CA Prop 8 Reeks of the Stench of Hate and Bigotry!

When did it become okay to discriminate? What country are we all living in anyway? I thought this was America, am I wrong?

Wake up folks before it's too late! This country was founded on the premise of separation of church & state. And why do you suppose that was? Because back in the day of our forefathers, (ya know, the dudes who fought and died for our freedoms) life under an oppressive British empire was more than they could take.

Living in a "my way or the highway" nation sucked! Dictation, Denial and Discrimination was the name of the game until our founding fathers decided that they'd had it!

"Let freedom ring!", they shouted. And a HUGE part of that freedom was of course separation of church and state. If you are truly an American, (and not some closeted fascist) you are part of the privileged few on the planet who get to live in a country that supports tolerance of diversity. Heck we celebrate it! We can be who we want to be, pray to whomever we choose to pray and live as equals regardless of gender, race, creed or sexual orientation.

To think that in this upcoming election there is actually a proposition to add an amendment to the California Constitution to legalize discrimination! Shame on us! This proposition is not about gay marriage; it's about hate, discrimination and intolerance of diversity. It is wholesale, unadulterated hate-mongering and it MUST be snuffed out in a dramatic fashion at once to illustrate to those behind it that in America we embrace the neighbor who might be different from us and are proud of it!

So to all you TRUE Americans, get out there and vote on November 4th, and let's reject hate.

Get all your friends, co-workers and relatives to vote too and make sure you vote NO on proposition 8.

Freedom Fighter,
Fran Drescher

Comments

[LollieDotCom]

If California had been papered with this before November 4th, Prop 8 would never have passed.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf

Mildred Loving's full statement about freedom to marry. Everyone should read it. If you don't cry when you read it, you're not a human being. Please use your favorite social sites to buzz it up.

There is only one cure for ignorance - and that's education.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf

[YWC2008]

@ MagisterLudi
Blacks don’t make up the majority in California, Latinos do, second only to whites so I wonder why concentration is being heaped on African Americans??????? If you’d taken the time to explore the black community you’d know that the culture has always had its issues with gays. Some in protest, some in agreement over civil rights; But it’s always curious to see how a person’s secret racism comes out. Could an Obama victory have anything to do with you blaming African Americans for the ban…………Even though the vote received the majority and there are two racial groups that are larger than blacks in California?????? I don’t see you concentrating on the Asian Vote either. Please explain.

[RationalDubSteppa]

Because it's true!! As a American with Caribbean roots I know for a fact that there is rampant homophobia within the black community and putting your head in the sand does not make it go away. Quite frankly it infuriates me beyond belief that after all my people have been through they can in turn be as hateful and bigoted as the very same people they were protesting against during the civil rights movement. The reason why everyone is concentrating on the African American vote is because it was so high!!! Over 7 out of 10 African Americans voted for prop 8, while asians where just shy of 5 out of 10. No one is picking on blacks so please don't make this a racial issue because it's not. And a little hint of maturity will let you know that blacks are not perfect we have our faults too and this is obviously one of them

[MagisterLudi]

The voters of California have spoken. And as Pew Poll predicted African Americans played a significant part in Prop 8 passage. Next subject.

[brandon102]

Since the religious are so in favor of removing rights, and are such effective lobbyists, I think it's time that we REPEAL TAX EXEMPT STATUS FOR RELIGION AND EVERYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

Now THAT'S something repellant and woth repealing.

[MagisterLudi]

Fine by me.

[RationalDubSteppa]

Agreed, if they want to influence public policy wither their bigoted policies then they have to pay taxes.

[equalground]

Over the years, I have come to realize that both sides of any public policy or law are willing to oppress once they have the power and authority to do so. After spending thrity years or more sympathetic to and willing to intervene against the oppressive reality toward sexual orientation, I am happy to realize my efforts have been successful. Unfortunately, the void of oppression has been filled quickly as we find ourselves being introduce to the new agents of oppression.

Your article like many others have convinced me to become active to defend the rights or those who differ with you and move across the aisle. Bigotry is the intolerance of another's creed, belief or opinion. Three of seven judges dissented for reasons other than hate mongering. I understand the three dissenting judges were not of common sexual orientation.

Despite the CA Supreme Court's conclusion that the same-sex minority is powerless in the political process, I am convinced a sufficient level of political power has been acheived to carry on without my sympathy or intervention. by way of comparison, I am always surprises when I hear from those of ethnicity that they acheived deliverence with no help from whites. I'll meet you in the middle when the struggle is over and we can work together to defeat the next new oppressor to emerge. Until then, you will find me looking after the rights of those you seem incapable of understanding. The suit of oppressor seems to fit well.

[SpinDown08]

Unfortunately, this vote stands in the middle between church and state. People have the right to choose their beliefs in this country and the state. This is why Prop 8 will win tomorrow because it falls on the majority belief system.

In California, the marriage licenses have been reprinted since the Supreme Court decision, replacing the bride and groom signatures with -Part A- and -Party B- (I know because I downloaded it from the ca.gov site). Sounds discriminatory to hetero marriage doesn't it? So it's OK to omit bride and groom from the marriage lexicon?

And if you're going to comeback with "Then they can have two separate marriage licenses" you have proven the argument that same sex marriage IS different.

Put two pictures up side by side of traditional marriage and gay marriage. If you see no difference, then vote NO. If you see a HAIR of difference, vote YES.

[barbwiregrrl]

In case you skipped civics class there is a seperation from Church and State in the USA.

Why is it discriminatory to heteros that there is party A and Party B? How exactly does that take away from your need to require that every marriage have a male and female anatomy?

You do realize that you are basing your entire argument on anatomy? Why is that so important to you to regulate?

I actually got married four days ago and my License says ""Bride" Bride" You can select Bride or Groom in any two combinations. But once again you love to pass on misinformation.

The hair of difference I see is that you are someone who thrives on involving the Church in the Governement....I finally get to say it....if you don't like our governement please feel free to leave...

Love it or leave it!

[RationalDubSteppa]

Congrats on your marriage. I wish you all the love and luck despite the rampant homophobia and bigotry exhibited on tuesday in California. Maybe some day we can all live together in a country where EVERYONE is truly equal!

[ZanScott49]

Prop. 8 isn't about a word, it's about people. I wonder if anyone who has such strong feelings against same sex marriage has ever truly thought about the people that this would affect. I work with a woman who married her girlfriend on the day that it became legal here in California. The rest of our team was overjoyed, this is a person we have come to know and respect (didn't give us too much time to buy a gift but we did it!). I absolutely can't imagine why this woman wouldn't be allowed to visit her partner in the hospital while I would be allowed to visit my husband. Why shouldn't she be allowed the same benefits and protections that I, a heterosexual married woman get? There is absolutely no good reason that comes to mind. These are our friends, relatives, neighbors and co-workers. They should have the same rights as the rest of us.

[MagisterLudi]

Hmmm... can you explain the difference in benefits and privileges ( if you can) between California registered partners and California married couple.

[ZanScott49]

I actually already explained one of them in my original post. If you'd like to read more, here it is. The health insurance question is anecdotal but still sheds some light on how people could be treated differently.

* Taxes. Couples in a civil union may file a joint state tax return, but they must file federal tax returns as single persons. One advantage for married couples is the ability to transfer assets and wealth without incurring tax penalties. Partners in a civil union aren't permitted to do that, and thus may be liable for estate and gift taxes on such transfers.
* Health insurance. The state-federal divide is even more complicated in this arena. In the wake of the Massachusetts high court ruling, the group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders put together a guide to spousal health care benefits. GLAD’s document is Massachuse­tts-specif­ic but provides insight into how health insurance laws would apply to those in a civil union in other states. In general, GLAD says, it comes down to what’s governed by state law and what’s subject to federal oversight. If a private employer’s health plans are subject to Massachusetts state insurance laws, benefits must be extended to a same-sex spouse. If the health plan is governed by federal law, the employer can choose whether or not to extend such benefits.

Why such a disturbance about same sex marriage? I don't understand why you care SO MUCH that couples who love each other use the M word.

[ZanScott49]

Here's one more for good measure:

* Social Security survivor benefits. If a spouse or divorced spouse dies, the survivor may have a right to Social Security payments based on the earnings of the married couple, rather than only the survivor’s earnings. Same-sex couples are not eligible for such benefits.

It's really sad that it's not enough to say that there is even a CHANCE that another human being would not be afforded the same rights as you. You asked me to basically prove to you what the difference would be. Why don't we err on the side of caution and MAKE SURE that we are all treated equally? Also, your own argument could be thrown right back at you. If there's no difference between marriage and a civil union, why shouldn't same sex couples be allowed to marry? Unbelievable.

[barbwiregrrl]

There are 1100 rights and responsibilities that seperate a domestic partnership from a marriage.

Why do you always insist on others doing your own research?

Here is a link to the 1100 rights and responsibilities denied same sex relationships.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

[cariintexas]

The religious righters are perfectly fine with " Common law marriages", { adulterers} Common law unions in many cases deprive children of their inheritances and destroy far more marriages.

[RationalDubSteppa]

Of course they are comfortable with it because it is inherently unconstitutional and ultimately is a form of soft bigotry. The supreme court Loving v. Virginia settled that though and Common Law Marriages are a way of instituting the Separate but Equal clause.

[cariintexas]

Where do the religious righters stand on " Common law marriages ". Those are far more harmful to marriages and childrens legal rights for inheritance than any same sex marriages. The rightwing recognizes and accepts that. Hypocrits.

[RationalDubSteppa]

Who cares!!! This issue DOES NOT MERIT COMPROMISE!! It's about equal rights whatever "Comman Law Marriages" are is akin to "Separate but Equal"

[Rooster54]

I don't have very strong feeling about same-sex marriage. If you don't like it, then don't do it. Who others love or get married to isn't my business. I voted against Prop. 8 because I strongly resent the idea of making the state constitution into a device for controlling people's private lives, when it's purpose is to define the powers and responsibilities of the state government. And I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state. Thank you, Fran Drescher, for your post.

[pinkcrickets]

Amen Rooster! I don't live in CA, but I find this whole thing infuriating. The government of any state, as well as the federal government, should not be wasting time legistlating who you can and can't sleep with. I completely FAIL to understand how someone else getting married, to the opposite or same sex, whatever, effects me at all. its between the two people making the commitment, and the government should keep their nose out of it and deal with the LONG list of things it SHOULD be legislating on.

[maxpenny]

There's a great new ad up on Towleroad that takes on Prop 8 from an unexpected (and very funny) angle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afa1miAHXVM

It's good to see Prop 8 linked to McCain, not just because he supports it (unlike Obama) but because it would be great if his unpopularity in California could help sink Prop 8 which is currently supported by too many Obama voters.

[rpr]

There's a great article in the LA Times on how the Prop 8 campaign deceives and misleads Californians.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-ed-prop8-2-2008nov02%2c0%2c3982860.story

Please spread it around. They show very well how the fear based arguments are red herrings. And they don't even bring up the ridiculous smears that link the people who are against Prop 8 with NAMBLA and other extreme fringe organizations.

The only valid reason for Prop 8 is "Because it's in the Bible." And we all know how that jibes with the Constitution.

[dotsthefunist]

" whats in it for you ? "

If not allowing others to have the rights you rationalize as " god given" does this make you feel closer to god ?

Quote and research what you want if it makes it easier than asking what is in it for you .

[abbeyroad]

sonofliberty1:

AGAIN:

WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY, NOT A THEOCRACY.

KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TO YOURSELF AND OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

the constitution MUST be respected. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

[MagisterLudi]

abbeyroad,

Great, so stop hyperventilating and let the democratic process take care of this issue.

[Meils]

I think we are about to see the reality of what Californians really are instead of what they pretend to be on the surface. I am a CA resident and I can tell you, these people are the same as they are in rural Kansas, they just
are politically correct on the surface...we can see it in a lot of the statements on this post. They don't really believe in the concept of Justice, because to their convenient belief system,
"Justice is whatever I say it is and I have the power," that is contrary to the American system of Justice and all Western Democracies since the Middle Ages. Martin Luther King wrote specifically on this in "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," "....Any law that uplifts the human personality is just, any law that degrades the human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages
the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority...
An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to ovey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority group compels a minority group to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal."