America Scores Against Racism. Homophobia? Not So Much
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Nov 05, 2008 5:30pm
California voters have passed a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, the Associated Press reported Wednesday. NBC News has yet to confirm the passage of this amendment, which would overturn a court ruling that gave gay couples the right to wed just months ago. The passage of Proposition 8 represents a crushing political defeat for gay-rights activists, who had hoped public opinion on the contentious issue had shifted enough to help them defeat the measure.
It also represents a personal loss for the thousands of couples from California and others states who got married in the brief window when they could. Legal experts said courts will have to resolve whether their unions still are valid. California joins Arizona and Florida, where voters also approved amendments banning gay marriage. Gay-rights forces also suffered a loss in Arkansas, where voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target.
This is really, really disappointing. I think that the dishonest ads Prop 8 ran about children and using Barack Obama's face helped them immeasurably at the end, because it was running behind in the polls as late as the weekend. I fully expect that the proposition, like Prop 22 in 2000 will be challenged in court and meet a similar fate that Prop 22 did.
Login or Register to post comments.
Sadly, it happened in Florida, too. And yet no one I know has been able to make a solid argument outlining any *tangible* benefits of these types of bans.
AIDS and STDs a reasonable person might look at monogamy as a good thing.
These homophobes are not reasonable people. They are fanatics.
First: I'm not so sure it was so much a "score against racism" as an incredibly easy win against the worst presidency...Well...EVER. It was only 51-47 after all. Can you imaging who the 47% are?? 47f-ing % !
But the marriage thing always baffled me. Why would you want the "right" to have your life ruined like the rest of us? I guess you want most badly the things they say you can't have.
Odd.
Palin had a certain gleam in her eye as McCain gave his concession speech. Palin looked like shut up old man your time has passed I lead the Republican Party now.
We all know the Republicans need a new face. But that's all she's got. Her policies appeal SOLELY to the Republican base. Outside of that, she'd need to do two things:
a) erase every tape of every stupid thing she said in this election
b) get a brain transplant.
But by all means, be the new leader of the party. She'll lead the Republicans the way of the Dixiecrats.
This really really disapointed me, I feel like we as a people took a step forward and two steps back :(
I just cannot understandy why anybody would CARE if same gender people want to get married. In fact shouldn't we be glad when people find happiness together no matter who they are? I don't get how same sex marriage threatens traditional marriage at all.
Does this law prohibit domestic partnerships?
It's worth noting that Obama mentioned Gays in his acceptance speech as being our American brothers and sisters. Just as it took a long hard struggle against racism before we could elect a black man to the presidency, it will take as much, if not more, to gain wide acceptance for the gay community.
Marriage is, ultimately, a contract.
You wanna break it, you gonna pay.
Your mileage may vary depending on where you live.
A civil union also sounds like a contract.
Your mileage may vary.
1) We elect lawmakers to write, scrutinize and pass laws. Why do we have elected officials at all, if voters are expected to understand every complex issue then make a knowledgeable decision?
2) Anybody with money can get a proposition on the ballot and those people can also afford to run enough advertising to get it passed. How is that democracy, if advocacy groups can circumvent publicly elected officials to essentially buy their laws?
3) Our constitution was created to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Certainly, if we wanted to get a law passed to ban cults, you could get a majority of people to vote for the ban. That doesn't make it just or right.
Al Franken
Or I would have, Al. As a former resident of Minneapolis, I'm totally baffled how so many people could have voted for Coleman. He's neither from Minnesota, nor funny.
i think the problem is that the California constitution is too easy to amend. that's the problem with respect to minority rights. it shouldn't take just a simple majority to modify a constitution. it should take a super majority like 2/3rd or 3/4's.
it got passed for taxes
and yes the cali constitution should be damn hard to amend
That was my first thought. 60% seems reasonable to alter as fundamental a document as a Constitution, but nothing less.
Prop 22 was not a Constitutional Amendment and the courts found it unconstitutional. I'm no lawyer, but I think the Constitutional Amendment part of Prop 8 probably precludes a court challenge.
clause in the us constitution....this may end up with the supremes....which means its dead
yes...the yes on 8 people lied through their teeth
but let us deal with facts
hispanics voted in greater numbers in cali more than ever before...so did african americans
both of those groups, while traditionally dem, are also very conservative when it comes to religious issues...and the prop 8 people worked off that
want a solution to all this bs? the state should not be in the marriage biz...end of story
its a contract...call it that...not a marriage license
marriage is for religion
if we can do that...everyone will be happy
as it is, there is nothing to say that other states that have voted against gay marriage (az now twice...they really, really hate the gay) would have to accept married gay people...without more court decisions
but here was the most absurd thing said about the passing of 8...by my good friend, dennis (i am a jewish leader) prager...that the vote was a vote against judicial activism....thanks dennis, for continuing to prove how fucking deluded you are...now tell us all how you really respect the instituion of marriage as you were fooling around on your former wife with your current one...
Yeah, I don't have much hope for the matter being settled in Federal courts.
As for the contract bit:
I hate that the issue is referred to as "legalizing" gay marriage. Seems like gays and lesbians get married all the time, in all 50 states, often with a pastor or rabbi doing the service.
So why don't we press for state "recognition" of gay marriage? Why is it that Catholics can get their standards accepted by the state, but liberal Methodists cannot? Framed that way "equal protection" and "freedom of religion" are much more relevant.
myboysherman:
You are certainly correct about the nature of Proposition Hate. And it is heartening that you have a basic command of civics, which is more than I can say for so many I met while campaigning against this measure.
That said, and though it will be an uphill battle, here is how it will be challenged in court:
There are two ways to alter the California Constitution, amendments and revisions. Amendments, which require a mere majority of the population's approval, are supposedly reserved for minor or basic changes. Revisions, on the other hand, are fundamental structural changes, and may not be accomplished through initiative and referendum. Instead, revising the Constitution, requires a Constitutional Convention and a supermajority.
The questions then become, of course, what precisely is a revision? What kinds of changes are inappropriate for mere amendments because they are, by nature, too important a matter and too big a change? And ultimately, is the rescission of fundamental rights by definition a revision, not an amendment?
The argument will be that the spirit of the California Constitution requires that no fundamental rights may be rescinded from one subsection of Californians without going through the arduous revision process. That a mere majority may not Constitutionally take rights away from a group it does not like.
Whether the Supreme Court will bite is unknown. But the argument should, can and will be made.
I tried...I voted against Prop 8, I told everyone I came into contact with to vote against Prop 8, and explaned that nobody should be denied basic human rights in this age...in this country. Most people seemed to agree with me. or maybe they just didn't want to get into a political discussion
there is the cali domestic partners law, that ostensibly gives same sex couples the exact same rights as straight...i know it doesnt...but that isnt the point
the point is that many people dont see marriage as a basic human right
THESE MOTHERFUCKERS ALL MADE GEORGE TAKEI SAD....I HOPE THEY ALL BURN IN HELL
The point of the amendment was to change the constitution. I don't see how a state court could possibly get involved now. And federal courts have already said no, so why would they get involved? I do think that this is a problem with respect to Romer vs Evans - but it seems that ruling would have to be broadened to strike down a state constitutional amendment; whereas if the court were to rule in favor of the amendment (and against defenders of same sex marriage), that would narrow Romer vs. Evans.
It's the State of California's constitution. It will be challenged and taken up by the California Supreme Court and likely stricken down, wasting more taxpayer dollars in the effort.
There are a couple of ways that this could have been prevented:
1) Civil rights issues should not be voted on by proposition. Think about it. What if some McCarthyite politician rose up and started instilling fear of (for the sake of the illustration) red-haired people and some citizens got enough signatures on a petition to put on the ballot an amendment specifically forbidding red-haired people from being able to be married. It's ridiculous, right? The LGBT are a protected class of people. You cannot discriminate against them by law. They have had some of their rights taken away from them because they fear mongered to the lowest common denominator.
2) We should outlaw money from outside state interests. There was more money spent on the Yes on 8 campaign than any other proposition in the country: some 75 million. $50 million of which is directly traced to Utah.
3) There is a loophole in campaign financing that allows churches to push legislation from the pulpit even though they cannot by law push candidates. This loophole must be closed.
4) I'm personally in favor of the state getting out of the marriage business altogether. Let the state issue civil unions to all, regardless of orientation and then let churches sanctify marriages as fits their tenets. Poof! Separation of church and state.
is what I'd like to know. Does anyone have a link to a list of the major donors, companies/organizations/persons/churches that funded this deceptive and despicable campaign? I want to punish those cretins as much as I can.
On the plus side, once enough old people and bigots die, this may eventually be a non-issue. There was the reference in Obama's speech last night of the 106 year old woman in Georgia. She probably never though she'd live long enough to see a non-white president. Some day marriage for gay people will broadly happen in this country. I hope I don't have to live to 106 to see it, though.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/08...
Thanks for the link. It's dood to see the Knights of Columbus could find the money to keep gays in their place. Now I guess it's back to supporting the rights of Catholic priests to diddle little boys. Maybe they should buy a moral compass instead.
But you know Nicole you gotta watch those gingers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZNifi2O7oQ
Unfortunately, once the state constitution is amended, the state supreme court cannot be "strike it down." No matter how idiotic the amendment, nothing in the state constitution can be unconstitutional - by definition, what's in the constitution is the law. (Although if the amendment can be challenged on some other legal ground - a challenge to the process of enactment - there's a chance that the state court can take action.)
But that's on a state level. A state constitutional amendment cannot be in conflict with the federal constitution. So any challenge will have to be on the federal level. It's a bigger challenge - especially given the current make-up of the Court - but not impossible.
The downside to a challenge right now? Because of the ridiculous makeup of the Supreme Court, the challenge would likely fail, which would effect not just California but the entire nation, by setting a precedent.
The upside to a challenge? If the challenge succeeded, it would also set a precedent - and effectively nullify the laws and constitutional amendments passed across the nation.
My prediction? We are going to see the ultra-conservatives on the Court hanging on by the skin of their teeth in order to avoid leaving an opening for Obama to fill.
overturned,eventually. Discrimination of any kind is UnAmerican. Period
mormons
morons?
EVERYONE has 'equal protection under the law'. It doesn't matter what Califoria voters-or for that matter Florida voters-have to say of the matter. Discrimination is unlawfull. period.
see
http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/legal-grou...
They have a case.
if these people are so rightgeous and without sin, then
we should have a proposition that strickly forbids any
man and woman who gets married from ever divorcing and
any extramarital sex will immediately require the offending
person to be subjected to gender reassignment.
[Deleted. A bit OTT, UJM. Site Monitor]
embraced Obama but threw the gays under the bus. Threw out a democratic governor for a republican that increased the deficit, his staff and doubled their salary compared to what Gray Davis payed his staff. I don't get it. I don't know one person that voted yes on 8 and only one person that voted for mccain. I guess I'm lucky.
they didnt see that they were throwing gays under the bus...they were frightened by misleading ads
my bro lives in mass....they aint teaching gay marriage in school
as for the recall...they got duped into that too
mostly cuz davis increased the reg fees for cars and alot because they were misled on how the state got raped by enron and others regarding the energy crisis....there was only one talk show host, mark germaine (mr kabc) who daily presented evidence that there was no energy crisis, and the energy companies were indeed raping the state
the rest all bought into the big lie...and just spread it around
We know that Cheney had secret meetings with the energy company heads (aka his buddies) who fixed the energy prices in California, which caused the Energy "Crisis" and all the blackouts.
Then a rich Republican financed getting enough signatures to trigger a recall election.
The only reason a Republican was able to win was because the votes were fragmented (much as Jesse Ventura in Minnesota). If it were a head-to-head election in California, there's no way a Republican would win in this day and age (unless he turns liberal, as Arnold did before his re-election).
Cheney knew this. His Supreme Court ruled that we, the public, aren't privy to what was discussed in those "secret" conversations. But I think we know.
was ultimately settled in favor of gay marriage in Canada by our Supreme Court in the teeth of similar opposition by various conservative and religious groups and I'm afraid that is how the issue must ultimately be settled in the US. Clearly this will have to wait until a few Supreme Court appointments have been made. They could have passed a proposition in favor of slavery in California but that would not have been right nor would it have born inspection by the courts. Don't give up this fight.
or Floriduh voter want to impose discrimination on other folks,perhaps they should choose to move to another country. It is a very simple constitutional argument and one which is Firmly established under law.
by a Justice of the Peace. Just because they didn't get married in a church are their marriages null and void?
I don't get it. What about people who elope? Or "quickie" marriages? No church involved.
People even write their own ceremonies nowadays.
above
• prejudice
• bias
• bigotry
• discrimination
Call it what you will, but call it WRONG.
This issue begs the question: Why are heterosexual marriages threatened by homosexual marriage? Are their unions so weak that they would fall apart if a gay married couple moved on their block. Are they so ignorant as to think that being around gay people could somehow change THEM?
America will not be free and its people will not be equal until equal means ALL people.
why shouldn't 'gay'couples be allowed to have the wonderful bliss of marriage? I mean,jeez,then they'll know that perhaps the other way was better.
Is that the misery loves company thing?
they might see that marriage ain't all it's cracked up to be and a 'deviant lifestyle' an't so bad. wink
threatened by anybody. This is ALL about homophobia, discrimination, and PUSHING A CERTAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEF ON EVERYONE - and getting it written into law. I agree with Bangkok Bob and Prop 8 is being challenged if it passes - they are still counting absentee ballots -
http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/legal-grou...
Writing discrimination into a Constitution is so appalling, I just can't express it properly.
Marriage is marriage; there are no heterosexual or homosexual types.
it's just something in human nature Bob. As I've said before some people can't enjoy a feast unless there are starving people to spurn.
Enjoy being Rich without a bunch of poor people around to witness?
so.
I listened to the the interview of Stephen Spoonamore at Velvet Revolution. One thing he said that surprised me was that the best computer hackers he knew were Christian Fundamentalists, and that their long term goal was not control of the Executive, but control of the Judiciary. It is surprising that a harmless thing like gay marriage would not pass in an enlightened society. But it would not be surprising to learn that the tabulation of the vote in a referendum on this would be attacked by Christian Fundamentalist hackers. After all, if God is on your side, it's not illegal or immoral.
just the fact that you were gay meant time in jail. Look at the movie actors, artists and writers who had to lead a "second life". Dirk Bogard, an exceptionally gifted actor comes to mind.
I posted this before, but I feel it is very important for people to know.
When the professional signature gatherers were out getting signatures, I suggested the following technique to disrupt the process. This was in response to what I felt was a silly method to convince people not to sign the anti-gay marriage petitions that Equality California suggested. It was to have gay people stand next to the signature gatherer and try to talk people out of signing the petitions in front of grocery stores. There was no way that method would have worked.
The facts:
Most of the people gathering signatures for the anti-gay marriage proposition were not volunteers, but professionals who were being paid per signature.
The signature gatherers could care less about any of the propositions. They are doing it for the money. That is their motivation -- money. Many travel from state to state to work doing this.
The signature forms can not be photocopied per state law -- they have to be professionally printed. This, of course, takes time and money to do. To have to print more petitions is costly.
What I proposed was this:
Encourage every person by email to use their personal cash and buy the signatures and blank forms from the signature gatherers. Ask them how much they are being paid per signature. Most will tell you. Pull out your wallet and tell them you'll buy the signatures with cash at the same rate they are getting paid. Then offer like $5 for each blank petition they have. I tried this out, and it totally worked.
No forms equals no signatures. A very active effort to do this would have killed this proposition before it got to the voters.
It seems like every proposition that comes up these days is from Right Wingers, because they're trying to circumvent the elected officials and the political process.
Why don't we start pushing a Left-Wing agenda through these propositions?
Certainly, we have the money and knowhow to beat them at their own game.
I prefer to ban the propositions altogether, but certainly, we could create a cleverly worded proposition that calls on the government to protect the sanctity of marriage between consenting adults. People would vote for that.
measures on every ballot that are broadly popular but detested by the right wing, things like funding stem cell research. Let them pour tons of money into measures they can't defeat instead of funding measures like prop 8.
We will have to work out, it may take time.
But just remember ..... PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA !!
Sounds pretty good doesn't it?
fabulous.
people opposed to gay marriage don't seem to have a problem with fake straight marriages. I have not heard anyone question Larry Craig's fitness to be a parent.
Senator Lindsey Graham ....
The queen of SC Politics.
(should have been named Linda)
No That wouldn't matter at all if he came out, but instead he rails against his own kind, a self loathing bigot.
Just ban marriage all together. It is an archaic form of property transfer.
Over half of marriages entered into fail.
Don't lose hope my gay brothers and sisters. These things will pass, it will take some time because of the religious right but it will work out.
this issue is moot. The Supreme Court will rule in favor of 'gay marriage'. And that will be that.
The court as it stands is quite prepared to pull another Dred Scott and it is much harder to undo that sort of thing once ruled upon. Better to wait for those upcoming Supreme Court appointments.
does not apply,here. No One in this country is the 'property' of anyone. i believe it's a simple issue and one which will rule in favor of 'gay marriage'. The law is already in place.
Or at least, the comparison does.
The Dred Scott decision, no matter wrong we see it to be now, stood as the law of the land for many years before the Court finally overruled it.
We do not need the gay marriage equivalent.
of pissing off my gay friends,We have larger fish to fry in this country.
why I think this needs to wait until a court victory is more certain. That doesn't mean giving up the fight for hearts and minds.
They don't have either, you can't teach a christian or a moron, I mean mormon new tricks! Fuck them all right in the ear!~!
you can bring a horse's ass to water..etc. I would like to point out however that a generation ago this issue would not have been on the radar screen. Progress has been made simply by making it a subject of debate.
Society has made gains in that area.
to have 15 wives, but not one husband. I'm still neutral on the Mormon religion, but not on these actions. Mormons in Utah that supported prop 8 can all rot.
perhaps a 'better' court is needed. But,under the Constitution it's an easy ruling.
But then so should the decision in the Dred Scott case have been. Courts have shown themselves willing to parse the definition of human being in rather nauseating ways.
that was then.
you can think of a larger issue than stripping people of their basic inalienable rights?? I can't.
...when it is other people's rights that are being trampled.
When some people start to get that "passive acceptance" is not the same as "passive resistance" we will see some real gains. Until then, we will see our civil rights go down the drain one by one...
Well, got gay-married to my gay homosexual abomination partner in 2002, than again this last Halloween in San Jose. Am I going to have to marry the same guy three fucking times?! I want the Catholics (with their "Knights of Columbus") and the Mormons stripped of their tax exempts status for funneling millions of dollars into a political issue in my state to take away my (state) constitutional rights. Polygamists and Pedophiles and their repulsive and entropic ilk are dictating whom I can bond with in civil matrimony. America has some splainin to do. And mormom boys on bikes better steer clear of me on the surface streets, or they're going to find about "heaven" quicker than normal.. Fuckers!
I shall now retire to the nice little Bistro down the block for Breakfast and coffee. The Sun actually came out for ten minutes this morning, it must be a sign.
☻♥ President Barack Obama ♥☻
It rolls of your tongue.
G'day all.
Enjoy your breakfast.
one forward,two back.
i am so over this issue. so you're gay...you can still live together, right? you can still write out wills...adopt kids...right?
you would have thought this was the only prop in CA w/ all the money, time and energy thrown into it (at the expense of other props).
what about the props for alternative energy that got shot down? now, there's a tragedy. the earth is a little more important than this issue. don't ya think?
as the planet heats up, this is the most talked about prop in CA? how selfish is that? how about a prop we can all get behind that benefits us all first? quit worryin' about the drapes when the house is burning.
PRIORITIES.
very closely. Read the part about Arkansas again.
Some of us manage to worry about more than one issue at a time. You should give it a shot.
Or maybe just take a minute to think about what could change in your life if you and your spouse could not have the things that are taken for granted in a legally recognized marriage. Start with the little one - right of survivorship. Adoption of your spouse's child. The two of you adopting a child together (did you miss the part that said one of the propositions passed now prohibits single people from adopting?). Community property. If you're hospitalized, is it taken for granted that your spouse can be with you? Make decisions on your behalf if you're unconscious?
I've got an idea. Maybe instead of people worrying about extending basic rights to the gay community, we could just have YOUR "marital rights" taken away. You wouldn't object, would you? I mean, there are so many more important things to worry about...
This issue goes back to the creation of our Republic,itself. 'states rights versus federal mandate. the Civil war was fought over these very issues. But,when push comes to shove,a state wishes to discriminate against a minority,it will lose at the federal level. If a state takes it that far,it will lose.
yup, that is the crux of this dilemma. but it needs to get appealed to a saner, less rightwing/senile supreme court than we have now.
is clear. 'Equal protection under the law'. that's as firm as you can get.No wiggle room.None.
You would make a crappy lawyer.
Here in my state of Massachusetts gay couples can marry- We are a progressive state, and thats just tough shit for the pockets of right wing bigots around Boston.
I would have thought of all states, california, being the most prgressive state of all would allow gay couples the same rights afforded to all citizens.
If worse comes to worse, just get married here in Massachuetts
IF the couple remains in Mass. Other states prohibit that union,and in some it might be illegal and subject to arrest.
The Black vote for Obama was extraordinarily heavy in California. So was the Latino vote. However, it sort of backfired in respect to Prop. 8. 70% of black voters voted YES on Prop 8, as did 50% of Latinos. Sad but true. And when it comes to these "cultural wedge issues", Democrats may find they won't have strong allies among minorities, especially when it concerns gays (and to a lesser extent the abortion issue).
but here's the deal..... The states(voters) can enact anything they choose to enact. Then,someone who is agrieved by this law appeals to the courts who will hem and haw and usually toss it to a higher court out of cowardice. Then the process begins again. Usually the party behind the law hopes the agrieved party will give up,as judication is very expensive.BUT. Once a grievence is accepted and heard by The Supreme Court,any discrimination case is an easy one,and one the Court accepts ,gladly. In this case,'gay marriage' would be ruled legal by the Court-BUT for only that state- and setting precidence for other states to follow.
the doors of justice like the doors of the Hilton are open to everyone. (I can't remember who said that.)
it's all we've got. Better than most.
that is why We are a Republic -Not a Democracy ,which is mob rule. Ina true Democracy everybody votes,then goes home. No appeal.
but my elation over Obama's win was tempered by the feeling that I'd been punched in the gut by my neighbors. It's a shame.
that punch. Believe Me,I do.
This should be one of the first things that Obama should address as president. Why do 70% of Californian African Americans want to take away civil rights from a section of the population? Did this 70% not see a little hypocrisy in their voting while electing Obama?
Obama will leave California to Californians. It's your state. You fix it.
... the union between a man and a woman. Unless of course things don't work out, and, well, then it's...
...the union of a man and a NEW woman! Unless of course things don't work out this time, too, and, well, then it's...
...the union of a man and ANOTHER NEW woman! Unless of course things don't work out, and well... oh hell, you get the picture.
Discrimination and second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians is ginger-peachy-keen with Obama and his unthinking supporters. All those robocalls featuring Obama throwing ‘teh gays’ under the bus by the Mormon Church is what got Prop 8 passed. Hatred and fear won in this election, just like every other year, thanks to Obama. It is sad that the same people who were widely discriminated against just a generation ago apparently have no historical memory or compassion for others in 2008. Obama won big thanks to the support of the Catholic Latinos and fundamentalist, church-going black voters. He owes them. Stepping over the rights of others to get ahead is still the best way to success and still the American way today...
nobody.
To the 70% of black California voters (75% of black women voters) who supported Proposition 8, here's something to consider: it doesn't matter who's in the White House or who's in Congress, when you're applying for a job, what matters is who's reading your resume and what s/he does with it.
If your name is Lakesha, Darnell or anything similar, those of us who work in HR presume you're black. Because of the discrimination, exclusion and hate you chose to embrace & uphold, those of us who are gay and work in HR may now pause to consider whether we should contact you for an interview or simply place your resume at the bottom of the pile. Many of us HR folk now receive 500-1000 resumes per opening due to the terrible job market and high rate of unemployment, so your chances of landing an interview - let alone a job - are slim. Due to the selection you made on yesterday's ballot initiative, you may now find it even more difficult to land a job. No bi-racial President and no Democratic majority in Congress can prevent the economic retribution you might face from the disgruntled gay American holding the key to your next employment opportunity.
Remember: you made your choice yesterday. When I receive your resume, I'll make mine.
WOW! What a progressive, liberal you are
And part of human nature is "paybacks are hell."
Electing Obama is a big step forward for this country and I enthusiastically cast my vote for him with some reservations. It is a shame that while we were helping Obama overcome the vile barrier that racism has been in this country, he was not really helping us overcome homophobia.
I respect Obama's right to hold religious beliefs, but I don't respect some of the beliefs he holds. Maybe, if things go well for him, in 2012 he will decide that he can afford (politically) to come out for true, across the board equality in the US. It would be nice if he ended his presidency standing for universal human rights.
I'm torn today; as a resident of California, I'm proud of my state for helping elect Obama, and I'm both proud and hopeful that we passed a huge bill to construct a high-speed rail system in this state, something that simply must happen eventually.
And at the same time I am truly, deeply ashamed at my state for passing this offensive, bigoted measure. I can't think of anything else to say but "What the HELL is wrong with you people?!"
I heretofore had no particular beef with the modern Mormon church, but now I'm furious with it and many of its constituents for funding a bigotry drive in MY home. Not much I can think of gets me as angry as I am about the success of Prop 8, something that shouldn't even EXIST, let alone actually pass.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm straight and happily married to someone whom I love. Except there are now hundreds of thousands of people, at minimum, who have just been told they don't get that privilege for no reason other than that their love doesn't happen to be from the opposite sex.
Absolutely shameful.
My guess is that when the exit polling is analyzed, California's Latino population will have been important factors in both Obama's win and the success of Prop 8.
For the past decade I've taught ESL to local Mexican immigrants and I've become close friends with some. During that time I have tried very hard to get them to understand the need for separation of Church and State and why it is the only way to protect everyone's rights.
This election we had a Death With Dignity initiative on the ballot and I took great care to explain to my Hispanic friends why, even if their religion told them "suicide" is wrong, they should support the initiative. Yet, when I accidentally saw the completed ballot of one of the women -- the person I have spent the most time with and become closest to -- I saw that she had voted against the initiative. I was very disappointed. I didn't say anything -- over the years I've had plenty of opportunity to explain my position -- because she has to be free to vote as she sees fit, but that didn't lessen my disappointment. Still, I wasn't the least bit surprised. She voted her religion and in the end nothing I said had made any difference. Perhaps my words had made her pause, but they didn't change her decision. My guess is that the others with whom I have worked so closely, voted the same way.
That's the mixed blessing of many Mexican American voters. They bring a lot of positive things to this country, but if they use the ballot to express their religious beliefs, in my opinion, they will have a very negative impact on American society on some issues.
I won't be happy. Until I get the same rights and privileges as every one else, I will most certainly NOT be happy. All men created equal, blah, blah. I know. It's boring and tired, but it's the cornerstone on which this country was founded. We were oppressed, we came here, now were oppressing. OURSELVES!
Telling me I can get a civil union is telling me I get a seat on the bus, just in the back. And that I should get up from my seat for more important (read, heterosexual) relationships.
"But it's the same thing! A civil union is like a marriage only called by a different name." Not quite.
Listen, I can't tell you how hurt and ANGRY I am. It's hard to even contain my heartbreak and absolute EXHAUSTION as people continue to use my life as a pawn, as something significantly less important than it is. I'm on fumes as people use crud like this as a rationale for their bigotry. PROTECT MARRIAGE? From who? Gay men are okay to PLAN weddings, just not our own? Oh, HELL NO.
Not fair. Wanna guess how may toasters I've purchased?
But, J-lo has has 3 marriages. Brittany Spears has had 3 marriages (one less than 60 hours long!). Ronald Reagan? Two. John McCain? Two. Bill Clinton? He signs Doma (DOMA!!) while being orally obliged by an intern while his wife and kid are at home.
All the while gays and lesbians are being pushed aside and the quality of their lives, their (OUR!) liberty and pursuits of happiness are blocked by bigotry.
Sorry. Equality or nothing.
Don't worry-Hippokrits above has your back.
But don'tcha know? It's about the miracle of life! (Cue the harp Jesus!) Us gays can't create greenhouse gas emitting, baby diaper landfill generating, oops we got knocked up, gorgeous little accidents that were supposed to flush, rug bunnies. We're useless, breeders good, not enough adorable little accidents on the planet already see? That's why God said on six o'clock news channel marriage between only man and woman. Man/man, woman/woman only borrow "oil burning waste factory" when really want and God say no, B-A-D, bad!
; - )
what the hell is wrong with you people??? who makes you better anyone else???? I'm not gay but have no right to judge those that are - you suck, you stupid ignorant IDIOTS....hey????? your're kids on drugs? husband/wife cheatin' on you????? stop judgeing.....you ahole. best of luck to all of you idiots.....come to mass - we love everyone, well at least in the berkshires.....yeah, not near boston, closer to ny.....
Yes, the woman I know who voted for this change to the California Constitution, because she believes that it would degrade marriage, is cheating on her husband with MULTIPLE men. When I pointed out that perhaps infidelity was more of a threat to marriage than committed gays marrying she said that it was important to her for religious reasons...why did they have to use the word marriage...etc. I guess I feel strong enough in my marriage that allowing other people the same rights I have is not threatening.
Lauren, you're not helping. You're actually making me sick. I can't tell you how I want to hurt that woman. If she weren't already a miserable shrew, I'd wish that for her. That and herpes.
OK, I know it's warped, but that whole idea just made me snort my pop out of my nose. A multiple-adulterer objecting to anything on religious reasons? I wanna know what church she goes to that has a problem with homosexuality but says serial adultery is just peachy-keen LOL...
I've said this before and I'll say it again. There is no way a Gay Marriage right passes before the Atheists and Agnostics take political control of the country.
Want gay rights? Target G/god and shoot to kill.
I personally believe that one third of the voters that approved this horrible proposition probably thought they were voting yes for gays to be able to marry. In other words, they were confused as to what the Yes or No stood for. I HATE Propositions!! When Prop 13 ruined the state of California, I have ever since refused to sign any petitions, I have even argued with the idiots gathering the signatures. Propositions are not the answer. Voters are easily misled and this proposition is soooo unconstitutional it is not even funny. It will be overturned.
A politician mentioned 'gay' in a non-pejorative way in a major political speech. I believe that is a first. I was watching the returns in a neighborhood gay bar and the cheers were pretty intense throughout.
While I am elated McCain did not win, I want to like Obama but I'm sorry the people who he is surrounding himself with are pretty much scumbags - Emanuel, Rubin, Summers, EEEEEK. These people are trash. I'm not even sure they are human. Volker at least is competent - the sort of competent that will inflict some pain though. Whatever's necessary.
On the lighter side, California's chickens have slightly less worse prison conditions and several pro marijuana propositions were passed.
Arizona Proposition 102: Ban on Gay Marriage passed
Arkansas Initiative 1: Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children passed
California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage - passed
Florida Amendment 2 Ban on Gay Marriage - passed
The bigots remain
No. Bible-humpers and the historically ignorant remain.
I told you this was going to happen and you didn't believe me. I know a TON of people who voted for this who would never say so to their gay friends or co-workers because they just don't believe in it. The Rosie Effect took over once they were in the booth.
You can call people names or make hateful posts online about people but that will not change the fact that the MAJORITY of people do not believe that gay marriage is right.
Gays should be happy if they live in California because they already have rights as a couple. Is it really so important that you get society's approval?
It's about equality. Plain and simple. To quote Nina Simone - You don't have to live next to me, just give me my equality.
I don't need anyone's "approval" for who I am, but I expect to have the same social and civil rights as everyone else in this United States that is promised to every citizen under the Constitution. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, why is it such a big deal? Why do you think it's okay to deny property rights, visitation rights in hospitals and parenting rights to same sex partners? Why do you somehow think it's okay for you to have rights that in the same moment are denied to an equal citizen of this country?
I'm not keen on divorce, but I'm not out there trying to impose my feelings on anyone else. I don't like abortion, but I still believe a woman has the right to choose. Hell, I can't stand my neighbor's lawn furniture. I just choose to not look at it. It's none of my business meddling in the affairs of other people. It's none of your business either. If accepting or tolerating other people who are different from you is too difficult, you should go live on a compound somewhere with people of your same mind. Bliss!
If it's a religious issue for you, not everyone believes in God or the Bible. Sorry to inform you, but America is not a religious state. We are not governed by the church.
Do you think being gay is a choice? It's not. Accept it and get over yourself already. Did YOU choose your sexual orientation? End of that short argument.
Prophet? No. Bigot? Sounds like it.
In the midst of all this gloom, let's remember that, as recently as 2000, a similar anti-gay marriage initiative calld Prop. 22 passed by a whopping margin of 23%. A mere 8 years later, we've closed that gap to 5% for Prop 8. That's an 18% shift in public opinion in just eight years. Not good enough, but it bodes well for the future.
and prop 22 was struck down this year enabling gay marriage. Hopefully 8 will meet the same end, but sooner.
Gay right are human rights.
.
Human Rights include the Rights of gays, blacks, women, the imprisoned, the unborn, the homeless, the oppressed, the wealthy, the fortunate and unfortunate. We ALL deserve to be treated with respect and unconditional acceptance...
... Unfortunately, there is a vast proportion that hang on to the unwritten exceptions of, "But not you."
I can be rich, but not you.
I can marry, but not you.
I can be cured, but not you.
I was first in line, not you.
etc, etc, etc...
It's an illness of the human soul(if you believe) or spirit, if you will. SELFISH ENDEAVOURS only bring grief to others...
... And Carma bites back. Maybe not in your lifetime, but it is uncanny how a society retains it's LEGACY!
Witness... Obama's victory. The Dream of MLK Jr is being realized.
Witness... MLK Jr's came from a legacy of a spiteful oppression towards the black community.
The gay community is no different. A legacy inherited based on rising above HATE!
.
.
When America decides to seek peace, it will first decide to stop hate.
... Currently, far too many people profit from hate and the destabilization of peace.
.
.
A boyfriend of mine many years ago went to the water park on a hot sunny summer...
... It was family day.
We had fun. We held hands. we even kissed...
... In front of "The Children."
F-'em...
... They do it in front of us, NO?
.
America Scores Against Racism. Homophobia? Not So Much
We will.
I really believe Californians are stupid, and that they cannot read. Most voters were confused and misread the intent of the ballot, and are kicking themselves right about NOW!
Strictly speaking "marriage" is a religious institution that's been been propagated by the Christian church. In other cultures, marriage also exists but it just isn't called "Marriage". If the issue is the right and benefits that marriage gives, can't there just be a legal union in which all those right and benefits are also bestowed??? I know this isn't perfect, but the Church is not going to recognise gay/lesbian marriages, not now or ever... As long as we keeping saying gays and lesbian should have the right to "marry" (which they do) we're just going to keep beating our heads against the wall of the church, and as was seen in Prop 8, the church, in that case the Mormons, had a wall made of a hell of lot of cash...
What I would like to see is someone make the case that the current definition of marriage in the US is so tied in with religious definitions that it violates the principle of separation of church and state... and take that to the Supreme Court... Here's hoping...
Maybe the government should stop issuing marriage licenses, then. Strictly speaking.
I could care less about gays. I do not know what all the fuss is about. Makes no differnce in my life what gay people do.
I think we have to get rid of the religious wing-nuts in this country. We need a proposition to ban religion.
You can believe in what you want, but don't tell me what to believe and do. And don't tell the gays what to believe or do either.
Hooo Haaaaa!
Gay marriage has been banned in California.
Wow!
Most of the money (over $75 million) to promote the law change came from the Knights of Columbus (Catholics) and the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).
Do you know what that means?
The pedophiles and the polygamists have beaten the gays!
As a Canadian, I am always amazed at the ignorance and bigotry of USers.
Please start building that wall along the 49th parallel.... Now!
Surely you realize you just made yourself out to be the thing you loath. Right?
Ignorant twat.
right?
eh!
I have no patience for bigotry. in any form.
Why do Mormons leave "Jesus Christ" out of their LDS acronym? Probably because their religion has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, and everything to do with their pedophile polygamist prophet Joseph Smith who married girls as young as 14.
And why do Mormons spend 20 million on Prop 8 and do NOTHING to stop polygamists in Utah who practice tyranny over women and children and receive tens of millions annually in taxpayer handouts?
Watch the video at: http://www.bankingonheaven.com
**It's ironic that Prop 8 supporter Ahmanson has Tourette's Syndrome, a common affliction among FLDS polygamists in Hildale, Utah.
**There are 50-100,000 polygamists in the Utah region.
**Utah polygamists are EXPANDING into Texas, South Dakota, Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, and New Mexico.
**Polygamists breed 5-7 times faster than the national average. In 1953 there were less than 300 members in the FLDS cult - today 10,000. The FLDS only represent 15% of Mormon polygamists. Do the math.
**Nearly 200 countries support the United Nation's ban on polygamy because of the human rights violations. Male to female birthrates are 50-50, globally.
ORGANIZE !!! ORGANIZE !!! The AXIS OF EVIL is behind Utah's ZION CURTAIN.
This outcome was disappointing. America needs to recognize that gays are not 98% citizens - they are 100% citizens, entitled to all the legal benefits and protections that heterosexuals enjoy.
I do not understand. No one is forcing anyone to be gay or to marry a gay person. I know I should be somehow able to empathize with the views of pro prop 8 people but I can not. I do not understand the stake they seem to have. One should never underestimate their conviction that banning gay marriage is not only a good thing but a moral imperative.
What I don't respect is intrusive -religious beliefs that use various "in-your-face" methods to shove their religion on others.
Why can't some people keep their religion to themselves? Instead of shoving it on others faces??? I'll respect their beliefs if they can respect my religion and my spiritual beliefs as well, they could be Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Atheist, ETC....
I can find passage after passage that argued for social justice and treating each other with love and compassion.
"Christian" politicos were putting out laws to promote these kinds of things, I would happily get behind it....
Instead, they push laws that promote bigotry and keeping certain classes from being equal. They promote ignorance and conformity.
Meanwhile they actively oppose the true moral positions evident in their own teachings.....like love thy neighbor!!
People can't afford health insurance??? People are drowning in debt? Losing their homes? Their jobs?
Why is this even on the ballot?
I don`t get it--I just don`t get it--??????
So little regard for the Constitution.
... you will see how quickly they stop meddling with the constitution.
Money is the only think these "religious" buffoons understand. Want to mix their church with our state? Then they should start paying up for their share of the state douchebags!
... is that homosexual californians, as tax payers, will have to pay for the enforcement of the removal of their own rights. All done at the behest of a set of organizations which won't have to pay a single dime of the enforcement effort, due to their tax exception status.
First, I am liberal (still refuse to use an adjective as a noun, I don't know WTF "a liberal" is and the term makes no sense, however, I am very, very liberal). I am pretty much right down the line in agreement with every progressive position. With reason. I am not for outlawing guns, and I enjoy going shooting, however banning Tec-9s and AKs seems like simple common sense. Stuff like that.
I believe that every American should have the right of every other American. Period. That simple. If someone wants to specify "Bob" versus "Bobette" as their legal representative, than why in the world should they be disallowed to do this.
Let me restate: gays should have absolutely every legal right that everyone else in this country enjoys.
That being said, should they qualify for the condition of "marriage"? To me, this is utterly assinine.
If I am black and feel that whites have far more rights than I do and I feel that I should get those rights, do I wake up in the morning and declare myself "white"?!? No, and the notion does not make any sense at all. I wake up in the morning, start organizing, fighting, marching and struggling for my rights. I don't start a campaign to redefine the terms "black" and "white".
Yes, it is pretty anal. Yes, it is really kinda silly-grammar-technical. However, common sense (when you consider it) is really our acceptance of daily analness.
I will get out in the streets and march for gays to have the rights I have when it comes to my medical benefits. However, I will go out of my way each and every time to not redefine a term to make a particular group happy. I wouldn't change "black" to "animal" to appease the white supremacists. I wouldn't change "torture" to "enhanced interogation techniques" to appease the neo-cons. I would not change "punishment" to "reward" to confuse my children. I cannot think of a more assinine, and utterly folly, tactic than changing the definition of a word to make a group suddenly eligable for it. Silly. Pointless. And, it is just dumb and I have a strong aversion to dumb. Let's get gays their rights. Let's quit wasting time arguing about what "marriage" means...and perhaps the gays can give up one losing battle and take on a rightous one that is supported by the core of what we are.
My 2.5 cents...
There is and has been a word that translates as "marriage" in every language and in every culture since the dawn of time, and in each one of those cultures, it has had a different set of rules involved. In fact, the word "marriage" here and now means something different and has different rules governing it than here 50 years ago. Some cultures practiced polyginy, others polyandry. Some native american cultures allowed marriage between two men. Some have defined marriage as governed by matrilineal practices, others by patrilineal practices. We have relatively recently decided that here in this country, the word "marriage" will signify a legal relationship, sanctioned by the government, between two people who get to CHOOSE each other because they love each other. There is no more selling off your daughter to whomever can come up with 60 cows in trade. There is no dowry. There is no religious, ethnic, or virginity test for the state to recognize unions as "marriage".
Your argument rests on the assumption that there is something in the word "marriage" that is unchanging. This assumption is demonstrably incorrect. Sure, there are domestic partnerships, etc, and we can all imagine a world in which there is some sort of domestic partnership that fully conferred equal rights to marriage. We have a word for that, already in the legal system in fact. That word is "marriage".
Thank you.
It's apparent the great majority of opponents to gay marriage base their opposition on their religious convictions (or indoctrination) whether they understand it or not. I'm more convinced now than ever that the Mormons are terrifed of the "stain" that afflicts them in their own congregation: their history of polygamy that continues in fringe sects and the unknown number of homosexuals (I would guess tens of thousands) who have or have yet to be excommunicated or disfellowshipped. Their monetary support of Prop 8 was basically a hush fund perhaps.
What continues to confuse me is why anyone who believes in the after-life can care so much about issues that essentially will mean nothing to them once they die based on their beliefs. My only guess is that their faith isn't so solid, thus they cling to worldly matters and succumb to base human behavior.
And to think my friends in SF laughed at me when I told them I was moving back to the midwest.
Sure, Obama didn't carry Missouri (damn you, boot heel!), but then again, Missourians don't have an over-inflated view of themselves. All the time I lived in CA, all I ever heard was how it was "a liberal paradise" or the proverbial land of milk and honey. And I'll say now what I said then: it's complete, total bullshit. The state that gave the world Ronald Reagan now shoots itself in the foot once again and bans gay marriage, something that has ZERO affect on any heterosexual's daily life.
Earthquakes, mudslides, fires, Arnold Schwarzenegger... CA deserves them all.
For Leaving.
We need warriors and heroes anyway.
I'm a disabled veteran. What kind of "hero" are you?
If it doesn't affect you personally, it doesn't count, does it? That's pretty disgusting. Who cares about equality when there are other things to think about? That's really the worst argument ever. We all have the ability to care about more than one thing at a time. And if human and civil rights aren't on your list of things to think about, then you really don't belong here on a progressive blog. You're allowed here, sure, but generally progressives and liberals (or whatever other label you want to give) do give a shit about human rights. This particular post is about human rights, and if you're bored with that little, insignificant issue, I hope you don't consider yourself a progressive.
Login or Register to post comments.