At least part of that argument won’t fly. I regret to report that legal gay marriage here hasn’t done anything to increase sluttiness. 
Maybe we did it wrong?
Wow, it’s really depressing that those who hate and fear us still seem to be in the majority. It saddens me to think that they voted to deny me the measly rights I have via my domestic partnership so they can continue to instill their fear and hatred.
My ignorance fought… now if we could only do something about theirs.
Did any politicians ever say such things as “its gonna happen…whether you like it or not” during any previous civil rights struggles? I find it hard to believe that Newsom is unique in that regard. Those moments may not have been caught by news cameras and injected into a well-funded ad campaign, however.
I don’t blame Newsom for this outcome. This is a civil rights issue, and it is a tough slog to educate, inform, and win the hearts and minds of a critical mass. We slog ahead, that is what we do.
Can we start donating money to the next fight? This time I’m going to be volunteering from day one.
Unfortunately, people like that will only be brought into a mindset of tolerance kicking and screaming. The best we can realistically hope for is that their ignorant viewpoint will eventually die out, or at least become marginalized to the point of insignificance.
My problem with all this is that somewhere along the line, someone decided that basic human and civil rights was a matter for voters to decide. “Kicking and screaming” was exactly how sizable factions of the population were introduced to racial equality, and we became a better society for it. (I know that’s the third time I’ve brought up the racism analogy, but I believe it can’t be overstated.)
BTW, I’m straight and married. The reason I feel so strongly about this is because discrimination of any kind deeply offends me, and diminishes us all as a people.
Fight on!
Ugh. HRC doesn’t do actual gay rights anymore. They do “preserving the board members’ access to the best cocktail parties and fundraising dinners in Washington” now. You’re better off donating to Lambda Legal. At least they still actually give a damn about our rights.
But to specifically fight for an effort to repeal Prop 8 (which is probably the best use of funds because there are actually legally married gay couples in California right now, and there aren’t in Arizona or Florida), you can donate to groups like Equality California or No On Prop 8.
Hmm, in this Americablog post regarding Gloria Allred filing a lawsuit against Prop 8, there’s a comment down the page which brings up an interesting question:
It’s an interesting argument, anybody with more of a legal grounding care to comment on this as a viable angle of attack?
Pretty much you can ignore Laypeople with Constitutional arguments, if the Prop was vetted by the CA Sec’y of State.
**Originally Posted by Topher ** no it wasn’t.
No on 8 isn’t budging an inch:
IANAL, but I think that poster doesn’t understand what a “Constitutional Revision” is. (I’m not exactly sure, either…)
My best guess, based on this Wiki entry, is that a Constitutional Amendment dictates changes to be made to the Constitution, while a Constitutional Revision dictates the literal manipulation of the Constitution. For example:
[ul]
[li]Given: 1.[/li][/ul]
“Amendments” would be needed to change the above list to:
[ul]
[li]Given: 1.[/li][li] Add 2.[/li][li] Subtract 2.[/li][li] Add 16.[/li][/ul]
A “Revision” would be needed to change the above (amended) list to:
[ul]
[li]Given: 1.[/li][li] Add 16.[/li][/ul]
So, if my WAG is correct, then the poster is mistaken in thinking that a Constitutional Revision is needed to repeal existing rights - it’s only needed to repeal existing text. I will, of course, defer to anyone who actually knows what they’re talking about, though.
95% counted and a 5% margin. Ain’t gonna happen. Now, it is was a 1% margin, then fight on.
Bigotry may have won in California, but there’s hope in the Empire State. Democrats have won at least 32 out of 62 seats in the state senate. Same-sex marriage bills have passed in the Assembly, but Republican leadership refused to allow it to even come to a vote. I fully expect SSM to be legal before Valentine’s Day.
Last time I checked there isn’t a shortage of people who want children (but only when they are small and cute), so it seems unlikely that there are going to be many children left in orphanages over this.
This is what majoritarian tryanny looks like.
Yeah, but the only other alternative is minority tyranny. I guess we have to learn to live with it.
How soon before they start collecting signatures to reverse this atrocity? As horrible as this is I firmly believe the courts will uphold existing same-sex marriages. There simply is no precedent for mass dissolutions of existing marriages due to a change in law. Even the Nazis allowed existing Jewish/Ayran couples to remain married when passed the Nuremberg Laws.
It wasn’t bigotry as shown by the vote for Obama in CA.
Look, Mr & Mrs Joe Average had finally got to the point where (although still ignorant of Homosexuality) they were willing to let “the other side” do what they wanted, as long as it didnt intrude upon Mr & Mrs Joe Average home and life. In other words- Gay marriage on Castro street in SF wasn’t scary anymore. After all- it was Castro Street in SF.
But then some idiots pushed it- they started teaching Gay Marriage to 2nd graders in Mass, and some idiot teacher took their kids on a field trip in CA to see a Gay marriage. Now it was no longer just Castro street in SF, it was affecting their kids in their schools.
Sure, we here agree that there’s nothing all that evil about teaching kids about it, it’s not like they are going to 'catch teh gay" or something. But it pushed Mr & Mrs Joe Average too far, too fast. Like it or not. They aren’t bigots- hell, they voted for a Black man for President!- they just don’t understand.
If it wasn’t for those idiots and Mayor Newsom (in CA, folks outside SF despise SF). this likely would have gone down to a quiet death.
Bigotry doesn’t have to be racial.
Your definition of bigotry apparently differs from mine. Or are you under the impression that one cannot be homophobic without being racist?