I honestly don't know, John. We do have a large gay community and many of them in high places, so maybe it's politically motivated, the old "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"?
I guess the City can fund anything it wishes to fund. It sure would be nice if the citizens of the City would have a say in how its tax dollars are spent, especially when the Mayor is crying poor mouth every day and laying off workers and taking over 5 months to finally give us a contract (as bad as it is, at least we finally have one). When things are this bad financially I think every non-essential should be voted on.
There's money for gay festivals and two brand spanking new stadiums (costing the citizens millions and most of us can't even afford the price of a ticket to the games played there), and for a multi-million dollar expansion of the Central Library, and for whatever else strikes the fancy of the current powers-that-be.
If the protestors were asked to leave by police and didn't, they deserved to be arrested...for failure to disperse. But I wonder who ordered the police to order the protestors to leave and why? During the anti-war demonstrations several times over the past two summers, when virtually the entire down town district was shut down by grid-lock due to protestors lying in the streets and blocking traffic (against the terms of their permit), the police were ordered not to interfere and to let them continue violating the law, despite the severe stress and inconvenience it caused to the folks just trying to get to and from work. Again I wonder by whom and why? Seems to be a double standard to me, selective enforcement of the rules? One group is given the wink of any eye, a pass, thereby having the effect of encouraging further disruption and law breaking, and the other charged with a felony?
I also don't like the idea of my tax dollars funding something that contains X-rated acts performed in public. Geeze, didn't there used to be a law against that? Even if these displays are not "officially sanctioned", they know it happens, and no one ever gets arrested for it either. It seems to me the bottom line is in whom is offended by something. It's okay to offend folks who are appalled by X-rated public displays of lewd acts (we can just close our eyes and go away, afterall, and learn tolerance?), but don't quote bible verses to gay folks (whom I guess can't close their ears and learn tolerance?)
My main problem with the incident was that the prosecutor and judge declared that the bible verses that were read were "fighting words" and only those who were caught on tape reading from the bible were the ones who are subject to the "hate crimes" felony charge. The other 7 protestors weren't. I think that sets a very dangerous precedent for freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But it wouldn't surprise me if that's the reasoning behind, and purpose of, these charges. Some people, and/or group, want a precedent set regarding the quoting of the bible.