When Should Gay Marriage Advocates Try to Reverse California's Prop 8?
Whether we like it or not, gay marriage opponents had a devastatingly effective advertising campaign in California.
When should Californians try to reverse last November's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage? That's the question on tap this week, and for awhile going forward.
While Barack Obama won a 61% to 37% victory in California last November, the Prop 8 amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage also passed, 52% to 48%. It was a striking rebuke to pro-gay rights forces, who had just won the right in a notable California Supreme Court decision, and seemed poised to hold it in the election.
This week, a few organizations championing same-sex marriage will announce their opinions as to to whether to try to reverse Prop 8 in 2010 or 2012. In order to place an initiative on the November 2010 ballot, initiative language must be submitted to California Attorney General Jerry Brown by September 25th. Equality California and Courage Campaign will announce their decisions this week. This won't end the process, of course, as key funding decisions are yet to be made.
So, the question for human rights advocates is, when best to try again, the seeming slam dunk of 2008 having been screwed up in various ways.
California's same-sex marriage advocates have heard from their pollsters, they've heard from selected political consultants, and they've heard from activists. Now they need to decide whether to try to reverse Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment adopted last November, in 2010 or in 2012.
The pollsters said that 2012 would be a better option. The political consultants said that 2012 would be a better option. The activist leaders prefer 2010.
If there is to be an initiative to bring back the right to same-sex marriage -- established by the California Supreme Court last year and overturned by California voters last November -- ballot language is due by September 25th.
Here are some points to consider.
**The Polling
Gay marriage advocates -- and please excuse this sympathetic straight guy for using the short form rather than the full, and politically correct, LGBT language -- commissioned a poll on this point. Which was conducted before the Republican majority California Supreme Court, which had granted the right in the first place, predictably upheld Prop 8 last spring. Predictably because most gay rights advocates had sued on the technical basis that Prop 8 constituted a fundamental revision of the California Constitution rather than an amendment. Ignoring the fact that the Prop 13 property tax amendment was actually was actually far more far-reaching.
On June 3rd, I went on a media conference call sponsored by same-sex marriage proponents. Pollsters Amy Simon and David Binder discussed their poll, which indicated that the opponents of same-sex marriage have an eyelash thin one to two-point edge over proponents among all California voters. Not unlike other polling before the passage of the gay marriage ban.
The advocates' pollsters read is that 2012 is a marginally better year in which to do a gay marriage initiative than 2010, due to higher turnout of more Democratic voters in a presidential election. They're less pronounced, however, in the view that 2012 is preferable to 2010 than are the two leading public pollsters remaining in the state: Field Poll director Mark di Camillo and Public Policy Institute of California poll director Mark Baldassare.
There is a sort of inexorable quality to this. As time passes, the opponents of gay marriage increasingly pass away.
Nothwithstanding what their pollsters, or any others, think, the impression I got from the groups represented on the call before I had to move on to the next task is that they intend to move ahead on a same-sex marriage initiative for 2010. And are planning public events promoting same-sex marriage in dozens of cities.
**The Political Consultants Gay marriage advocates Equality California asked a selected panel of supportive California political consultants which year is best to reverse Prop 8, 2010 or 2012. The unanimous view? 2012.
Former Los Angeles Times pollster Jill Darling said: "Did the 2008 campaign move voters? Are the post-elections efforts having any effect? Nothing measurable."
Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman, named campaign manager of the year by the American Association of Political Consultants for defeating Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2005 special election initiatives, notes that an initiative for November 2010 needs to be submitted to the Attorney General by the end of September. "Has the perfect initiative been drafted? Is everyone who should be consulted on the legal language, not to mention whatever nuances we want to add, signed off? Is the campaign structure in place to sustain the process that goes along with the beginning stages of an initiative campaign?
"I pose these questions because I think I know the answer. And I think the answer is 'No,'" Kaufman said.
This late ad by Samuel L. Jackson casting opposition to gay marriage in a long line of anti-civil rights moves was too little to counter problems with the Latino and African American communities.
**The Activist Groups Older, more established groups are more skeptical of the idea of going right away back to the ballot. Others, are more into it. Of course, action equals funding in the world of activist politics.
Constant campaigning equals constant mobilization equals constant funding.
A gathering of activist group leaders last month in San Bernardino showed most in favor of going to the ballot in 2010. 93 voted to go in 2010, with 49 in favor of 2012, and 20 undecided.
** The Initiative Dynamic. California voters have dealt with hundreds of initiatives over the past several decades. The dynamic has become well established.
It is much easier to defeat an initiative than to pass one.
This is why 2008 was such a gigantic missed opportunity for the gay rights movement.
Former Governor-turned-Attorney General Jerry Brown provided the appropriate frame for the initiative, casting it in ballot language as taking away a right. Which infuriated the far right forces behind the initiative. But which was entirely accurate, given the fact that a Republican majority state Supreme Court had just granted the right.
And so the No on 8 side had a good lead in the polls starting out last year.
However, the obvious frame for the election proceeded to be completely blown by the No on 8 campaign until the last few weeks. First by a campaign which emphasized a sort of "getting-to-know-us" theme and, ultimately, by mistakes made by gay marriage proponent Gavin Newsom.
Same-sex marriage stalled out earlier this year in liberal New York, after a much-ballyhooed introduction.
**The Overall Environment Today's California political environment is dominated by the sharp economic downturn and by a closely aligned reality, namely California's chronic-turned-chaotic budget crisis. In this context of ongoing economic, financial, and fiscal emergency, gay marriage is not a top-rung issue for most Californians.
As a wild card indicator, there is the relative failure of the movie, Bruno. Some gay rights advocates saw it as a leading edge into the culture. Others worried that it was an unnecessary stereotyping of gay culture. I noted that its sharp fall-off after its opening day was no surprise, given its aggressively in-your-face nature. Putting aside the longer analysis of the movie, which I provided here on the Huffington Post, a relevant fact is that it will end up less than half as popular as Sacha Baron Cohen's previous provocation, the 2006 hit Borat.
And as a fine a movie as Milk is -- with its Best Actor Oscar for Sean Penn for his great portrayal of the intriguing Harvey Milk, with whom I was acquainted, and Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for former colleague Josh Brolin for his great portrayal of Milk assassin Dan White -- the movie makes Bulworth look like a blockbuster.
A same-sex marriage ceremony at San Francisco City Hall a few weeks before the election, presided over by Mayor Gavin Newsom, with first graders in attendance, effectively countered Prop 8 opponents' arguments that the schools were being raised as a scare tactic.
**The Newsom Factor San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom catapulted himself into a role as chief proponent of gay marriage with his swiftly overturned declaration in 2004 that same-sex marriage was legal in San Francisco. When the California Supreme Court declared it a right in 2008, Newsom promptly made himself the inadvertent star of the Yes on 8 TV ads with his notorious, braying declaration that gay marriage is inevitable in America, "Whether you like it or not."
Which is, probably, true, in the long run. Not that you want to say it as Newsom did. Because few things are inevitable in politics. And anything can be lost with enough arrogance and stupidity.
Later, with the No on 8 side's lead declining, Newsom presided over a lesbian wedding at San Francisco City Hall. Which first graders in one of the newlywed's classes attended. This provided endless ammunition for gay marriage opponents, who had been struggling to prove their contention that the right to same-sex marriage means that the gay lifestyle will be promoted in the public schools.
Newsom is trying to run for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2010. He's not doing well. He's just had major blow-ups in both his political and City Hall operations, and has less than one-eighth the campaign funds available to spend that frontrunner Jerry Brown has.
Nevertheless, his prominent role, at least for now, in the politics of 2010 places him front and center in the debate over the repeal of Prop 8. Given his record of boneheaded moves, gay marriage opponents are happy about this.
**The History The right to same-sex marriage will, in the end, win out. It's the getting there that is messy. And it need not have been as messy as the passage of Prop 8, and its expected upholding last spring by the California Supreme Court, has made it. (Fortunately, the 18,000 same-sex marriages legally carried out under the short-lived law will stand.)
Ironically, it was this very court that granted the right of same-sex marriage just last year.
Overturning an earlier anti-gay marriage initiative, Chief Justice Ron George, a Republican, wrote in his majority opinion: "An individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon an individual's sexual orientation. ... An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis to deny or withhold legal rights."
The state Supreme Court's decision fueled a right-wing drive to enshrine opposition to same-sex marriage in California's constitution.
Gay marriage opponents got a huge gift immediately from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's comments. Newsom had enraged top national Democrats, including Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, by unilaterally declaring same-sex marriage lawful in San Francisco in the midst of the 2004 presidential race. Though it was a move that was predictably easily overturned, national Republican strategists credited the furor it caused with playing a propulsive role in turning out huge numbers of fundamentalist voters in Ohio, the lynchpin of George W. Bush's 2004 re-election.
In the spring of 2008, Newsom delighted the proponents of what became Proposition 8 by delivering a gloating set of remarks.
"By the way, as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation," he said. "It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's gonna happen. Whether you like it or not. This is the future. And it's now."
The foolish remarks helped galvanize religious conservatives around the country, and they poured millions into the California campaign. It also formed the cornerstone for the Yes on 8 ad campaign.
A few weeks before the election, with opponents of Prop 8 fighting back against distracting assertions that the right to same-sex marriage means that "homosexuality" will be promoted in the public schools, Newsom presided over the same-sex wedding of a first grade teacher at San Francisco City Hall. 18 of her students were on hand to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just married teacher and her new wife.
The Yes on 8 forces had a field day with this, successfully pushing back against new No on 8 ads. And what seemed like the likely defeat of Prop 8 turned into a 52% to 48% victory.
And so the question remains: When best to try to roll back the ultimate failure of 2008? In 2010 or in 2012?
The emotional answer is clearly the former. The more measured answer the latter. But politics frequently turns, for better or worse, on emotion.
You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Below i have listed ALL of the animals IN NATURE who practice homosexuality, an argument against its “unnaturalness”. what is really unnatural in this country is stupid redneck bumpkins who don’t know their facts. 1st, the bible was assembled 400-800 years after the death of christ, BY COMMITTEE as a resource to control chaos. It was just early politics, nothing more. 2nd, if EVERYTHING in the bible is to be interpreted literally then anyone with zits better stay away from your churches alter or GOD will smite you, and don’t forget to stone your wife in the village square because she had an opinion.
Homo animals who couldnt care less about the bible, how come god didnt send them the MEMO???. IF YOU EAT A GAY CHICKEN ARE YOU A HOMO??? If your cat loves Puss is it wrong??? FOOD for thought billy bob….
African Elephant
Brown Bear
* Brown Rat
* Buffalo
* Caribou
* Cat
* Cheetah
* Common Dolphin
* Common Marmoset
* Common Raccoon
* Dog
* European Bison
* Prea
* Chicken (Domestic)
* Common Gull
* Emu
* King Penguin
Arctic Grayling- both male and female Graylings exhibit homosexual behavior.[33]
* Amazon molly
* Blackstripe topminnow
* Bluegill Sunfish
* Char
* European Bitterling
* Green swordtail
* Guiana leaffish
* Houting Whitefish
See William Bradley's Profile
Now, this is quite strange.
I was just checking the monitor on my pieces and noticed that a bunch of comments have disappeared.
As this is hardly a new thread, there's no need to police it any further for supposedly offensive posts ...
See William Bradley's Profile
Now this is quite strange.
I was just looking at the monitor here and noticed a bunch of comments have disappeared.
Quite odd, considering that this is not a new thread, and so there is no need to delete any supposedly offensive posts ...
Love one another.
See William Bradley's Profile
Indeed.
I wonder if Newt Gingrich will change his mind on gay marriage now that his gay daughter is about to "marry" her lover?
I know Newt's sister is gay - but I did not know his daughter was gay until I overheard her lover saying, about Newt , that at first he said he was going to attend, then he said he would not go & now his attendence is up in the air.
Who knows, maybe if enough of the rightwinger's daughters & sons are gay then they will finally understand that it REALLY is about equal rights?
See William Bradley's Profile
And considering how many right--wingers are secretly gay -- I think I know more gay Republican players than gay Democratic players -- that is an interesting question ...
See William Bradley's Profile
You know, I find much of this quite amazing.
I'll have more to say when I'm not busy, but ... As someone who has monitoring the thread on my article and, to a large, extent, actually approving the comments, I am amazed by a lot of what I see.
What sort of busybody does it take to deny the formal pretense of marriage to gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered couples?
Why do you care?
As someone who has been married, for 10 years, and engaged twice after that, it seems to me that we should wish the best for anyone who is willing to take on a romantic commitment of that sort.
I mean, really now folks, if two guys or two gals want to memorialize their relationship -- which is going to exist anyway -- why should anyone stand in the way of that?
What joys they have ahead ... My little joke.
Seriously, kindly spare me all the spurious readings of history, constitutionality, etc.
That's all essentially non-serious rationalization for various phobias.
lol
Well, there are professional anti-gay lobbying groups and individuals that are doing things like trying to get Maine's new Marriage law ended and the like. Parasitically preying on one's fellow citizens -- it seems there's always going to be money in it, whether it's in the form of whipping up FUD regarding health care or regarding civil rights.
We're in a place where piety = homophobia for too many. Vilifying gays is seen as a key to power and prestige in the land of the holy. Of course, there are some positive signs in this area, such as progressive steps from the Episcopal and Lutheran sects. But, the most rapidly expanding faith in this country is aggressively funding anti-gay initiatives, from Prop 8 to Maine, and an old faith is giving very large sums (while churches are closing due to lack of funding) and refusing to say where the money came from.
The Federal Marriage Amendment failed in both houses of Congress, but I suspect that's the overall goal of these folks. They won't rest until gay people are officially declared subhuman by the US Constitution.
What we need in the USA is education. People need to learn the facts about homosexuality, such as the basis fact that homosexuality isn't a disorder which means gay people are not inferior to heterosexuals. Fear withers in the face of facts, but the fear-mongers will do their best to claim that factual education is the enemy, too (conversion hysteria).
"Homosexuality isn't a disorder."
Hmmm, It is not a disease. It is simply deviation from the norm.
And a genetic and evolutionary cul-de-suc.
Come to think of just as incest is.
Otherwise nothing wrong with it.
religion and fear
usually interchangeable
cause a lot of damage in the world and controls a lot of people
GOP knows how to use religion and fear very well
"What sort of busybody does it take to deny the formal pretense of marriage to gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered couples?"
What about ister-brother couples, and bigamist 15 people marriage bliss.
We shouldn't phobic about that. I mean if they REALLY love each other. Right?
To be fair the alphabet soup should also include them.
Shouldn't be really GLBiTGBigI community.
"What about ister-brother couples, and bigamist 15 people marriage bliss. "
Incest produces deformities, polygamy is non-sustainable under the current set of federal marriage benefits. Neither of these are a problem for gay and lesbian couples. Try again bigot.
See William Bradley's Profile
What a deeply pathetic comment. You should be ashamed of yourself.
re."That's all essentially non-serious rationalization for various phobias."
You're right.
I would also include in that "non-serious" category majority of Californians who passed this anti-gay marriage props and California Supreme Court which supported the right of People to legislate their own morality.
Good one. With this kind of contempt for people of California no wonder Prop 8 won
See William Bradley's Profile
You're not much like most California voters, I can assure you of that.
They don't tend to go on and on and on spewing venom at a group of people, even if they don't agree with them.
You can't have the word marriage because it's mine. Mine, mine mine. NO, no, no. You can't have it, it's MINE!!!! It's reserved for people like ME. Yes it's better than what you have. So what? You can't have it. I'm better than you and I deserve it. You're less human than me and can't have it. It's MINE. Got it? Now crawl back under your rock. Insect.
Human rights... civil rights..
Are bigamist human rights violated because he's not allowed to marry 10 wives?
Does a violation of human rights occur when Ms. X prohibited from marrying her brother?
Of course not.
This is the domain of morality, not civil rights.
People of California have seen thru' Karl Rovian ( Right to Life de.ath tax, etc) attempts of the gay community to distort the language of discourse. Hopefully Supreme Court will do likewise.
Well it's about time you were honest and finally came clean and said that your objection is a moral one. Funny, because it is Christians who rejected Bigamy and polygamy
Bigamy, homosexuality and polygamy were prohibited by ALL socialist atheist countries of modernity. So your argument is moot.
In fact the argument that homosexuality is a moral issue is the main premise of my argument. Nothing to hide there.
Read my posts more carefully.
In fact I would argue that religion is a subset of communal morality, not the other way around. In another words religion was created to provide divine justification for certain moral norms common to that culture.
If I am wading in waters too deep for you, try "Symbols of Transformation" by Carl Jung.
Christianity used to support polygamy ...
unfortunately they switched their interest to underaged boys ewwwww
So you think gay people are lesser humans than you. Entitled to lesser rights. Got it. Should they pay lower taxes, since their citizenship is less than yours?
I vote NO TAX for LGBTQ Americans. Not until we have what everyone has - EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THAT LAW. So file your taxes, folks!
What you're saying is the majority religions (including secularists) have the right to force their moral beliefs onto minority religions whenever they want. And make those religious beliefs into law. Thus doing away with freedom of religion. Unless you can tell me an actual secular reason why gay people should be denied full citizenship rights, then I must assume you do not want freedom of religion in America.
There are two basic sexual orientations and thus two types of pair bonding. Incest, bestiality, polygamy, polyandry, and like are not sexual orientations so they are not relevant to this issue.
This issue is recognizing the full humanity of gay people. Recognizing that gay people marry each other does not require that we pretend that incest is a sexual orientation. It does not require that we pretend that a person's dog is the same as a person, either.
People simply need to understand the facts and think logically. Most of this "debate" isn't debate at all. It's illogical points being raised versus logical ones. For instance, a certain poster loves to ask "what federal court rulings have found that marriage a civil right for gay people?", in order to insinuate that court rulings create civil rights. In reality, gay people already have full citizenship under the Constitution. It's the responsibility of everyone to recognize that.
Incest, bestiality, polygamy, polyandry, and like are alternate life styles that, like same sex unions, are not defined as marriage. Should they all be defined as "marriage"?
Who gets to decide which ones are a "marriage" and which ones are not?
Ummmmmm.... I think you need to hunt down a dictionary...
~bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another
~Polygyny is the situation in which one man is either married to or involved in sexual relationships with a number of different women at one time. This is the most common form of polygamy
~Polyandry is a practice where a woman is married to more than one man at the same time.
~Group marriage, or circle marriage, may exist in a number of forms, such as where more than one man and more than one woman form a single family unit, and all members of the marriage share parental responsibility for any children arising from the marriage
By the way... Monogamy is NOT the most common form of marriage in the world: According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.
Monogamy is the most common form of marriage in the world. Polygyny and polyandry are practiced only by a few people within a society. No society can exist where a majority of the men have more than one wife.
Premise: Regulating rules of sexual behavior is firmly in the domain of morality.
The society will always reserve for itself the right to regulate sexual behavior. In fact this is one of most important of its functions. This is true for atheist, monotheistic and pantheistic societies. Bar none.
I see nothing wrong with some sexual minorities trying to change the mind of the majority. Mazel Tov.
But the society at large also has the right, nay, the responsibility to regulate the behavior of its members.
Premise: Regulating rules of sexual behavior is firmly in the domain of morality.
Okay, fair enough, I'll bite...the question then becomes, who defines morality? Me? You? The Church? And if the church, then which church? Catholics? Mormons? Episcopalians?
No we all define our own morality. Even within a given religion, there are differences, as in the different denominations, and even within denominations, there are differences, as with the split between Episcopalian church and the Anglican church.
And you're right, the society does have the responsibility to regulate the behavior of its members, if said behavior is harmful? So, what is your argument that homosexuality is harmful to anything but your belief system?
Finally you were able to produce a reasoned retort. Congrats. See, it wasn't so hard.
And I agree that we, as a society define our own morality. It is not the issue of human rights as somewhat disingenuously gay community asserts.
Morality is based a variety of factors, including cultural and religious.
It is further complicated by the fact that democratic society there's a legislative/judicial/ tension between the rights of minorities and majorities.
It is your right as a minority to agitate for changes in societal moral code.
And it is the right of others to disagree with those proposed changes insist ( and legislate) that homosexual marriage is immoral.
I have no problem with either and/or both.
In case of Californai there's has been repeated decision of the People to restrict marriage to hetero couple. You know it and I know it.
c'est la guerre.
California Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of the People to regulate marriages.
Hopefully, U.S. Supreme Court would also agree. The chaos in the ranks of homosexual marriage proponents helps.
"The chaos in the ranks of homosexual marriage proponents helps."
And you would know about this supposed chaos.... how? Do you even know any gay people?
Probably not... or if he does they are people who have been forced by bigotry into "ex-gay therapy".
From your publication:
"... American Foundation for Equal Rights wrote a letter accusing Lambda, NCLR, and the ACLU of seeking to undermine the Olson-Boies team’s efforts with their intervention and so diminish their chances of success.
"Many supporters of marriage equality have reacted with alarm at the very public disagreement over the federal lawsuit.
some of the movement’s leaders have worried privately that one or both sides is choosing to put its own institutional interest before the bigger goal..."
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid98191.asp
Any questions?
See William Bradley's Profile
Absent chaos, and Gavin Newsom screw-ups, you have already lost.
There's no such thing as "reversing Proposition 8."
The terms of discussion now deal with reversing the California Constitution.
Why not be truthful. At least in your rhetoric.
LOL, exactly.
By the way, if CA putting language into the Constitution that wasn't there before was, according to many of you, a revision of the Constitution, what do you call TAKING LANGUAGE THAT WAS THERE OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION?
That's an amendment, right? LOL. OK.
Hmmmm.... then I guess that prohibition is still in effect where you live and only white males who own property can vote...
Still trying to ride the backs of civil rights movement, I see.
Funny, Californain minorities firmly repudiated this shameful attempt.
Fact: Majority of African Americans voted Yes on Prop. 8.
Deal with it.
If putting prop 8 into the constitution wasn't amending the constitution, then taking it out isn't either.
"There's no such thing as "reversing Proposition 8."
LMAO!!! How is enacting prop 8 not amending the Constitution, but removing it would be? See this is the problem with direct democracy. Laws can change on a bi-yearly basis.
See William Bradley's Profile
Clearly, sport, you are not a writer. You haven't a clue about how to say something straight.
Stick to your obsession with gay marriage.
"Whether we like it or not, gay marriage opponents had a devastatingly effective advertising campaign in California."
Good.
Will you still be saying "good" when Marriage Equality becomes the law of the land?
I am still looking for gays to support other sexual minorities like polygamists etc..
Since we're talking so called "marriage equality."
Or to paraphrase Orwell one minority ( gay) is more equal than other minorities? Hmmm...
As usual, people are blinded by their own partisanship and leave out a few key details:
1) The whole "gay marriage opponents spread rumors about gay marriage being taught in schools" thing wasn't just an empty rumor. People can go see what Section 51933 says about marriage in the CA state constitution. It wasn't just an outright lie. If N/8 gave Y/8 ammunition, it was really just extra.
2) Talking about when the issue should go back on the ballot should understood to be the THIRD time CA has voted on this issue. If it goes back on in 2010, it would be the third time in 10 years. Really?
3) Same-sex couples in CA already have all the benefits the state can bestow in domestic partnerships. There is no federal recognition they could get anyway, so this idea that this is just about fundamental rights is, quite simply, wrong. This is about identity politics and matters of nomenclature.
4) People aren't soon likely to forget the race-baiting and Mormon-bashing that followed the vote. The LGBT has done an abysmal job at healing the rift they created with that, and especially after votes showed that people weren't sympathetic to their claims about "marriage equality" you go and call them N-words, mock their religion, and burn holy books in front of their churches? Really?
1) IF you truly believe that children aren't taught about relationships (Be they gay, straight, bi, healthy or abusive) EVERY day at school you haven't been in a classroom lately. The learning starts in preschool and never stops IF one has functioning brain cells.
2) And your point is? Ballot initiatives, be they for Constitutional changes or for property taxes RARELY pass the first time... Do you tell your local unit of government that they can ONLY ask for something ONE time or do you come to grips with the fact that it's on the ballot AGAIN?
3) That's where you are WRONG. It is NOT just about "Identity politics and nomenclature"... and it IS about fundamental rights. You see IF 36 states PASS legislation which gives Marriage Equality to ALL citizens regardless of race, sexual orientation, etc... then the Federal Government HAS to pass legislation repealing DOMA and giving Marriage Equality to EVERYONE regardless of their race, sexual orientation, etc...
4) Tell me... did the Mormons who provided MILLIONS to the coffers of the anti-marriage equality coffers make ANY effort at reconciliation themselves? After all THEIR actions were BEYOND hateful... what's WORSE is that THEIR actions were based on nothing more than a fairy tale. Kinda like using "Sleeping Beauty" to justify stealing someone's house.
1) LOL, OK so then we can lay to rest the notion that "gay marriage being taught in school" is nothing more than a scare tactic. According to you, it happens EVERY DAY, including Pre-K.
2) You must not understand how annoying and offensive it is to keep being asked to vote on something over and over again, even after you have done so in a fair election where the other side seemingly had more support and more money to campaign than you did. I can understand your lack of understanding for those who support traditional marriage.
3) LOL. It's really not that simple. It is nothing more than identity politics and nomenclature...at least in CA where they get all the marriage benefits straight people get. If it's a fundamental right...it's a right gays and lesbians already have, considering current marriage policy says nothing of "love" or "sexual orientation".
4) The Mormons don't owe anybody an apology because they donated money to a ballot initiative over a cause they believe in. That's their right. They weren't employing the same smear tactics the LGBT community did to get their point across...in fact, they decried those tactics several times throughout last year. Now had they cut a commercial like the "Mormon Invasion" ad last year, then yeah, they would owe someone an apology. But they didn't. So they don't.
1) you are just completely clueless and spreading more disinformation. There is nothing in the california constitution that would have forced schools to teach anything about any aspect of marriage equality that would not have been covered under domestic partnerships
2) yes, really. That is the fault of the California constitution that it can be so easily manipulated by ballot measures instead of legislative process through state congress which would have more permanent effect
3) You're right, this is about identity politics and nomenclature. Why you have a problem with us identifying as who we are and being proud of that is baffling
4) our tactics might not be the best, but sometimes when you're fighting a fire, you do have to fight fire with fire, and if we intend to abolish religion and its ironfisted grip on society, then we must fight just as hard to push against those who oppose us
1) Google Section 51933 of the CA Constitution and read what it says about marriage. Trust me, I'm not fabricating anything or making stuff up. If I'm giving you a specific point, you have to accept it, or do like you've done here and cop out.
2) It's also the fault of the LGBT community for shoving this issue down the throats of Californians, who have bigger issues than their nebulous concept of "marriage equality" and who care nothing about Californians beyond what they want for themselves.
3) I don't. But you don't get to legalize it all willy-nilly, and you don't get to call people N-words and disrespect their religion when they don't agree with you. Well, you don't get to do all that and get away with it, too.
4) "Abolish religion"? LOL. Wow. OK. You've said enough.
The poor Mormons being bashed. As a Christian myself, I say it is those who promoted the sacred hatred of the Old Testament and Book of Mormon over the teachings of Christ who are bashing my religion. And gays have every right to be angry at the majority of blacks who voted away their equality., no right for racial epithets, but every right to righteous indignation. The majority of blacks, latinos and elderly voted to be oppressors and vote bigotry into law. Yes, bigotry. Call it what it is. Religious intolerance and bigotry.
"The LGBT has done an abysmal job at healing the rift they created..." And the Mormons etc. bear no responsibility for that rift?
The only reason that Prop 8 passed in 2008 was the extraordinary turnout of African-American voters, who are unfortunately disproportionately homophobic. A similar high turnout is likely in 2012 for Obama's reelection. Repeal of the amendment may be easier in 2010, but if we win then the question will undoubtedly be brought back by the other side in 2012 anyway.
Absolute bull. No race baiting here. Prop 8 passed because the pre-dominantly white Catholic and Mormon churches had the money and the man power to distribute their disinformation campaign propoganda.
Your assertion is based on ONE poll, which was debunked a long time ago, that tried to make a cause and effect where none existed. Yes, most blacks who voted on the Prop 8 issue at all, voted yes. But, those people were Christian and were voting based on their religion, not their cultural values.
What wasn't discussed in that ONE poll was how many black voters just simply did not vote on Prop 8 at all, either way?? Most blacks have bigger issues and bigger things to worry about than marriage equality, so most of them skipped over the question and didn't vote at all
Sorry, Religious bigots passed Prop 8, and in this case far more religious bigots were white than black, and a religious bigot is a religious bigot, regardless of their skin color
In any given election it is the local issues and the state ballot proposals that typically MOST people "skip" voting on UNLESS they have strong feelings about them. I'm willing to BET that if you looked at the total number of voters who turned out in CA versus the number of voters who voted on Prop8 you will find that at least a quarter and more likely half of CA voters couldn't be bothered to vote one way or the other on Prop8.
It is the ones who couldn't be bothered to vote on the issue at all that NEED to have outreach from the GLBT community and be given a *reason* to vote on the issue IF a ballot proposal is going to pass in CA giving marriage equality to the GLBT community as a whole.
To say the "only reason" prop 8 passed is the black vote is factually incorrect. There aren't enough blacks in California for that to be the reason. Latinos also voted for prop 8, as did the elderly and Republicans. It was really the elderly and Republican vote that passed it. I think the reason gays were so upset about the black majority for prop 8 is, they should have known better. It's sad to see the black community side with the oppressor.
People who disagree with you on gay marriage don't hate you.
But there are people who do.
See the headline today?
There's a rise in membership of those idiot Militia's and it follows
the rise in gun purchases in the last few months.
Don't be "IN YOUR FACE' because there are a heck of a lot of paranoid people out there and
who knows when they might snap and gun anyone down.
Fine, we won't be in your face if you won't be in our face. Which means removing wedding bands, no public celebrations of anniversaries, no innocent public displays of affection by heterosexuals.
Fair is fair, right?
The part he left out is this:
You can't feel discriminated against when people reject arguments of yours because you can't be bothered to show any consideration for their beliefs.
Animosity begets animosity.
..."there are a heck of a lot of paranoid people out there..."
---------
Yeah. We know. They're posting on this thread.
(Helpful hint: the feigned concern makes you look even more paranoid.)
Sorry sol but the ONLY way to get any change in this country is for the people needing the change to be "IN YOUR FACE". Unfortunately, the reality is that for MOST voters if an issue isn't "in your face" they NEVER give it any thought at all unless it pertains to them.
The fact that people believe that ALL issues don't pertain to them is just mind boggling. I am not black, nor hispanic, nor a woman, but I'd have to live a pretty sheltered life to believe that issues that affect one aspect of humanity don't affect all aspects of humanity.
There is only one race, btw, the Human Race. Everything else is just conditioning us to believe we are different
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
