California's Propositions

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

If you haven't voted yet or you're one of those many who are too unworthy to be a Californian, you can find out more about each of the twelve ballot initiatives right here:

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/

Links are on the side.

I've already voted, so here is how I did:


Prop 1A: Yes - I think the impact of this could be great, if there's anything worth putting the money in, it's this, even in our current economic condition; plus, all the potential jobs
Prop 2: Yes - I'll admit, this is a vote by the gut instead of my pocket, but I wouldn't mind a slight increase in cost, plus I'm mostly veggie anyway. The biggest thing I think the arguments against had going for them though was the alleged increased risk of salmonella (Written by an epidemiologist) but there are public health specialists also for it, and I''m not buying that current conditions for hens are safer if you've seen what they're like.
Prop 3: No - I feel bad for voting against this, but it does seem a bit too "Think of the children" and the fact that the people writing for it on the SOS site are only identified as "Parent" I'm not convinced this is a full-proof plan.
Prop 4: No - After being on the ballot a couple of times already, I'm worried that this will pass this time.
Prop 5: Yes - Doesn't seem like the fiscal impact will be too big and a move towards focusing on rehabilitation for some criminals instead of just prison is a plus in my book.
Prop 6: No - Seems kind of like the opposite of Prop 5, to put it short.
Prop 7: No - A feel-good alternative energy prop that isn't well thought out, so a very bad move. Almost everyone it seems is against this.
Prop 8: No - Get this bigotry out of my state. Unfortunately it looks like it will pass.
Prop 9: No
Prop 10: No - Haha, T. Boone. Nice try.
Prop 11: Yes - Gerrymandering is one of the biggest problems in American politics. It may add more bureaucracy and may even get more seats for Republicans in the State Legislature, but at least it'd be more fair I think than letting the majority party decide districts.
Prop 12: No - Read about this more after voting, and I felt bad since it doesn't seem so bad now. I made myself feel better by convincing someone else to vote for it.

[TygressVirgo]

Glad you started this thread. Will get back to it later >.<

[Beowulf]

We already had some Prop 8 bullshit in Oregon awhile back. They pretty much are guaranteed to pass thanks to the fact that there are more bigots then gay people. Tyranny of the Majority means nothing to these retards. After that it's pretty much just a waiting game until some intrepid gay person gets enough money to appeal the state supreme court where these props are basically immediately overturned.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Unfortunately in California, the State Supreme Court has already overturned a ban on gay marriage here. Proposition 8 is an amendment to the state constitution banning it, so the SC can't do anything.

[Karthak]

Intellectually I just can't understand why so many arseholes think gay marriage is a bad thing. I mean, it doesn't affect them at all. And if anyone ever gives me that "it erodes the sanctity of traditional marriage" crap, then I will give them the finger. Divorce erodes the so-called sanctity of marriage far more, and I don't see any religious fucktards complaining about that.

[Gorlam]

Intellectually I just can't understand why so many arseholes think gay marriage is a bad thing. I mean, it doesn't affect them at all. And if anyone ever gives me that "it erodes the sanctity of traditional marriage" crap, then I will give them the finger. Divorce erodes the so-called sanctity of marriage far more, and I don't see any religious fucktards complaining about that.

Maybe they are afraid their children will be gay?:frypan:



yes its a joke.

[haterllnation]

Maybe they are afraid their children will be gay?:frypan:



yes its a joke.

People think that way, too. Even if it has nothing to do with the issue, if it's gay, it's a problem.

[drdan]

I always found it strange that the government has it's hand in marriage and in the bedroom in general. Marriage is mostly a religious institution and you would think seperation of church and state would prevail here and the government would not be making laws for marriage between a man and women let alone gay marriage. I'd prefer the government just stayed out of the bedroom, let people have their unions and churchs marry people who are actually a part of that faith. Ever notice how the Bible is used for marriages? You don't see the same people you say they want marriage for all complaining that it's a religious ceremony since many of them are not part of any faith. Anyways, those are just some thoughts I have on the subject. I'm conservative on many issues including prop 8. I say, the government should stay away in certain institutions and one of them is marriage. Yes on 8. And I noticed a lot of angry people here. I wonder, have you ever persuaded anyone to change their decision on a vote using anger, name calling, the finger, or whatever?

[Plekto]

The problem though, is that the government has no place legislating anything in the first place.

All people should be joined together by civil union. Just like if you go down to the county clerk and sign the papers(which are what make you "married" in CA - not the person who officiates the ceremony) Marriages should be merely a term used by members of their various faiths as blessed/etc by their religious leaders.

But it didn't start out that way, did it? The reason that they had to fight to get gay marriage in the first place was because of very old laws that specifically prohibited it that were already in place. And also because the damn Federal Government got involved as well, making "Marriage" not just a civil union, but legally giving it rights beyond that.

the reason Prop 8 is such a bad idea is because rather than trying to un-do some of that legislative baggage, instead it adds yet another layer to the growing mess. Note - the proposal isn't to get rid of all previous laws about marriage and to leave it up to the various faiths to determine, but instead, it's to specifically re-enforce laws from well over a hundred years ago that never should have been passed.

[Beowulf]

Unfortunately in California, the State Supreme Court has already overturned a ban on gay marriage here. Proposition 8 is an amendment to the state constitution banning it, so the SC can't do anything.
Gay people can (theoretically) sue churches that refuse them marriage based on discrimination, which could ultimately culminate with that church losing its tax exempt status.

And my bad, I should have said US Supreme Court because anyone with half a brain realizes that's what going to happen anyway.

[erbiumfiber]

Wow...plenty of tolerance here for people with differing worldviews (not!).

I'm not completely sure how I feel about gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions, which I completely support) but I can respect people who have deeply-held beliefs opposing gay marriage, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. Just as I can respect people who support Nader, McCain, Obama...whomever.

I agree with Plekto (as was discussed at length in the previous gay marriage thread) that the government should only be involved as far as civil unions for everyone (heterosexual couples and homosexual couples) and leave the rest up to whatever faith (or lack thereof) people espouse.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I don't generally tolerate bigotry. People can argue about giving homosexuals civil unions all the way want but as the law stands, what the government hands you is a marriage certificate/license, whether we like it or not. If a proposition is brought up that would declare that all marriages be legally referred to as "civil unions" only, then I'd probably vote for it, but this is currently not the case.

[Jetsetlemming]

I hate the concept of naming shit "Prop 12" or whatever. Do the ballots even contain detailed exploitations of what the prop IS? Because, fuck, all I know is there's some shit related to gay marriage or something goin on. I even clicked that link and read the real titles of the propositions and they were damn vague and horribly written.

[Firefly]

I'm going to vote no on Prop 1A. It just feels like the government wants to spend money that it clearly doesn't have, and could be used elsewhere. Like...education. We just got wind that they're cutting the budget for the CSU system AGAIN. It's just ridiculous.

[h2orowe]

They're cutting education funding for a lot of schools, Lin. My teachers from high school last year informed us that we're going to be the last set of kids to get new textbooks for the next decade or even longer. Also, at my community college, they're cutting a lot of classes next semester because of a lack of funding. Not only that, but what teachers provide to us such as study sheets and whatnot usually come out of their own pockets because the funding is so gad dang tight.

[Beowulf]

Wow...plenty of tolerance here for people with differing worldviews (not!).

I'm not completely sure how I feel about gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions, which I completely support) but I can respect people who have deeply-held beliefs opposing gay marriage, even if I don't necessarily agree with them.
Do you feel the same way about interracial marriages? This is important.

[l337moomoo]

I can't believe people would fucking vote yes on prop 8. Makes me sick.

Went to a No on Prop 8 rally at a really busy circle street we have yesterday. It was refreshing seeing how many people are against prop 8 in my city. Pretty sure it's going to pass though, sadly. Bigots and Christians seem to out number intelligent people in this state.

[Citizen]

They're cutting education funding for a lot of schools, Lin. My teachers from high school last year informed us that we're going to be the last set of kids to get new textbooks for the next decade or even longer. Also, at my community college, they're cutting a lot of classes next semester because of a lack of funding. Not only that, but what teachers provide to us such as study sheets and whatnot usually come out of their own pockets because the funding is so gad dang tight.

The educational system needs reforms, not just more money. America already spends more per student than any other nation on Earth, yet we continue to slip.

Granted, reforms cost money as well, but at least then the money would be going to something that would actually help, and would eventually allow us to safely decrease spending, rather than our current system of aimlessly throwing as much money into the educational system as we can with little regulation on what it's used for. It's really sickening that we constantly give bad teachers raises rather than firing them, and pay parents in poor neighborhoods to send their children to school, rather than just enforcing the law or spending the money on kids who actually go to school. It's things like that that make it seem like we aren't putting enough money into it, when we actually are.

Bigots and Christians seem to out number intelligent people in this state.

Congratulations, you're one of the bigots.

[l337moomoo]

Congratulations, you're one of the bigots.
loloops

[stsparky]

... Bigots and haters claiming to be Christians seem to outnumber intelligent people in this state.
Better Citizen? Not that I accept fundie nutcases as exemplars of any religion.
====
According to the Sacramento Bee, members of the Mormon Church have contributed a whopping $8 million to the "Yes on 8" campaign -- about 40% of the total amount raised as of October 13 -- to pass a ballot measure that removes basic civil rights from our state constitution.

Prop 8 = Prop hate. Just vote no.
====
I don't see how Prop 12 will prevent gerrymandering.
---
And lovely Santa Monica has its' own weird ass Propositions.

[Citizen]

The first part is now perfect. The second part still reads like a typical example of a leftard thinking that they're inherently more intelligent than people less liberal than they are who disagree with them.

But now I'm really just nitpicking.

[xtine]

I'm going to vote no on Prop 1A. It just feels like the government wants to spend money that it clearly doesn't have, and could be used elsewhere. Like...education. We just got wind that they're cutting the budget for the CSU system AGAIN. It's just ridiculous.

Most of the money for this high speed train system will come from bonds, grants (public/private funds), NOT the education budget:
Provides that at least 90% of these bond funds shall be spent for specific construction projects, with private and public matching funds required, including, but not limited to, federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, and local funds.

Also, this will help stimulate economy greatly. Creates jobs, makes commuting easier, and provides a new method of public transportation that this state really needs more of.

[TygressVirgo]

* Prop 1A: Yes - I agree with FYP on this. I travel often between Northern and Southern California, The potential is there, and something I would use over driving and flying.

* Prop 2: Yes - Animal Lover, but more over there is already a move towards all-natural, cage/hormone free. I think the people pressing for a no are a bit stuck in the past. I do agree that there is an increased risk for foods being imported, but that can be adjusted and worked with.

* Prop 3: No - Was initially thinking yes but this (Those behind Prop. 3 are not telling you another important fact—that unspent funds from the earlier “children’s hospital bond” (Prop. 61 in 2004) are still available.) gives me enough pause. The rebuttal did not even address this.

* Prop 4: undecided

* Prop 8: No - There needs to be some equality, this heads in the other direction.

All the others require more research.

[stsparky]

The first part is now perfect. The second part still reads like a typical example of a leftard thinking that they're inherently more intelligent than people less liberal than they are who disagree with them. But now I'm really just nitpicking.
:D You're just all around equal opportunity hater with a lovable side. :D Personally, I'd side with a progressive over a arch-reactionary any day.

[Citizen]

Personally, I'd side with a progressive over a arch-reactionary any day.

I don't really care which side people take as long as they can explain why they took it and don't outright dismiss or belittle the opposition. I dislike right-wingers who dismiss people on the left as Godless, homosexual, Comunist, baby murderers just as much as I dislike left-wingers who dismiss people on the right as knuckle-dragging, gun-toting, redneck zealots. moomoo just happens to constantly strike me as the latter.

Also, arch-reactionary?

[Plekto]

Simple rules:

Always vote for infrastructure as long as it's reasonable.

Always vote for education unless it's infrastructure(exception to previous rule). We need less retrofitting and new buildings and more actual books, and teachers. Police also is the same - we don't need more prisons, we need more officers. Duh. What we get is less officers and more expensive concrete buildings.

Always vote against bond measures unless they are one fo the exceptions above. The reason California is broke is because we have thirty YEARS of bonds that are weighing us down. Maybe I'll vote for an environmental initiative from time to time.

Never ever vote for a sales tax increase. EVER.

Generally vote no against most things that change civil laws. Though regulations or say, changing elected offices and so on are different. Generally adding more laws by initiative usually causes more of a mess than anything else.

As a result:
1A - We need infrastructure and high speed rail like Japan and Europe have. This is a good use of money in the long run and sets a precedent of creating the U.S.'s first high speed network - which will be branched out to other cities eventually I suspect.(L.A. to Phoenix or Las Vegas seems a no-brainer 20 years from now or so) Just look at Japan. It's pricey, but dang the thing works great and has had a major positive effect on the country in general.

2 - DUH(yes). No real impact fiscally and why not? Standards for business conduct fit in my book as not the same as legislating morality.

3 - No. God what a huge bill.
4 - Hell No. Get the fuck away from legislating morality.
5 - Rehabilitation of prisoners is long overdue, and even a little help is a good thing and a step in the right direction. This technically also hits rule 1 and 2 above - less repeat crime means less need for new prisons and less waste of resources fighting crime.
6 No.
7 - Yes(infrastructure). We're such idiots in this country about dealing with getting off of foreign oil and dirty fuels. And the cost comes form the industries themselves and not via a bond(as it should be). Note - not a chance in hell actually passing though...
8 - What part of get the fuck out of legislating morality isn't registering already? Plus, it's funded by the Cult of Mormon(tm) - that's enough reason right there to vote against it.
9 - No.
10 - No. We don't need research, we know how to do it already. What we need instead is an initiative to disband CARB and allow the vehicles to be sold in California(70mpg Diesel cars in Europe right now. No stink, no black clouds, nothing. CARB won't let them in.). Plus, it's a bond. AND a tax rebate to yuppies. Double-gack.
11 - No. "Commissions" concentrate a lot of power in the hands of a few who aren't beholden to their constituents. OTOH, the system in California is truly FUBAR. No, because it doesn't include any of the major third parties.
12 - no - more money we don't have.

Honestly, bonds are a terrible way to raise money compared to just budgeting it. Infrastructure is worth it as the alternative is to have our standard of living reduced to that of Mexico. I like my power on 24/7 and my freeways to actually not destroy my tires.

[erbiumfiber]

Do you feel the same way about interracial marriages? This is important.

No, of course not, I don't even find the two comparable on any level and, yes, I am more than well aware of the history of laws on that subject.

I do believe there are people with deeply-held religious beliefs who have a right to their beliefs without being labeled as haters or bigots.

And, yes, I have been to a gay wedding and that couple lives in a house I bought for them, rent-free, because one is HIV-positive (now full-blown AIDS) and they have trouble making ends meet. They pay the property tax so I am mostly breaking even (fair market rent is between $1500 and $2000 per month). They are friends of my gay brother. Most of my daughter's male friends are gay as she picked the most gay-friendly college in her University (King's College, Cambridge) after going to a high school with probably about the highest percentage of gay students in America ("enter in September, gay by May!" was a campus joke...it was an arts high school- boarding school- and very, VERY gay-positive).

So, no, I am far from anti-gay. I'm still not sure I support gay marriage (my tenants were "married" in NY in 1998 and it was not legal). I fully support civil unions.

Oh, and my adopted brother was classifed as "interracial" when he was a foster kid- Puerto Rican father and German Jewish mother (not sure why that's interracial except that Puerto Ricans are often multi-racial). So I don't come from a family of narrow-minded rednecks.

And my brother and his friends (my tenants) are all flaming drag queens so it's not like they are quiet gay people who just "blend in." They are great fun by the way...

[Swede]

Erb has gay street cred.

[Hikoku-Y]

I do believe there are people with deeply-held religious beliefs who have a right to their beliefs without being labeled as haters or bigots.

To be fair, people also made this argument as they supported states' rights to ban interracial marriage.

For me this is a crystal clear equal rights issue, and I can't support a certain group of people, religious or not, imposing unequal rights on others. Period.

[Beowulf]

No, of course not, I don't even find the two comparable on any level and, yes, I am more than well aware of the history of laws on that subject.

I do believe there are people with deeply-held religious beliefs who have a right to their beliefs without being labeled as haters or bigots.
What deeply-held religious beliefs?!? Do you know how often Jesus mentions homosexuality in the bible? Absolutely zero, zip, none, never. People are just using their religion as a way of legitimizing their hatred of those that are different. It used to be that churches preached against interracial marriages as being "against gods plan" too, were those beliefs deeply held?

And, yes, I have been to a gay wedding and that couple lives in a house I bought for them, rent-free, because one is HIV-positive (now full-blown AIDS) and they have trouble making ends meet. They pay the property tax so I am mostly breaking even (fair market rent is between $1500 and $2000 per month). They are friends of my gay brother. Most of my daughter's male friends are gay as she picked the most gay-friendly college in her University (King's College, Cambridge) after going to a high school with probably about the highest percentage of gay students in America ("enter in September, gay by May!" was a campus joke...it was an arts high school- boarding school- and very, VERY gay-positive).

So, no, I am far from anti-gay. I'm still not sure I support gay marriage (my tenants were "married" in NY in 1998 and it was not legal). I fully support civil unions.

Oh, and my adopted brother was classifed as "interracial" when he was a foster kid- Puerto Rican father and German Jewish mother (not sure why that's interracial except that Puerto Ricans are often multi-racial). So I don't come from a family of narrow-minded rednecks.

And my brother and his friends (my tenants) are all flaming drag queens so it's not like they are quiet gay people who just "blend in." They are great fun by the way...
So what?

[Digital Masta]

People are just using their religion as a way of legitimizing their hatred of those that are different.

Thats a little bit strong. Just because you don't neccesarily support gay marriage doesn't mean you hate gay people.

[Beowulf]

Thats a little bit strong. Just because you don't neccesarily support gay marriage doesn't mean you hate gay people.
I'm not targeting him, I'm targeting the preachers that say shit like gay marriage will destroy America. Those people are one step away from marching around with "God hates fags!" signs.

[h2orowe]

Thats a little bit strong. Just because you don't neccesarily support gay marriage doesn't mean you hate gay people.
If you don't support gay marriage, as much as this sounds like an Us Vs. They mentality, it's kinda like you DO have something against gays. If you didn't, why would it matter to you if they got married or not? Not saying one has to hate them or not, but one definitely has to have some sort of prejudice view if it takes more than a second thought to say whether or not someone has the right to get married.

It's like being a group of males with one female friend in elementary school and whenever they came over, they'd have to be the female specific character. It's not that you hated your friend, but they had a role to fill and if they deviated from the role, it was wrong. Doesn't mean you hate them, you just want to keep them in their place with their specific role, which, in my opinion, although not as wrong as full-on hating someone, is still pretty wrong.

[SlickWilly440]

All I'm saying is that if first cousins can't get married in the state of California then same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed to either b/c that would show intolerance and favoritism for same sex over straight cousins.

[archdukezeb]

All I'm saying is that if first cousins can't get married in the state of California then same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed to either b/c that would show intolerance and favoritism for same sex over straight cousins.

Well there is a logical reason for that.

Interracial marriage = a good thing because it will create beautiful hybrid children who may go on to be president of the United States

Gay Marriage = a good thing because it decreases the ever expanding population and potentially takes care of the number of children without parents

Cousins marrying = a bad thing because you get mutant babies who will most likely not have super powers like reading minds and such.

But then again a 6th finger could come in handy I suppose...:watson:

[SlickWilly440]

^
But even if a gay couples aren't married, they already decreases the expanding population, however it increases the spread of HIV/AIDS (which further decreases the population in a more deadly kind of way).

[Plekto]

The world is seriously overpopulated as it is.

Now all we need is a good old fashioned plague...

[Roxie]

I concur with FYP.

No, of course not, I don't even find the two comparable on any level
Really? Not any level? At all? None? 0?

I do believe there are people with deeply-held religious beliefs who have a right to their beliefs without being labeled as haters or bigots. I don't. People hid behind religion to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation.
No free pass for deeply held religious beliefs on this. None. 0.

[japanat]

^
But even if a gay couples aren't married, they already decreases the expanding population, however it increases the spread of HIV/AIDS (which further decreases the population in a more deadly kind of way).
Enlighten me as to how gay marriage spreads HIV/AIDS...

Beowolf, doesn't the Old Testament say something about "men who lie with men"? I believe anyone should have the right to their religious beliefs, and the right to follow said beliefs, right up until the time that they try to impose those beliefs on other non-believers.

I think any committed couple should be allowed to marry and receive the legal and insurance benefits thereof. But I really do agree with the 1st-cousins rule. Incest and in-breeding are nasty; just look at the Romanovs and other ruling families of the 19th- and early 20th-centuries.

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

All I'm saying is that if first cousins can't get married in the state of California then same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed to either b/c that would show intolerance and favoritism for same sex over straight cousins.
^
But even if a gay couples aren't married, they already decreases the expanding population, however it increases the spread of HIV/AIDS (which further decreases the population in a more deadly kind of way).

1 - Cousins marrying is incest, incest in any species is a bad thing because we all carry many genes which are totally recessive but have the potential to cause harm, when people carrying the same or similar genes inbreed, they can allow these recessive genes to pair up, this can have varying results, features can become over pronounced at best, else, it can be sterilising genes or lethal genes, ie death. On this basis, it is necessary to encourage relationships outside of the family, more variation = less likely to pair up recessive genes with negative effects.

2 -Same sex marriage is in no way comparable to inbreeding because one inherit facet of same sex relationships is the incapability to procreate, so you can't end up with a child born with 2 penises from same sex intercourse or any other weird effects.

3 - Homosexual sex doesn't spread HIV, that's just fucking stupid, sex with someone who has HIV spreads HIV, the only difference in a normal couple and a gay couple (male specifically here) is that the mucus lining of the rectum offers much less protection against HIV during intercourse than the protection offered within the vagina.

4 - Jesus Christ you're just saying some stupid shit.

[erbiumfiber]

Really? Not any level? At all? None? 0?



No, none at all. Interracial marriage between a man and a woman is not comparable to marriage between two people of the same sex in any way, shape, or form.

That some people at one time used religion to "justify" a position against interracial marriage does NOT in any way make the two the same issue.

[sOkU]

Enlighten me as to how gay marriage spreads HIV/AIDS...

Beowolf, doesn't the Old Testament say something about "men who lie with men"? I believe anyone should have the right to their religious beliefs, and the right to follow said beliefs, right up until the time that they try to impose those beliefs on other non-believers.

I think any committed couple should be allowed to marry and receive the legal and insurance benefits thereof. But I really do agree with the 1st-cousins rule. Incest and in-breeding are nasty; just look at the Romanovs and other ruling families of the 19th- and early 20th-centuries.

The opposition mainly comes from how the Bible says that marriage is for procreation betwen 1 man and 1 woman. Same sex people can't procreate (naturally), so that's where the opposition is based on I think.
*shrugs*

[erbiumfiber]

What deeply-held religious beliefs?!? Do you know how often Jesus mentions homosexuality in the bible? Absolutely zero, zip, none, never. People are just using their religion as a way of legitimizing their hatred of those that are different. It used to be that churches preached against interracial marriages as being "against gods plan" too, were those beliefs deeply held?


So what?

Right, because Christianity is certainly the only religion in the U.S. so no one could possibly have other religious beliefs and Jesus is the only source of Christian teaching.

My point was that you can totally support gay people, support their right to a union, a lifestyle, freedom from prejudice or oppression, support civil unions, and not necessarily support marriage (again, I haven't completely decided where I stand on this issue, only that I believe that there are people who are sincerely opposed to it based on deeply-held beliefs and that they have a right to these beliefs without being villified). If I lived in CA, I'd have to think a lot about this but it was not an issue in VA so I have some time to decide what I think.

[Roxie]

No, none at all. Interracial marriage between a man and a woman is not comparable to marriage between two people of the same sex in any way, shape, or form.
OH, I see what you're saying now.
Cause it came off like you didn't see any similarities in the social climate surrounding these issues and their legality.

[Citizen]

No, none at all. Interracial marriage between a man and a woman is not comparable to marriage between two people of the same sex in any way, shape, or form.

Because? Aside from people waving around a few pages from their respective religious books and quoting three-hundred-year-old legal jargon, how are they different? Both are marriage, and both groups have had to fight for their equal rights, including marriage. In terms of legal jargon, I personally think that the Constitution's "All men are created equal" should superceed the occasional "between a man and a woman" found in documents relating to marriage.

Also, religious freedom isn't actually supposed to be allowed to extend to such a point that it infringes on the rights of others. Granted, they don't actually have this right yet in most states, but in California they do, so legally religion shouldn't be factored into this.

[erbiumfiber]

Once again, I'm not here to argue whether or not same-sex marriage should be legitimized or not as I have yet to decide where I stand on this issue.

My sole position on this thread is that people have the right to oppose same-sex marriage without being vilified.

And, you do NOT need to (nor should you) check religion at the door when making any of your voting decisions. You vote based on your values and beliefs and, for some people, religion is a large part of their values and beliefs.

Based solely on the issue of procreation (and there are other issues) marriage between two people of the same sex IS different on a fundamental, physical level than marriage between a heterosexual couple. Again, I'm not saying that's a reason for permitting/not permitting same-sex marriage but arguing that it is exactly the "same" as heterosexual marriage is a little disingenuous.

I'm not in CA (or even the US) but I am sure there are "haters" out there and people "hiding behind" religion and I'm sure there are even parallels to the manner in which interracial marriage was opposed.

But for a group of people who are supposedly so tolerant (i.e., those who are opposed to proposition 8) I am just a little taken aback by the amount of "hating" I see concerning people who support proposition 8. (This is not limited to this issue by the way- I have seen plenty of "hating" on non-Obama supporters on the presidential election thread...again, a little disconcerting coming from people who are supposedly the more tolerant and liberal party).

[Citizen]

And, you do NOT need to (nor should you) check religion at the door when making any of your voting decisions. You vote based on your values and beliefs and, for some people, religion is a large part of their values and beliefs.

So do you believe religious freedom should be allowed to extend to the point where people can use it to infringe upon the rights of others? If a religion that believes in oppressing women suddenly gained power in America/Japan, would you be singing the same tune when they started trying to get laws passed? After all, men are different than woman on a fundamental, physical level.

[Swede]

Citizen always surprises me when he makes serious, reasonable, intelligent posts. Shame on you.

[erbiumfiber]

Where are these people impacting other's rights? The "rights" associated with marriage (financial support issues, insurance issues, issues relating to holding property) are all fully protected in civil unions so I don't see where someone who opposes same-sex marriage is opposing the rights of gay people.

Laws based on "morality" abound in the U.S. That "morality" obviously changes as society changes but voting on a law (or a candidate) based, at least in part, on your religious beliefs happens all the time.

[Roxie]

Yeah, but as it was said in the CT case, marriage clearly holds a higher social prestige than "civil union"....and if it has all the "rights" as marriage, why not just call it so?

Or why not just call ALL marriages civil unions?
It just smacks of "separate but equal" rhetoric to me.

[erbiumfiber]

Well, as I have said repeatedly, my own personal belief is the same as that advanced by Plekto- the governnment sanctions civil unions for all (heterosexual or homosexual), anything else you choose is completely outside the government (so get married in a church, temple, spaceship...whatever floats your boat...or don't get "married" as there would be no legal implications one way or another).

Oh and, for the record, I believe that people who oppose abortion should ABSOLUTELY make their voting choices based on this belief and work tirelessly to get the laws changed to oppose abortion, even though this CLEARLY impacts me, as a woman (if I am going with Citizen's example).

Why? Because these people are completely entitled to their beliefs and it something they are most seriously committed to for (in their minds) completely legitimate reasons. And, yes, mostly these reasons are based on religious beliefs.

And I will continue to support pro-choice candidates and laws because I believe in pro-choice. But I will continue to respect (most) anti-abortion advocates because they have a legitimate position (that I personally vehemently disagree with). I don't label them as haters or nut-jobs (except the ones who blow up clinics and things...those are haters and nut-jobs).

And now I will probably not be in this thread for a while since I tried to reply but got a filter intervention (must be the use of the "s" word (that also includes the letters "e" and "x")) There was apparently a lot of porn downloading at work...and yet my work e-mail is flooded with porn spam so obviously our filter doesn't extend that far.

[Citizen]

Where are these people impacting other's rights?

The people trying to ammend away the right of same-sex couples to marry in California? Or how about the people trying to ban it on a federal level? There are even people trying to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. Do none of these people count?

The "rights" associated with marriage (financial support issues, insurance issues, issues relating to holding property) are all fully protected in civil unions so I don't see where someone who opposes same-sex marriage is opposing the rights of gay people.

The first civil unions in the United States were offered by the state of Vermont in 2000. The federal government does not recognize these unions, and under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), other U.S. states are not obliged to recognize them.

Due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships in the U.S. do not have the 1,138 rights that a married couple has under federal law.

American civil unions and domestic partnerships aren't the same as marriage. They grant fewer rights to heterosexual couples, and fewer still to same-sex couples. Moreover, only ten states offer them at the moment. So yes, fighting for same-sex marriage rights is, aside from being a fight to be recognized by the government and allowed to be grouped as an equal, a fight for equal rights. 1,138 of them. In more than 10 states.

[Roxie]

Well, as I have said repeatedly, my own personal belief is the same as that advanced by Plekto- the governnment sanctions civil unions for all (heterosexual or same-sex), anything else you choose is completely outside the government (so get married in a church, temple, spaceship...whatever floats your boat...or don't get "married" as there would be no legal implications one way or another).
You responded before I could edit....I was really just saying that more generally (and expressing my reasoning), not really directed specifically towards you.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Citizen already mentioned it but, again, this proposition is specifically written to take away the right for same-sex couples to marry in California, because state law already states that they can legally marry each other, and have been doing so since June.

It just smacks of "separate but equal" rhetoric to me.
What's so wrong with "separate but equal" anyway? After all, I mean, white and black students still got drinking fountains, right? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/Ph4t3/Emot/emot-downs-1.gif

[SlickWilly440]

1 - Cousins marrying is incest, incest in any species is a bad thing because we all carry many genes which are totally recessive but have the potential to cause harm, when people carrying the same or similar genes inbreed, they can allow these recessive genes to pair up, this can have varying results, features can become over pronounced at best, else, it can be sterilising genes or lethal genes, ie death. On this basis, it is necessary to encourage relationships outside of the family, more variation = less likely to pair up recessive genes with negative effects.

2 -Same sex marriage is in no way comparable to inbreeding because one inherit facet of same sex relationships is the incapability to procreate, so you can't end up with a child born with 2 penises from same sex intercourse or any other weird effects.

3 - Homosexual sex doesn't spread HIV, that's just fucking stupid, sex with someone who has HIV spreads HIV, the only difference in a normal couple and a gay couple (male specifically here) is that the mucus lining of the rectum offers much less protection against HIV during intercourse than the protection offered within the vagina.

4 - Jesus Christ you're just saying some stupid shit.

1. First cousin couples can have a doctor analyze both parties genes and see if their children could potential have any defects beforehand.

Also, I never said anything about first cousins having children in the first place, only that first cousins should be able to get married.

2. They can have a baby through a surrogate party or from a sperm bank, so doesn't really cut down on the population.

3. I saw a protest on TV one time and a protester was holding up a sign that said "Homosexuality Spreads HIV/AIDS".

4. I take offense to that comment; can't we just all respect one another.

[Beowulf]

1. First cousin couples can have a doctor analyze both parties genes and see if their children could potential have any defects beforehand.

Also, I never said anything about first cousins having children in the first place, only that first cousins should be able to get married.

2. They can have a baby through a surrogate party or from a sperm bank, so doesn't really cut down on the population.

3. I saw a protest on TV one time and a protester was holding up a sign that said "Homosexuality Spreads HIV/AIDS".

4. I sure am, I totally agree with you 100%.
Holy shit dude will you shut the hell up about marrying cousins already? Why is this so important to you?

And that is not at all how HIV/AIDS works. If gay people were getting MARRIED that says that they are in a COMMITTED relationship, thus lessening their chances of getting/spreading AIDS. Just because they're gay doesn't mean they're constantly having sex. As shocking as it may sound, most gay people are just like everyone else.


Beowolf, doesn't the Old Testament say something about "men who lie with men"? I believe anyone should have the right to their religious beliefs, and the right to follow said beliefs, right up until the time that they try to impose those beliefs on other non-believers.
Exactly. The Old Testament. The book that Christians are supposed to basically disregard. Jesus specifically said that the laws of the jews (read: The Old Testament) do not apply to his followers, and should be ignored. This is what the "New Covenant" that he enters into with his followers/disciples means. The Old Testament is for, and only applies to, jews.

[archdukezeb]

1. First cousin couples can have a doctor analyze both parties genes and see if their children could potential have any defects beforehand.

Also, I never said anything about first cousins having children in the first place, only that first cousins should be able to get married.

2. They can have a baby through a surrogate party or from a sperm bank, so doesn't really cut down on the population.

3. I saw a protest on TV one time and a protester was holding up a sign that said "Homosexuality Spreads HIV/AIDS".

4. I take offense to that comment; can't we just all respect one another.

Oh my god I honestly thought you were joking when you posted that. That's why I responded jokingly. But really? Really? Cousin's marrying? There really just is NOBODY else to possibly marry? Really !??!?!

Do you live in ShelbyVille? Hey Slick Willy look quick somebody's attractive cousin! :eyepop: :innocent:

[Arctic_Slicer]

Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Marriage provides 1050 federal protections and benefits by the federal government. Civil Unions provide 0. Any law that prevents same-sex couples from seeking the same legal protections and benefits of marriage is under constitutional under the 14th amendment. For there to be equality for same-sex couples they either need to start allowing same-sex marriages or they need to abolish marriage entirely. We cannot allow this shameful double standard to continue.

I don't live in California so I wont be able to vote on this issue but equality for homosexuals is a cause I strongly support and one that keeps me from supporting McCain or Obama for president as both of them are opposed to granting same-sex couples this fundamental right.

P.S. To those arguing about what the bible does on does not say: it doesn't matter. The bible is a religious text and cannot be used as an example to support or deny legislation as per the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I bolded the relevant part.

[SlickWilly440]

Holy shit dude will you shut the hell up about marrying cousins already? Why is this so important to you?

I can't believe those who support same sex marriage don't support first cousin marriage as well; that's so intolerant. At least a first cousin couple are more likely to be able to adopt children then a same sex couple who can't due to discrimination.

[Roxie]

Guys, Slick Willy is being facetious, geeze.

[Roxie]

* Prop 4: undecided

If you don't mind my asking, Why?

[stsparky]

Thats a little bit strong. Just because you don't neccesarily support gay marriage doesn't mean you hate gay people.
Oh. What does it mean then, when you have haters pretending to claim their "god" knows better, come out and say one group of people have to be treated different?

It's time to get their god out of my government. It is EXACTLY like telling me I can't marry my Japanese wife or my best friend could not marry his Black Brazilian wife. Plus it tells the kids of these unions that they are bad and second rate. How is this anything but masked hate speech?

[stsparky]

... Arch-reactionary?
Them fighting words? It's how I view folks who think the Dark Ages were the pinnacle of humankind. Anything lesser seems unimportant.

[h2orowe]

3. I saw a protest on TV one time and a protester was holding up a sign that said "Homosexuality Spreads HIV/AIDS".

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c141/h2orowe/lolslickwilly.jpg

Guys, Slick Willy is being facetious, geeze.
I honestly doubt that, his posts are either all trolling or he's just... how he comes off to be. Many of his posts are like this.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

I honestly doubt that, his posts are either all trolling or he's just... how he comes off to be. Many of his posts are like this.
Slickwilly just comes off as very ignorant to the ways of the world. I mean no offense by that but he just seems very sheltered.

[SlickWilly440]

.... or he's just... how he comes off to be. Many of his posts are like this.

Finally, a guy that understands me.

Slickwilly just comes off as very ignorant to the ways of the world. I mean no offense by that but he just seems very sheltered.

You are correct, I grew up as a very sheltered child and I'm still trying to catch up with everyone else.

[h2orowe]

Once again, I'm not here to argue whether or not same-sex marriage should be legitimized or not as I have yet to decide where I stand on this issue.
I really do not mean to press this or anything and I'm sure you've stated your reasons why, but I just really don't understand how you couldn't support gay marriage. If civil unions were literally the same thing as marriage and there was a law making marriage something that had nothing to do with gaining benefits, I could understand it being more or less of a "Leave it to the specific church" but the fact that they are being denied rights, and whether or not the civil unions DID have the same rights as marriages, even being denied the ability to be married is just prejudice. I don't know of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure plenty of Christian churches who are mostly left wing would be glad to marry gay people. Same with many other religions. It's love and it should be encouraged, not discouraged or given second rate rights.

To deny gay marriage is to deny gays the right to be as equal as a straight couple. To do so would further justify the bigot's mind. Whether or not everyone who apposes gay marriage is a bigot doesn't matter, but in the bigot's mind it will be another step closer to "what America should be." This is why you have things like that shooting a year or so back of the gay student. It's okay to murder gays in many people's minds because, well, they're obviously different from us; the law says it. It won't instantly go away with gay marriage being allowed, but think of it how your parents (maybe not yours, but friend's parents) still don't want you to date a black guy or an Asian guy or what have you because, even though they're still "people", they're not good enough for you.

If you believe people should be encouraged to have beliefs in which they obtain all their opinions not from personal experience or from scientific research, but from a single book which has yet to be proven (and probably won't be until we're dead) as fact isn't very good in my opinion. One should gather their opinions from real world experiences and from what is found to be true and what is equal for everyone. The objective should be held dearer than the subjective. That is my opinion, which in and of itself kind of defeats my point of saying that the objective should be held over the subjective because it is an opinion, but you know what I mean. Think not of religion and tradition first but instead think of everyone as an equal human being.

Also, the fact that your brother is gay and that many of your friends and so are gay should give you more sympathy towards their cause. Would you really want to be on the same side as someone who would deny your brother something he wants and should legally have? If your brother were able to get married, wouldn't you show up and be happy for him? Even if it were just a title, think of how happy it would make many people to be able to be recognized as a REAL married couple instead of just as civil partners.


My sole position on this thread is that people have the right to oppose same-sex marriage without being vilified.
They have their right to their opinion and their right to vote but overall, citing the bible or the Koran or the Torah or the Scientology handbook as the basis for all of your beliefs is one minded to me. One should be as open to as many sources as possible before making any decision that has any bearing over government or other people's rights. Most people just go "Lol, fags married? Not in my California." and dismiss anyone else's opinions. I may have quite a bit of a strong stance against those who WOULD vote yes on prop. 8 but I have heard their reasons and they don't seem just to me. Don't let gays marry at your church, refer them to one that will marry them, but don't take away their right completely.


And, you do NOT need to (nor should you) check religion at the door when making any of your voting decisions. You vote based on your values and beliefs and, for some people, religion is a large part of their values and beliefs.
Nor should you check any other opinions at the door either. For some people, religion is the ONLY part of their values and beliefs. If some of the more extreme had their way, you wouldn't be allowed to vote because you're a woman and, because your body is hardwired differently from a man and men are perfect beings created in God's image, lol tough luck for you.

But for a group of people who are supposedly so tolerant (i.e., those who are opposed to proposition 8) I am just a little taken aback by the amount of "hating" I see concerning people who support proposition 8. (This is not limited to this issue by the way- I have seen plenty of "hating" on non-Obama supporters on the presidential election thread...again, a little disconcerting coming from people who are supposedly the more tolerant and liberal party).
I can't speak on everyone's behalf, but I for one more or less respect people's beliefs enough to where I won't vandalize their house if they have a Yes on Prop 8 sign. However, if they try to debate me or, in some cases, openly express their opinions (in the case of prop. 8) I WILL argue with them in order to persuade them. Sometimes, I will become a little sarcastic but I don't mean to be.

[h2orowe]

You are correct, I grew up as a very sheltered child and I'm still trying to catch up with everyone else.
Then all I have to say is lurk more. Honestly, read more and form your opinions from various sources. Don't take everything you read as fact. Hell, don't even take anything I say as fact because unless science can prove it, anything else is just speculation. To some people, even science is speculation.

[Citizen]

Them fighting words? It's how I view folks who think the Dark Ages were the pinnacle of humankind. Anything lesser seems unimportant.

What?

[stsparky]

What?
You know what an arch-reactionary is. Jerry Falwell Sr. was one. Ayatollah Khomeini is another example. Ann Coulter pretends to be one - but she is simply not influential or important enough.

[TygressVirgo]

If you don't mind my asking, Why?

Nope, dont mind at all.

I just feel that when it comes to abortion for a minor, a trusted adult should be involved. It honestly bothers me to think that if I had a daughter, she could get pregnant, and then go through this procedure without me knowing. Not just that, but a parent is responsible for the child and should be notified in any medical situation. It just bothers me, I guess. Idk how I will vote just yet.

---------------------------------

On the topic of prop 8, one of the big things that bother me is that without the protections of marriage, In an extreme medical health situation the next of kin would make the decisions and not the partner. If the next of kin has any issues with the partner, or the fact that their medically endangered relative is gay, just makes an already stressful situation worse.

[Digital Masta]

Oh. What does it mean then, when you have haters pretending to claim their "god" knows better, come out and say one group of people have to be treated different?

It's time to get their god out of my government. It is EXACTLY like telling me I can't marry my Japanese wife or my best friend could not marry his Black Brazilian wife. Plus it tells the kids of these unions that they are bad and second rate. How is this anything but masked hate speech?

Not all of those who don't support it are out to destroy the lives of other people. Nor does that mean that they don't associate with gay people, or whatever.

[sOkU]

Not all of those who don't support it are out to destroy the lives of other people. Nor does that mean that they don't associate with gay people, or whatever.

lol

To deny gay marriage is to deny gays the right to be as equal as a straight couple. To do so would further justify the bigot's mind. Whether or not everyone who apposes gay marriage is a bigot doesn't matter, but in the bigot's mind it will be another step closer to "what America should be."
Didn't you say earlier that you thought that anybody who opposes gay marriage was prejudiced?


Didn't you say earlier than anybody who opposes gay marriage is prejudiced?

[Minibeefcake]

SlickWilly's argument of "if first cousin can't get married in California then gays can't either" has been bothering me for a while...

So, I went to take a look in California Family Code.

here is the definition of incest in family code 2200:

2200. Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and
descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the
half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or
aunts and nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning,
whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.


Says nothing about cousins can't marry, ya?

That means first cousins *CAN* legally get married in California. By SlickWilly's logic, he's all for gay marriage too right?

While first cousins can get married here, I by no mean think that's adviceable. But to each their own. But do drop that first cousin marrying argument, k?


As for prop 8... a big No vote from me :whoops:

[Trump]

"Anti-abortion" should be changed to "support the rights of unborn children". The whole argument there is whether or not the rights of the mother can trump the rights of an unborn child.

[Fred]

As stated previously, we have a right, as provided in the 14th amendment, to equal protection under the law. It is our right that all federal and state laws be applied to citizens of the United States equally, regardless of their race, religion, wealth, gender or social status.

For me, the key issue is not whether the government uses the term “marriage” or “civil union”, but whether or not they are providing equal protection under the law.

If it were just up to me I would call all such unions a marriage. The rational that marriage is sacred terminology falls apart when one considers that non-Christian heterosexual unions are called marriages.

However, I suppose “civil union” is a more secular term and that is more congruent with the notion of a secular government. So, instead of calling gay couples married, we can just call them Civilized.

[Digital Masta]

lol



You don't support abortion so you must hate all people who get them, right?

[sOkU]

You don't support abortion so you must hate all people who get them, right?

It would seem so. I mean that's the rationale, right? :clap:

[japanat]

Did you see that Arkansas has a proposition to make it illegal for "unmarried couples" or single individuals to adopt or foster children? I mean, getting married must make you a better couple, right?

Yeah, right, just look at my parents... They should have divorced 15 years earlier than they did.

Looks like an indirect attack on gay couples who want to adopt, to me. They can't get legally married in Arkansas, and now they can't adopt, either.

[Citizen]

Or maybe it's a seperate issue created by people who don't want any unmarried people to be able to adopt, regardless of sexual preference.

That's just my theory, which, at the end of the day, is about as baseless as your own.

[h2orowe]

lol




Didn't you say earlier than anybody who opposes gay marriage is prejudiced?
I think you accidentally typed your question into my quotation box and it really confused the hell out of me.

Also, if you're meaning that I was calling bigots something different than people who are prejudice, I might have just mismatched words. I thought that bigot was something more of a major racist, sexist, or the like whereas prejudice is still against something or less in favor of something yet not like pitch fork carrying, angry mob.


You don't support abortion so you must hate all people who get them, right?
Or at least feel uncomfortable enough about their lifestyle as to deny them the rights you're given. Oh wait, lol, abortions and marriage aren't the same thing. Gosh, I thought they were

Also, as for that whole law about unmarried couples being unable to adopt. Citizen, you must admit that they probably DID have gay couples in mind to an extent when making that. They didn't stop and go "Oh wait, what about those couples who have been together for years but haven't been married because they can't legally because of the fact that they're gay? Eh, they'd probably just fag up the schools. I don't want my daughter coming home and telling me that today in school she learned that princes can marry princes and princesses can marry princesses."

-

Double also, I heard on the radio today that, I forgot which McDonalds it was, but the mayor of a city in California had placed a Yes on Proposition 8 ad/speech thing to play right before you ordered your food. I wonder if there were any bears who were like "What should I listen to more? My hunger or my brain telling me to leave?"

[Roxie]

Nope, dont mind at all.

I just feel that when it comes to abortion for a minor, a trusted adult should be involved. It honestly bothers me to think that if I had a daughter, she could get pregnant, and then go through this procedure without me knowing. Not just that, but a parent is responsible for the child and should be notified in any medical situation. It just bothers me, I guess. Idk how I will vote just yet.

what about daughters who wouldn't be so lucky? the ones can't trust their family...the ones that are considering an abortion because of their family?

[stsparky]

I don't want my nieces to have to seek out a back alley abortionist if one of them is as scared of having an unwanted baby as much as of her parents.

There's a reason these propositions usually always fail.

And why attack Gays as the "yes on 8" fundies do? It smells.

[Jetsetlemming]

Nope, dont mind at all.

I just feel that when it comes to abortion for a minor, a trusted adult should be involved. It honestly bothers me to think that if I had a daughter, she could get pregnant, and then go through this procedure without me knowing. Not just that, but a parent is responsible for the child and should be notified in any medical situation. It just bothers me, I guess. Idk how I will vote just yet.

I agree, and never get why some people have an issue with this, the same with the concept of informing the father of the abortion. Prop 4's text doesn't say the minor needs PERMISSION or anything. Simply notification. The specific text is
* Changes California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian.
* Permits notification to certain adult relatives if doctor reports parent to law enforcement or Child Protective Services.
* Provides notification exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver.
* Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.
* Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.
* Authorizes damages against physicians for violation.
* Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions.

That's it. If you've got some problems with your family, you don't need to see them, ask them permission, talk to them, or anything. The doctor notifies your parents, then two days later it's done. There's clauses for if your family is fucked up.

[Plekto]

The big two though are the mandating requirements combined with the damages.

See, if it were a change to the law, nobody would care. But you add lawsuits and fines and so on to the doctors' lives, and it honestly is a bad way to get this sort of thing done. I'm against it because it takes a hammer approach to a delicate problem.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I don't really trust the clauses in case a girl's family has problems. For example, reading the path for a minor to get the notice to her parents waived sounds like a lot of potentially frustrating red-tape that could realistically impede on the girl's choice to get an abortion (Even if she really wants the abortion). If her family is fucked up, she can start the journey of getting Child Protection Services to investigate her home, but you'd be a fool if you think most girls in those kinds of families would be willing to do that. I'm going to have to side with the AAP, CMA, CAFP and ACOG on this.

Plus, ignoring all that, this is a constitutional amendment, and I don't like the idea of 50+1% being able to alter our state constitution anyway.

[TygressVirgo]

I completely understand the case for voting no on prop 4, and will most likely vote no on it. I just think there needs to be something in place for minors. As a minor, I did not think practically, and I think that applies to 95% of minors. My head was in the clouds about kids, love, and marriage, until I had my son and was dating a man who didn't understand what it takes to make things last. Even now, everyday something new is learned and changes me.

I think, as in most cases, its more about education, prevention, and parental involvement. Parents seem to be failing their kids in one way or another. For one it might be money issues or manners or sex or through abuse/neglect. It seems quite a few parents have stepped out on their kids in pursuit of different things. Keep in mind I am talking about parents that honestly fail their kids, not those that are doing what they can.

Not only are parents failing their kids, but parts of religion are keeping kids from educating themselves and preventing things that are preventable. My own church is one that pushes archaic rules that keep people from using protective measures. I love my faith, but I am starting to feel that Religion has not kept up with Faith/Spirituality.

Another thing I wonder is how much these doctors care for and advise these minors that are seeking these treatments. Do they really take the time to find out what is going on in their patients lives? Is there any measures in place to prevent minor girls from using abortion as birth control?

__________________

Jetsetlemming - I am pretty sure in this case that notification implies that permission is needed by the parents.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

In short, no, Jets is right that the notice is simply that, a notification that their daughter is getting an abortion in 48 hours. If permission were required then this bill would be doing a lot worse in the polls. However, it's notification itself that I disagree with so I'm still voting no. Also maybe some girls could use abortion as a "form of birth control" but I haven't seen any evidence of it happening in significant numbers.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

In short, no, Jets is right that the notice is simply that, a notification that their daughter is getting an abortion in 48 hours. If permission were required then this bill would be doing a lot worse in the polls. However, it's notification itself that I disagree with so I'm still voting no.
Are you serious? You wouldn't want the parent(s) to be notified that their daughter was going to have an abortion? This prop is obviously been handled lightly so as to appease liberal minded folks such as yourself, but I don't see how you can vote against it. It reasonable enough to me, despite the fact I'm primarily pro-life, and would rather see a law that requires permission for a minor, but I guess you can't please some people.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Maybe if you could guarantee that every family would welcome with loving arms that their daughter is going to have an abortion and will respect her decision I'd consider voting for it, but you can't guarantee that. There's the section saying that a notice isn't necessary if the physician decides that she is under risk of "physical, sexual or severe emotional abuse" from both parents, but some adult family member must still be notified and that adult family member will need to be informed that a report of suspected child abuse will be made. It's some complicated wording in there.

In other words, if physician suspects potential (or current abuse), doesn't send notice, but notifies an adult family member designated by the girl, then fills out a report, and child protection services need to be notified. At least, that's what I'm getting out it. No, I really don't see the need in a notification. In fact, if the girl is going to get it anyway, what is the point of a notification? It just seems like a convenient scare tactic to the girl to opt out of one when she shouldn't feel that pressure.

As I said, I have to side with these folks:

# American Academy of Pediatrics, California District
# American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX
# California Academy of Family Physicians
# California Family Health Council
# California Nurses Association
# California School Counselors Association
# California Teachers Association

[stsparky]

@Urameshi YuSooKey:
It is a wedge to get their stinky dirty religious fingers into legislation. It doesn't belong in. The legislation will divide broken families even farther. And if a teen is fooling around and knocked up without her parents' knowledge. It speaks poorly about the parents. If a kid is pregnant in this age of available birth control - there is more than one screw up about. I believe kids don't behave badly if they have a happy home.

[TygressVirgo]

Another question about prop 4. There is the statements that say that sexual predators are abusing the lack of notification/parental involvement to cover their crimes. Given the slants of political ads, I wonder how much of it is true and how much abuse is going on.

any thoughts?

[Jetsetlemming]

Another question about prop 4. There is the statements that say that sexual predators are abusing the lack of notification/parental involvement to cover their crimes. Given the slants of political ads, I wonder how much of it is true and how much abuse is going on.

any thoughts?
Couldn't be more bullshit if it tried- after all, if it's not reported, how would they know? That's like saying "Gay marriage being legal in California is causing these credit problems you know. It's true. We should outlaw it to make everything return to the golden age of reaganomics". The chance for this to catch a predator who knocked the teen up is absolutely nil, because there's nothing in it about naming the father or cause or any details or ANYTHING- JUST notification of an abortion. For all the parents know their daughter is yet another unfortunate victim of immaculate conception (OH NOES THE SECOND BABY JESUS).

[Firefly]

Another question about prop 4. There is the statements that say that sexual predators are abusing the lack of notification/parental involvement to cover their crimes. Given the slants of political ads, I wonder how much of it is true and how much abuse is going on.

any thoughts?


I'd be interested in knowing about this as well, this is the sort of issue that makes me hesitate on how I'm going to vote on Prop 4. Also, I worry about abusive or extremely strict families, who would abuse or disown their child if they found out she was pregnant, which could lead to them forcing her to keep the child, kicking her out, etc etc etc. While I am pro-choice, I'm very unsure on how to vote when it comes to this issue. :s

[Arctic_Slicer]

I find abortions to be totally loathsome but it is too sensitive of an issue for the government to have any say in. Take Romania for an example where Abortions are illegal to help the population grow or China where Abortions are forced to curb the population in both cases this is the government sticking their nose way too deep into people's private lives. When it comes to personal issues like reproduction the government should have no say and such issues should only be between people it affects, and in the cases of minors, their legal guardians.

This is an issue that is best solved by improved education and health care. Also instituting a living wage would also help parents, many of whom literally work a job and a half just to make ends meet, find more time to be involved in their children's lives.

[drdan]

I find abortions to be totally loathsome but it is too sensitive of an issue for the government to have any say in. Take Romania for an example where Abortions are illegal to help the population grow or China where Abortions are forced to curb the population in both cases this is the government sticking their nose way too deep into people's private lives. When it comes to personal issues like reproduction the government should have no say and such issues should only be between people it affects, and in the cases of minors, their legal guardians.

This is an issue that is best solved by improved education and health care. Also instituting a living wage would also help parents, many of whom literally work a job and a half just to make ends meet, find more time to be involved in their children's lives.

I don't know much about what the living wage entails but I agree with your first paragraph. I'm one who prefers the government has less control of our lives though I want more governemnt when it comes to police, military, and other things which I think are better handled by the government. Unfortunately I just can't seem to trust Congress and the president (Republicans or Democrats) to really make the right decisions. They always ask for more money when they have no clue how to spend the money they already have. Riase my taxes? How about they use the money they already have more efficiently. This is our government with debt over $1 Trillion if I'm right. Half of them complain that our healthcare system is "broken" and in the next sentence say they want to pour in money into healthcare. How about fix the thing you call "broken" before pouring money into it. They say the same thing for education, "our education system in America is broken"...."let's throw money at it". Who in their right mind pays more for something that is what they claim to be broken? Unfortunately it's our government. If our government would do the right thing, fix problems, stop getting into so much debt then maybe I would trust them with their decisions. Their talking points are usually crap but I'm glad we have propositions to vote on in November. At least we can make some kind of difference.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

On the plus side, if Proposition 8 does ultimately pass, then proponents of gay marriage are most likely going to put their own ballot initiative in the next election as an amendment to override Prop 8. And if it doesn't pass then, it'll be on the election after that...

There's also this:

On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Opponents also argued that the petitions circulated to qualify the measure for the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court denied the petition without comment.[32] The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved.

[Beowulf]

Denied without comment? Seriously?

[TygressVirgo]

Looks like Prop 8 is going to pass :bang:

[h2orowe]

ffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

[Plekto]

the issue will go to the Supreme Court, which will be filled in a year or two with people Obama picks.

Expect the Equal Rights Amendment to be passed soon as well, making this all moot. The Mormons ran the same ballot measure in dozens of states, trying to do an end-run around the process by trying to make all of the states anti-gay-marriage, thereby negating Congress' influence. It looks to have been largely successful.

[Arctic_Slicer]

the issue will go to the Supreme Court, which will be filled in a year or two with people Obama picks.

Expect the Equal Rights Amendment to be passed soon as well, making this all moot. The Mormons ran the same ballot measure in dozens of states, trying to do an end-run around the process by trying to make all of the states anti-gay-marriage, thereby negating Congress' influence. It looks to have been largely successful.

This is exactly why religion and politics don't mix.

Now that it's passed however does that invalidate all of the marriages that took place before or are they still legally sanctioned marriages?

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

No, they are now invalidated.

Legal challenges against the validity of the proposition itself are already being taken up though (Regarding whether it was a revision instead of an amendment like I linked earlier). Plus if that doesn't work, well, we'll just have an amendment overriding Prop 8 next time, and if it doesn't pass, then the election after that. The beauty of the California ballot system, folks.

On the bright side, Prop 4 failed, and Props 1A and 11 (most likely) passed.

[Plekto]

Actually, the old ones are still valid in California. California just can't issue more until it is resolved. It really is a messed up piece of work, which will get crushed since the ruling by the California State Supreme Court specifically mentioned equal rights and so on in their previous ruling. And this isn't close to equal.

I give it maybe 6-8 weeks, tops to be crushed with prejudice, given the firestorm it's creating among those affected. It's not legal for the majority of voters to vote to take away the rights of the minority, which this is clearly doing. Of course, California has better laws in this regard than most of the other states, so what they decide is anyone's guess.

Proposition 1A did pass - and *all* of the local measures to increase rail as well. 2016-2018, we'll have our own Skinkansen in the U.S. As usual, California leads the nation in transportation advances. :) Expect connections to Las Vegas and Phoenix not long after.

220mph+. 2.5 hours Los Angeles to San Fransisco(including about a dozen stops, otherwise it would be 1.5 hours or so). No security nonsense, no waiting, no being packed in like sardines, no nothing. And a paltry $55 each way. And expected to be on time within 30 seconds over 450 miles, just like in Japan. (I'm terribly happy about this as you can see)

[Digital Masta]

Proposition 1A did pass - and *all* of the local measures to increase rail as well. 2016-2018, we'll have our own Skinkansen in the U.S. As usual, California leads the nation in transportation advances. :) Expect connections to Las Vegas and Phoenix not long after.




Just stay out of L.A? Amirite?

[japanat]

Expect the Equal Rights Amendment to be passed soon as well, making this all moot.The E.R.A. did pass, back in the '70s. The problem is that not enough states ratified it before the deadline:

Wikipedia
Representative Martha W. Griffiths of Michigan, however, achieved success on Capitol Hill with her House Joint Resolution No. 208, which was adopted by the House on October 12, 1971, with a vote of 354 yeas, 24 nays and 51 not voting.[3] Griffiths' joint resolution was then adopted by the Senate on March 22, 1972, with a vote of 84 yeas, 8 nays and 7 not voting.[4] With that, the ERA was finally presented by the 92nd Congress to the state legislatures for ratification, as Article V of the Constitution prescribes, with a seven-year deadline for ratification by the required three-quarters of the legislatures (38 legislatures).Only 35 legislatures ratified it, with 5 rescinding their ratification within the 7-year time limit.

[Plekto]

Yeah I know that sorted history. This time it'll be brought up and actually become official law.

As for staying out of L.A., public transportation is a GOOD thing. Imagine if you could go from L.A. to Chicago in 12 hours by train. We need high speed rail badly in the U.S. And if the crazies in California can make it work, well, you'll see an entire network follow across the U.S.

[TygressVirgo]

Prop 8 Protesters vs. the Mormon Church

http://www.ktla.com/landing_topstories/?Prop-8-Protesters-Rally-in-Century-City=1&blockID=127805&feedID=1198

Any thoughts?

[stsparky]

I'm for it. And they're taking it to the Main Mormon Church in Salt Lake.
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-11/43219400.jpg

[Plekto]

When I said "firestorm" I really meant it. This is a massive response and until the courts take care of it one way or another, it's going to get worse. That's why it'll be resolved quickly and that will be that - back to normal with a note that you can't put crap like this on the ballot in CA again.

Of course, like I said - what other states do in response to deal with this is anyone's guess.

[SlickWilly440]

God bless the Mormon Church and their great support that overturned a law that stained the sanctity of marriage. And godspeed for their fight to legalize first cousin marriages.

[h2orowe]

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/106102/the_man_behind_proposition_8

[Arctic_Slicer]

It's been front page news here. The Salt Lake City temple is a little over a mile from where I live and if hadn't of worked today I would have walked to and joined in on the protest. It has been said that the LDS church helped raised about over $22 million to help pass proposition 8. If there is anything I hate in getting involved in politics more than big business, it's religion.

On a somewhat related note; I was baptized into to the LDS religion when I was younger and used to be a weekly church goer but when I got older someone gave a somewhat hateful speech about homosexuality and you shouldn't associate with people who are gay or even watch television shows about gays, IE "Ellen". I don't think I have attended an LDS service since. This was probably a major turning point in my life which had me getting involved with the local Episcopal diocese for a year or so before eventually becoming agnostic.

I respect the teachings of Christ as I see him to be a great inspirational figure. The way I see it, it does not matter if this man was some kind of "messiah" or not his teachings were very substantive and relevant even in today's world. With words of wisdom such as "let the man without sin throw the first stone" and "love your neighbor as you would love your brother". These a great words of wisdom that I think we should live by and is precisely such words of wisdom that keeps me from being involved with so called "Christians" who have defiled his name and reputation with their intolerance of those they deem "unworthy".

[archdukezeb]

God bless the Mormon Church and their great support that overturned a law that stained the sanctity of marriage. And godspeed for their fight to legalize first cousin marriages.

I keep finding Slick Willy more and more disturbing...

[Digital Masta]

He doesn't do internet sarcasm as well as others sometimes but clearly he's not serious.

[japanat]

Yeah, but his first cousin must really be hot! :bwitch:

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

Yeah, but his first cousin must really be hot! :bwitch:
And Azn.

[Roxie]

and 14

[h2orowe]

and pregnant.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

and bisexual.

[haterllnation]

Only in America will racism still exist among the gays. I find it quite ironic, given how a portion of straight people think of them as a whole (moreso in red states). Your thoughts on this odd issue (well, odd to me).

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2008/11/n-word-and-raci.html



N-Word Hurled at Blacks During Westwood Prop 8 Protest


(UPDATE Truth Wins Out's Wayne Besen condemns racial intolerance within the LGBT community and says it is "reprehensible to look for scapegoats." People for the American Way president Kathryn Kolbert also releases a statement. Both after the jump.)

Not that this wasn't expected. The recent passage of California's Proposition 8 has exposed some of the latent racism of many within the LGBT community—instigated in part by many in the e-telligentsia such as revisionist Andrew Sullivan and sex advisor turned sociologist Dan Savage. Unfortunately the "blame the blacks" meme is being commonly accepted by some so-called "progressive" gay activists. A number of Rod 2.0 and Jasmyne Cannick readers report being subjected to taunts, threats and racist abuse at last night's marriage equality rally in Los Angeles.

Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

Los Angeles resident and Rod 2.0 reader A. Ronald says he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse.

Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, "Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!" A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were "very disappointed with black people" and "how could we" after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn't matter because "most black people hated gays" and he was "wrong" to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.

Jasmyne Cannick has a similar and unfortunate report. "I have received several phone calls from Blacks, both gay and straight, who were caught up in Westwood around the time of that march. From being called 'niggers' to being accosted in their cars and told that it was because of 'you people gays don’t have equal rights and you better watch your back,' these gays have lost their damn minds."

The verbal harassment follows a steady stream of racist comments left on this blog and many others across the gay virtual community. At least a dozen racist comments have been removed from this blog since Tuesday, such as, "Thank you Black people for denying gay people the same rights that you deserve and have", "Black people make me feel like a piece of shyt when it should have been a night of celebration for all," and the succinct, "F--K you niggers."

Pam Spaulding notes the larger gay community continues to "ignore the elephant in the room" and emphasizes this is an especially difficult time to be both black and LGBT. "What is painful is seeing the how easily I am marginalized in any of the identities I inhabit. There is nothing to gain in slicing our movement up in this manner because we're all hurting," she notes, taking to task those who made racial remarks were made on her blog who "either conveniently forgot my commitment to LGBT rights as a matter of self-interest or have never read my vast archive of criticism of homophobia in the black community."

There is more than enough blame to go around—the homophobia of the black church, lack of outreach by mainstream LGBT organizations, reluctance by the Obama campaign, many blacks gays and lesbians in the closet, deep pockets of the social conservatives, take your pick—but it is a statistical fact that millions more whites voted for this initiative than blacks. You want to blame somebody, go to overwhelming white Orange County, Bakersfield or San Fernando Valley and blame them. Or better yet, head up to San Francisco and blame the 50 percent of voters who didn't even bother to vote. Look, whenever the rights of a minority are put to popular vote, they almost always lose. But very telling indeed many white gays instantly revert to racism to explain Prop 8's passage. It's going to be difficult for gay groups to reach out to blacks with this mentality.

OMG The Gays Are Trying To Get Gangsta With It [Cannick]
Prop. 8 Protesters Target Mormon Temple [LAT]
N-Bomb Is Dropped on Black Passerby [PHB]

Did You Read ...
WeHo Marriage Rally Attracts "Noah's Arc" Stars [R20]
"Yes We Can" to "YES on 8": Blacks Overwhelmingly Approve Prop 8 [R20]
Anti-Gay, Black Pastors Use Children for Prop 8 [R20]
Blige, Etheridge Raise $3.9M for No on Prop 8 [R20]
"Noah's Arc" Cast Urges "No" on Proposition 8 [R20]
"Noah's Arc" Actor Doug Spearman, Black Ministers Urge "NO" on Prop 8 [R20]
SCLC Leader Criticizes Anti-Gay, Black Pastors [R20]

Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, which has done outstanding work fact-checking the ex-gay groups, speaks out against blaming black voters for Prop 8. Besen cites this post and says it's time to join forces and move forward.

Truth Wins Out today expressed its grave disappointment in those in the LGBT community who have emulated our bigoted opponents by scapegoating minorities. It has been reported that African Americans have been verbally abused and have had racial epithets hurled at them during Anti-Proposition 8 rallies.

“It is reprehensible to look for scapegoats and target innocent people with vile racial epithets,” said TWO Executive Director, Wayne Besen. “We call on all GLBT people behave intelligently and act responsibly, so we can figure out–together–the best way for our movement to proceed and achieve equality.”

Another great statement from Kathryn Kolbert , the openly lesbian president of progressive advocacy group People for the American Way. It's much longer but very emotional.

The past 72 hours have brought an extraordinary range of emotions - great joy at the election of Barack Obama and defeat of John McCain, and sadness and anger at the passage of anti-gay initiatives in Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, and California. That sadness has turned to outrage at the speed with which some white gay activists began blaming African Americans - sometimes in appallingly racist ways - for the defeat of Proposition 8. This is inexcusable.

As a mother who has raised two children in a 30-year relationship with another woman, I fully understand the depth of hurt and anger at voters' rejection of our families' equality. But responding to that hurt by lashing out at African Americans is deeply wrong and offensive - not to mention destructive to the goal of advancing equality.

Before we give Religious Right leaders more reasons to rejoice by deepening the divisions they have worked so hard to create between African Americans and the broader progressive community, let's be clear about who is responsible for gay couples in California losing the right to get married, and let's think strategically about a way forward that broadens and strengthens support for equality.

[Digital Masta]

Those people didn't like black people before Prop 8. They just now have a (false) reason to show it. Honestly I'd think if you go by population percentage, it would obvious that more white people would've voted for it seeing as there are way more of them than black people.

[mugen]

a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them. Yeah!! We're gonna fuck you up! uhh, yeah in your ass! Don't mess with the L to the G to the B to the T, N*****!

But on more serious note; wouldn't it make more sense ,from a racist point of view, to blame the Latinos, who outnumber blacks 4 to 1 in california?

[h2orowe]

How about they just don't blame anyone and stick with trying to convince people to try and overturn the yes. Or to vote for gay marriage when it comes up again next.

[mugen]

@h2orowe: I'm not arguing we should blame Latinos, but just pointing out the flawed logic,from a racist point of view, of people who blame blacks.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

You know what California. If this is how the gays are gonna act then fuck them. No marriage for you racist fuckers, ever. Everything gotta be black people's fault. SHIT!

[Swede]

Those people didn't like black people before Prop 8. They just now have a (false) reason to show it. Honestly I'd think if you go by population percentage, it would obvious that more white people would've voted for it seeing as there are way more of them than black people.

There's some kind of term for that I learned in social psych, basically saying that when people have another reason that they can use to substantiate their prejudice, they'll be much more critical of that particular thing than they would otherwise... Can't remember the name of it so this post is kinda worthless, but oh wells :(

[h2orowe]

You know what California. If this is how the gays are gonna act then fuck them. No marriage for you racist fuckers, ever. Everything gotta be black people's fault. SHIT!
Yeah, because every gay is being racist to black people or just in general.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

You know what California. If this is how the gays are gonna act then fuck them. No marriage for you racist fuckers, ever. Everything gotta be black people's fault. SHIT!
You're not serious, right?

[sOkU]

You know what California. If this is how the gays are gonna act then fuck them. No marriage for you racist fuckers, ever. Everything gotta be black people's fault. SHIT!

I think it's wrong that I lol'd at this.

[SlickWilly440]

You know what California. If this is how the gays are gonna act then fuck them. No marriage for you racist fuckers, ever. Everything gotta be black people's fault. SHIT!

I don't thing it's wrong at all that I laughed at this comment, in fact I think it's right.

[Firefly]

But on more serious note; wouldn't it make more sense ,from a racist point of view, to blame the Latinos, who outnumber blacks 4 to 1 in california?


A few Democratic friends explained to me that the reason prop 8 went over well in LA was because of the high population of Latinos- whom happen to usually be very devout Catholics. This is his view on the subject though, I take it with a grain of salt.

I've seen prop 8 supported by all races. Conservative whites, Catholic Latinos, African-Americans, etc. I've seen it protested by all races as well. I honestly don't think its as much a "race" issue as it is religious.

[Roxie]

You're not serious, right?
He's probably not, but I empathize with the emotion.

As if it is all black people's fault that prop 8 did not get passed. Like NO ONE ELSE VOTED. No, it's the blacks fault. And as if there are no gay black people.

There's a feeling of being used at someone's convenience and then being slapped when you didn't do what they wanted.

This blogger writes (http://www.womanist-musings.com/2008/11/black-friendly-when-we-need-you.html) about this point a far bit better than I can.

[stsparky]

Only in America will racism still exist among the gays. I find it quite ironic, given how a portion of straight people think of them as a whole (moreso in red states). Your thoughts on this odd issue (well, odd to me).
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2008/11/n-word-and-raci.html

The exit polls are flawed, and Gays themselves are at fault for not doing outreach to the local churches and temples. Only a small group of idiots are holding onto the flawed idea that Blacks/Latinos/Unions/ are at fault.

Whereas we all know the Mormons 22 million bought a lot of hate.

[h2orowe]

Even the Mormon thing isn't true for the whole, though. I know quite a few Mormons who are more or less Mormon by tradition and fear of being excommunicated that would definitely vote no on proposition 8.

[stsparky]

I'm sure those in the LDS Church would be appalled the "Elders" spent 22 million to steal the civil rights of a persecuted minority. And I 'm more than sure something will be addressed pro-equality soon.
Here are some useful Prop 8 protest tips (http://gaysocialites.com/2008/11/here_are_some_useful_prop_8_pr.html)
http://gaysocialites.com/photos/proposition8protestphoto.jpg

It is pretty evident that I am encouraging everyone to get out and make your voice heard in opposition of Proposition 8.

On Wednesday evening, I will be attending a protest at the Manhattan Mormon Temple in New York, and I came across these tips from a protester who was arrested in California.

Heed Mark Oshiro's warnings, especially if you're attending a protest at a religious dwelling:

"Don't be anti-religious bigots, for one. Protest a church's involvement in an election and protest their contribution to passing Prop 8. But don't turn it into a free-for-all on that church's tenets or members. One, it makes absolutely no sense to do that. Why protest the Mormon church's practice of polygamy, which was outlawed AGES AGO? It's no longer relevant. Why protest anything else they believe in? Protest what they did, not who they are.

Don't be racist. While I don't agree with the number of "70%" when it comes to how many people in the black community voted for Prop 8, there's no denying the rampant homophobia that runs through that community. But holy fuck, please do not turn this into a racist tirade against black people. Not only is it not the point of the protest, but you're perpetrating the same hatred and ignorance you're charging them with. Grow up and be mature about your charges against them. Again, protest what they did, not who they are."

This is great advice! Please keep in mind that Wednesday night's protest is against the Church of Latter Day Saints' contributions to Proposition 8 and their opposition to gay marriage. This is not against the people who are worshiping at the temple. ...

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

Yeah, because every gay is being racist to black people or just in general.
Don't pick up on sarcasm to well huh Joey.

You're not serious, right?
Mostly, no. But we would hope the LBGT community would overall have been more tolerant and not start fingerpointing when they didn't get their way. Besides, the issue was left to a vote and when one group that everyone expected to vote in the traditionally progressive way did not, a lot of people were quite surprised. "You can be a democrat AND have socially conservative views, OMG!"

[h2orowe]

It's hard to pick up sarcasm with just plain text. So very hard.

[sOkU]

"You can be a democrat AND have socially conservative views, OMG!"

Of course not. You're silly.

[Swede]

But see, you're both black, so you're just proving them right.























































































/sarcasm

[h2orowe]

Shit, Swede. You better take that off. I don't think you conveyed sarcasm well enough.

[stsparky]

http://laist.com/attachments/la_zach/el_coyote_prop_8_bad.jpg
EL Coyote Prop 8 "Press" Conference w/ MARJORIE CHRISTOFFERSEN (http://shutupiknow.blogspot.com/2008/11/el-coyote-prop-8-press-conference-w.html):
quote 1
... "El Coyote DOES NOT share the same views as Marjorie." He stated that 89 families were going to be affected by this boycott and one of the community members screamed out "18,000 families already HAVE been affected!"
quote 2
[Marjorie] asked for forgiveness for being SO emotional and said that "El Coyote is as diverse as it's clientele. Customers are considered part of the family and I responded to the call of the Mormon Church to donate [towards the ban on same sex marriage]."
=====
I never liked the marginal food there, and never appreciated the Mormon Church belief that Asian and Black people are 2nd class persons even if they are followers. My progressive money will be supporting better managed businesses.

[haterllnation]

It's pretty unfortunate for the employees who AREN'T Marjorie.

[Plekto]

Just head over to Lucy's El Abobe Cafe in Hollywood. Far better food and drinks.

[stsparky]

Marjorie has some mighty pissed off Gay employees. I suspect the boycott should work at out placing everyone else at better jobs.

I wouldn't eat there as the food is bad. But the follow up to this would be to target other bigger sponsors' businesses.

[riona]

We had this awesome assignment today in English where we got to write the "new rules for marriage and divorce." What I found most interesting was that every single group allowed gay marriage under the theory of why the hell should you regulate something that has absolutely no adverse effect on you or the country as a whole?
It was inspiring. The only reason Prop 8 passed was because the assholes with the money who control this country wanted it to.

[Beowulf]

It was inspiring. The only reason Prop 8 passed was because the assholes with the money who control this country wanted it to.
Mormons control the country? They fucking wish.

[stsparky]

Maybe riona meant Plutocrat Fundie Assholes wanted to spread the hate before they die and rot in Hell.

I'm actually feeling tolerant for those 'gulled' into voting YES.