Newport Beach council member Scott Peotter put his anti-gay marriage bigotry out for everyone to see and added the City of Newport Beach’s seal to his hate of gays and lesbians over the Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage ruling last month. And Kevin O’Grady of the LGBT Center OC is calling out the bigotry.
In a statement, O’Grady condemns Peotter’s actions:
“The homophobic message below appears on the site of a Newport Beach City Council member, Scott Peotter,” said O’Grady. “Not only is it disturbing that an elected city official would give voice to such homophobic beliefs, but that his statement appears under the seal of the City of Newport Beach is even more disturbing. I urge you to call Scott Peotter’s office and voice your disgust and/or call the office of the city manager and express your concern.”
O’Grady offered this comment exclusively for TheLiberalOC: ”
“Scott Peotter’s homophobic statement, on his website, was appalling, and we condemn it in the strongest terms. He has since claimed to respect LGBT people, but his own words prove how vacuous that claim is. Mr. Peotter used his office and position to spread his hate and bigotry and he did so under the seal of the City of Newport Beach. The city should condemn him and distance themselves from the councilman.”
Peotter’s newsletter, which features the city’s seal, offered this commentary:
“I know, the Supreme Court (that would be 5 out of 9 guys in black robes) decided 10 days ago to overturn 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition, by redefining and allowing gay marriage. All of a sudden, a lot of the ‘important stuff’ of the city didn’t seem so important. I like how the White House is really quick on the ‘important’ stuff like this rainbow lighting. I do find it interesting that the homosexual movement adopted the rainbow as their symbol, as it was God’s symbol that he wouldn’t destroy the world by flood again … Maybe they are ‘wishful thinking …’.”
Peotter doesn’t think he’s a bigot and reacted in a statement emailed to City News Service, ““It is a shame that someone who likes to position himself as a fighter of hate, name calling and tolerance resorts to hate, name calling and intolerance when someone legitimately disagrees with a political position that isn’t in line with his.”
The City of Newport Beach issued this statement: “Recently, the City of Newport Beach was asked to respond to comments made by a council member, in his personal capacity, regarding a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court. Sometimes it can be difficult to discern when a council member is exercising their personal right to freedom of speech and when they are speaking on behalf of the city of Newport Beach.
“The communication sent by the council member was intended to reflect his personal thoughts related to the decision by the Supreme Court and not intended to reflect the position of the city of Newport Beach. The city welcomes and values its citizens, visitors and employees, irrespective of sexual orientation or marital status, and embraces Newport Beach’s place in a diverse and vibrant Southern California.”
Barbara Venzia takes Peotter’s bigotry apart in a brilliant column in the Daily Pilot. She writes: “If Peotter had taken the time to do a simple Internet search, he would have discovered the rainbow flag’s history has nothing to do with End Times.
It was designed by San Francisco artist Gilbert Baker in 1978 and flew that year in the first San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade.
Many suggest Baker’s inspiration was Judy Garland’s rendition of “Over the Rainbow” from “The Wizard of Oz.”
But more important, the city of Newport Beach does not issue marriage licenses to anyone — gay or straight — so this seemingly official correspondence, which makes use of the city seal, makes even less sense.”
The city has not taken official action against Peotter for his misuse of the city’s seal in his newsletter. Council member Keith Curry told Venzia: “This is why we have a law against allowing extremist council members from using the city seal for their own intemperate rants,” Councilman Keith Curry explained. “Mr. Peotter should spend more time focused on trying to make this a better city for all of our residents and less on his national political agenda.”
The Democrats of Greater Irvine Facebook group notes that Peotter and Gay Rights. Peotter and Irvine Council member Christina Shea were leaders of the Irvine Values Coalition that successfully overturned an Irvine city ordinance that granted civil rights to city employees who are gay. Peotter was quoted at the time saying “we just don’t want homosexuality promoted in Irvine.”
Shea rose to power in Irvine on anti-gay bigotry.
Shea offered her thoughts on this to the LA Times in 1989 writing:
“Before we insulate any special interest group for special legislation we need to take into account its behavior. Recent studies generated by the AIDS epidemic reveal that homosexuality is characterized by a wide range of sexual perversions, varying degrees of promiscuity and a disproportionate percentage of sexually transmitted diseases.
The Orange County Health Department disclosed that more than 86% of all reported cases of AIDS in Orange County have as their origin the homosexual and bisexual communities. The reason that these statistics are so high is that the average homosexual who has been tested for and found to have AIDS has had approximately 100 different sexual partners per year before testing positive to the HIV virus.
Many homosexual groups lobby for political prominence by playing the “victim role.” In the Oct. 9 issue of U.S. News & World Report, John Leo states, “More and more aggrieved groups want to magnify their victim status.” Homosexuals seem to understand this clearly; that is why many homosexual activists have turned “gay bashing” into a media campaign.
Several openly professing homosexuals continually play the “victim role” on our own stage in Irvine. They express fears that if this ordinance is amended they will not be able to get adequate housing or jobs. This is completely unfounded. The gay community has not experienced discrimination in Irvine, as the Human Rights Committee study has shown. In fact, their standard of living is excellent.
Contrary to what the homosexuals want us to believe, they have gained more acceptance in the last 20 years in the United States than ever before. A Washington Post article (April, 1979) confirmed this point by indicating that “the homosexuals in our country have become a new ‘power block,’ a block that has both power and money.”
As the homosexual community is quite aware, portraying itself as a victim can gain political and social recognition. This stance, however, can be deceptive and destructive to society.
Support equal rights for all citizens, not special rights for a few. Vote yes on Measure N.”
The LA Times editorial supported a No on Measure N vote. From the editorial: “It is ironic that a city ordinance intended to unite the community is being used by some misguided residents and crusading outsiders instead to divide it with appeals to people’s baser fears.
No one’s rights are safe unless everyone’s rights are secure. Proponents of Measure N like to argue that homosexuals are not a bona fide minority group. But any group being discriminated against deserves the protection of the law and the support of the community.
In considering how to vote on Measure N, whether you believe homosexuals can change their life style at will is not important. What you think of the homosexual life style, even if you find it abhorrent, is really of no consequence either. The issue is that everyone has the right to seek jobs, and housing, without being subjected to prejudice. Nor can the community pick and choose what people it wants and does not want–and, by protecting some groups and excluding others, whom it may discriminate against.
Irvine’s human rights ordinance was an attempt to oppose such discrimination. And to send a message to all minorities that they are wanted, needed and, indeed, are welcome in the city. A no vote on Measure N will endorse that message in the strongest terms possible.”
Shea was the ring leader of what the LA Times called “an anti-gay group,” the Irvine Values Coalition’s initiative, submitted to the city clerk, would exclude homosexuals from protection against discrimination. The initiative, which narrowly won in 1989 when the city was much smaller, prevented the City Council from adopting any future ordinance that “defines sexual orientation as a fundamental human right” without a vote of two-thirds of the people. The LA Times described the Irvine Values Coalition is a group of about 75 residents who call themselves “family oriented” and against infiltration of gays in the community.
The quote that will always define Shea for me is in this story: “Consulting with anti-gay leaders such as Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton) and Oregon activists who had opposed an executive order allowing homosexuals to become foster parents, the Irvine Values Coalition plotted a strategy that focused on homosexuality and included graphic depictions of extreme behavior.
“We tried to show we were normal people. I’m a mom with three kids and I don’t want gay pride festivals or public sex in bathrooms in my city,” Christina said.
Dan, what is it with you Democrats, always quick to apply a double standard to those who exercise their First Amendment rights? On the one hand, it is perfectly all right for the Gay Community to scream their message to the high heavens in an attempt to ram their message down the throats of people who may or may not agree with them. I fully agree they have a Constitutional right to do that. On the other hand, let members of the Conservative Movement (Shea & Peotter) speak up in opposition to that position held by Gays and Democrats and they instantly become bigots. Why don’t they have the same rights of speech as do Gays?
Dan, you had better be careful what you wish for. Who knows, one of these days the Supreme Court may rule against one of your deep personal or religious beliefs. Then, when you speak out against it, which we both know you will, you too may be labeled a bigot. Moral of the story is, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
Peotter is a bigot. She is a bigot. LtPar is a bigot. Hey Nelson, everyone beat you to this story so ORangeJuice got juiced
Of course, your argument COMPLETELY fails to recognize the difference between the right to free speech, and WHAT that speech actually comprises.
Do I need to point you to scripture (since I have a hunch that would be a language you understand) that talks about words coming out of one’s mouth that reflect what is in one’s heart?
OC has Log Cabin Republicans that have for years had to be silent about their views. Take Tammy Bruce who is a conservative Lesbian. She is very conservative on economics and foreign policy why is it that OC Republicans pushed the dated you have to be anti-gay. Most gay males are less worst than Josh Duggar who molested his sisters. Too many of you attend Calvary Chapel that had a gay Lonnie Frisbee convert the hippies in case you didn’t know. Screw the Values Coalition and allow gay Republican in the Tent in OC instead of putting them down. In fact younger folks in OC hate the Values Coalition Ltpar and by 2025 the religious right will wat its cake. Us moderates are going to kick your southern Texas arse across the US.Laguna not Calvary Chapel old hippies in their 60’s is the future.bye bye.
Cynthia, if you consider yourself a “Moderate,” then i’d hate to see a liberal. That said, you still have the right to believe anything you choose or to believe nothing. In my comments I do not condemn or defend Gay Rights. What I do defend is a persons right to express their position either positive or negative on any controversial topic area, whether it be Gay Rights, Abortion, Immigration or something else.
I can also tell you with some degree of certainty, no one will be kicking my ass anywhere, much less across the United States. The fantasies you hold for the future must be coming from a crystal ball that is very cloudy? While not being a practicing member of the religious right or Calvary Chapel member, I do subscribe to a number of the values detailed in the Bible and make no apology for that.
You are also making a big assumption, that this country will survive until 2025. At the rate we are going, the country will be lucky to survive the end of Barack Obama’s term in office (2017). If the country implodes into chaos, all bets are off and it will become a survival of the fittest. Such an environment will not bode well for liberals. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, but as the Bible says, which you may or may not believe, “the handwriting is on the wall.”
More doom and gloom from a white male conservative.
I have to give you and your ilk credit. Your schtick is consistent.
Your comments about not surviving as so vague as to be meaningless.
They’ve been predicting the demise of the country ever since Obama first set foot into the Oval Office.
Yes, they’ve been consistent…consistently wrong.
So wrong, in fact, that it’s become highly entertaining.
You sure got a freaky little stable of commenters, Dan. Pinky, Junior, the apocalptic bigot ltpar, that Vasquez dude who hates everybody from the Dalai Lama to bereaved moms … wow.
Vern,
One has to admire the cognitive dissonance of LtPar. He rails against socialism while being the beneficiary of several socialist institutions and programs.
Same with Moorlach.
Piss off Nelson and take that little rat Diamond with you.
Winships.
touche…