California: Yes on Obama, No on Equal Rights

California is deep, dark blue. Barack Obama will win our state by double digits because we live in a relatively progressive state.

But, for the first time in American or California history, men and women will lose their civil rights.

Sounds like a sick joke, right? Well, I stopped laughing a while ago. If the Sarah Palin "no on abortions, even in cases of rape and incest" movement gets its way with Proposition 4 -- an initiative on the November ballot -- California's constitution will force minors to receive the permission of their parents prior to getting an abortion. That might sound normal and reasonable to a lot of people. But it's actually insidious and outrageous when you take a closer look.

Imagine a dysfunctional family in which a young woman is abused by her father. Imagine then that she becomes pregnant. If this law passes, she would be legally unable to abort the pregnancy unless her father or mother gives her permission. Now what do you suppose they would say? She would dare not ask. What about a teenage girl who is raped or makes a mistake with a boy? If this passes, the constitution demands that she get her parents' permission to abort the pregnancy, regardless of what a medical professional says.

Don't think Prop 4 will pass in California? Think again. The most recent Field Poll shows Prop 4 leading by a margin of 8 points with a month to go.

Last Saturday, the Courage Campaign paid to fly a banner on an airplane over the stadium where Sarah Palin spoke in Carson, California. The crowd of 10,000 or more was rapturous in its support for Palin. Fortunately, their votes for her ticket will not matter here in California, but their votes for Prop. 4 could well kill young women.

But there's more. The law of the land in California provides for equal protection for all citizens. Sounds pretty basic, an American precept, right?

Well, the right wing, backed by the same folks who hoot and holler for Ms. Palin, have placed Prop 8 on the ballot, which would make same sex couples second class citizens by eliminating their right to marry. And it's now favored to pass, with two recent polls showing it leading by 4-5 points. While we all justifiably and necessarily focus on federal races from the presidency on down, apartheid be the new law.

That's why the Courage Campaign, together with our comedic friends at Public Service Administration, led by Andy Cobb, produced the video "Gender Auditors" to demonstrate the twisted nature of this proposed constitutional amendment.

While John McCain and Sarah Palin and George W. Bush talk about less government, they are creating the most expensive government in history. They talk about the rights of the individual, while trampling those, whether by illegal electronic surveillance, denial of habeas corpus, mandating government control over women's bodies or deciding which loving couples may have state sanction of their union. In short the right wing has truly gone mad. There is neither rhyme nor reason to their actions. They invoke God to tell the state what it may or may not do, even though Prop. 8 has no affect whatsoever on the sanctification of marriage within their churches. They decide that; the government stays out.

Californians have poured tens of millions of dollars into the presidential and other federal races. That's as it should be. We export political capital to help where needed. But California suffers for lack of attention to itself. If these initiatives pass, the nation will be set back for years and a clear message will be delivered: even while an Obama Administration works to restore order and calm to the nation and the world, down below the radar, state by state, hate-filled law by hate-filled law, the right-wing gets its way. If they win this one, we will have set them up to organize for congressional and senatorial races in 2010, using the same divisive issues to gain traction. And we set them up to take their venomous show on the road, state by state.

Californians and patriots across the country must now help assure that progress comes to this state as we usher in a new era in Washington. We need to end government run by religion and end modern apartheid. It's time to clear the way for a clean slate for President Obama and a strong Democratic congress by defeating their ballot box bigotry.

Go to CourageCampaign.org/NoOnProp8 and just say No.

Comments

[goldcoastsailor]

Two of these little white shirt and tie mormon creeps come up to me the other day and start in with their "do you know jesus?" crap. I moved to California 35 years ago to get away these freaks and now they are everywhere. We shouldn't allow outside money and influence in our state elections. I told these little morons that they really need to grow up or go back to Utah. What I always loved about California is the glorious freedom that we have or at least had here, but I guess they just hate our freedoms.

[curocat]

Here is an interesting thought, the right to life believes that birth begins at conception and that the fetus has rights under the equal protection clause, well, if a foreign woman legal or other wise stays in the US and gets pregnant, then the unborn child would have to be taken care of be the US would it not???? So with many foreign women that visit the US can claim they got pregnant here, we would have to bare the cost...

[sjmaureen]

Unbelievable. As a resident I am really surprized. Prop 8 is now indanger of winning too. They just can't raise enough to fight the way the Mormon and Catholic churches are. Brad Pitt implored Hollywood to give a little...I can't stand that this is happening here. As the mom of a very fine gay young man (who happens to be a community organizer) I just can't stand the thought of the broken heart he will have on Nov.5th if 8 passes... and god help the girls who will have to grow through hell with prop 4.

[Indigo girl]

State by state, indeed! It happened in Florida recently. Deplorable - it's a woman's decision PERIOD, i don't care how old she is. If she's old enough to get pregnant, she's old enough to determine whether she wants to carry a baby or have a childhood. Parents should not force their beliefs onto their children. In an ideal world, every pregnant minor would sit down and discuss this topic with ration, thoughtful parents but that's not always an option.

[John R]

Regarding prop 4, I think it is ill-conceived and should be defeated.

However, I would go along with a law or proposition that says that either the parents are to be notified, or the girl needs to complete 2-4 week of counseling before the abortion teaching about alternatives as well as emotional and physical effects of abortion, birth control to prevent future unwanted pregancies, plus everyting needed to help eliviate the effects of an abortion.

In any case, there should be a 1-2 week waiting period with required counseling before any abortion, no matter if it is for minors or not.


Proposition 8 is just wrong for any number of reasons. The only way I would support it was if it said someting like:

"Human beings may enter into civil unions. Civil unions are the only unions of human beings recognized by the state of California. They are a legal contract bestowing the same set of privileges, protections, rights and obligations to anyone entering into them."

"Marriage is a religious expression of a union between human beings, the terms, conditions and constraints of which may be defined solely by a religious entity recognizing that union. No legal privileges, protections, rights and obligations result from this union."

BTW, many countries, particularly in Europe, have this same construct, e.g. if you want to get married in church, you actually have to enter into a civil union as well, which is done in a separate ceremony.

[vegas9999]

Unbelievable. Your worried about something happening that is almost impossible but as your state goes deeper and deeper in dept, looking for a bailout, you do not mention that little problem.

[MsMeryMac]

Oddly, California has defeated parental notification initiatives in the past. Thankfully, most propositions are defeated. (This year number 2, which has to do with humane treatment of animals meant for human consumption, may be the only one I'm voting for.) Seriously, you can't write discrimination into a constitution! If you have to do that because as a law it would be unconstitutional, that should send off warning signs.

[devdil]

I am a staunch democrat.
I am voting for prop 8. Why? because I dont want the polygamists to add to the chorus of redifining marriage. Legitimizing gay marriage opens up a while can of worms which is why even those of us who support gay rights, are opposing gay marriage (including Obama and biden).
And I would add that its precisely these ultra liberal crowds with their own agendas who have dragged the Democratic party away from the center and cause us to repeatedly lose elections. Indeed, it took a bloodbath in wall street for the numbers to finally move Obama's way. Democrats --in their need to appear "open-minded" have always obsessed with fringe issues while shying away from more traditional cultural and social issues that most of America is in alignment with (such as family and faith). Obama is the first democrat running for president who is openly talking about these more "mainstream" social issues, and I hope its a strategy that continues in the future. Otherwise, he will land up like Clinton who lost a lot of goodwill by lunging back to the extremes on clutural issues.

[Dash Riprock]

Why do you care whether gays marry or polygamists have 20 spouses? What's that got to do with anything?

[Twopennygal]

You do NOT support gay rights. How dare you say that. As long as you think we are second class citizens by denying us the right to marry who we love, you cannot say you "suport gay rights." You have no idea how hateful it is to be told over and over by people like you who "tollerate" us that you support our rights but you don't think we should get married. Shame on you!!!!

[gellio]

You see - you are so closeminded that is is absurd. How the heck is legalizing gay marriage going to legalize polygamy? Please, make the connection for me. You can't. It's the same old ridiculous arguments. It's bigotry. Obama and Biden may say they oppose gay marriage (they have to because if the don't they will lose the election), but they both want gay couples to have the same rights as straight married couples. That's all we want. Educate yourself on how many rights gay couples aren't afforded before you choose to descriminate against us. Please.

Faith has no place in government. Religion is between the believer and his/her God. Religion has no right to dictate or decide government policy. If find it so surprising that my fellow Christians are some of the most bigoted people out there. It really challenges my faith to the highest extent.

[carsntrucks]

The poster isn't saying one will automatically legalize the other. The point is, you can't legalize gay marriage on the premise that it's about equal rights, even though gay marriage is a divergence of traditional marriage...THEN turn around and deny polygamists the rights of marriage on the same premise you're petitioning to be ignored.

It's disingenuous to act as if not legitimizing gay marriage is a threat to equal rights/civil rights/equality/tolerance/acceptance/whatever...when your way would invariably be unequal and intolerance and not accepting of another minority group as well. So breaking down one border of marriage would invariably lead to having to break down another, to having to break down another, and another, all in the attempt of being fair and equal.

Somehow, I doubt gay rights advocates are ready for that.

[WildElf]

If you support gay rights then support gay rights. There is no loophole that allows anything else beyond gay marriage.

Try this instead: In the extremely unlikely event that polygamy comes up to a vote for legalization, vote against that.

It sounds like you are voting against gay rights because of your opposition to an extremely unlikely event.

[Marco]

That's a pretty slippery slope ("I don't want the polygamists to add to the chorus of redifining (sic) marriage.") for you to betray gay and lesbian people that you claim to support. Calling us a "fringe issue"?

Read some of the history of the uproar against "redefining marriage" when women were no longer considered property and wanted to be free to choose to whom they would get married. And I really don't need to bring up the interracial marriage thing, do I? Marriage is about two people who love on another - not about procreation - otherwise, my Dad wouldn't have been able to marry his girlfriend two years ago as they're far too old to be making any babies. And what about folks who cannot conceieve? I don't understand this blind commitment to reserving marriage only for a couple where one individual has an "outie" and the other has an "innie". The bottom line is love, not gender nor sex.

Same-sex marriage is already available in California. Passing Proposition 8 will not nullify those existing marriages - it will only prevent future marriages from being performed. This inequity will instead result in numerous (justified) lawsuits which will further screw up our great state's economy. And for what?

Supporters of Proposition 8 simply hate California. And the fact that the bulk of the monies supporting this amendment come from out of state further solidifies that belief for me.

[DCinFrance]

I am an Obama supporter as well.

Though I don't think my permission should be required, I demand to be informed. What? For the handful of incest to pregnancy cases I--and all the rest of decent parents everywhere--should not be involved with the health--physically and emotionally--of my own child?? She is my child! A minor, and that makes me not only legally responsible for her, but responsible to raise her to be a responsible and productive member of this society.

[MsMeryMac]

Most minors do tell at least one parent or guardian about a pregnancy ending in abortion. If you're a good parent, your child will trust you enough to come to you with this information and work out a solution. Basically, you can't legislate good communication between parents and children. That's an entirely separate issue. Prop 4 is yet another way for neocons to chip away at women's rights.

[detriangulation]

Obviously, there must be exceptions to mandatory parental consent for a minor's abortion if the parent himself abused or actually raped and impregnated the daughter. Such a minor would be placed in state custody and then have the choice whether to abort. Ideally, such a decision would be best left to new adoptive parents, but adoption takes far too long for such new parents to make the decision within the first trimester.

In principle, however, parental consent is sound. Lest we forget, this isn't about a "government control of women's bodies"---it's about parental control of girl's bodies. Minors are obviously not entitled to all the same Constitutional protections provided to adult citizens (esp. in terms of First Amendment). Parents decide what their children shall read, watch, what will be censored, how they spend their time, how they're to be punished (outside of abuse), and they most certainly should--in principle--have the fullest control possible over their daughter's bodies. Minors are not capable of making an abortion decision on their own. The parents may decide that possible mental anguish over having an abortion outweighs the anguish involved in bringing the child to term. That's fundamentally the parents' decision, period.

[exxman]

You are assuming the parents have the mental and emotional maturity to make these decisions. That is not always the case.The bottom line is, this is a neocon chipping away of a woman's right to choose little by little until all her rights are gone.

Proposition 8 is purely fear based bigotry, nothing more, nothing less.

[BettyWashington]

You say, "it's about parental control of girl's bodies. Minors are obviously not entitled to the same Constitutional protections..."

Do you think, in principle, that you should have the right to force your daughter to have an abortion?

[slaxx]

there's a difference between saying something "should" be a certain way and legislating it.

"Minors are obviously not entitled to all the same Constitutional protections provided to adult citizens (esp. in terms of First Amendment). Parents decide what their children shall read, watch, what will be censored, how they spend their time, how they're to be punished (outside of abuse), and they most certainly should--in principle--have the fullest control possible over their daughter's bodies."

really? sorry, but adults do not have more rights than children, especially with regard to the first amendment. and what abpout their son's bodies or actions? should boys be required to tell their parents if they get a girl pregnant? what's the point of this legislation other than to promote illegal abortions? and how do you ensure parental notification? girls will find a way around it and it will involve putting themselves in greater danger. that, or forced pregnancy and delivery, which can be more traumatic than an abortion.

[Quaoar]

What if the life of the daughter were in question? Would you support the right of parents to force their daughter to give birth even in a situation where there was a good chance that the daughter could die?

[AdamX]

I will vote for Obama.

I will vote to make sure my daughter MUST involve me in ANY decisions regarding her health. She is a MINOR, and I am responsible for her well being. If a girl is being raped by her father, she should press charges. The courts should give her an abortion option outside the scope of parental permission.

In the meantime, I am not a rapist, and I INSIST that I maintain the role of legal guardian and parent, even when the girl is pregnant.

Next, I am not against gay folks having a committed relationship in which they dervive the same benefits as any other couple EXCEPT they do not get to call it marriage. Nope - because that is NOT what it is. They should pick a new word - how about gayriage? Have sex with and love whom you please. Derive all couple benefits. Don't call it marriage.

So, I live in California, and that's how I'm voting.

[bergersworth]

I feel the same way as AdamX, but I also wonder why the LGBT community cares so much about the word marriage. It seems like a fundamentally religious term and faithful religious people often posit that families are the fundamental societal unit. Same sex couples can't reproduce and need to adopt in order to create families. This is fine, but doesn't seem to fit the traditional definition of "marriage".

[gellio]

It's not that we (the LGBT community) care about the word "marriage" - we care about having equal rights and equal benefits that straight married couples have. Civil Unions do not cut it. Personally, I think the term "marriage" should be stricken from all government, and all unions should be referred to as Civil Unions, with equal benefits for all. Marriage is a religious term, and religion has no place in government. I think those of you, who oppose gay marriage, need to focus your attention on fixing heterosexual marriages rather than denying equal rights to a large class of people. I hope Prop 8 fails - in short, I just don't see how two gay people getting married impacts any straight marriages or society at all - of course, I know people believe the unbelievable lies on the part of the proponents of Prop 8.

[exxman]

Why are you so hung up on a word? The word is not the thing to which it refers. The word is merely a sign post pointing toward a thing. It doesn't matter if you call it "tulip" or "parsnip'. The point is every American deserves to have the same basic human rights. The Bill of Rights defines those as "Life, Liberty and the puruit of Happiness." Few would argue that the right to marriage (or parsnip if you prefer) is included in that definition.

[erinker]

Infertile straight couples can't produce children either. Do they still get to call it "marriage"?

[slaxx]

the reason gays want "marriage and not "civil unions" is because civil unions have been found to be unequal ("seperate" and "unequal" to marriage). this is happening in new jersey with their civil unions laws. most laws contain the word "spouse" and as such, can't /haven't been applied to gay couples (look at civil unions in NJ for more detail on what thsi means). gays would be fine with "civil unions" if they weren't seperate and unequal. personally, i think that we all (straight and gay) should only get "civil unions" (though they should have the same rights as "marriage" did) from the state (currently, heteros cannot get a civil union) and marriage should only be a religious ceremony, with no civil consequences.

it"s ILLEGAL for the governemnt to only afford civil rights (tax and legal benefits, such as social secuity, health ins., etc.) to people based on a religious ceremony that is only open to certain people. when the government deciding to give special rights and protections to married couples, "marriage" was no longer a religious institution, but a civil one, and as such, it HAS to be open to everybody. it's a matter of law and fairness.

[gellio]

Adam, your response is over-simplified. I have no doubt you are a great parent - many people out there are. But, many parents out there are not. A lot of children are abused - mentally, emotionally and physically. We have to protect our children from abuse. There are some young women whom would be abused if their parents found out they are pregnant. I am seeiking to protect them, and I will be voting NO on Prop 4.

[MsMeryMac]

If a girl is too scared to tell her parents, what makes you think she'll go to a court of law to get an injunction for an abortion OR to press charges against a rapist? The most likely scenario is she will go to an illegal abortion provider, possibly over the border. Women DO die from that. Number of underage girls in California who have died from a legal abortion in the past 25+ years? 0. Please, if you want to keep young women safe, consider this. It's not about autonomy or lack of parental communication (which you can't legislate anyway). It's about treating half our population as real, equal human beings.

[slaxx]

so how will gays getting married effect you? that's right - it doesn't.

i'm tired of people legislating their beliefs where there's no benefit to others or society. and even though most parents would want to know what their daughter's doing, that's not something that should be legislated. they shouldn't be legislating communication within families. another poster was right - girls who don't want to tell their parents will just go across the border, where they'll be putting their health and lives in danger.

[anney]

Since teenagers don't ask their parents for permission to get pregnant, why should they need parental approval to get abortions?

More seriously, a better solution is to for the State to provide some unbiased counselling about what all the choices entail and then let the girl make her own choice. Seeking her parents' advice could well be one of the choices. But in many cases, it won't be -- there is too much parental abuse of children already, and this just opens the door to even more in unhealthy parent-child relationships.

[HHarvey]

The yes on prop 8 called me and basically tried to push poll me. It was ridiculous. Basically props 4,6,8, and 9 were all petitioned by the same people. They sat outside the grocery store here in my town earlier this year trying to thinly veil the prop 4 and 8 positions by mixing it up with props that looked like icing on a cake. I am voting NO on all there propositions. I hope most voters in California understand that when you sign things you better think really carefully. I would also like to mention something that has not been talked about by Prop 8 opponents and that is not ALL gay people want to be married, but this is more about acceptance. No on all these props!

[JohnBryansFontaine]

Mr. Jacobs:

Respectfully, sir, Gay Marriage is viewed by the vast majority of this nation, as well as by most Democrats, as cultural elitism. If you and other G.M. advocates want a party that supports your position, try the Green Party.

We Democrats realize that countering the fat cats on Wall Street, passing the Employee Free Choice Act, supporting a national health care policy, as well as electing Obama President are the issues that truely need our attention. This is why Obama and Biden refuse the cave in to the cultural elitists and why they oppose Gay Marriage.

[HHarvey]

Mr. BryansFontain, Obama and Biden do not approve of anti-gay marriage propositions. They do however on a personal note believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's there personal opinion of choice. However, I have heard Senator Biden say pointedly that although he does not approve of abortion and gay marriage given his religious philosophy he does not believe in telling others how to live their lives. That is what he stated and that is Obama's position too.

[gellio]

John,

You cited many of the problems we should be focusing on, and I agree with you. So why are you focused on the gay marriage issue? Why is anyone? Whether gay people have the right to marry or not will have no impact on your life what-so-ever. Denying anyone equal rights impacts only the group denied. It's just not fair. The Supreme Court Justices (3 of whom are Rep) did their jobs correctly. Writing descrimination into the state constitution is wrong.

The way I look at it, if Prop 8 passes, we will see an iniative to reverse it in 4 years. If that iniative fails, we will keep seeing initiatives on future ballots until it gets reversed. Like it or not, as time passes older bigots die, while younger more liberal people reach voting age. In 4 to 12 years the country is going to be a whole new place, and I can't wait.

[gellio]

How is wanting equal rights cultural elitism? That statement is absurd. Bottom line - everyong in this country deserves equal rights. Open your mind for God's sake!

[FearlessFreep]

Supporters of black civil rights faced similar criticism 40 years ago.

[carsntrucks]

Because an entire race of people being economically, socially, and culturally oppressed in every way imaginable not only by individuals but the state and federal government....and LGBT individuals extrapolating bigotry out of reticence to redefine an age-old institution to conform to their social ideals are the exact same thing.

Except they're not.

[kellygrrrl]

when two Klowns came to my door to talk to me about Prop 8, I said, "Oh, you're doing the Lord's work?"
they said, "Yes, ma'am."
I said, "Then maybe you should stop obsessing over the bedrooms of consenting adults and go help suffering humans."

I thought it went well

[rjmiller]

I think I love you.

[kellygrrrl]

:)

[slaxx]

me too.