Nope, I just heard it on the local NBC News broadcast.
I could’ve misinterpreted it, as that was the story right when I turned the TV on.
AIUI, Los Angeles County, which traditionally leans heavily to the left on state propositions, is one of those which has not had most of its ballots counted. Could just be hearsay; I have no cite, except that I was just at an official No on 8 event where the campaign made it very clear that the official position is that it’s too close to call.
And who decides what is a “political whim” if not the majority? Sure, we could require a super majority, but then we’d probably already have a constitutional ban in place already, and then it would be extremely difficult to repeal. Ultimately, the majority has to make the decision to ratify the constitution. There is no way around that unless you want tyranny of the minority.
I don’t follow. If a supermajority were needed to pass an amendment, Prop 8 would have failed decisively. This is actually the best proposition outcome (in terms of for and against percentages) that you guys have gotten on a same-sex marriage initiative yet. It’s only up by about 4%. Are you suggesting that there would have been an earlier prop that was actually an amendment if a supermajority were needed? And that it would have passed?
Yes. I’m saying we would’ve had this vote many years ago, and the results would be more like prop 22, which passed with a much wider margin than prop 8. Then, we’d need a supermajority to overturn it, and we might never get that.
Like, I said- I am fine with it. However, it finally got to the point where Mr & Mrs Joe Average was ready to let the “gay community” do whatever it wanted as long as it stayed out of their little Joe Average lives. Then idiots rubbed “the lifestyle” in Mr & Mrs Joe Averages faces.
Sure, in an ideal world, you should have the right to do what you want, barring harm to others. But this isn’t an ideal world. Do you want your rights now, or do you want to wait, is the question?
It has nothing to do with what’s right or wrong, and everything to do with what gets votes- if you don’t want to wait.
If you want to wait, fine by me also.
So who the hell is this “Mr & Mrs Joe Average” you keep talking about? You seem to think you’re some authority on why people voted yes on 8…
OK, “Straight Community Expert”… prove that everyone who voted yes did it because “idiots rubbed 'the lifestyle” in Mr & Mrs Joe Averages faces.
Everyone? Hardly. I am sure a good number voted that way because they were bigots. However- CA went to Obama, 61%-37%.
But all that was needed was another half-million or so “NO” votes, some 5%…
Unfortunately, the expanded base that Obama got in CA may have been the downfall of the no on 8 effort. 70% of Blacks voted yes on 8, and a majority of Hispanics did, too (according to the Merc today).
However, I don’t see how we can know whether “Average Joe” was swayed by gays rubbing their lifestyle in people’s faces. I think a lot of what we see these days with gays coming out of the closet more and more makes their “lifesyle” seem more regular and normal. Sure, the news shows like to flash pictures of the fringe elements at the Gay Pride Parades, but that’s the exception rather than the norm.
Look at what a bid deal it was when Ellen came out of the closet on her show a few years ago, and now every show pretty much has a gay character on it.
This is an absurd standard.
5,376,424 people voted Yes.
4,870,010 people voted No.
That means that the measure could have been defeated by a mere 253,207 people changing their votes. The questions is: if idiots like Newsom hadn’t handed the “Yes on 8” crowd that gloating footage that they used so effectively in their ads, would that have swayed 253,207 people? It’s certainly debatable; clearly, some measure of effectiveness must be conceded to the “Yes on 8” advertising.
I just don’t understand this insistence that someone who isn’t a racist bigot cannot be a homophobic bigot. Are you trying to say that African-Americans can’t be bigoted? That Hispanics can’t be bigoted? That non-racists can’t be bigoted?
Exactly. And you’re right- it would only taken 1/4 mill to change their votes. There is no doubt the “yes on 8” ads were effective, even the “No on 8” crown concedes that.
But why were the “yes” adds effective? The answer to that has volumes more to do with the viewpoint of the people voting yes than it has to do with Newsom et al.
My feeling is that they were effective because they played on the ‘Won’t someone think of the children!!’ line. That is very powerful to a lot of people.
Some ads did that, yes… and they were able to make the inchoate fear more concrete by mentioning the story about the teacher that took her second grade class to a same-sex wedding.
Now there’s nothing wrong with that (assuming there’s nothing wrong with a field trip to a wedding, period) but since the campaign is manifestly about PR and appearance, not issues, it was foolish to hand the “Yes” crowd this ammunition. Was it really so critical to take second graders to a wedding as a school-sponsored trip that it had to be done the very election season that Proposition 8 was being hotly debated?!?
No. That was idiocy.
Debatable idiocy, at best, imho. And I think it is a waste of time to concentrate post-election scrutiny on the likes of Newsom and those two teachers. Why? Because they are not the problem, or even a problem.
They caused the vote to be lost, thus they *are *a problem. If you can’t see that, then you’re in denial. It’s all very nice to say “just bigots voted yes”, but if you want to win next time, you have to figure out why, not just call them bigots.
In CA, there’s a lot of voters who vote straight “NO” on all Props- as long as they “have no dog in that hunt”. What happened here is that somehow the Yes on 8 people managed to get over 50% of the voters *to care enough about the issue *to vote “Yes”. Somehow the Yes on 8 people managed to get an extra half-million or so voters to decide they did “have a dog in that hunt”.
Just saying they are bigots means you’ll lose next time too, and the time after that…
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this.
If Newsom hadn’t said what he said, and the teachers hadn’t done what they did, there would’ve been something else spun in the ads.
What this outcome has reinforced (for me and from what I can tell lots of other people) is that the cause still has more boots-on-the-ground work to do. But that work does not involve gagging our allies and advocates or cautioning members of the movement to walk on eggshells so as not to rally the opposition. The opposition is going to rally no matter what.
From a political standpoint it was probably the wrong decision during the campaign.
On the other side, it pisses me off that we are basically asked to hide so as not to disturb the delicate sensibilities of the bigots.
The people who voted yes caused the vote to be lost. The yes on 8 people caused the vote to be lost. It’s not the fault of whoever the Yes people decided to pick on and make examples of. There’s just no way to make every gay person hide themselves back in the closet and make every straight person ignore their existence. If not for one thing giving the yes no 8 people ammunition it would be another. If they had no current ammunition they would make some. There’s plenty of older documentary footage of gay pride parades. If there wasn’t that, you could use Mapplethorpe art. Barring that, you could use something inflammatory from gay erotic fiction. Barring that, make up some shit and use a scary voiced narrator. The genie is out of the bottle folks.
Maybe ‘no on 8’ should have had some commercials with “girls gone wild” and “sex and the city” footage.
If we need to pretend we don’t have any rights in order to get our neighbors’ support, I can do without it.