Proposition 8

maestrowork · Nov 10, 2008

Hmmm, Lisa, I can see how many people would have thought that way. And I guess that's why people are mad at the church because they feel like a) it's about civil unions but... b) religious people voted for it.

The thing is, there's nothing in the wording that suggest anything even remotely religious. It's a state matter. It's just interesting how many people still mix church and state together.

ETA: And Zoombie brought up a good point about the ads paid for and sponsored by the church. So it may seem that the propagandizing is on the Church side, not the gay leaders.

Joe270 · Nov 10, 2008

It was about civil unions. That's all. Just civil unions.

Medi, it's not about civil unions. Civil unions would have passed in a heartbeat. It's the other rhetoric and talk which passed prop 8.

No one, with any brain in their heads, can think that the gay population does not deserve the right to fairness under law. No one could object to the most important loving spouse visiting their loved one in the hospital.

But the rhetoric has to change. There's gonna be a more severe backlash.

If this 'boycott Utah' fails, if all the churches get together and tell their parishioners to 'ski Utah', and Utah sees a windfall in tourism, that's gonna hurt the gay lobby lots.

maestrowork · Nov 10, 2008

Joe270 said:
Meh, that wasn't all on the up-and-up now. They forced a loophole.

That led to prop 8, and prop 8 passed. Loophole closed.

Meh, it's not a loophole. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to force a constitutional amendment.

Joe270 · Nov 10, 2008

But for that matter, I'd actually prefer we don't link to AP stories here - though there's no rule and I won't stop you. I just think if they wanna be pissy about it, let's oblige 'em.)

You got it. If they are so insistent that their copy doesn't get any readers, I'll help 'em with that. I didn't know any of that, thanks for the info.

MacAllister · Nov 10, 2008

The thing is, CA already had civil unions before Prop 8, and those unions DID equal marriage . . . now they don't. That was the whole intent of the proposition - to remove that equality, and make civil union /= marriage. State employees with civil unions are, at this point, losing benefits because they're suddenly NOT married even though they were last week, and a civil union no longer counts as being married, if you're a same-sex couple.

Joe270 · Nov 10, 2008

And yes, we can be mad at the Mormon church and the Catholic church. Where do you think the multi-BILLION dollar ad campaign that spun hate and fear and bigotry into something fuzzy and voteable came from? The air?

How much did the gay rights side pay for adverts? That's a whole lot of politics.

It could be said, easily, that Obama would have lost the election if he'd done what he said he was gonna do and take the matching funds.

More money, more votes. That's life in American politics.

It would be quite interesting to see how much the gay rights folks put into this, though.

Zoombie · Nov 10, 2008

They couldn't put in enough. Why is it the bad guys (And yes, anyone who takes rights from others is a Bad Guy in my mind) always have more money?

Albedo · Nov 10, 2008

bsolah said:
I've decided to enter the depths of P&CE, though I wasn't allowed to post in Hardcore....

Anyway, was looking for people's thoughts on the rebanning of same-sex marriage laws in California (and some other states, I believe).

In my opinion, this is outrageous and step backward for civil liberties and people's right to choose how to live their own lives.

There are two reasons, I believe for the victory of homophobes...

1) Churches with right-wing bends (I say right-wing because not all churches are opposed to gay marriage) pumped something like $80 million dollars into this campaign. Don't hold me to the exact amount though.

2) And as much as Obama says he's progressive, he doesn't support gay marriage. And the Democratic party banned their campaigners from campaigning on the issue. Even when many of these campaigners fully supported gay marriage.

The response has been positive though. Rather than many people thinking people's views will never change, getting demoralized and not fighting, or just waiting for Obama to fix things, there's been protests of tens of thousands in California.

SocialistWorker.org has the full story.

Personally I'm still disgusted over the situation at home, where both major parties joined to arbitrarily ban gay marriage and since then have frustrated any attempt at setting up civil unions in the states and territories. And all because they're petrified of a loudmouthed but tiny moral minority which for some inexplicable reason has become the most powerful political force in this country despite their small numbers.

At least we didn't vote for it here, I guess. Just the amoral and spineless mob in Canberra. The same bastards who are going to censor our Web now. I guess after Obama's win Australia is gunning for top spot on the "least progressive Western nations" list.

maestrowork · Nov 10, 2008

Joe270 said:
How much did the gay rights side pay for adverts? That's a whole lot of politics.

The difference is, they're trying to defeat Prop 8 so they can keep the rights they already have -- civil unions were legal in CA.

What the Church did try to do is to push a discriminatory amendment into the constitution and nullify the gay civil unions, past, present and future. Thus taking away rights.

It's like saying: "women, you can no longer vote any more starting today and all your votes cast before would be nullified."

Civil right simply shouldn't move backward.

If you don't see the difference, then I'm not sure what else to say.

MacAllister · Nov 10, 2008

Zoombie said:
They couldn't put in enough. Why is it the bad guys (And yes, anyone who takes rights from others is a Bad Guy in my mind) always have more money?

There's an entire book (or several) in a discussion of the way class, minority status, and oppression play out in socio-economic policy-making.

MacAllister · Nov 10, 2008

Albedo said:
At least we didn't vote for it here, I guess. Just the amoral and spineless mob in Canberra. The same bastards who are going to censor our Web now. I guess after Obama's win Australia is gunning for top spot on the "least progressive Western nations" list.

Link? There are a couple of big universities there that are a part of Internet 2 and Internet 3 - so it's logistically going to be very difficult to do that.

Zoombie · Nov 10, 2008

Yeah, the internet is one of the best safe gaurds for free speech I know of. At least...for now.

But, back on topic, could you rep me the name of this book?

Joe270 · Nov 10, 2008

The thing is, CA already had civil unions before Prop 8, and those unions DID equal marriage . . . now they don't. That was the whole intent of the proposition - to remove that equality, and make civil union /= marriage. State employees with civil unions are, at this point, losing benefits because they're suddenly NOT married even though they were last week, and a civil union no longer counts as being married, if you're a same-sex couple.

That's a very sad occurrence, no doubt. However, I don't think anyone involved in those marriages didn't know there was a whole lot of backlash about them at the time, and didn't understand that it all steamed from a very dubious root.

They were the foot soldiers pushing the issue.

It sucks, but the foot soldiers are often sacrificed. It happens all the time. They get tossed under the bus.

My point here is that:

1.) Civil unions are not good enough. They leave married gays as a political football, and a possible target in the future. We need to recognize civil gay marriage. Simple.

2.) Gay activists need to change their rhetoric to some which has a chance in hell of passing.

3.) Protesting Churches and Mormon temples will backlash, a boycott of Utah will backlash. Many will just laugh that the gays are targeting 'soft targets', rather than protesting in ghettos where the deciding vote came from. It makes gays seem tough on churches, and scared of the minorities they claim to be.

maestrowork · Nov 10, 2008

Who says civil right is easy?

Deleted member 42 · Nov 10, 2008

Joe270 said:
How much did the gay rights side pay for adverts? That's a whole lot of politics.

The total is about 74 million, according to the Los Angeles Times.

It's almost even--38mil and 36mil.

So no, I don't buy that it's about the money, either. It's about what voters want. And while I disagree with the majority, and do think a lot of people don't really understand what their vote meant, . . . mostly, I wish we'd spent 74 million on food for hungry people. Or schools.

Joe270 · Nov 11, 2008

[QUOTESo no, I don't buy that it's about the money, either. It's about what voters want. And while I disagree with the majority, and do think a lot of people don't really understand what their vote meant][/QUOTE]

That's the bottom line, Medi, and I just pmed a freind about the same thing.

Did people understand what their vote meant, and do we understand why this went for prop 8?

That's what we need to understand.

Protesting and attacking those who voted 'yes' won't help. We need to hear what they have to say, rather than shutting them down. Then it should be a rather simple matter to address those concerns.

But picketing their churches, screaming and yelling at their members, boycotting an entire state, that's just not the way to get something done.

maestrowork · Nov 11, 2008

People are angry, Joe. How would you feel when tomorrow the state tells you your marriage with your wife is illegal and nullified and all your spousal/parental rights are gone?

That's what gay people and their supporters in CA are feeling right now.

And how do we propose to address these issues, when the church is dead set against gay marriage? How do you make them listen, when they don't want to listen?

We can speculate how much the church actually has something to do with Prop 8 -- but my guess is: a lot.

People have very different ideas of what activism means. Some go to protests. Some write letters. Some educate. Some throw napalms. They all work and don't work to certain extents. The thing is, when you have millions of angry people, how do you come to any kind of consensus of what the next step should be?

The thing is, I think these people have the right to be angry, and have the right to express that anger publicly. The idea that that may be backlash is legit -- at the same time, sometimes you do have to refuse to sit in the back of the bus or get thrown in jail to make a point.

Deleted member 42 · Nov 11, 2008

Joe270 said:
Medi, it's not about civil unions. Civil unions would have passed in a heartbeat. It's the other rhetoric and talk which passed prop 8.

Civil unions were OK before; from a legal perspective, that's all it was. Legally civil union = marriage.

Joe270 said:
No one, with any brain in their heads, can think that the gay population does not deserve the right to fairness under law. No one could object to the most important loving spouse visiting their loved one in the hospital.

But the rhetoric has to change. There's gonna be a more severe backlash.

Joe . . .

You're not typical. You're really not. I have family members--not, thank heavens in my immediate family--but uncles, aunts, and cousins, who think that if you're gay, you shouldn't be allowed to live.

And no, I'm not exaggerating. The moderate ones are ok with queer folk living--but in a mental health ward. Certainly not with the right to vote, or have children, or work around "normal" people.

You're really not typical Joe. Really.

This is what drove Prop 8 to pass.

Here's a particularly idiotic example.

By the way, California public schools are not legally required to "teach" about marriage at all--that would in fact be a huge problem given the numbers of religions/cultures involved--they are required to teach about "safe sex"--by Federal law.

MacAllister · Nov 11, 2008

Zoombie said:
Yeah, the internet is one of the best safe gaurds for free speech I know of. At least...for now.

But, back on topic, could you rep me the name of this book?

I'll mention a couple of books right out in the open, because I think it's stuff everyone should read, whether or not they agree with the writers' conclusions.

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America

Very, very readable, and fascinating. Also deeply troubling. If you only get one book, get this one.
______________________
American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass

Again, deeply troubling.
______________________

A website with a reasonable introduction to Marxism, and many of the critiques of capitalism available free, online.

Joe270 · Nov 11, 2008

Maestro, you're preaching to the choir here.

I defend the position, yet I'm barely treading water here.

People are angry, Joe.

The people who are angry are way in the minority. Less than ten percent. The way to get something done isn't by making the majority angry, too. That will not help.

And how do we propose to address these issues, when the church is dead set against gay marriage?

Baffle 'em, don't fight 'em. They'll get their backs up in a fight. The rhetoric must change from the gay rights side. If they can calm the brawl and make them understand the real issues, then the position of the church powers-that-be won't matter in the voting booth.

maestrowork · Nov 11, 2008

Medievalist said:
You're not typical. You're really not. I have family members--not, thank heavens in my immediate family--but uncles, aunts, and cousins, who think that if you're gay, you shouldn't be allowed to live.

I was just about the say that Joe made a very big assumption of saying most people would vote for equal rights for gays.

And it's not just visitation rights. Mac listed a great list of what rights are affected. I think it's worth a look again, because most people like me take these rights for granted simply by signing that piece of paper -- and I can do that in Las Vegas, while drunk.

Joe270 · Nov 11, 2008

I have family members--not, thank heavens in my immediate family--but uncles, aunts, and cousins, who think that if you're gay, you shouldn't be allowed to live.

I have several very dear friends who are gay, and been in a monogamous relationships for many years, one couple for thirty years, and they have every right to be married and have all the rights afforded that, even pay extra taxes with the marriage penalty. Hey, that's only fair, they get the crap with the good.

Bigots are bigots, their spew isn't worth listening to, ever.

If people would just try to understand the problems others face in our incredibly wonderful and free country, it would be that much more enhanced, that much more free.

The sad thing is no one seems to be listening.

maestrowork · Nov 11, 2008

Joe270 said:
The people who are angry are way in the minority. Less than ten percent. The way to get something done isn't by making the majority angry, too. That will not help.

Um, no, not just 10 percent. In fact, 47% of people voted against Prop 8. And I bet many of these people are angry, too. In fact, some of my friends are going to the protests (agree with them or not) and they're not gay -- like me, we all have gay friends who are deeply affected by this (granted, not all gay people want marriage either -- but that's not the point).

Like Medievalist said, many people are against gay rights beyond reasons. They're not necessarily bigots, perhaps just ignorant. Perhaps they don't know anyone who are gay -- like my parents, for example. They simply don't see homosexuality as normal, and thus these "abnormal" people shouldn't be granted "special rights." That's how they think. I wouldn't call my parents bigots, but they certainly do not see things the way I, who have many gay friends, do. The fact that you have dear friends who are gay is a testament of that -- you know better. Unfortunately, a lot of people in this country still "don't know better." There are still people who think interracial relationships are wrong and immoral. Such is our world.

MacAllister · Nov 11, 2008

Joe270 said:
The rhetoric must change from the gay rights side. If they can calm the brawl and make them understand the real issues, then the position of the church powers-that-be won't matter in the voting booth.

What rhetoric is that, though, Joe? Specifically? What's the gay-rights rhetoric you're talking about?

Honestly, most of the "rhetoric" I saw was people on the vote-yes side, proclaiming weird stuff like churches will be forced to marry queers - that's just not so. Churches aren't forced to marry anyone at all. Pastors can refuse to perform ceremonies for their own parishioners for as simple a reason as "I don't think you're ready" -- even if those parishioners are heterosexual.

The vote-yes crowd put a lot of time, energy - and yes, money - into fear-mongering falsehoods.

Deleted member 42 · Nov 11, 2008

Joe270 said:
If people would just try to understand the problems others face in our incredibly wonderful and free country, it would be that much more enhanced, that much more free.

I keep wanting to remind people that we have far more in common than we have differences.

We need to focus on shared values, common good, a lot more than we have and do, as a nation.

Proposition 8

Fear the Death Ray

Fear the Death Ray

'Twas but a dream of thee

Dragon of the Multiverse

Alex

Fear the Death Ray

'Twas but a dream of thee

'Twas but a dream of thee

Dragon of the Multiverse

Fear the Death Ray

Deleted member 42

Fear the Death Ray

Deleted member 42

'Twas but a dream of thee

Fear the Death Ray

Fear the Death Ray

'Twas but a dream of thee

Deleted member 42