Prop Hate
My friend Ehrich Blackhound says, "I've replaced the header on the Prop 8 website with this graphic, using @shiftspace. download the plugin to see it in situ."
And Meadhbh Siobhan says,
mi amiga riven will be liveblogging the santa cruz prop 8 protests this evening. she encourages people to follow her twitter feed at @rivensharp and asks that if you're going to be live blogging the protest in your area that you send her a direct message with your twitter id. i think the idea here is that peeps at the protests can communicate with each other via twitter. or.. if you're just interested in watching the feed, you can see that here.If you'd like to share news of other PropHate-related actions taking place today, please pile on in the comments.
the latest
latest episodes
http://dcist.com/2009/05/calif_supreme_court_upholds_prop_8.php
Protest in Washington, D.C. Dupont Circle. Starts at 8:30. The fact that we even have to have this protest saddens me.
Protest info for Long Beach, CA:
After a long wait, the California Supreme Court ruled to uphold Proposition 8. While disappointing, the fight is far from over. In that regard, please join Long Beach Equality to Protest the ruling.
The Protest starts at 7 PM at the corner of Alamitos Ave. and Broadway (Hamburger Marys). The march will proceed down Broadway to Bixby Park where there will be a rally.
We encourage people to use public transportation but parking is also available in the 555 E. Ocean garage. Please access the garage off of Linden Ave.
After the rally please utilize public transportation to return to Alamitos Blvd. Go to the transportation page on our website www.lbequality.org for information regarding D-Day Transportation.
We also recommend carpooling since parking will be extremely very limited.
(By some happy coincidence, the reCaptcha I got for this comment was "Toweled Cowboys." That's the first good thing that's happened to me today.)
Thanks, Xeni, for starting this thread. I'm happy to say that my husband and I are among the 18,000, but I'm devastated that California has come to this.
However, I'm not really all that surprised by the ruling--it reads almost like an apology to the gay community, and it clearly highlights how broken the initiative process is.
I was listening to NPR about this earlier while I was out. NPR said that during the short time that gay marriages were allowed, around 18,000 (correct?) couples were married. NPR made the comment that the married couples were allowed to stay married. Was that also an issue on the ruling? Were there 18,000 couple waiting today to see if their marriage was to be annulled?
I don't see how people can be so cruel to others - especially when what they're against has no effect on their lives at all. What do they think will happen if gay marriage is allowed?
As a straight guy living amongst the religious fanatics of the Louisiana bible-belt, I am appalled at the nation's rampant homophobia. How on Earth do we benefit from banning same-sex marriages? When it comes down to it, it's about religion, and the incompetence and intolerance it promotes. Logic continues to be the victim of prejudice. But then again, maybe I'm missing something; maybe there are pros to conforming to archaic ideologies of irrationalism and ritual.
Has there been any decent arguement against gay marriage that doesn't bring either religion.
isn't it a civil contract anyway between two consenting adults?
i just don't understand why so many people give a shit what OTHER people do...
it should be legal, end of discussion (you would think)
Don't blame the California Supreme Court for their ruling today. The appeal was really a last-ditch long-shot. If we want to support the rule of law, then we must accept the court's ruling as legally sound. The truth of the matter is that, in California, any and every right is subject to majority approval. It's ridiculous, but it's how the CA constitution works.
(Obviously, that said, it's everyone's duty to pass a ballot prop in 2010 to re-legalize gay marriage.)
Why oh why do religious groups think they have the monopoly on marriage? It must be ignorance. Marriage is a legal/civil matter, NOT religious. I know I'm preaching to the converted, but I just have to put it out there.
I sorta take a little bit of issue with the protests that people are having with the proposition being upheld. The fact is, Prop 8 was voted and a majority of people voted for it. So the Supreme Court didn't choose to uphold it because they thought it was the "right" thing to do, they had to uphold it because to do otherwise would violate their oath of office.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a gay man, and I'm 100% for gay marriage, but it's not the Court's fault that this happened. In fact, they're the same court that allowed gay marriage in the first place.
it's pretty simple really: California is broke. Someone has to be blamed now that the party is over. Gay people have always been easy to beat up, at least in the culture most California voters seem to come from, so they just want to get on with bashing fags until jeebus decides they deserve more candy and starts the party again. See,
jeebus equals love equals kill the queers equals no taxes. Praise jeebus!
@7 Think bigger. In 2010 outlaw all marriage and claim you are doing it for the budget savings.
This is exactly why it's such a big ordeal to amend the Federal constitution: to prevent a tyranny of the majority. California's ballot amendment system is so screwed up that it's far easier to change the state's constitution than it is to pass a modest tax increase.
This ruling is seriously bad news for gay marriage but it's not really fair to blame the court for following the rules put in place by a terribly flawed system.
The silver lining is that the right to marry can also be restored through a simple majority vote. And we Californians are a fickle bunch of voters.
I live in CA, and I am against Prop 8. But from my view, the anti 8 people screwed up, and the pro 8 people ran a strong campaign. And this pisses me off, because my friends can't get married now.
The anti 8 people missed three crucial elements- they didn't consolidate their base, they didn't run a counter-campaign, and they didn't reach out to new audiences to plea their case. They could have done a better job at mobilizing the community (of which I am a part of), and made it REALLY easy to participate at work and at church, but they didn't. Their counter-campaigning did nothing to address the abuses of churches 501c3 status to gain support behind prop 8, and they should have been filing suit and involving the Sec of State's office from the first day video hit youtube of clergy in vestments preaching to vote yes on 8, all the while lying as to why it was important. Nothing was out there either to counter the misinformation spread by the pro-8 side. Lastly, where were the speakers from the anti-8 crowd at all the liberal churches? The MCC's, the Quakers, the Mennonites, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Episcopalians, the Buddhists, the Unitarians- all of them would have welcomed speakers, but nobody even called.
This campaign wasn't won so much as it was lost. Very very sad.
@LUDWIGTHE2ND is correct. Here's a little thought experiment you can do while you're out protesting today: Imagine the situation was reversed and prop 8 was a voter approved constitutional amendment granting same-sex couples the rights and protections of marriage. The opposing side mounts a challenge based on an tenuous interpretation of the state constitution. How would you want the court to decide the case? As much I dislike prop 8, the court did the right thing today.
Democracy sux when the other side wins. We can and will fix this at the ballot box in 2010.
"Today a California court upheld a ban on marriages between persons of the same gender, because nothing harms society (and kids) like two people who love each other committing to a lifelong relationship based on care, compassion, and mutual responsibility. "
Not true. The CA Supreme Court upheld a ban on gay marriages because the majority--admittedly narrow--of the people of California voted to define a marriage as an act between a man and a woman. You may share the majority's view or not, but the Supreme Court's decision was not about marriage but about democracy.
Actually, I've yet to hear a single sermon against homosexuality or gay marriage in my church - one of the most strict, Church of Christ. They concentrate more on saving yourself, rather than worrying about what wrong someone else may be doing.
As I've said before, if religion is why you're against gay marriage - you're a hypocrite.
“Why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye but you don’t notice the log in your own eye? And how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me get that splinter out of your eye,’ with that log there in your own eye?"
@4 Yes, one of the issues at stake was whether all 18,000 same-sex marriages would be voided or not. Happily, they didn't.
Prop 8 passed thanks to a hateful, bigoted, lying smear campaign funded by millions of dollars in hidden donations from the Mormon church. This is a fact. After an ad campaign cleverly frightening people by threatening them with having their kids indoctrinated into homosexuality if Prop 8 didn't pass, 52% of Californians voted for the measure. Its wording was changed between being vetted by the California congress and being placed on the ballot, a very shady and borderline illegal maneuver. The end result: a corrupt law, corrupt ads funded by a corrupt organization.
Prop 8 is done. It's law. Now we get to start fresh and try to fix this.
Eighth-grade Civics class fail. The judiciary exists to restrain the tyranny of the majority.
mormon? did someone say mormon? What a good time to point out they also have put Aung San Suu Kyi in danger. How about spending $20,000,000.00 to save her? Or is saving brown people less important than burning gays?
There's a process in place, and the CA Supreme Court upheld it. I'm fine with that.
What I'm not fine with is the incompetent campaign run by Equality California & other established LGBT "activist" groups that lost the Prop 8 vote in the first place.
No minority outreach?
No use of Obama's public opposition to Prop 8?
Television ads that didn't even mention the words "gay marriage" or show living, breathing, gay people?
Gay "leadership" taking vacations during the height of the No on Prop 8 campaign?
The Prop 8 loss was a failure of leadership, pure and simple. We can't just whine about the outcome of this court case because we don't like the results (something that conservatives are routinely admonished for doing).
I mean, think about it: the no on Prop 8 campaign failed to deliver the Los Angeles vote.
The Los Angeles vote.
You know...where HOLLYWOOD is?
Unbelievable.
Take that ya' lousy, um... humans. Aw man, we're a terrible species. :(
They concentrate more on saving yourself, rather than worrying about what wrong someone else may be doing.
It's an interesting (and problematic) point that so many religious organizations are focused on what you shouldn't do rather than what you should do. It seems like there are more churches that tell you not to jerk off than churches that tell you to get your ass in gear and do good works, like visiting the sick and comforting prisoners.
I meant "Up" instead of "Either" in my comment - this is what happens when i try to type at work through constant interruption.
i wonder if there was any Southern state where the majority voted to invalidate all inter-racial marriage. If enough people say "yes" to bigotry than it is a fair law?
The Courage Campaign needs help to get a response ad on the air.
@ Antinous #18:
The Judiciary interprets the constitution. If the constitution itself is fucked up, there's not much the courts can do about it.
I wanna see your eighth grade civics textbook.
hey! how about a proposition to put to the ballot declaring that all mormon unions will no longer be recognized? They are a minority, it should be easy to get everyone else to vote against them.
@18 My point only was that the opening of the post was factually wrong. This point stands. As for your argument, it is self-serving. You call this "tyranny of the majority" only because you don't like the outcome. If the court had voted differently, opponennts of gay marriage would (justifiably) claim that the judiciary allowed the tyranny of the minority, and you would be making the exact opposite argument. And the nonsense about the civics test was unnecessary.
IWood,
Blame the victim much? Give me tax-exempt status and I'll have lots of money to campaign for the equal rights that I should have had in the first place.
@ #7 and #9:
The arguments that "it's not the Court's fault", and that "we must accept the court's ruling as legally sound" both ignore the Court's ability to recognize violations of Equal Protection (as they did in the In Re Marriage cases last year) and to establish suspect classifications (just as the Federal Courts have done on the basis of race, gender or disability).
The majority decision is flawed in that it ignored the Equal Protection issue in favor of a consideration of Due Process, as is technically their right. The Court could have decided this case in favor of the other party, and that would also have been legal, but with added the benefit of being just.
I believe that the judges acted out of self-interest (the window for recall is coming soon, and recalled Justices don't get that nice salary-for-life deal)and deference to a populist ideology that denies the power of Constitutional protections.
Brainspore,
They're interpreting the same Constitution that they interpreted when they dealt with anti-discrimination laws. If you can uphold a law against anti-gay discrimination in housing, etc., you can strike this one down.
Funny, the Wikipedia entry on the term Tyranny of the Majority mentions constitutional and legislative measures to curb such a problem but makes no mention of the judiciary.
(Snarky moderator FAIL.)
I'm an English dude and I was in LA when the Vote No on 8 impromptu march happened (and ended up going the wrong way!) Some of the drivers caught in traffic were talking about voting yes because they were pissed off at the inconvenience they were put under!
I think reaching out to the opposition voters instead of preaching to the converted would have done their cause a lot of good.
Personally I would like to hear what George Takei has to say :)
Brainspore,
That's nitpicking. The Supreme Court is part of the system of checks and balances that prevents majority tyranny.
7 & 8 have it.
Antinous, you're not quite correct. The job of the judiciary is not to thwart the will of the majority per se. It is to decide Constitutionality. Which, very often, coincides w/ thwarting the majority.
Additionally, each state (50 states, 50 unique state Constitutions) may have their own variation on that theme.
If, at the federal level, we passed an amendment that was morally repugnant, it would be Constitutional due to the nature of how it was passed. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE AMENDMENTS in the first place, because courts can't always rectify such failings.
In the case of CA, Prop 8 was an amendment. A fundamental change to the governance of the state. So, its not up to them to throw out amendments. If they did, that would be WAY worse for the stability of democracy.
The REAL Problem is the completely fucktarded-nine-ways amendment process that allows the mob to amend the State Con w/ a simple majority vote.
So, what is the difference between a regular proposition and one that is an amendment? The # of signatures required to get it on the ballot. For an amendment its 8%, iirc, of the voters in the last gubernatorial election, vs. 5% for a regular statute.
SO, what is BROKEN is our horrific amendment system in this state.
Never have Mencken's words been more true: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
Well, one thing about the comments is the lack of an edit ability. Let me clarify, when I said "this is why we have amendments in the first place" I should've said "this is one of the reasons we have..."
That said, its not as bad as people are making it out to be. In CA gay people have more rights than just about any other state (if not all of them) aside from this issue.
The real answer is two fold:
1. Get it back on the ballot in 2010. It will pass (pro GM, that is), probably something like 52-48 or 53-47.
2. Change the system in CA that so easily let's the mob amend the fundamental document of state governance. I already disliked initiative/referendum long before Prop 8. Its just a reminder of why its so horrible.
Good choice of photo . . . if the family in that web page header were any whiter and straighter they'd be visible from orbit.
It's easy to blame organized religion for Californians rejecting same-sex marriage. But it's a mistake. There isn't THAT many deeply religious people in this state, as far as I can tell. But there are tons of non-religious people who simply are grossed out by the idea of same-sex sex. They don't see it as the beautiful, loving thing it can be. It gives them the willies. So, given the chance to vote on whether to institutionalize this thing they find gross, they voted against it. The deeply religious folks, forget them. To win a ballot measure in 2010, the key is the grossed-out. And those minds can get changed by filming equal rights testimonials from non-gay people who are respected by the grossed-out people. For example: people like Pete Carroll, head football coach at USC. People like that and absolutely no one from Hollywood.
I am strongly in favor of gay marriage.
That being said, the anti-8 folks repeatedly shot themselves in the foot here locally (central California) pretty badly. My car and many others in my neighborhood were vandalized with anti-8 propoganda before the election...then during the election anti-8 folks were breaking the law by actively campaigning in the parking lot of my polling place....very rudely and aggressively to boot. They need a better plan and better leadership if they hope to succeed, especially in the conservative bastions of this state....in the big picture only Los Angeles and San Francisco are solidly liberal here....every other place (with a few exceptions) is staunchly conservative.
As the author of the graphic above, I want to publicly retract my blanket statement that "STR8S H8 EQUALITY." Some of my best friends are STR8, and nearly all of them do not H8 EQUALITY.
There are STR8S who do, however. And to them I say, "SH4ME."
Alright, enough CAPS LOCK nonsense.
Despite acting out my frustration with a message that likely does more to divide than unite, I agree that spending more time "reaching across the aisle" would accomplish more. Without being conciliatory, a case can be made to our common humanity on the basis of equality. As both the courts and the laws have failed us, we are left with nothing but our ability to appeal to decency and justice from our neighbors, friends and family to see us for what we are: people.
@teller
But there are a lot of stupid people in this state, the kind of stupid that falls for things like "GM means your kids will be forced to learn about gay sex in school!".
And there's no doubt that the Mormon Church basically funded Prop 8--so it certainly is deserving of blame.
@23
Fortunately, we have US Supreme Court jurisprudence that plainly makes interracial marriage a federal equal protection issue, and the states are obligated to provide at least as much protection as the federal constitution. Until we can get a Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, it is a state issue.
Now c'mon, Californian voters, and fix this shit! Y'all don't manage your money worth a damn, but the rest of the country NEEDS you to make the idiots out there realize that the world doesn't collapse in on itself every time there's a little bit of social progress.
@ Antinous #33:
That's nitpicking. The Supreme Court is part of the system of checks and balances that prevents majority tyranny.
Yes it is. The other part is THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS, which is exactly what I said in the first place before you accused me of "Eighth-grade Civics class fail."
What you are ignoring is that the courts are limited in their power by the constitution. If you write a bad constitution that's full of hatred and discrimination then their rulings will reflect that.
What I HOPE will happen is that this will be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States which will then rule that Prop 8 violates the Federal constitution. It's a long shot, but the U.S. constitution has more safeguards against tyranny of the majority than California's.
I'm a fallen-away Unitarian. Hardcore Punk provided me with a sense of community from my early teen years through the end of my 20s.
Thinking about going back, though... It seems like it is not enough just to have a progressive opinion about something, and fail to represent that opinion in a way that matters.
UUA President Decries California Prop 8 Court Ruling
The REAL Problem is the completely fucktarded-nine-ways amendment process that allows the mob to amend the State Con w/ a simple majority vote.
The California legislature legalized same sex marriage in 2005. Arnold vetoed it. Our checks and balances seem to lean in one direction.
Anyone else find it vile that it's a "lovely" white family in the Prop Hate graphic...
"Whiteness and Hate - A Partnership for The Generations!"
Praise Jesus
Antinous, I'm not sure what your point is in #44.
Are you're forgetting this is the same court that opened the door for GM last summer because the original Prop 8 (prop 22?) from 2000, which was not an amendment, was found unconstitutional. The problem is not the checks and balances. It is not the court. Is it the screwed up way we let our state constitution be amended.
Its time to quit blaming the politicians on this one. Its time to look in the mirror and realize we have a broken process and we need to fix it.
Again, this will come around again and gm will pass... probably in 2010.
Short of that, a Supreme Court challenge would be interesting.
It's a long shot, but the U.S. constitution has more safeguards against tyranny of the majority than California's.
California's Constitution is kind of a nightmare. The ease of getting bizarre legislation pushed through is frightening. You can have an initiative fail over and over and over and keep putting it up again, trying different disinformation campaigns until it goes through. That's why we desperately rely on judicial activism to fix this shit.
#28 posted by Antinous / Moderator:
Maybe you're interested in the actual numbers. The figures are right here.
Bottom line: the various "Yes on prop 8" groups spent around $42 million. Roughly half of that came from individual members of the Mormon church making big honking donations at the behest of church leaders.
The various "No on Prop 8" groups spent over $43 million. That came from all sorts of people making donations of all sizes.
So, in terms of total dollars spent, the two sides were just about equal.
My concern is how those dollars were spent, not where they came from.
Unless, of course, you want to argue that individuals should be prohibited by law from contributing to Proposition campaigns just because they're soft-headed enough to do what their pastors tell them to.
@ Shane
If, at the federal level, we passed an amendment that was morally repugnant, it would be Constitutional due to the nature of how it was passed, unless it violated another portion of the Constitution (such as Equal Protection)
Its not up to them to throw out amendments, unless they are unconstitutional per se.
If they did decide to throw out an unconstitutional amendment , that would be WAY worse for the stability of democracy, but great for human rights and the rule of law
FTFY
@ Aninous #47:
Yes, California's constitutional process is totally screwed up. That was exactly my original point before you started bitching that I don't understand basic civics.
However Courts make rulings based on the constitution, they don't write it. Any judge who actively chooses to make rulings inconsistent with the constitution has violated his oath of office and does not deserve to keep his or her position.
You do understand the difference between a regular law and a constitutional amendment, right?
GRIMC: The Mormons funded a whacking chunk, yup.
Once GM is legal, it most assuredly will be taught in schools. So will gay sex. Those topics, in Health, Sex Ed and Social Studies, will be in textbooks and curricula alongside hetero sex and HM. That's the point. That's what institutionalizing something means. Don't know why you'd call people stupid for understanding that.
California's crack-brained initiative process means its laws are bizarrely inconsistant from one year to the next, and gives conservatives (who always have more money than liberals) the edge in changing the laws around.
If you got enough money behind it, you could make it California law that 'dog' is defined as "a thing like a cat, only wooffey."
There's a California lawyer over at Scalzi's blog who says that basically this ruling directs the legislature to find a way to give same-sex couples a path to a status equal under the law to marriage, and basically gives the anti-equality assholes victory on only one thing: the word marriage.
Of course, 'equal under the law' is not equivalent to 'equal in fact', the word itself is far from insignificant, and the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution may have something to say about that. We'll see how it plays out. Legislatures just LOVE to be given utterly impossible tasks!
I don't see why government should have any say at all as to what "married" is. Just treat everyone as an individual by default. Individuals can then enter into contracts with each other to share finances, custody, etc. as they like. Churches could then draw up some boilerplate contracts for people that want to get married to use, and if you don't like the contract they want you to sign to get married at their church, you can go elsewhere.
You do understand the difference between a regular law and a constitutional amendment, right?
They're both legitimately subject to legal challenges on constitutional grounds.
Some have commented on the white family in the graphic above. When I grabbed it to make my parody version, it was the one the page loaded with. I have since, on subsequent loads, seen other photos of other families. Black, Asian, Latino... because, really, why exclude people from h8 based on race?
Let me elucidate that last one. The Supreme Court could have said that this conflicts with existing anti-discrimination law without explicitly overriding it. That would have sent the whole thing back to square one. Even a constitutional amendment has to be written in a way that doesn't create an unresolved conflict.
Salt Lake City protest: 6:30 - 8:30 pm, Capitol Hill South lawn.
@ Antinous #56:
OK, now you've said something that actually makes some sense providing you can name the previous amendment that Prop. 8 conflicts with.
@ Antinous #56:
OK, now you've said something that actually makes some sense providing you can name the previous amendment that Prop. 8 conflicts with.
Eek... sorry for the double post.
@ Brainspore
ARTICLE 1 SEC. 7. (a)
A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;
Sorry Brainspore,
your two half-agreements with Antinous there, add up to one total-agreement..
Antinous Wins!
/tee hee hee! making it worse :)
The Prop 8 people are opposed to traditional marriage, which in most of the world and most of history has meant "one man and as many wives, concubines, and whatever as he can afford". Christianity (among other religions) limits people to only one spouse, and mostly forbids divorce, but also doesn't require polygamists who convert to get divorced from their extra spouses (though they can't become bishops if they have more than one wife.)
However, if you want to get gay marriage relegalized in California, it's worth paying some attention to what's really bothering them. Marriage (in the forms they understand) really is under a lot of stress and change in our society, and they're really scared and upset that the traditional family relationships they understand as a way to live and be part of society aren't stable any more. Divorce rates are really high, people get divorced and remarry, kids get raised by step-parents, fathers move out instead of supporting their families, teenage girls go getting pregnant when they don't know how to raise kids, TV shows all kinds of alternative relationships, urban life has mostly replaced the farms and villages we've lived in for 10000 years, women have to go work instead of staying home raising the kids in a stable loving environment like they did back on the farm, and they're worried about their kids and often their own marriages.
And they don't know how to fix it or keep society from slipping away and leaving their kids and grandkids messed up, but they *do* know that those gay people aren't part of what they want, even if they don't know how to get the straight people to live right, especially since the right-wing PR firms figured out that saying gay people were changing the "definition" of marriage had a broader that-seems-right-ness than just attacking gay people, never mind the fact that they've changed the definition of marriage to "something you need the government's permission for".
The specific questions the California Supremes got asked were fairly narrow, and they appear to have answered them fairly narrowly - was the procedure that Prop 8 used the type of Constitutional amendment that's not subject to review because it's an amendment, or was it another type that lets the court review its appropriateness? They don't seem to have thought they had much choice, in spite of being the court that ruled last year that banning gay marriage was wrong, and (according to today's radio commentators) seem to have ruled that the amendment affects the use of the term "marriage" but isn't able to reduce the rights available to couples who want to marry. And they at least did the right thing by allowing the 18000 couples who got married after their previous ruling to stay married.
It's not really about hate, more about fear and ignorance, for certain people which can easily become hate in the wrong situation.
All of the reasons the otherwise intelligent people give for being against gay marriage are completely disingenuous.
The real reason is that marriage is a social status symbol. It's like a club essentially, and they don't want to let gays in, because it will make this club less exclusive. If all the sneetches have belly stars, how can you tell whose superior?
Ha! If Cali can't get this mess sorted out then what hope do the rest of us have?
I don't understand how religion continues to hold the moral high ground when historically there has been no more efficient mechanism for murdering, conquering, raping and pillaging than religion. The nazis came close but religion has to take the cake.
For those who didn't catch Xeni's recent post about Donald Rumsfeld's cover "art" for high level defense briefings, you just have to see the beautiful marriage of excerpts from the bible & photos of war. http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/18/donald-rumsfelds-dr.html
You would think considering the economy is so F---ed that people would welcome the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in expenditure which would arise from the first wave of gay marriage.
But then I remember that most people live in ignorance of the fact we are alone here on this planet. Just us, the animals and the plants. They can't operate knowing that no one is in control. So they plot a story about someone in control of the chaos, and then they fight tooth and nail with others about who has the true story.
It's on the same level as fighting over which cola is better if you ask me.
The sad thing is the movement against it may only have failed in the courts because the ACLU in particular selected such a curious complaint to pursue about it.
It would have been far easier to argue that the state has no constitutional right to impose limitations on human marriage than to oppose the constitutionality of enacting the proposition into law the way it was on the ballot.
An interesting experiment in word substitution on a recently removed article.
http://freetexthost.com/zwto6vnrhg
Thanks for mentioning ShiftSpace in your post Xeni!
By the way, you can see your friend Ehrich's work without installing ShiftSpace here:
http://www.shiftspace.org/api/sandbox/?id=9661
The page will be a little mangled when viewed this way though, all the more reason to install ShiftSpace.
As concerns gay marriage, if the state recognizes one marriage it should recognize all.
-Joseph Moore
@teller
Once GM is legal, it most assuredly will be taught in schools. So will gay sex.
No, not really. Certainly not in the "OMG GAY SEX!" way that bigots think.
And what's at the root of the fear? The idea that teh gheyz are going to 'convert' kids. That's ignorant. See also: Stupid.
I don't see how gay marriage means gay sex will be taught in schools. Heterosexual sex isn't taught in schools. Reproduction, sure, but not loving (or lustful) physical contact.
Alex #53 - I totally agree with that. The state has no business in the marriage business, IMHO.
That said, to me today's ruling is like when the ACLU has to go to bat for the KKK's right to demonstrate. To me, invalidating a voted-on constitutional amendment is not the court's job. If there's a conflict, it's the voter's conflict (and the voters in this state are pretty conflicted).
As others have noted, our job is to get the constitution changed for the better, not to try to have votes thrown out. This legal challenge has bothered me from the beginning, because I wouldn't support it if it came from the other side.
I hate to say it, but if people really cared about human rights violations in this state more than their own rights and the rights of their friends, they'd be out protesting the prison system tonight. Our right to state-sponsored marriage (mine or yours) is a luxury problem compared to the abusive cartel that is our prison industrial complex. The courts have formally decried it, we all know it, and we watch it take money from our own education system, but no one wants to talk about it because most of the people incarcerated are poor. Let's get Prop 8 reversed in 2010, but let us also work on the human rights or those who fear for their lives, not just their marriages, each and every night.
Easy solution; just ban marriage completely. Everyone is treated as an individual by all forms of law and govt. People wanting to join their fortunes, lives and /or families execute a corporate merger.
You know, the truest solution to this whole issue is rather simple, though radical-- ban all marriage! What I mean is: all legal, state-sanctioned and certified marriage is an implicit yoking of church and state functions, which violates the separation principle.
Let us convert and from now on consider all state "marriage" licenses to be civil unions, which are free of any of the discriminatory interpretations of religious groups. If people want to say they are "married," let them go separately to a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or whatever and get themselves "married" under their traditions. But if they want legal benefits, they also will need a civil union license.
This way, the religious zealots can say whatever they want about how only "opposite" marriage is real, and they'll be correct-- within their own community of fellow homophobes. The state shouldn't control their views and they shouldn't control the views of the state.
I know it sounds radical now, but it's really the most honest solution to the underlying problem.
let us also work on the human rights or those who fear for their lives, not just their marriages, each and every night.
Perhaps you live on Mars. Perhaps you have an extraordinary selection bias for news. Perhaps you're just a bigot. But are you actually unaware that gay men and lesbians are victims of violence on a regular basis because of our sexual orientation? Or that the violence is fueled by bigoted initiatives like this?
It only takes an amendment (plurality vote) to remove a fundamental right, but it takes a revision (supermajority vote) to reverse an amendment. Prop H8 is an amendment, so reversing Prop H8 requires a revision.
There are other, easier ways to resolve this:
1. Abolish legal marriage w/in California. or
2. Divide California into several states. or
3. Create a new above-supreme court whose sole responsibility is to reverse the decision.
Thank you, Xeni...I'm are still married - now I suggest we all dig deep and donate when it becomes clear which group is going to lead the charge against hate. To win will require funds, shoe leather and everyone who has been hiding stepping out of the closet.
The teaching in classrooms that commercials and such are pushing so very hard to manipulate people with?
It could very likely be as simple as teachers saying marriage is something between two people instead of a man and a woman. They're schools, schools are administrated by people who are some of the worst paranoid litigation-avoidant individuals I've ever seen or heard of. Whatever the schools teach, it will be obscenely PC, and it will likely do barrel rolls not to tread on people's freedom to breed ignorant children.
I find it funny that anyone would be surprised that California would vote this way. Aside from LA and San Francisco, the majority of this state is made up of rednecks. Even within LA, you can drive 10 minutes and end up in a suburb full of people who say "sheeeeyet" instead of "shit".
#77
I say "sheeeyet" I am from Texas, but I live and work in San Jose.
I'm married, hetro, have a kid (I am trying to potty train)
And? I am all for gay marriage. I support freedom of choice, any choice. It's the American way.
we used to have bumper stickers in Austin that said "Straight but not narrow"
I do not feel you can generalize and say anyone not from SF or LA is a redneck bigot.
Solidarity with my human brethren, if anyone wants to get married, feel the joy and pain? they should be able to.
yep. sheeyet yes.
#77, do you think there aren't gay people living out in the sticks of Ca?
I am certain there are. I'm dating one.
No, they already ruled for gay marriage on the merits. What they ruled on today was whether Prop. 8 was a major revision to the California Constitution, which it is not.
"Sodomy" was still a crime in America until a couple of years ago. It'll take another couple years for the pendulum to finish swinging the other way. Two thousand years of oppression isn't disappearing overnight.
nope Karolis, you won't be banned for being ignorant. Ignorance is just not knowing. Are you prepared to admit that you don't know everything?
Hang around,you might learn something.
start here then
http://www.gay.lt/lgl/index.html
if people can't reach you in your mother-tongue, what hope do you have in English?
that people you live among are people like you.
@65, teapot:
"Ha! If Cali can't get this mess sorted out then what hope do the rest of us have?"
We're doing just fine over here in the Netherlands, thank you very much. Gays marrying and all, you know.
I think that actually listening to voters (win) about a subject that takes away someone's civil rights (fail) is pretty much a net fail.
The federal government needs to get involved in this mess. The Defense of Marriage Act passed by Clinton some years ago was the Feds way of getting out of making a real stand on the issue. The Act officially gives the states the right to decide and that the Feds would not recognize same sex marriage.
If the gay marriage movement feels the right is fundamental then it is a federal issue since all of our fundamental rights come from the US Constitution, not the state constitutions.
Someone needs to challenge all definitions of marriage in the law books, if they want change. DOMA, polygamy, and any other of the laws that specifically define marriage a certain way.
If gays should be able to marry based upon their feelings for each other, then why can't a woman love more than one man or a man love more than one woman and be able to marry? Why not 15/16/17 year olds without parental consent (minimum age is 18)? If teenagers can decide to have an abortion, why couldn't they decide to get married?
The only time a lasting change will happen is if the federal government was more involved in issues like this. If the states had less control and the federal government had more control, then change in the marriage laws would be inevitable. Particularly since the Supreme Court is becoming more liberal.
I am proud to live in Iowa, where our courts struck down the ban on gay marriage. There has been surprisingly little reaction demanding that we 'fix' the situation. People here have proven themselves astoundingly tolerant on the issue. I don't believe the people of Iowa would have ever voted to support a gay marriage proposal, but since the court acted to allow it, they're not willing to demand a ban, either.
frmly blv tht mrrg s mnt fr mn nd wmn. ls frmly blv tht bng gy r lsbn gs gnst ntr. Tht bng sd, jst s frmly blv tht my prspctv r pnn ds nt gv m rght t jdg hw nthr prsn lvs thr wn lf. Bcs thr r s mny ppl lk m, wh blv mrrg s btwn mn nd wmn, thnk t wld b bst t hv nthr trm fr gy nd lsbn nns. W shld nt b frcd t vt "ys" t gy nd lsbn mrrgs f w d nt blv n t.
Cllng t dscrmntn s nt fr. Vtng fr gy/lsbn mrrg mns tht lt f ppl r bng skd t g gnst thr cr blf s hmn bng. Jst bcs w dn't blv n tht typ f mrrg ds nt mn w xpct gys nd lsbns t rn nd hd. t jst mns tht w fl mrrg s dfnd crtn wy nd f y chng th trm r prhps nhnc th wy cvl nn n tlnd, bth sds wld prbbly b hppy.
@48:
Individuals should be free to donate money to whatever causes they want. And if the Mormon church wants to donate to a political cause, that's fine too. But 'religions' should be stripped of their state and federal tax-exempt status if they publicly take part in political campaigns. That's the bargain- teach your followers whatever crazy superstitions you want, but once you start to intrude on my rights, you damn well better be ready to pay taxes just like everyone else.
We should not be forced to vote "yes" to gay and lesbian marriages if we do not believe in it.
Unless somebody was standing with you at the voting booth to make sure you voted in favor of gay marriage, you weren't forced to do jack.
Calling it discrimination is not fair.
Sometimes the truth isn't fair.
Voting for gay/lesbian marriage means that a lot of people are being asked to go against their core belief as a human being.
Again, nobody's being forced to vote for gay marriage. And if that's your "core belief as a human being", rather than something like "do unto others" or "don't kill people", well, that's pretty sad.
Honeybee83@89: I firmly believe that marriage is meant for a man and a woman. I also firmly believe that being gay or lesbian goes against nature. That being said, I just as firmly believe that my perspective or opinion does not give me a right to judge how another person lives their own life.
As long as they don't want to get married.
Because there are so many people like me
There are a lot of racists in America too.
who believe marriage is between a man and a woman, I think it would be best to have another term for gay and lesbian unions
"nigger" is just a word, right? "marry" is just a word, right?
We should not be forced to vote "yes" to gay and lesbian marriages if we do not believe in it.
And you can burn a cross in your front yard if you want.
Calling it discrimination is not fair.
Calling it what it is is exactly what you deserve.
Voting for gay/lesbian marriage means that a lot of people are being asked to go against their core belief as a human being.
And racists have a core belief that whites are the superior race.
Just because we don't believe in that type of marriage does not mean we expect gays and lesbians to run and hide.
You're asking them to accept "separate but equal".
It just means that we feel marriage is defined a certain way
Racists think "equality" is defined a certain way. All whites are equal. They think "separate" is defined a certain way, that separate can somehow be equal.
and if you change the term or perhaps enhance the way a civil union in outlined, both sides would probably be happy.
You want to create a "colored" section at the marriage license office. And you don't want people to call your behaviour discrimination.
And you think that will make everyone "happy". And you think calling it "discrimination" is unfair.
You have no idea what "fair" means.
Ys, d thnk tht cllng t dscrmntn s nt fr. Th rsn s bcs mst ppl wh fl th wy d gt t frm dp nsd thr cr s hmn bng rthr thn jst chsng nt t gr bcs thy dn't wnt t. m nt md r pst, d nt ht gy r lsbns. smply fl tht gy / lsbn gs gnst ntr. Tht ds nt mn wn't b frnds wth gy r lsbn, tht wn't hlp thm f n nd, tc. Mny thngs dtrmn wh prsn s, nt thr sxlty. Hwvr, tht s nt th tpc t hnd - mrrg s. nd spkng f gy/lsbn mrrg nly, d nt gr wth t.
s fr s bng frcd, n w wr nt frcd t th bths, bt vn thgh w vtd n, t's cmng p gn, nd wll cntn t d s ntl ths n grmnt gt thr wy. Tht s wht mnt by bng frcd.
d nt ndrstnd why yr rply t m sms s f t's n ngr - prhps 'm rdng t wrng. Sms lk y ht m fr nt grng...ntrstng.
Join Californians and MEET IN THE MIDDLE 4 EQUALITY on Saturday, May 30 in the center of conservative California, Fresno. Rally at 1pm.
Information on rideshares, busses, lodging, and how to help here:
http://www.meetinthemiddle4equality.com/
Yes, I do think that calling it discrimination is not fair. The reason is because most people who feel the way I do get it from deep inside their core as a human being rather than just choosing not to agree because they don't want to.
You seriously think that all racists are just rednecks who get up in the morning thinking "Yea, I'm a pissed-of white dude and I want to shake the tree. I know! I'll be a racist and pick on coloured people. That'll really get their goat! (evil snicker)"?? Newsflash: Most people who feel that way also feel it deep inside their core. And I bet they would feel you're rather self-righteous to call your type of segregation a 'core human belief' while dismissing theirs as some childish whim.
Most racists I've known weren't angry, cross-burning people. Most had good jobs, a pretty yard with flowers, nice families, good sense of humour... BUT They just fundamentally believed that whites were superior and that immigrants/minorities ought to be happy with just being able to breathe the same air as whites and STFU. Oh, and actually they weren't racists either: They just disagreed.
Segregation is called segregation. It means what it means, whether you endorse it, accept it or not.
And BTW freedom of belief means you can't get arrested/imprisoned for your 'core human beliefs'. It does NOT mean we stop calling a spade a spade.
@ Honeybee83:
How is that rationale any different than that of a person who feels "deep inside their core as a human being" that marriage should only be between two people of the same race?
Not so long ago that form of marriage was illegal too. Perhaps we should have appeased the critics by referring to an interracial union as something other than a "marriage?"
I do not understand why your reply to me seems as if it's in anger - perhaps I'm reading it wrong. Seems like you hate me for not agreeing...interesting.
Oh and one more thing. Please don't play that card. Nobody replied to you in an 'angry, hateful' way: Did anyone threaten you with harm? Or your family? Did anyone say you personally deserved bodily harm or misery for you thoughts? NO.
We are merely commenting that your 'core human beliefs' involve discrimination and we're perplexed that you claim it is 'unfair'. Don't blame us, blame the English dictionary.
Oh please. This is stupid. For everyone blaming Mormons, just hear me out. The members donated. The church itself made no donations except for the 2 grand made for travel expenses.
The opposition to prop 8 had more money, raised inside and outside the state http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory
LDS people only made up 5% of the vote. A lot of them didn't even vote for it or donate money to the yes on 8 campaign. They only make up less than 2% of the population. That's a very tiny minority. World factbook.
If you reaaallly want to blame someone that actually voted for it, blame senior citizens and people without a college degree. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_(2008)
Yes, LDS support was significant, but no on 8 lost because it ran a bad campaign. Those 30 second ads did next to nothing. It's a shame, but don't worry. Same-sex unions/marriages, whatever, will eventually pass in this state. I think the whole prop 8 thing was a weird fluke.
@Honeybee,
The problem w/ your argument is that its not logical and I doubt you'd support the conclusions of what you're saying.
You don't support it because you don't feel its "natural"? That said, should people who cannot "naturally" have children be allowed such "unnatural" methods as in vitro fertilization? Should we let adopt? Should we even have let them marry in the first place?
Just because you agree w/ something at your "core being" does not mean you cannot, at the same time, hold a bigoted view. Southerners very much believed in slavery w/ their "core being". I could list dozens of other examples, but you get the point.
Additionally, many of the anti-GM supporters go on about how it violates "traditional marriage" or how God (we'll assume a Christian God) designed marriage. That said, what did Jesus himself ever say about homosexuality? Nothing. But he was pretty clear about adultery and divorce. If you truly want to be consistent and fair in the application of your belief, will you agree that we should also ban divorce? Are you bothered by churches that marry divorced people?
The reality is that at some level most of those opposed to GM are simply, at the best, uncomfortable w/ gays and, at the worst, completely homophobic, with a whole sliding scale for how conscious they are of their feelings. They just make up some voodoo about traditional marriage or family values that they would NEVER apply to anyone other than a gay person, to any situation other than gay marriage. Its a ruse. A trick. A lie. Something they tell themselves to make the cognitive dissonance in their heads stop.
Better to just get over it and realize that letting Bill and Steve marry will have ZERO effect on you. It will not harm your marriage. It will not hurt your kids. GM or not, schools already teach (assuming the boards are not dominated by cdesign proponentist) tolerance of all kinds of "unnatural" families: single parents, blended families, kids raised by grandma, etc... They already teach that many kids have two moms or two dads, regardless if those two moms have the civil privilege and benefit of calling themselves married.
Honeybee83 93: I do not understand why your reply to me seems as if it's in anger - perhaps I'm reading it wrong. Seems like you hate me for not agreeing...interesting.
Try listening to hundreds of people throughout your life tell you that you're bad, you're wrong, you should vanish. Try watching movie after movie where people like you always commit suicide at the end. Try reading books by authors who hate people like you so much that they kill one horribly in almost every book.* Try barely getting through adolescence without killing yourself because you absorbed the message that you should die so well. Try being beaten up regularly just for being who you are.
You don't have that experience, so of course you don't understand why hearing the same ignorant, self-righteous bullshit yet again makes us angry. Go educate yourself; if you won't, don't blame US for being angry at you for your willful ignorance (willful, because we know you have access to the internet). It's your own fault.
____
*For gays, that's Orson Scott Card. *spits after saying his disgusting name*
Government's only abiding interest in marriage is as it relates to the product (i.e. children)of the union, since that product will become tomorrow's tax base. There is no "product' per se of gay marriage. That some couples marry without intention of reproducing is an example of taking advantage of a legal loophole. Th gvrnmnt s rght t dsrgrd gy mrrgs bcs thy rn't mrrgs, pr s, n th gvrnmnt's y. Tht sd, y flks shld b shmd f th strdnt ntlrnc f yr wrds. Nt ll Chrstns r stpd. knw plnty f dmb-ss gys. Frankly, I liked it when gays were more transgressive & edgy. All this white-picket fence stuff...yech!
re #98...
The reality is that at some level most of those opposed to GM are simply, at the best, uncomfortable w/ gays and, at the worst, completely homophobic, with a whole sliding scale for how conscious they are of their feelings. They just make up some voodoo about traditional marriage or family values that they would NEVER apply to anyone other than a gay person, to any situation other than gay marriage. Its a ruse. A trick. A lie. Something they tell themselves to make the cognitive dissonance in their heads stop.
EXACTLY. Well said.
BTW, 524 days and counting until the November 2010 election, when we get to FIX THIS.
honeybee83@93: Yes, I do think that calling it discrimination is not fair. The reason is because most people who feel the way I do get it from deep inside their core as a human being rather than just choosing not to agree because they don't want to.
Here's the thing: racists who "feel it in their core" versus racists who "don't want to agree with racial equality"? Surprise! They're both racists.
If I burn a cross on your front yard because I "feel it in my core", I'm just as much a racist as someone who burns a cross in your front yard becaues they "don't want to agree with racial equality".
They're the same thing: Discrimination.
If the law said racial discrimination was OK if you "feel it in your core", don't you think every member of the KKK would say they "feel it in their core" to discriminate against blacks?
All you've done is attempt to create some false distinction between you and other homophobes based on your internal mental dialogue, which is immeasurable and we have to simply take your word for it. Examples??
I am not mad or upset,
how you feel is irrelevant to whether it's discrimination.
I do not hate gay or lesbians.
How you feel is irrelevant.
I simply feel
HOW YOU FEEL IS IRRELEVANT.
And speaking of gay/lesbian marriage only, I do not agree with it.
That's the part that qualifies as discrimination. The actions you take. The feelings you have that led you to that action doesn't change into something not discriminatory.
I do not understand why your reply to me seems as if it's in anger - perhaps I'm reading it wrong. Seems like you hate me for not agreeing...interesting.
Once again, you're trying to make this some sort of weird, almost perverse, argument that "good" and "bad" is based on how someone feels versus what they actually do.
Your actions are discrimination. Whether you feel righteous, idignant, angry, happy, sad, or anything else is irrelevant to that fact.
It was important to you to say that you're not "angry" and at the same time you want to say that I am angry. As if who is angry has anything to do with who is discriminating here. As if a person can do anything as long as they do it without anger and it will be considered "good". No. Sorry. You're acting like a bigot and how you feel about it is irrelevant to the morality of your actions.
The Neilitist 100: So the government would be wise to disregard OS marriages between infertile people, or people who have chosen not to have children, in your view? Let's close that loophole, huh? Would you support such a measure if it came up on the ballot in your state?
Should OS couples be automatically divorced when the woman goes through menopause, provided all their existing children are adults? That would seem to follow from your beliefs as well. Should married men have to have regular sperm counts to determine whether they're entitled to be married? If a wife doesn't get pregnant within a certain time (how long?) should a judgement of de facto infertility and thus automatic divorce be handed down?
No, you don't believe any of those things, I'll wager. If you do, you're a lunatic. And if you don't, you're one of the people Shane describes at 98, in the paragraph quoted at 101 by Chris. You're making shit up to justify your prejudice, or regurgitating shit made up by others.
Oh, but you're a drive-by. Probably just wasted my time completely.
I engaged an ultra-conservative friend of the family on this issue. His arguement seemed to be that if we allow gay marraiges, soon we'll allow people to marry pets and inflatable girlfriends, and other inanimate objects. Some argument you've got there, pal.
HoneyBee, I commend you on your gentle restraint. I get what you're saying, and don't necessarily disagree. Lots of people do things that gross me out. My policy is: if you think it's wrong, don't do it. But forcing others to abide by our personal values leads to fascism, and forced compliance.
A gay friend gay me his perspective: A man lays dying in a hospital. His life companion is not allowed to visit him because he's not immediate family. Can you imagine yourself in that position? Your lover dying, and you can't even say good-bye? That's heart rending to me.
Your solution may be how this is settled: another name for a gay union, that gives them the rights that married couples have. Even my conservative friend agrees with that.
I think y'all got rolled by an astroturfer.
I also feel something deep and moving in my core!
However, in my case it's probably that bean burrito I had for lunch.
BDLARS,
If states legalize gay marriage, the federal government should recognize it based on the full faith and credit clause. Subverting full faith and credit was the point of national DOMA. The idea is that, if enough states legalize, the US eventually has to recognize. Based on the federal system, it's actually a pretty sensible strategy.
'turfer or freelance ignorant bigot.
"The Beehive State: Most of the nicknames associated with Utah are related to the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, that first settled in the territory. Deseret, in The Book of Mormon is actually a honeybee. Early Mormon settlers have been described as having carried "swarms of bees" with them. "
I thought it was about the hairdos.
Disclaimer: I am gay, but I live in Florida which passed a similar Constitutional ban in November.
This ruling is actually a good thing... in a way. Let me explain. By ruling as they did, the California Supreme Court has created an inherently unfair system: some gay couples may be married while others cannot. This simply sets the stage for the United States Supreme Court case, which you've gotta know is coming. This is good because it will give us our chance in front of the SCOTUS. However, it's also bad because of this particular SCOTUS. The new appointee is probably about an "even trade" for this issue for retiring justice Souter. So, we'll see how long it takes before the case makes its way there and hope to Jesus/Allah/Buddha that Scalia or Thomas make their exit from the bench before it gets there. Of course, knowing that this is headed his way may make Scalia dig in like a tick, but... that's just the chance we'll have to take.
hope to Jesus/Allah/Buddha that Scalia or Thomas make their exit from the bench before it gets there.
I'm hoping that they get a personal escort by their deity. Or possibly by Tash the inexorable, the irresistible.
hope to Jesus/Allah/Buddha that Scalia or Thomas make their exit from t/h/e/ /b/e/n/c/h/ this plane of existence before it gets there.
FTFY.
What? I thought GM was bailed out by Obama?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/brenda-lee-reporter-dragg_n_208772.html