I am. I’m also old enough to have voted against her recall.
Oh, I think the Mormons and whatever other groups were behind this were very clever in their timing, and tying prop 8 to this election, when they knew there’d be huge voter turnout.
I’d love to see a new vote of some sort called outside of any other votes. In fact, I think all these propositions should be called outside of things like president or governor.
There were 12 props on the ballot, but I’d bet the majority of voters didn’t really know much about them. Once you’ve got them in the voter booth, they figure they have to vote one way or the other. I have to admit I’ve been guilty of it. I go in and find “Prop 13, gerbil leash law.” I dunno, sounds alright. I’ll vote “yes.”
I don’t know that I agree with that. I mean, I want gay marriage here as soon as possible, but if the court overturns it, it’s just going to add to the chorus of “activist judges overturning the will of the people.” And this time, they’d have an actual point. I think it would ultimatly be better to wait the two years, and overturn this crap law at the polls. That way, at least, it will be that much harder for the anti-marriage faction to question the legitimacy of the law.
Well hopefully the proponents of gay marraige can get their shit together and not run such a half-assed lackluster campaign like they did this time. They brought a plastic spork to a knife fight.
Well, you may be right. And even in Bird’s case, her entire majority was not recalled. But if a decision like that were to come down, does anyone believe that it wouldn’t serve as the basis for a similar campaign?
Right, so blacks got their equal rights because they out-spent the opposition?
I believe such a campaign would encounter a LOT more opposition than the one against the Bird court, and I don’t believe it would succeed.
But…but…but you’re not thinking of the CHILDREN!!
(Which was, of course, the entire thrust of the Yes on 8 campaign: Gay marriage will be taught–whatever that means; kids will be forced to see gay people get married; the gay will rub off on them because they are impressionable; gosh knows you wouldn’t want your kid to come out to you someday!)
And obviously, those scare tactics worked.
I agree with what you’re saying, and I’m sure many kids are already very much aware of the fact that some folks on this planet are gay…which makes the whole thing a straw man fallacy at best.
Really?
Why?
Some of the people who voted ‘No on 8’ would presumably not favor a judicial end-run to reverse the results, even though it would favor their side. And those who voted ‘Yes on 8’ would presumably also not be in favor of such a move.
I think refusing to vote to permit SSM is odious… but I also think that by all existing precedent, the action is an amendment and not a revision. This is a battle where the merits should be won by vote, not judicial fiat. I think it’s very reasonable to imagine a “play by the rules” campaign that highlights the judicial activism that would be inherent in a move to invalidate the results of the vote. Fair-minded people who voted ‘No’ may still not want to win at the cost of scuttling the ability of the populace to be heard on an issue.
Indeed. As my own mother remarked, it seems as though ever other teenager on MySpace is LGBT or is friends with someone who is. As the evil gay agenda continues to march forward, soon all will be indoctrinated! Muahaha!
I mean…uh…kids will get used to knowing gay people.
Huh? I didn;t say anything about money.
It took black people 200 years to get equal rights. If you want them now, better pony up.
I am picking on you because of your phrasing Bricker, not because of the content of anything you have said, but:
We should remember that CA didn’t refuse to vote to permit SSM, it actively voted to take away a right that was already in existence.
That has no bering on the legal argument, but it may resonate enough with people that we can get a counter messure back on the ballot in 2010.
True, and very worth repeating. In fact, the California Attorney General changed the wording to make that clear… and it STILL passed. I am really dumbfounded. I didn’t like the initial court decision, but dammitall… people should be entitled to rely on their freakin’ marriage remaining legal; people should be able to count on the state not stripping rights away.
In any event, I agree completely, and I think the next ad campaign should focus heavily on that aspect: “We planned to be married, and now we can’t.” And as I’ve said before, the personal disaster that could come from finding the existing marriages to be invalid could be a gold mine for the advertising campaign, because the very concept runs counter to the same notion of fair play I was discussing earlier. The average voter won’t be hip to the arcane legal points, but has (in my view) a very strong sense of fair play, if the appeal is framed correctly.
It is about money and spending, though right? Those fucking Mormons didn’t bus their way in to meddle in California affairs. They spent their way in. Gays aren’t a powerful church. How can they match that?
Oprah, on behalf of African American culture, needs to do a show in opposition to prop 8.
Except that they spent almost equal amounts](2008 California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia). My pronblem is that opposnents of Proposition 8 were poorly organized, apathetic to a large degree and seemed to me to expect the correctness of their position and Obama’s coattails to win this thing. I mean where were the marches before the election? No on Prop 8 did not do any coalition building, did not reach out to minority communities. They ran ads and they phone banked, but they basically had a piss poor gorund game going.
Okay, I get you. But, people screamed when McCain was perceived as negative campaigning, and got rapturous about Obama not. Can you blame gays for following Obama’s lead, and not getting dirty like the Republicans/Mormons? Can you blame them for thinking, hoping, having faith that the correctness of their position would carry the day?
It’s a shock we elected Obama with one hand and rescinded civil rights with the other. And there are those who aren’t done. They want existing marriages nullified. What’s next, lynch mobs? In the name of Obama? I do kinda see it that way.
Buuuuuut, you have a point about gays not being smarter, and being more clever with $37 million fucking dollars.
Obama ran one of the most impressive, almost perfect camapigns. He had real grass roots organization and a clear strategy. No on Prop 8 had almost none of that.
I know this has been alluded to before, and I’m not myself African-American but . . . nothing I have ever seen or heard leads me to believe the A-A culture as a whole is pro gay-rights. AFAIK there is still a fairly sizeable prejudice against being gay in large segments of black culture, especially those who are (a) rural and/or (b) religious. So if Oprah were to do a show in opposition to the CA amendment – or the AZ amendment, or the FL amendment – I don’t think that would reflect “African American culture,” as it is, though it would be a great way for her to show leadership about what it should be. I will of course take correction from those who know better on anything I am presumptious enough to say about someone else’s culture. And, just so I can maximize the possible offense, I would also point out that I think the same comments can be made about Latino culture: it simply is not, as a huge generalization, pro-gay.
I think that this is the explanation for the fundamental disconnect – or what is perceived as a fundamental disconnect – of the same person voting for Obama and for Prop 8. The historic cultural experience with discrimination does not necessarily outweigh the cultural and relgious opposition to gay rights. Apparently, for many Blacks and Latinos, it just didn’t outweigh it.
I just can’t possibly believe that’s true. This argument can’t possibly be as important to you as it is to a gay couple who wants to get married, but legally can’t. For them, this issue is directly and clearly impacting something which is the most important thing in their life, namely their committed relationship. Now, I suppose it’s possible that you’re someone whose commitment to the ideal of what the word “marriage” means is so fanatical that it is as important to you as your marriage. But I doubt it. Think about this way… there’s a huge national vote to legalize gay marriage which is going to settle the issue once and for all forever. Who’s happier… gay people if it passes or you if it’s defeated? Or who’s unhappier… gay people if it’s defeated or you if it passes?
A lot of what I find frustrating about your position is not so much that I disagree with your beliefs (which I do), but that I disagree with your priorities. You’ve talked at great length about how important the symbolism and meaning of the word “marriage” is to you. Which I don’t agree with, but I’ll go ahead and take your word for it that you honestly hold that belief, while honestly also wishing for full rights for gays in every other possible way. So if there were an election and you got to choose between three possibilities:
(1) no gay marriage or civil unions
(2) gay civil unions exactly legally identical to marriages, no gay marriages
(3) gay marriages
You would choose option (2). Well, like most people on this board, I would say that 3 > 2 > 1, but 2 is WAY better than 1. So your position doesn’t, on the surface, seem so hideously horrible. What I find so shocking is that it seems to be the case that if the only two choices on the ballot were (1) and (3), you would choose (1) over (3). In other words, very real discrimination, injustice and suffering happening to your very real fellow Americans right now is less important to you than something which seems to be purely semantic/symbolic.
But other people have pointed precisely this out to you repeatedly and you just don’t seem to agree, so I’m assuming this will go nowhere.
I do have one other line of argument: If there’s one other word in the English language which has as much weight and importance and tradition behind it as “marriage”, which is absolutely as much a part of the fabric of society and family, and has been as long as language has existed; that word is “parent”. The natural and traditional and ideal and perfect meaning of the word “parent” is an adult who is the direct biological mother or father of a child, and is also one of the people who is involved in directly and lovingly raising that child on a day to day basis. This word has enormous power and symbolism and tradition.
So I’ve heard recently that there are some people who are engaging in a truly unnatural unbiological act. Namely, they aren’t actually parents, but they are “adopting” children who aren’t really theirs, and raising them. Now, I guess I’m a fair person and want these people to have the same rights when it comes to making decisions for the children they are raising as real parents would have. But “parent” is such an important word that it would damage the very foundations of society to apply it to these people, so I insist that the government continue to describe them as “caretakers” rather than “parents”. After all, we don’t want children to be confused when they’re growing up about what parenting really is…