Same-sex marriage foe wasn't hateful

I just watched a video clip from a chilling news report in Palm Springs, Cal. In the video, an older woman carrying an approximately 3-foot-tall cross attempted to express her opinion regarding the passage of Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. There were a large number of men expressing an opinion condemning the proposition's passage. The woman was quiet; the men around her were yelling. When a female reporter attempted to interview the woman, the men yelled, waved placards in their faces and in front of the camera after having earlier taken the cross from this woman and stomped on it. The "talking head" back at the TV station, commenting on what was happening and why the interview couldn't take place, made a statement I couldn't believe.

He said there was obviously hate on both sides. There was certainly plenty of hateful behavior going on with these men. But I saw no evidence of hate in that woman; no fear either, although at one point the reporter with her looked fearful. This woman, Phyllis, was attempting to make a quiet peaceful statement. I never saw her yell, I never saw her get in anyone's face, I never saw her do anything that could be called hate. Yet that is what the anchor at the station indicated in his sweeping statement that there was "obviously" hate on both sides. What was that? It certainly wasn't truth. It was what has come to be more and more common - a politically correct statement to deflect from the truth, from what really happened. The interview didn't happen for, though our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, hers was denied. Property that was hers was forcibly taken from her and destroyed. Who was hateful? It wasn't Phyllis. God bless her for her courage in what was truly a terrifying situation. What's next?

P.J. Bertrand

Wood Dale