In case you’re wondering why I called out local homophobia

Last Friday I posted about homophobic rhetoric posted on TheLiberalOC.com coming from a business based in Santa Ana Tardif Sheet Metal, owned by Michael Tardif. Turns out the comments actually came from him.  There has been some criticism about my decision to disclose that information. In case anyone has any question why I found it necessary to stand up and face down such hate speech, watch the following YouTube video and the CNN video report linked below it.

I’m Listening. Are you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPB7bTdz2xQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxk7glmMbo

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/03/10/dnt.ok.lawmaker.anti.gay.kwtv

Any Questions?  

  30 comments for “In case you’re wondering why I called out local homophobia

  1. Mike Tardif
    March 11, 2008 at 6:43 am

    Chris – If you did not notice, I apologized 4 days ago.

    Mike Tardif, on March 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm Said:
    I have neighbors who live across the street from me who are gay. We have no problems – zero.

    I interact socially with gay people. I have invited gay people to play golf with me.

    If I have offended any gay people with my “supposedly” anonymous comments, I apologize. I intended to make an argumentative point, I did not intend to draw a comparison.

    So call me a homophobe if you like, that is your characterisation, it is not reality.

    Mike Tardif

  2. March 11, 2008 at 7:40 am

    This is getting way out of hand.

    Chris: You should ban anonymous comments and make people sign into the site. MANY other sites do this, including WordPress where I do my own blogging. Anonymity in political opinion, as I’ve stated before, equates to complete cowardice. As long as you allow anonymous comments I don’t think outing Mike was a good idea, however, if you remove the option, this will never happen again.

    Mike, I’m a lesbian and I wasn’t offended because I’m pretty sure you were trying to be ironic, and while some of us got the joke, apparently many of us didn’t. If I’m right in my belief, then you shouldn’t have posted anonymously because it makes the comment look shady and casts a shadow on its intent. Indeed I think THAT was the reason Chris (and others) took such offense to it. Plus, your public opposition to Measure D didn’t make it look any better.

    The whole thing is very unfortunate, with mistakes on both sides. You two queers should just kiss and make up like good little centaurs!

    See? Now that’s ironic! :P

    SMS

  3. Emily Anne
    March 11, 2008 at 8:01 am

    Chris you are a sad little man! Your little fire burned out or went off course so you had to relight it pathetic.

    Previously known as PeaceLove&Grenade’s…Sarah I will post using my given name although I will not give my last. Can’t trust the yahoo’s on this blog don’t know what they might do they are vicious. If I post my last name I might as well post my home address, phone number, and hand over my first born bah.

  4. anon
    March 11, 2008 at 8:19 am

    Ban anonymous commenting?

    Are you kidding? This is the BLOGOSPHERE. If you can’t debate an anonymous commenter on the merits of the point they’re making, then you shouldn’t be here.

  5. March 11, 2008 at 8:49 am

    “Can’t trust the yahoo’s on this blog don’t know what they might do they are vicious.”

    If this is how you feel then why do you continue to visit our blog and comment on our blog. There are plenty of other blogs that would love to have someone as angry as you posting on their site.

    The Orange Juice would love to have you. As long as you opposed Measure D, hate Miguel Pulido, Sal Tinajero, Claudia Alvarez and are willing to trash me, you’ll be welcomed with open arms.

    Maybe you should take that under consideration.

  6. March 11, 2008 at 9:04 am

    Mike, Emily Ann, and Sarah,

    Anonymous commenters are free to comment oon this blog. We reserve the right to publicly identify commenters who engard in outrageous, hateful, and homophobic commentary.

    A blog is a public forum. The information available to the host is not protedted from disclosure, If you are a politically active person who happens to post anonymous comments from a business IP address, you should expecr that information may be disclosed.

    We did not delete the comments made by Mr, Tardif of Emily Ann. If they had posted under their names we would not have devoted a domplete post to the topic and probably just responded within the original string of commentary.

    Were listening, and if you cross the line into hateful homophobic speech from a business IP while posting anonymously, we will likely point that fact out.

    We have no problem with rational debate or disagreement. We won”t tolerate bigotry and hatred from the shadows. If you’re tough enough to make such comments, sign your name.

    There have been numerous comments from Tardif Sheet Metal, which while we may disagree with them, we did not delete them or identify where they were posted from. It would not have been fair to block all accrees to comment by Tareif because of a few comments. So we used a different approach.

  7. Mike Tardif
    March 11, 2008 at 9:21 am

    Chis P,

    As I previously posted, you are free to note and identify any past posts from this IP.

    And as far as Measure D is concerned – I disliked the lying by Yes on Measure D supporters, and I posted accordingly under my name.

    Mike Tardif

  8. March 11, 2008 at 9:28 am

    Yes. Ban anonymous commenting. I’m not kidding. I can argue a point perfectly well without knowing who I’m arguing with. I just think people should put their money where their mouth is and not lob verbal grenades from protected positions. As I said, LOTS of blogs don’t allow anonymous commenting so it’s not exactly a new idea and it’s a perfectly credible concept regardless of whether you agree with actually doing it or not. I feel that it’s totally a judgment call on the part of the blog owner, but either way the rules need to be consistent and equitable.

    Sean, people here *are* vicious. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s simply a fact of debate and politics of which I myself was recently reminded after a little hiatus from political life.

    And Chris, I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways. You can’t allow anonymous commenting and then say, ‘except when…’ Either you allow it or you don’t. If there is a disclaimer on the site somewhere that states your position regarding the disclosure of IP addresses then I apologize, but I haven’t seen one. The ONLY surefire ways to solve the issue are in fact to get rid of anons or stand by your decision to let them post here discreetly, no matter what. Otherwise, your so-called public forum, being subject to your sole discretion, is in fact a *private* forum. What’s good for the goose…

    And remember, this is coming from a homosexual.

    SMS

  9. March 11, 2008 at 9:33 am

    Oh and Emily –

    If people here didn’t already have my address and phone number I may not use my last name either, however, the point isn’t using your given name, it’s using a name which consistently identifies you as a commenter. Besides, I think PeaceLove&Grenades is a witty name. Kudos. :)

    SMS

  10. anon
    March 11, 2008 at 9:39 am

    SMS,

    It’s very interesting that you characterize views different from yours as lobbing “verbal grenades” and (in previous comments on other posts) as “attacks”.

    Are you capable of having a debate with someone without taking it personally?

    And if there are plenty of blogs that don’t allow anonymous commenting, then perhaps you’re better off sticking with those blogs exclusively.

  11. March 11, 2008 at 9:41 am

    “Sean, people here *are* vicious. ”

    Sarah,

    The most vicious comments I have ever read on this site came from the same IP address that Emily Anne is posting from. Kinda ironic isn’t it?

  12. Mike Tardif
    March 11, 2008 at 9:53 am

    Sean – I challenge you to post the comments to which you are referring. I trust that you will post them within context.

    Mike Tardif

  13. March 11, 2008 at 10:05 am

    Sean-

    Ouch. :P

    And anon. Shame on you. My opinion has nothing to do with me taking anything personally. Where did you even get that idea? The point is that it’s much easier to ‘talk shit’ when nobody knows who you are. The verbal granade comment was made about anonymous posters in general, not you personally.
    You know, the pot calling the kettle and all that.

    You know I’m getting awfully tired of being considered over-sensitive whenever someone has no real argument against me, and the ‘attacks’ I speak of are instances where people intentionally quote me incorrectly or incompletely, or in fact do stray from the political into the personal for the sole purpose of creating controversy, not because they truly disagree. Read the comments on the original post about this ‘outing’ issue and you’ll see what I’m talking about. I have said MANY times that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a few people here like to twist my words, which shouldn’t be so easy for them to get away with because they’re IN WRITING! rofl

    SMS

  14. March 11, 2008 at 10:05 am

    Mike,

    I am referring to the comments that you posted. There is no need to rehash them as we are all aware of what they were.

    You may have been joking, and I’ll take you at your word that you were. However they were vicious none the less.

    If Emily Anne has such a low disregard for the folks on this blog she is free to go elsewhere where she will be more comfortable. The Orange Juice may be more suitable for her. Over there you folks are heroes because you were against Measure D.

  15. Dan Chmielewski
    March 11, 2008 at 10:16 am

    There is no privacy on the Internet. And I am still waiting for Mike to tell me what harm will come to society by allowing two men or two women to marry each other? A church wedding is surely out of the question, but as far as equal right go, why is it OK to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry? If we want to protect marriage, shouldn’t we make it harder to get a divorce?

  16. March 11, 2008 at 10:22 am

    Dan-

    Approximately 50% of all marriages end up in divorce. It’s sad but true, but if that weren’t the case it would be even sadder because there would be even more miserable people in this world than there already are, trapped in marriages with people they don’t love. We shouldn’t make it harder to get divorced, instead we should make it harder to get *married*!

    SMS

  17. cook
    March 11, 2008 at 11:38 am

    The fear of queer is pretty thick here.

    I think that Mike Tardif must be a “straight white male” ,

    What other reason would there be to burn him on the cross for all to read.

  18. March 11, 2008 at 11:54 am

    I think one thing that people fail to realize is that your intentions don’t matter. Yes, you may “mean” well and you might have thought you were being clever, but if something you say does offend somebody, then yes, it was offensive.

    I understand why this is such a hard line because I do believe that there are people who are far too easily offended and who will also take any opportunity to use a slight as an opportunity to make their own point, but it doesn’t matter.

    I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intentioins because you can never truly know someone’s intentions. I can and will judge what they say when comments are on a public forum where there is nothing that guarantees anonymity. I had issue with this and expressed my concerns but at the same time, it’s naive to think that you can say whatever you want under the guise of “anonymity” and not expect there to be consequences for your actions, behavior and comments. etc.

    This is the reason why I never say something online that I would not say to someone’s face. It’s an easy rule to follow and it allows me to show that this is all the “real world” and that no matter where we are in a public space our actions are subject to judgement.

    If you can’t handle that then it’s time to stop commenting publically or to think before you type.

  19. Mike Tardif
    March 11, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    To Dan C – From the Arguement in Favor of Prop 22

    They say I have to accept that marriage can mean
    whatever anyone says it means, and if I don’t agree then I’m
    out of touch, even an extremist.
    My family taught me to respect other people’s freedoms.
    Everyone should. But that’s a two way street. If people want me
    to respect their opinions and lifestyles, then they should grant
    me the same courtesy by respecting MY beliefs. And I believe
    that marriage should stay the way it is.
    It’s tough enough for families to stay together these days.
    Why make it harder by telling children that marriage is just a
    word anyone can re-define again and again until it no longer
    has any meaning?
    Marriage is an important part of our lives, our families and
    our future. Someday I hope to meet a wonderful man, marry
    and have children of my own. By voting ‘‘Yes’’ on 22, I’m doing
    my part today to keep that dream alive. Please, for all future
    generations, vote ‘‘Yes’’ on 22.
    Miriam G. Santacruz

    Dan – 4 1/2 million voters in CA and Pres Bill Clinton thought this was a good arguement to keep marriage between a man and a woman. So do I.

    Mike Tardif

  20. March 11, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    It’s tough enough for families to stay together these days.
    Why make it harder by telling children that marriage is just a
    word anyone can re-define again and again until it no longer
    has any meaning?

    —————————————————

    And you see, you don’t get it! Allowing two men or two women to marry and make their own families has nothing to do with your family or anyone else’s family. You are putting your own beliefs on others by saying, my way or the highway!

    It’s perfectly fine for you to think that only a man and a woman can marry and create a family of their own, but the Government does not have the right because it’s bigoted. Homophobia is a very old bigotry and just because the laws and pockets of our culture still believe it to be wrong does not mean it is.

    This is the same argument that was used to keep whites and blacks from marrying each other. I think for me, I’m just asking that the Government keep religion out of our laws. The reason many people believe that gay marriage is wrong is because their Churches and Pastors and Priests have told them so.

    To argue that gay marriage will keep anyone from marrying the man of their dreams is delusional, they are not related and have nothing to do with each other. The GLBT community is not responsible for the degrading state of Marriage in our Country, it’s the men and women who stray, who put their own selfish needs before their families or who marry too young or for all the wrong reasons (Such as the cultural expectation that everyone should marry and have a family even when they might not be emotionally ready for such a commitment.)

  21. March 11, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Interesting comment cook, but apparently, you don’t have to be a straight white male to get flamed for comments that don’t ‘blend’ with the politics of this blog with many people concerned more about keeping the party as left as possible than they are with solving the problems of the people.

    In the last thread on this topic, I made the point that all unions, including hetero ‘civil marriages’ should in fact be called ‘civil unions’ with ‘religious marriages’ being completely separate and optional and the spiritual validity of such decided by individual churches. Gay marriage doesn’t weaken marriage, but instead strengthens it, which in a country with much too much religious zeal already is a bad idea. Unfortunately, church and state separation is an ideal, not a reality, despite laws to the contrary.

    A marriage by definition *is* between a man and a woman, which is Mike Tardif’s point, and it’s unfair to everyone to try to change that. Everyone deserves equal rights. This means everyone, gay or straight, should have the right to form unions with all of the same privileges as traditional marriage, churches should have the right to turn down marriage ceremonies for anyone they choose for any reason, and the government should abandon the use of the word ‘marriage’ once and for all.

    That’s right. I’m a lesbian and I’m defending the so-called homophobe. I still don’t like his wording or that he posted anonymously, but I actually do agree with his position.

    People on other boards on which I post thought mine was a great idea, with one poster even going as far as saying it was THE most interesting and intelligent piece that he’s ever read on the subject.

    But not here. Oh no, not on ‘The Liberal OC.’ Instead of considering the piece in it’s entirety as pro-gay rights, a compromise that provides equality, AND something that people on the right may be able to get behind, my post was nitpicked because I inadvertently used the phrase ‘we LGBT folk’ instead of ‘many LGBT folk’ in stating my opinion that the LGBT community is anti-establishment, as it well should be since the establishment is anti-gay.

    This is interesting because the person who did the picking accused me of attempting to speak for all gay people as a result. She is straight and yet she felt that she is more qualified to speak on a topic regarding my community than I am, even going so far as to accuse me of being ‘imprecise’ and legitimizing ‘harmful mythologies.’

    The woman in question claims that most LGBT people are pro-gay marriage despite my research within my own community that says otherwise and the fact that I for one also am not. I think our gay leaders have overstepped their bounds and overstated their case in attempting to co-opt a type of union that does not involve them.

    She even said that civil unions for heteros already exists and that she herself has been through the process, but then she quickly reneged and said that the ceremony did in fact have religious overtones by it’s very nature as a ‘marriage.’ She then herself referred to same-sex marriages as ‘same-sex unions.’ An interesting choice of words.

    I still haven’t received an apology and I suspect I never will despite the appropriateness of such a gesture after I was stabbed in the back by a self proclaimed ‘friend.’

    The point is that not only do some straight people seem to think they know the gay community better than gays and should therefore be the stewards of our progress, but that everyone on this board gets burned ‘on the cross’ at one time or another for disagreeing when it serves someone else’s agenda, even if they are a member of a disadvantaged group of people that the Democratic Party has been trusted to respect and defend and not just pander to.

    SMS

  22. March 11, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    everyone on this board gets burned ‘on the cross’ at one time or another for disagreeing when it serves someone else’s agenda, even if they are a member of a disadvantaged group of people that the Democratic Party has been trusted to respect and defend and not just pander to.
    ————————

    What? Burned at the cross? Don’t you think that’s a bit extreme?

    It shouldn’t matter what “group” you belong to. To pander would be to nod and agree with everything you say because how dare we question you? The Democratic party should allow everyone to express their opinion it just doesn’t mean that everyone will agree with it. If you do not like how you’ve been challenged because of your point of view and feel the need to compare it to a very disgusting and hateful image that for me is a racist symbol, then maybe you shouldn’t comment (and yes, I’m aware that witches were burned as well, it’s just an ugly symbol all around).

    I’m really quite stunned at your last paragraph. If Democrats are to respect and defend the GLBT community than that would include respecting all opinions without have to agree with them.

    As for the personal issues that you seem hellbent on airing at this public forum, I don’t think it’s helping your case very much.

  23. just...asking?
    March 11, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Is it time now to get back to politics and other things Orange County? Many words have been typed and points have been made…now could we get back to the topics that make LiberalOC such a great site?

    just…asking?

  24. March 11, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    So one lesbian with an inflated sense of self-importance claims to have done her own research perpetuating the myth that gay folks don’t want marriage.
    She must have surveyed only her own “anti-establishment” LGBT friends.
    I find it absolutely hilarious that she assumes I’m a het.

  25. March 11, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    Heather –

    The ‘cross’ comment was a pivot on a quote. It wasn’t my wording , I just borrowed it. And I never said Gila had to agree, I simply asked to not be contradicted on an issue that I know about from the inside, not from third party information like straight people. Straight people don’t even know what it feels like to be gay so she doesn’t have to agree with me, I just wished she would respect my opinion to debate it, not nitpick wording to make herself look like she knows better than I do.

    The issues aren’t personal – they’re political. Some *others* made it personal. This has to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen. I never denied anyone their opinion but I’m being oppressed at every turn.

    And Publius, I heard you the first time. Merely repeating over and over that I’m self important doesn’t make it true. Do you ever say anything nice to anyone? I find it absolutely hilarious that you assume your opinions are facts too. I’m not doing anything here that everyone else doesn’t do, so why all the hate against me? Indeed, there was nothing in your statement that didn’t come across as you trying to state a fact. And did I say I assumed you were hetero because I don’t remember saying that.

  26. cook
    March 11, 2008 at 11:53 pm

    SMS 3-11 @1:35

    Your comments make a lot of sense on wording of civil unions and religious marriages.

    It is to bad that the government people’s fears (of whatever) keep them from producing clean laws for our society to live by without having our laws reinterpreted continuously.

    Good luck and good life on your chosen path.

  27. March 12, 2008 at 1:52 am

    Thanks cook. I really appreciate that. :) I’m glad someone is actually more interested in logical solutions than personal attacks. Again, thank you hon.

    SMS

  28. Claudio Gallegos
    March 12, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Chris,

    I understand your concern about gay bigotry and Mike Tardiff’s remarks. But you want to know how much anti-Mexican propoganda from so-called “Immigration Reform” groups I see in the blogosphere. WE GET COMMENTS EVERYDAY WITH THE MOST VILE LANGUAGE BLAMING MEXICANS FOR EVERY PROBLEM UNDER THE SUN. Infiltration, yup, we get accused of that all the time. We are also blamed for lost jobs, abortion, crime, high birth rate, you name it, Mexican immigrants have probably been blamed for it on the big three OC Blogs.

    I know there has been such vile anti-Mexican comments on Orange Juice, and have I been tempted to out them. YES! Especially when I know who they are. Do I, NO! So Chris, I understand your feelings, but gays are not the first group to be crucified on the blogosphere. Try being Mexican for a day and see what we have to read every friggen day in the blogosphere being blamed for one problem or the next.

    Sorry but the outing went too far, it could have been handled differently.

  29. Dan Chmielewski
    March 12, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    Mike —
    There was a time when the vast majority of Californians were againstracially-mixed marriages. They didn’t want whites marrying blacks.

    Civil Unions do not provide all of the same rights and priviledges marriage does. And as far as Prop 22 goes, the courts can still overrule the will of the people if the law is unconstitutional.

    President Clinton’s suport for the defense in marriage act, in my view, was wrong, as was his media deregulation laws from 1996, and his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

    The only marriage that should mean anything to you is your own. If the Catholic Church says marriage is only between a man and a woman, and your Catholic and want to be married in a church, that’s your choice. If you want to be married by the justice of the peace, then the state should afford the same rights to gays and lesbians it applies to straight couples. Its that simple.

    And Mike, I want you to know I appreciate the civility in the debate and your defense of your positions since you began posting under your own name. But please ask your gay neighbors if they believe their rights are discriminated against on the marriage issue.

  30. Clarification...
    March 12, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    People who used to support slavery were free. People who oppose gay marriage are likely straight and currently have that right. Being gay is not a choice or a crime. Being different whether you are a different race, ethnicity, gender or orientation should not preclude a person from the freedoms this country has fought and died for.

    Marriage is a conservative issue and it should be encouraged be it man/man, man/woman, or woman/woman if that couple wants to love and cherish each other. I feel no sympathy for those who support Prop 22 or are trying to strip away equal rights from gay people.

    Those who say they have “no problem” with LGBT community, as long as they are not allowed to have the same freedoms that we do are cruel, bigoted and lying, no matter how many times you try and gloss it over and call it “law.”

Comments are closed.