California's Proposition 8

[Medievalist]

California's Proposition 8 on the November ballot "Eliminates Right of Same–Sex Couples To marry Initiative Constitutional Amendment" proposition. You can see the full text here (http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm).

Here's a "vote no" site on facts and fiction (http://www.noonprop8.com/about/fact-vs-fiction).

Opposition (http://www.protectmarriage.com/) mostly asserts that people who support same-sex marriage want to "teach gay life styles" or that same sex marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage (it hasn't for the last three thousand years).

Here are some of the reasons I'm going to vote No on proposition 8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtUlJel4RR8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq_o8S8gs9E&NR=1

I'd rather that the election weren't hijacked by this particular issue, even though I do think it's important; I'd rather just have strong legal support, with equal rights, for domestic partnerships. I think this is going to be legislated for years in the courts--but by voting no, we can make clear where we stand as a state.

Mind, some of us could do that with a yes, too; but I won't be.

[ricetalks]

I'm from Canada. I shouldn't and won't vote. But my country has legalize gay marriage. Marriage as an institution hasn't fallen apart.

[Miguelito]

I'm from Canada. I shouldn't and won't vote. But my country has legalize gay marriage. Marriage as an institution hasn't fallen apart.
What do you mean? The RCMP showed up at my doorstep and I was forced to marry a gay man last week. Darn Liberals.

[ricetalks]

What do you mean? The RCMP showed up at my doorstep and I was forced to marry a gay man last week. Darn Liberals.

Was the gay man in the military or was he an R.C.M.P. officer?

[Williebee]

They told you they were RCMP? And you bought it? Sheesh, they weren't even wearing the right shoes. But I hear the two of you are very happy....

:)

[rugcat]

The original push to defeat prop 8 has withered under some very effective ads supporting it -- I'm sure you've seen them. A lot of the money for these ads has come from both the Catholic Church and the LDS Church.

The ads trying to defeat prop 8 have been even tempered, sensible and appeal to people's better nature. The pro eight ads are dishonest and appeal to bigotry and fear.

Guess which are more effective? And that clip of Gavin Newsom having his Howard Dean moment could result in an anti-gay backlash all by itself.

Practically, I can see how a push for protections under the law and domestic partnerships may be a better strategy and more acheivable.

Emotionally, whenever I see those support prop 8 ads, with their bigotry wrapped in the guise of values, I become enraged.

[ricetalks]

Sorry for joking in this debate. Obviously it's serious south of the border.

[Death Wizard]

Sorry for joking in this debate. Obviously it's serious south of the border.

You bring up a good point, though, when you say "south of the border." There are places in the world that have gone past all this nonsense, but sadly the U.S. isn't one of them.

(And yes, I am pro gay marriage, etc.)

[blacbird]

I'm right glad there are some people in California concerned with stuff that's really important.

caw

[rugcat]

Sorry for joking in this debate. Obviously it's serious south of the border.Just because it's serious doesn't mean there's no place for jokes.

[BenPanced]

A friend in Michigan has donated money to defeat it. If that doesn't say how serious this is...

[Medievalist]

Sorry for joking in this debate. Obviously it's serious south of the border.

Sometimes the stuff we most want to be despondent about or bitter about is what we most need to also remember that there is a place for humor.

[Williebee]

I've had this argument with a dozen or so people. The bottom line is always the same. History has shown us time and again, "Separate but equal, isn't."

The money being generated for advertising and propaganda on this is the part that amazes me.

[donroc]

Am I right ot assume civil union for gays is no differerent than heteros like myself and my wife being married by a judge? The wording on the certificate may be different, but the effect is the same.

If gays want to marry in a religion, that should be up to their church, synagogue, mosque, or temple.

If they want to adopt, that should be allowed.

[cethklein]

I'm right glad there are some people in California concerned with stuff that's really important.

caw

Damn straight youngun'. We gotta' make sure them homer-sexials don't
to get married, else we'll all go ta' hell. As good Christians it's our responsibility to tell other people what sinners they are. We need to make sure the ol' government tells us not to do things we think are sins so's we won't do em'. It's all about security ya' hear? We's got's to feel like we're preventin' them other folk from sinnin' since we're too lazy to worry about our own sins. Personal responsibility is the devil's work.

[Ken]

hope the proposition is shot down.
If it ain't, I think a constitutional amendment may be in order to right the wrong, once and for all.

[maestrowork]

Am I right ot assume civil union for gays is no differerent than heteros like myself and my wife being married by a judge?

There's no civil union or marriage for gays in most states. They also have none or few of the rights or protections granted to heterosexual couples. In fact, a lesbian couple was denied visitation right at a hospital in Florida, while traveling, even though they HAVE all the legal documents they needed (power of attorney, etc.) -- they also had their two young children with them. They were not able to say their last goodbyes. I think ACLU is suing on the surviving partner's behalf now. Can you image that happening to a heterosexual couple, even if they can't provide prove of their marriage on the spot? That's the reality for many gays and lesbians in this country right now.

So voting on Prop 8 basically means voting for discrimination. Pure and simple. Add that to the constitution, please... without offering any alternatives or even a hint of compromise.

[Ageless Stranger]

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

[ricetalks]

Am I right ot assume civil union for gays is no differerent than heteros like myself and my wife being married by a judge? The wording on the certificate may be different, but the effect is the same.

If gays want to marry in a religion, that should be up to their church, synagogue, mosque, or temple.

If they want to adopt, that should be allowed.

The right to marriage doesn't mean you have the right to a church wedding.

It just means the state doesn't have the right to deny you the legal rights that marriage grants you. You can get married at city hall. The state has to recognize it. But it doesn't mean a church is obligated to perform a service for you. It's a classic case of separation of church and state.

In my country they legalized marriage rather than civil unions for reasons that also have to do with politics.

Marriage in Canada falls under the authority of the Feederal Government. Civil law, and therefore civil unions, fall under the authority of the provincial government. (parellel re: state governments).

It was easier for the Federal Government to change one law under its jurisdiction than having to gain the consent and approval of all 10 provincial premiers (like state governors) to change ten provincial laws as it relates to civil unions.

[Bravo]

(it hasn't for the last three thousand years).

where?

[Medievalist]

Am I right ot assume civil union for gays is no differerent than heteros like myself and my wife being married by a judge? The wording on the certificate may be different, but the effect is the same.

It depends a bit on the state, but even in those states that allow civil partnership, it doesn't mean that you automatically can visit your seriously ill partner in the hospital, as you would in a heterosexual civil union. It doesn't mean that your children have two legal guardians, and that custody at the death of one is assured, it doesn't mean always mean that you can provide health insurance benefits via an employer, it doesn't mean that inheritance of property that is held by both of you on the death of one transfers to the other . . .

It's not equal. It needs to be the same rights and protections and responsibilities under the law.

[Medievalist]

hope the proposition is shot down.
If it ain't, I think a constitutional amendment may be in order to right the wrong, once and for all.

The irony is that this proposition will emend the California State constitution to forbid same-sex unions, of any sort, including civil partnerships. The California court has determined that the constitution does not forbid same sex unions.

[Celia Cyanide]

The original push to defeat prop 8 has withered under some very effective ads supporting it -- I'm sure you've seen them. A lot of the money for these ads has come from both the Catholic Church and the LDS Church.

The ads trying to defeat prop 8 have been even tempered, sensible and appeal to people's better nature. The pro eight ads are dishonest and appeal to bigotry and fear.

Guess which are more effective? And that clip of Gavin Newsom having his Howard Dean moment could result in an anti-gay backlash all by itself.

Practically, I can see how a push for protections under the law and domestic partnerships may be a better strategy and more acheivable.

Emotionally, whenever I see those support prop 8 ads, with their bigotry wrapped in the guise of values, I become enraged.

When I was in LA for my radio interview, I saw one ad for each side of this issue. The pro-prop 8 ad really pissed me off, because the first thing they said was, "the supreme court ignored X number of voters, blah blah blah." I was like, um, they're supposed to ignore voters. If they make decisions based on what voters want, they're not doing their job right.

The anti-prop 8 ad was an older couple, who talked about how they loved all their adult children equally, and they wanted them to be treated equally by the law.

[Celia Cyanide]

Sorry for joking in this debate. Obviously it's serious south of the border.

You may have been joking, but there is truth in what you said.

[Ken]

I always though of my home state, CA, as being a very open-minded place.
Another illusion shattered; sigh :-(

[donroc]

California is at least four States. 1. The north and Sierras. 2. The San Francisco Nexus (Napa to Carmel). 3. The inland agricultural section. 4. The L.A. nexus (Santa Barbara to San Diego). There may be isolated pockets as well.

And because of heavy international and national immigration, it is always in flux. The former bring their traditional values to the polling places after naturalization.

[ricetalks]

When I was in LA for my radio interview, I saw one ad for each side of this issue. The pro-prop 8 ad really pissed me off, because the first thing they said was, "the supreme court ignored X number of voters, blah blah blah." I was like, um, they're supposed to ignore voters. If they make decisions based on what voters want, they're not doing their job right.

The anti-prop 8 ad was an older couple, who talked about how they loved all their adult children equally, and they wanted them to be treated equally by the law.

"The tyranny of the majority"

[Ken]

California is at least four States. 1. The north and Sierras. 2. The San Francisco Nexus (Napa to Carmel). 3. The inland agricultural section. 4. The L.A. nexus (Santa Barbara to San Diego).

good to know. So I'm guessin' that my original hometown/place of origin, SF, remains open-minded, with lots of gentle people wearing flowers in their hair :-)

[donroc]

Anis, I also was born and raised in the City. 834 26th Avenue was the address most of the time. Lowell High too, and yours?

[Medievalist]

Yes; California is very much a collection of loosely-connected city-states.