skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Council Considers Flag Project Celebrating Gay Pride

Aired 5/14/12 on KPBS News.

A request to place a huge "rainbow flag" atop a 65-foot pole in Hillcrest was rejected by the city's Planning Commission. Now the Council will consider the project.

The San Diego City Council is scheduled to vote tomorrow on a proposal to put a rainbow pride flag on a 65-foot pole along University Avenue in Hillcrest. The San Diego City Planning Commission recommended that the city deny the permit, though its reasons were unclear.

If the San Diego City Council votes in favor of the project, a 12 by 18 foot flag that has come to represent the LGBT community would fly high above the intersection of University Avenue and Normal Street in Hillcrest.

The Hillcrest Business Association is backing the privately funded plan.

Executive director Benjamin Nicholls said the flag is a symbol of tolerance, diversity and inclusion and reflects the character of the neighborhood.

"A lot of neighborhoods in San Diego have ways that they express their culture," Nicholls said. "You know down in Little Italy there's banners and little parks and murals, so this would be a similar symbol for Hillcrest."

But the flag will also serve a more practical purpose, he added.

"Once the project is done, it's going to become a destination for cultural tourists. The gay traveling community is quite large and often overlooked."

If the City Council votes to approve the permit, construction will begin in June, so the flag can be in place for this year's Pride Parade in July.

Comments

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 14, 2012 at 6 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

*The San Diego City Planning Commission recommended that the city deny the permit, though its reasons were unclear.*

This is really unprofessional for a planning commission to oppose something and not even say why.

I question the credibility of the San Diego Planning Commission who apparently thinks citizens of the city they supposedly represent don't even deserve to know the reasoning behind their decisions.

Unless the decision is made out of bigotry and homophobia, the why are the embarrassed to tell us?????

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Dothscribble'

Dothscribble | May 14, 2012 at 6:20 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

The Neotribalism in this once united country is reaching toxic proportions. Further zest for demarcation through this Flag-project is mental. They're recognized, already! Whew. Their aim at this point are Youthful and convert fodder.
They're so gay and so proud to be homosexual that they're ashamed to be called homosexual. THAT is called psychosis. And it's pulling the majority around by their noses and punitive threat.
Will the next American social 'advancement' be acronym assignment for nose-blowing methodology? There's no wonder why we amuse the world.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 14, 2012 at 7:27 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Dothscribble, are you sure you're not gay my dear?

The reason I ask is because I have known some of the most flamboyant, cross-dressing, eyelash-batting, glitter-strewn, "girls" ever to sashay across a dance floor in 7" platform heels while managing not to get a single boa feather in their Long Island Ice tea and none of them, Dothscribble dear, we're as big of a Drama Queen as you and that absurd post.

It's funny that you think accepting equality "amuses" the world.

I suppose you think conservative countries like Iran and Uganda that want to imprison or even kill gay people are shining beacons of light that that the entire world looks up to?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Dothscribble'

Dothscribble | May 14, 2012 at 8:24 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

African americans who were themselves LEGALLY discriminated against are entitled to carry on about the fact. Their ancestors aren't. Not if my race can't parade in celebration of our accomplishments; That's discrimination.
Homosexuals haven't been legally discriminated against in our lifetime; period. Peer pressure is natural and permanent. Homosexual "Pride" or shame is pointless to sane people aware of homosexual contradiction. It's their choice so it shouldn't be endowed with flags or extra anything. Blacks didn't choose their race; Entirely different.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 14, 2012 at 9:13 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

We have laws that say two gay people can't marry.

That's legal discrimination.

Just because you don't like gays or the gay lifestyle doesn't mean you're entitled to change the definition of discrimination.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 15, 2012 at 8:24 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

"A lot of neighborhoods in San Diego have ways that they express their culture," Nicholls said. "You know down in Little Italy there's banners and little parks and murals, so this would be a similar symbol for Hillcrest."

Love the apples and oranges fallacy when demoguges mix race/ethncity and/or culture with sexual orientation! They already lose the argument at the starting gate.

So Mr. Nicholls, what happens if you're Italian-American and gay or lesbian? Three flags: US, Italian, gay??? Personally I think flags divide people.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 15, 2012 at 8:26 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

@DUCKSTER, Iran is not "conservative," it's authoritarian.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 15, 2012 at 8:32 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

"Just because you don't like gays or the gay lifestyle doesn't mean you're entitled to change the definition of discrimination"

Ah, but you CAN change the historical definition of "marraige"? And not just for the USA but for the entire Western hemisphere, and then the rest of the Eastern/Islamic/Hindu/Chinese world to follow . . . and all by a well-organized hardcore high-income militant group in the US. Try a better argument.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 15, 2012 at 8:35 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

First of all, marriage is not a right, marriage was constitutionally encouraged by the government to build stable families with educated children to continue our democracy. It was not about rights or anything like that.

Secondly, why can we but a giant gay banner up on public land but not have that cross up on Mt Soledad?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 15, 2012 at 10:11 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Mission, it's funny how you like to re-invent discrimination by putting exceptions on it.

You can discriminate against people for many things, and Websters doesn't have a stipulation in the defi inion that reads, *only discrimination if group being denied equality is favorable to Missionaccomplished.

Discrimination based on ethnicity is different than discrimination based on sexual orientation, but they both fall under the umbrella of discrimination.

The same arguments being used against gay marriage were used by those who opposed interracial marriage. Review our history.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 15, 2012 at 10:14 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Missionaccomplished | today at 8:26 a.m. ― 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
@DUCKSTER, Iran is not "conservative," it's authoritarian.

There is overlap there.

Iran's form of government is a very **conservaitve** form of Shiria Law.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 15, 2012 at 10:26 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago


Missionaccomplished | today at 8:32 a.m. ― 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
*Ah, but you CAN change the historical definition of "marraige"? And not just for the USA but for the entire Western hemisphere, and then the rest of the Eastern/Islamic/Hindu/Chinese world to follow . . . and all by a well-organized hardcore high-income militant group in the US. Try a better argument.*

As long as marriage is something being provided by the government, law-abiding citizens should not be singled out of it.

Being gay is legal in the U.S. whether you agree with that or not.

Marriage is a function of the government, marriage licenses are issued by the government.

It's unconstitutional to deny people a government service just because **you** don't agree with the lifestyle.

And your tactic of framing this as a small militant minority group against everyone else is a fallacy. Half the country supports gay marriage, mission. This isn't the gays against everyone, it's a country divided with momentum moving towards acceptance.

Your ignorance about the U.S. GLBT community trying to re-work the world shows you know very little about this topic. There are gay movements in countries all over the world, and each country is at a different spot on the issue. The local public opinion in democracies will determine this issue there, not what the U.S. is doing. And in dictatorial governments gay marriage will remain illegal regardless of what the people want.

Your posts would come across as more sincere if you would simply just say you have moral objections to gays and think they should not be given rights or protections as a minority group instead of these smokescreen exaggerations about radical militants out to convert the world. Your sky is falling argument began to be seen as ridiculous by educated people about a decade ago.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Really123'

Really123 | May 15, 2012 at 10:42 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Without getting emotional about legitimacy...

Has anyone asked what kind of precedent this will set? Does it violate any ordinances such as hight limits? How will it be maintained? Is it succeptible to vandalism? Will it be lit up like a huge rainbow beacon of gayness throughout the area? I would call that visual pollution.

Until now our city has only allowed this scale of promotion to be focussed on neighborhood names, like the North Park sign, the Hillcrest sign, etc... and has relegated group promotion such as Italians in Little Italy to banners and such. Huge signs/flags are very different than banners, AND can be changed and rotated through other promotional groups.

Assuming that the gay community is a legitimate, self associated group, and they get to have a flag, what's to stop a chruch group, also a self associated group, from putting up a giant flag with a cross on it? Nothing.

This is not a good idea, we could have flags all over the place proclaiming their groups presence... Very ugly and unecessary.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Len'

Len | May 15, 2012 at 11:01 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

@JeanMarc. You write, "marriage was constitutionally encouraged by the government...'
Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned, let alone encouraged? My copy seems to have omitted it.
You continue, "...to build stable families with educated children to continue our democracy." The Founders established marriage in the interests of "our" democracy (as contrasted to what other democracy?) and to educate children. The connection between "establishing" marriage ("as between a man and a woman" is understood as your subtext) and education is the only argument anti-same-sex marriage opponents HAVEN'T used. Congratulations on your contribution to the fight.
It may come as a shock that marriage was invented long, long before their was a U.S. The reason for it were, as with most things, money. It was a legal contract, His, hers (women couldn't make contracts in most places, and what was hers was his, though not vice-versa), legacy...it was totally about rights. To money and land...you can read all about the history of marriage in google. Interesting stuff.
"Why can we but a giant gay banner up on public land but not have that cross up on Mt Soledad?" you ask. One deals with a true Constitutional matter--the State and
religion (hint: the cross is known in some circles as a symbol of Christianity). The Founding Fathers (apparently, the U.S.A had no mothers) didn't seem to fear the establishment of a State sex, or they'd have forbidden rainbow-hued flags.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 15, 2012 at 11:12 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Why are so many non-gays violently, foaming-at-the-mouth defensive about an issue that has nothing to do with them? Why do they feel the need to identify with a group that they do not belong to? I just don't understand it.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 15, 2012 at 11:17 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Let me just put this here:

Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect"
terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,
abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of
whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from
privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold
among university professors, who have secure employment with
comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white
males from middle-class families.

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of
groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American
Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists
themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit
it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely
because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with
their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE
inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 15, 2012 at 12:36 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

*Why are so many non-gays violently, foaming-at-the-mouth defensive about an issue that has nothing to do with them? Why do they feel the need to identify with a group that they do not belong to? I just don't understand it.*

Some people care about equality and human rights regardless of whether or not they have a personal stake in the issue.

And thank Goodness for those people, we need more of them in this country and worldwide!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | May 15, 2012 at 3:10 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

How can the Planning Commission be unable to explain the recommendation to deny the permit? Acceptance and approval can sometimes be associated with silence, but not denial. Then again, do we expect anything other than grunts and crude hand gestures from the Planning Commission? Nope.

Let them have their flag.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Len'

Len | May 15, 2012 at 5:46 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

@JeanMarc. I have a novel suggestion that would make your posts contribute to discussions: Respond to corrections others make to your statements. That would constitute a dialog.
@Dothscribble. You write, "Homosexuals haven't been legally discriminated against in our lifetime; period." This from a March 2011 news report, "“Homosexual conduct is still a crime in Texas — and at least three other states — eight years after the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the state’s sodomy law, and invalidated similar laws across the country." At the very least, homosexual conduct was illegal --about as discriminatory as something can be--in some 14 states. If you are going to claim that homosexual conduct was illegal, not homosexuality, that dog won't hunt.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 15, 2012 at 6:04 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

CA Defender, excellent post.

I had never even heard of the "San Diego Planning Commission" before this article, but it's common logic that any agency give a reason before dening or recommending the denial of something.

Are the people on this commission bing paid by tax payers??

And ht is their function?

It seems to overlap with the City Council.

If we the tax payers are paying for a bunch of guys to sit around "recommending" things that are actually up to others to decide, it seems like this group is just a wasteful bureaucracy that should be looked at for elimination.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 16, 2012 at 9:21 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

DUCKSTER, it is NOT "my ignorance," rather it is your arrogance about LGBT. Should I add, demagoguery? All I read are contradictions from you. And it not "unconstitutional" until the Supreme Court renders it so.

PS: CA Offender, one of the Nativist posters from the old signonsandiego days.

But hey, rejoice! Your Dirty Boy De Mayonaisse came through for you! Now you only have Dumbanus to bash! lol

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 16, 2012 at 9:43 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

"Half the country supports gay marriage, " -- duck

Err, chapter and verse, please.

Glittering generality much? Ah, but you are the one lecturing me on fallacies.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 16, 2012 at 9:50 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

JEAN MARC "Why are so many non-gays violently, foaming-at-the-mouth defensive about an issue that has nothing to do with them? Why do they feel the need to identify with a group that they do not belong to? I just don't understand it."

In the first place you don't know what a poster is secondly you do have something of a point as evidenced by Newsome, Villaraigoza and Arnie, Prop 8 opponenets who cheated on their hot wives and eventually divorced, like any sincere "marriage for all" believer should.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 16, 2012 at 12:41 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Missionaccomplished | today at 9:43 a.m. ― 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
"Half the country supports gay marriage, " -- duck
*Err, chapter and verse, please.*
*Glittering generality much? Ah, but you are the one lecturing me on fallacies.
( comment permalink | suggest removal )*

Mission, before you accuse someone of "glittering generalities" and "fallacies" it might be wise to do a 2 minute Google search.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/support-for-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/

There are many other polls, and they all show the nation is split on the issue.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please post the link.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 16, 2012 at 12:45 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Missionaccomplished | today at 9:50 a.m. ― 2 hours, 51 minutes ago
*In the first place you don't know what a poster is secondly you do have something of a point as evidenced by Newsome, Villaraigoza and Arnie, Prop 8 opponenets who cheated on their hot wives and eventually divorced, like any sincere "marriage for all" believer should.*

Wow, your arguments get more and more silly as this debate goes on.

Your argument and implications here are ridiculous. I can bring up plenty of names of people who are happily married and who have never cheated who support gay marriage like President Obama.

I can also bring up serial cheaters like Newt Gingrich who are against gay marriage.

I'm not sure what type of implication you were trying to make, but it failed.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 16, 2012 at 12:51 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Missionaccomplished | today at 9:21 a.m. ― 3 hours, 26 minutes ago
*But hey, rejoice! Your Dirty Boy De Mayonaisse came through for you! Now you only have Dumbanus to bash! lol*

Are you still allowed to call him DeMayonaisse??

KPBS told me I can't call him Dirty C. on here anymore.

As far as his vote for the flag, yest I gave his credit for making the correct decision. I still think his policies in general are abhorrent and will never vote for D.C.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 16, 2012 at 2:16 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Missionaccomplished I am not sure what you mean. I don't know what a poster is? Then what is a poster (I assume you mean a person posting comments on these articles)?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Tammy Carpowich'

Tammy Carpowich, KPBS Staff | May 16, 2012 at 5:36 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Missionaccomplished~ Duck's right... Please, no name calling or personal insults. Public figures open themselves up to a certain amount of criticism, but on KPBS.org we're striving to make the criticism about their actions, policies, etc. I read your comments, so I know you are smart enough to make an excellent point without resorting to name calling. Thanks for participating. I'm looking forward to reading what you have to say.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Tammy Carpowich'

Tammy Carpowich, KPBS Staff | May 16, 2012 at 8:07 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Peking_Duck_SD~ I did notice that you stopped using "Dirty DeMaio." Thank you. I wish I had acknowledged that in my previous comment.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 17, 2012 at 10:26 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Duck, (thanx fot the headsup on CDM--not that you care! lol) yes a poll can give an indication of which way the wind is blowing--but UNLESS it is scientific-- it will be incomplete. I couldn't get the link to open but it doesn't matter. NY time poll can come to one conclusion and Rasmussen can come to a completely different one and you will only be going around in circles.

And the reason I bring up Newsome and Villaraigoza is because they were at the forefront of the Prop 8 opposition. You KNOW that. Sure you bring up "plenty of names" of happily married, but not "plenty of names" that are sloganerring marriage while urinating on their own and having the political power of a Newsome (thumbing his nose at the CA constituion by the way) and Villaraigoza. We are not talking about Mr. Anonymous.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'glennstokes1'

glennstokes1 | May 17, 2012 at 2:55 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

San Diego is a city of neighborhoods. Many neighborhoods have a majority or predominant demographics. This may be in religion, race, color, ethnicity, employment (like military), conservative, liberal, traditional, bohemian, above average income, below average income, or some other common denominator.

Although America has been and still is the great mixing bowl, we can not ignore a factor of nature; Birds Of a Feather Tend To Flock Together. And we humans do this at work, in school, in church, and in our neighborhoods, Cities, even States and Countries.

Yet some people have this mind set that if you are not like me, if you don't live your life like me, if you don't live as I think you should or should not live, then you are bad and should be controlled by laws. I call it: RU1ofUS or RU1ofTHEM mentality.

The rainbow, in its many forms has a long history. And it is MUCH MORE than just LGBT related. Just visit Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_...

Kudos to the people of Hillcrest for deciding to establish a Neighborhood flag. One that is not myopic and can mean many things to many different people, if they will open their minds to the possibilities.

I see this as a challenge to San DIego's other neighborhoods. To develop their own flags that are representative of the people who reside within.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | May 18, 2012 at 9:14 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

And our dear councilman once again in the news:

In debates and a Republican mailer, DeMaio says he “gave up a pension worth $800,000.” The actual value of his rejected council pension would have been about $428,000, or 46 percent less, according to an analysis by U-T Campaign Watch.

@Stokes, and in some cases so open that they are vacant.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 18, 2012 at 12:04 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Why would DeMaio need a pension?

He is a very rich man, and he got that way from tax dollars.

Mr. DeMaio likes to pimp out his "private sector" credentials, but this is how Mr. DeMaio got rich:

(1) Ater college he became a political insider, and kissed a lot of behinds to the likes of Newt Gingrich to establish a well-connected good 'ol boy political network

(2) once his network of political cronies was all lined up, DeMaio went into the "private sector" where he used his political connections to be awarded **government contracts**.

(3) After making is millions and not having to worry about his retirement anymore, he re-entered direct elected office politics by making the cessation of other people's bennefits a core part of his platform.

I could care less if DeMaio gives up ALL of his pension, he is a phony who has already scammed the tax payers **FAR** more than anyone simply receiving a government pension ever could.

I don't understand who is dopey enough to buy DeMaio's load of BS, but it's like ignorants and the very wealthy who support his **I got mine, so screw the rest of you** belief system.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 18, 2012 at 1:22 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

I don't think a persons pension benefit should be nullified if they are wealthy. A contract is a contract.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 18, 2012 at 1:46 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Jean, my point wasn't that a pension should be nullified because they are wealthy. I agree with you that shouldn't matter.

What angers me is that DeMaio paints himself as some sort of "tax payer watchdog" while hiding the fact that he becme rich off of the very same tax payers during his years of exploiting overnment contracts.

Furthermore, I am angered Blythe way DeMaio acts like he is willing to sacrifice personally to save the tax payers money, when that is clearly not the case.

I'm not sure what city council members make exactly, but I believe it's around 100k per year.

Definatley a good salary, but not flamboyantly rich by any stretch. They still need to worry about retirement like the rest of us.

But DeMaio is in a completely different income level. He is a multi-millionaire. Yet he gives this implication that he is willing to "suffer for the tax payer" by giving up his pension. He is not suffering financially, and he has already profited off of tax payers for decades procuring his government contracts, so it is all a political charade that he is making sacrifices on behalf of the tax payers.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | May 21, 2012 at 10:05 a.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

I got you, that makes sense. I certainly don't have much sympathy for multi-millionaires who say they are making financial sacrifices. Oh, poor them!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'HarryStreet'

HarryStreet | May 23, 2012 at 4:25 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

I think we've made enough of this issue. We can move on now. Lots of other important things to work on.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Len'

Len | May 27, 2012 at 12:31 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

@David65. I suggest KPBS determines when it's time to move on, and this subject is obviously still of interest. If you have more important things to do than reading the comments, by all means do them. However, the moderator allowed comments to be changed to pensions, millionaires and mayoral politics, These are not "on topic."

( | suggest removal )