrued to society from same-sex marriage;

2) Individual inclinations and desires are not in all cases 'right' and acceptable.

Understand that I say this will *no* ill-will towards same-sex oouples, but this is my opinion and I believe there is, should be and always will be a strong legal and societal basis for not allowing same-sex marriage.


Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on May 26, 2009 at 10:26 pm

Chris,

I appreciate your identity openness and agree with your opinion, however, names are not unique and google is everywhere.

Web Link

This may or may not be you. If it isn't, then the person pictured with your same name may well receive harassment because of your posting.

This is just one of many good reasons to remain anonymous in a world where political and other retribution are the rule, not the exception.


Posted by Heard it all before
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 11:43 pm

"There is no natural benefit accrued to society from same-sex marriage"

Of course.
...Because, obviously Lesbian and Gay couples never give birth to their own children or adopt and raise children (including many special-needs and hard-to-adopt children) and provide loving families where said children would benefit enormously from having married parents. Nope, it never happens. Children in our society never benefit in any way, ever, from having married parents. And by the way, I have a lovely bridge in Brooklyn for sale, too - you interested? :)


Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 11:57 pm


Its a done deal

Hilarious to see the no on 8 posters on campus; yesterdays news

Can not we move onto seals?
I saw the Gov of Canada ate a seal heart and hunts,very Pallin like behavior,
I thought the canuks where fully enlightened .
Poor seals, where is the outrage? where are the posters, have we no shame?


Posted by Ned
a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2009 at 11:28 am

get over it...the People of California had voted. If we start over turning everything that the People have voted on, what good are elections and such?

It is this "me, me, me" mentality that is filling this world full of greed and ruining it.

Will the fact that you can or can not get married change the way you feel about your significant other? Hopefully the answer is no.

PS. I am all about equal rights, but the way this is being handled by the No against 8 supporters is getting out of control.


Posted by Proud Gay
a resident of Stanford
on May 27, 2009 at 11:34 am

"get over it...the People of California had voted. If we start over turning everything that the People have voted on, what good are elections and such?"

What good is democracy? Remember some of Pete Wilson's initiatives were voted on by the people and then overturned in the courts. Just because the people voted on something does not make it right or constitutional. That is why we have the right to take things to the court.
There will be another ballot measure on this issue soon.

"but the way this is being handled by the No against 8 supporters is getting out of control."

Really, how? There taking the issue before the courts? There demonstrating? Or their goal to bring it to the ballot again? Which democratic process is "out of control"?


Posted by Ned
a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2009 at 1:45 pm

And did this just not happen with the California Supreme Court decision? So what is the goal here? To keep voting on it until it becomes legal? What about the rights and votes of the people who were for Prop 8? There has to be an end somewhere. How many times does it have to go to the ballots before we accept it? 2,4,50? I think we have bigger problems in our State, Country and World than Prop 8. How about a Prop to protect the homeless families and give them shelter, medical care, and food? How about spending the money wasted on Prop 8 and give it the shelters?

Again and this is just my opinion and my Freedom of Speech as a US citizen.

I think it was selfish of the protesters yesterday to disrupt peoples commutes, especially around the hospital where PATIENTS need to get to appointments and such. Again, all protesters think about is "me, me, me" and screw everybody who is not for my cause.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

How many Gays died because ActUp insisted that bath houses be reopened? How many Gays died because ActUp opposed the contact reporting standard for any STD? How many votes will Gay rights lose if they continue juvenile temper tantrums?
I belong to the don't "...do it in the streets and frighten the horses" school. If you frighten the horses, be ready for the kick.


Posted by Nora Charles
a resident of Stanford
on May 27, 2009 at 8:33 pm

Hi Sharon,

I'm outraged about the seal slaughter! It was great news that the EU finally acted to ban seal imports. But yes, that seal heart business was truly bizarre.


Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 8:47 pm


I do not believe I could eat a seals heart--unless there was no alternative.

The No on 8 people now plan to spend millions of dollars on their vanity project while ignoring the fact that 50% of Black gay/bisexuals are HIV/AIDS positive, guess they do not count--sad
This decision shows where their priorities are, narcissism is in fashion I guess.

Poor seals, where is Brigite Bardot on this? oh I forgot, she is in jail for anti Muslim statements-- now those guys really like gays==not


Posted by LetMeMarry
a resident of Professorville
on May 29, 2009 at 9:48 pm

Please
Let me marry who I want to. That's all I want. I won't stop protesting until I'm given the right!


Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 10:48 pm

I too have difficulty with the idea of eating a baby seal heart

What was the gov gen of Canada thinking?

I am sure the natives have to eat baby seals.
But the heart is not very tasty and rather tough, do you have a recipe

Thanks

Sharon


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

New sushi restaurant and steakhouse coming to Palo Alto in 2023
By The Peninsula Foodist | 5 comments | 2,755 views

Local Flavor– Highland Noodles and Aurum
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 2,197 views

What Do You Get Out of Being Stubborn?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,176 views