CA Proposition 8 exit polling

[Miss Philicia]

Ban on Gay Marriage losing by 4 % points.

[thunter34]

So thus far it wuld appear that the ban failed, yes?  But we don't know that for sure yet, right?  God, I hope it doesn't succeed.  That would make this just oerfect beyond words.

[Miss Philicia]

not so soon yet, read this

Nation watches as a divided California votes on same-sex marriage
Supporters and opponents have mounted a costly campaign over Proposition 8, which would amend state Constitution to ban gay marriage.
By Jessica Garrison Cara Mia DiMassa

8:41 PM PST, November 4, 2008

A measure to ban gay marriage was leading in early returns primarily from conservative counties but exit polls showed the race as too close to call.

Proposition 8 would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Exit poll data showed that Democrats and independents were tending to vote against Proposition 8, while Republicans were in favor of the measure.

The proposition was trailing among white voters, but was ahead among black voters. Latino voters were closely divided.

People who said they attended religious services weekly were overwhelmingly voting for the measure, while those who said that they occasionally or never went to religious services were voting no.

Voters older than 65 voted mostly for the proposition, while those in the 18-29 range voted against it.

Recent polling has shown the race to be extremely close, and that divide was reflected at polling places throughout Southern California today.

[Miss Philicia]

Someone here from California will need to, better than I can, look over the county by county returns as they are coming in.  It's only been 2 hours since polls have closed there, and as the article mentions thus far it's the more rural, conservative counties reflected in the actual reporting tallies.  Urban polls always come in slower, if it's like it is on the east coast.

[Miss Philicia]

Looks like Florida will be banning gay marriage.  It needs 60% to do so and thus far is at 62%.

[thunter34]

*Sigh*  You know what?  I think I may just go on to bed now without knowing...because right now I have a whole lot of hope in my heart and I don't feel like fucking it up with bad news.  I got all excited when I saw this thread post because my parade was already getting rained on at another site.  Right now I am feeling good for and about my country...I'd like to keep it that way completely for at least one night.  So I'll snooze with it still up in the air.

I will not be so suprised about Florida or Arizona. 

  

[Miss Philicia]

Here's a good live blogging site for gay marriage amendment results:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/

[thunter34]

thanks.  will look in the morning.  i am not going to seek out anything that might be a bring down tonight.  going to bed now and gonna sleep like a baby just for once.

you betcha.

[Robert]

I checked out the Proposition 8 Results by County and to be honest I really don't understand it. For example, I live in Tehama County and if you put your arrow on it, it shows 0% reporting but then it says: YES  5674 votes (72.2%)  NO 2,188 votes (27.8%.

But I can tell you that the major urban areas have not reported.  The major metropolitan areas are along the coast.  All the green is rural.
As you can see, there is a lot of open country in California.

robt

[thunter34]

PS:  One last thing...I am so glad that bitch liz dole got her ass handed to her, too.

HA!

[Oceanbeach]

At this moment with only 30% of the precincts reporting the Yes on 8 has only a 6 point lead from 10 earlier this evening.  This proposition will be an all nighter with final results not expected until 9:AM    Have the best day
Michael

[madbrain]

As of this writing, midnight pacific, the ban is still leading. But the lead on the yes has narrowed considerably. It could still turn. I really hope it does.

Proposition 8-Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Total Reporting:58%
     Name    Votes    Pct.
   Yes   3,374,246   52%
   No   3,062,205   48%

[randym431]

Prop 8 is nutz.
Since when do we allow voting on civil rights issues???
What’s next, women voting rights, mixed marriage rights, re enactment of slavery???
This should have nothing to do with popular vote or "straights" involvement in the first place.
Just insane!

PS. CA needs a prop to void this prop.

[atlq]

I certainly hope the last remaining precincts turn the tide, but it doesn't look good now. This means that an awful lot of Californians pulled the lever for Obama and for the ban (sigh). Florida and Arizona have also adopted bans and Arkansas has voted to ban the adoption of children by gay couples. As happy as I am about the Obama victory, this night is certainly bittersweet.

[bmancanfly]

If we had had 1/10 of the funding and attention that the "national"   gay organizations devoted to CA we would have defeated Amendment 2 in FL.  And Amendment 2 in FL (which restricts even domestic partnerships and benefits) is much more far reaching than Prop 8 in CA.

[thunter34]

If it fails, I obviously understand that it overturns the previous decision...but what do the options become then?  IF Obama's administration weighs in on some sort of federal legislation, that would overturn this - right?  But even then, we would most likely be speaking of something along the lines of civil unions and not "marriages" per se.

I am crossing my fingers and holding my breath.

I have to admit, though:  deep down inside, my absolute resentment for christian bullying morality is seething.  I'm having quite dark thoughts inside toward them all - I'm just being honest.  I am sick to fucking death of getting squashed down at every turn and demoralized & invalidated by these people.  And yes, I recognize that it is not "every" christian that feels this way - but the group as a whole has painted us with a broad brush for so long that it is increasingly difficult for me not to do the same with them.  

Pardon my rant, but if this fails I am going to be really, really boiling.  Think of all the couples who have had their ceremonies over these last several months - to be nullified yet again.  And yes, bman, this sentiment applies to the Amendment 2 as well.  It is utterly galling. 

[RapidRod]

Obama has stated he is against Gay marriage but he would agree on a Union between same sex couples. So I doubt if Obama will speak on the defeat. We'll have to wait and see. 

[bmancanfly]

hunter,
I share your anger.  This really sucks.
Compounding that is that now I may lose my healthcare coverage.  I get my healthcare through my boyfriends company plan.  Now it may be illegal in FL to extend domestic parner benefits.  I'm very worried

We can be very very greatful for an Obama victory and all that that represents.  But the hostility in all these anti-gay amendments is depressing.

If I lose my coverage how am I gonna pay for my meds?

I guess the vote was so close in CA that folks out there could get another Prop on the ballot to overturn Prop 8 in the next election cycle.  But here in FL the threshhold is 60% to overturn Amend. 2 so we're screwed.

[thunter34]

I'm very sorry, bman.  This legislation is nothing short of wicked. 

[Assurbanipal]

hunter,
I share your anger.  This really sucks.
Compounding that is that now I may lose my healthcare coverage.  I get my healthcare through my boyfriends company plan.  Now it may be illegal in FL to extend domestic parner benefits.  I'm very worried

We can be very very greatful for an Obama victory and all that that represents.  But the hostility in all these anti-gay amendments is depressing.

If I lose my coverage how am I gonna pay for my meds?

I guess the vote was so close in CA that folks out there could get another Prop on the ballot to overturn Prop 8 in the next election cycle.  But here in FL the threshhold is 60% to overturn Amend. 2 so we're screwed.

If your boyfriend's employer provides benefits by buying insurance, Florida law may control.  But if your boyfriend's employer is larger they probably self insure the healthcare coverage and only use an insurance company to adminisiter the health care plan.  Self insured plans are governed by ERISA (The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) which preempts state laws that require or disallow coverage.

His local human resources rep could tell you whether or not the plan is self insured (but they won't usually be willing to commit the company to future policy directions).

[GSOgymrat]

I'm disappointed gay marriage took a beating this election but I'm not really surprised. I think gay activist should have gone for domestic partnerships first, allowed people to get used to the idea, and then gone after marriage. The majority of American are just not ready for gay "marriage". According to surveys, ads like this were very effective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4.  Obama does not support gay marriage and I don't think any progress toward "marriage" will be made anytime soon. The situation in Florida really sucks.

On the bright side, in California they just need to spend another $74 million dollars and create a Proposition to reverse Prop 8 during the next election.

[sharkdiver]

Because it is so close, they now have to count the 3 million absentee/mail in/provisional ballots. So we might not know until later this week.

[denb45]

I'm disappointed gay marriage took a beating this election but I'm not really surprised. I think gay activist should have gone for domestic partnerships first, allowed people to get used to the idea, and then gone after marriage. The majority of American are just not ready for gay "marriage". According to surveys, ads like this were very effective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4.  Obama does not support gay marriage and I don't think any progress toward "marriage" will be made anytime soon. The situation in Florida really sucks.

On the bright side, in California they just need to spend another $74 million dollars and create a Proposition to reverse Prop 8 during the next election.

Looks like California really isn't as liberal as I thought it was, but, I haven't resided in California in well over 6 1/2 years so I guess a lot has changed in that State since I lived there  do I miss living in California?  not the cost of living, that was the main reason I moved to New Mexico (Albuquerque) in 2001

[David_CA]

Because it is so close, they now have to count the 3 million absentee/mail in/provisional ballots. So we might not know until later this week.

Do they not count these votes initially?

[sharkdiver]

NO they haven't. They will start counting the absentees when 100% of precincts have reported. That is the problem with voting absentee for propositions in this state.

[Oceanbeach]

NBC reports 52% YES,  48% NO with 96% of the precincts reporting. The YES on 8 campaign did what the Obama campaign did, go into neighborhoods and talk to people where no one else was.  As of this morning, there are 3 lawsuits being filed, Gloria Allred is representing a lesbian couple in Southern Cal.    Have the best day
Michael

[sharkdiver]

Obama has stated he is against Gay marriage but he would agree on a Union between same sex couples. So I doubt if Obama will speak on the defeat. We'll have to wait and see. 

Back in July, he did make a statement about  proposition 8
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/01/obama-opposes-california-ballot-measure-seeking-constitutional-ban-on-same-sex-marriage/


"Senator Obama supports civil unions, and he has consistently opposed federal and state constitutional marriage amendments because, as we have seen in some states, enshrining a definition of marriage into the constitution can allow states to roll back the civil rights and benefits that are provided in domestic partnerships and civil unions," [spokesman Ben] LaBolt said.

I don't think either side is willing to give up yet.

Unfortunately I have to go to work today which is in a very conservative neighborhood. Yesterday a Yes on 8 supporter threw there soda at my car and muttered something in Russian (?) because I had a No on 8.
 

[Miss Philicia]

California isn't liberal outside of the urban areas.  Anyone should have realized this.  It's the same in ANY "liberal" state of the US.  Most any liberal issue isn't so much North vs. South or whatever, it's urban vs. rural more generally.  Always has been... the changes one sees slowly are an increased level of urbanity.

Change comes slowly with equality issues, and battles must be lost before the war is won.  Nobody ever promised this would be easy.  And as we've seen illustrated amply on this very web board there is a significant amount of gay people that don't care about any of this, and don't even comprehend and/or recognize that this is an equality issue.  If you can't convince you're own kind then that kind of tells you how much work is to be done.

[thunter34]

California isn't liberal outside of the urban areas.  Anyone should have realized this.  It's the same in ANY "liberal" state of the US.  Most any liberal issue isn't so much North vs. South or whatever, it's urban vs. rural more generally.  Always has been... the changes one sees slowly are an increased level of urbanity.

Change comes slowly with equality issues, and battles must be lost before the war is won.  Nobody ever promised this would be easy.  And as we've seen illustrated amply on this very web board there is a significant amount of gay people that don't care about any of this, and don't even comprehend and/or recognize that this is an equality issue.  If you can't convince you're own kind then that kind of tells you how much work is to be done.

Quoted for truth...and praise. 

[sharkdiver]

Amen Philly

[David_CA]

And as we've seen illustrated amply on this very web board there is a significant amount of gay people that don't care about any of this, and don't even comprehend and/or recognize that this is an equality issue.  If you can't convince you're own kind then that kind of tells you how much work is to be done.

How true.  It's like if it doesn't effect them, then it's not important.  Yet, these same folks want others (mainstream, HIV- people) to understand, support, and help those of us dealing with HIV / AIDS in terms of discrimination, cost of meds, etc.  It's really kind of pathetic.

[Oceanbeach]

Just In, The San Francisco Attorneys Office is challenging the validity of Prop 8.    Have the best day
Michael

[denb45]

California isn't liberal outside of the urban areas.  Anyone should have realized this.  It's the same in ANY "liberal" state of the US.  Most any liberal issue isn't so much North vs. South or whatever, it's urban vs. rural more generally.  Always has been... the changes one sees slowly are an increased level of urbanity.

Change comes slowly with equality issues, and battles must be lost before the war is won.  Nobody ever promised this would be easy.  And as we've seen illustrated amply on this very web board there is a significant amount of gay people that don't care about any of this, and don't even comprehend and/or recognize that this is an equality issue.  If you can't convince you're own kind then that kind of tells you how much work is to be done.

I lived in a Large City in Northern California, that had almost 90 to 95% Black & Latino, so, yeah I see your point  but I was in (total Culture-shock) when I moved to Albuquerque, NM six 1/2 yrs ago, I still i'm  my question ( to myself was this) ok I see a lot of Latino's, but, where in the hell are all the Blacks

[Miss Philicia]

As an aside and in line with my urbanity point, Barack Obama (racial issues aside) also represents a triumph of urbanity -- he's the first big city President we've elected since JFK.  And the first non-Southern Democrat to win since JFK too.  While Obama isn't the white knight for gay issues, comparatively he is by leaps and bounds fundamentally, in terms of moving the country along.  And he definitely comes from a "bottom up" activist/progressive ideology, and is firmly Gen-X as is his entire movement that elected him and registered tons of new voters.  When have you ever heard gay people even mentioned in a Presidential acceptance speech?

[denb45]

As an aside and in line with my urbanity point, Barack Obama (racial issues aside) also represents a triumph of urbanity -- he's the first big city President we've elected since JFK.  And the first non-Southern Democrat to win since JFK too.  While Obama isn't the white knight for gay issues, comparatively he is by leaps and bounds fundamentally, in terms of moving the country along.  And he definitely comes from a "bottom up" activist/progressive ideology, and is firmly Gen-X as is his entire movement that elected him and registered tons of new voters.  When have you ever heard gay people even mentioned in a Presidential acceptance speech?

Another thing I noticed about Albuquerque, NM when I 1st moved here?  not only did it not have many blacks, but, it didn't have any black-Gay-men, so, Yeah, I'm still in a Culture-shock 

[Miss Philicia]

Albuquerque, NM is not a "big city" -- it's a small one

[Iggy]

I'm thrilled with the Obama win (and hopefully NC will be placed in his column in a few days after absentee ballots are counted) but am saddened by this loss.

We have our work cut out for us in this country as we are sadly not included in most people's definition of equal, but like the historical event witnessed last night, I know ours will come too, and I believe it will be greatly advanced by President Obama.

When have you ever heard gay people even mentioned in a Presidential acceptance speech?

Bill Clinton in 1992.

[denb45]

Albuquerque, NM is not a "big city" -- it's a small one

Well it's not that small, it has over 1 1/2 to almost 2 million in 45 to 55 mile square area, but, compared to 6 millions (like where you live) yeah, it's not very big at all.....

[SteveA]

Bill Clinton in 1992.

Damn you're right he actually did use the word gay in his acceptance speech.

http://www.4president.org/speeches/billclinton1992acceptance.htm

It was so near the end I missed it the first time.

And so we must say to every American: Look beyond the stereotypes that blind us. We need each other - all of us - we need each other. We don’t have a person to waste, and yet for too long politicians have told the most of us that are doing all right that what’s really wrong with America is the rest of us- them.

Them, the minorities. Them, the liberals. Them, the poor. Them, the homeless. Them, the people with disabilities. Them, the gays.

We’ve gotten to where we’ve nearly them'ed ourselves to death. (Applause) Them, and them, and them. (Applause)

But this is America. There is no them. There is only us.

[Peter Staley]

Change comes slowly with equality issues, and battles must be lost before the war is won.  Nobody ever promised this would be easy.  And as we've seen illustrated amply on this very web board there is a significant amount of gay people that don't care about any of this, and don't even comprehend and/or recognize that this is an equality issue.  If you can't convince you're own kind then that kind of tells you how much work is to be done.

Philicia, you rule!  Thank you for saying this.

I must say, I've been very down about some of the ignorance and self-loathing I've witnessed in the Off Topic forum during the last few weeks.

[Iggy]

Damn you're right he actually did use the word gay in his acceptance speech.

http://www.4president.org/speeches/billclinton1992acceptance.htm

It was so near the end I missed it the first time.

That one is from The Democratic Convention Speech (and that is a great speech,) but I also remember him specifically acknowledging gays in his Presidential Acceptance speech in November of 1992.

The key thing here is that we can not get compliant and too comfortable in that we have a gay friendly president as that is what I think happened during the Clinton years.  Obama, like Clinton, is the only logical and rational choice for gay people in this country, but it is up to us to see our rights fought for and won.

[Peter Staley]

Damn you're right he actually did use the word gay in his acceptance speech.

FYI -- he's mentioned gay Americans in EVERY stump speech he's made during this past month, in EVERY state he spoke in, including all the RED states.  

No presidential candidate has ever done that, period.  Not to pick old scabs, but even Hillary avoided the "g" word when she campaigned in red states.

[denb45]

That one is from The Democratic Convention Speech (and that is a great speech,) but I also remember him specifically acknowledging gays in his Presidential Acceptance speech in November of 1992.

The key thing here is that we can not get compliant and too comfortable in that we have a gay friendly president as that is what I think happened during the Clinton years.  Obama, like Clinton, is the only logical and rational choice for gay people in this country, but it is up to us to see our rights fought for and won.

I just hope Obama doesn't throw us (in-front-of-a-bus) like Clinton did  and we remember just how that played-out don't we.........

[Miss Philicia]

NEW SAME GENDER MARRIAGE LAWSUIT

Attorney Gloria Allred and her clients, a lesbian couple, who won right to marry in the California Supreme Court will hold a news conference to announce a new lawsuit against Prop. 8

Attorney Gloria Allred and her clients, Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, will hold a news conference today November 5, 2008 at 12:00 noon at 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500 L.A. to announce a new lawsuit against Prop. 8. Prop. 8 intended to ban same gender marriages in California.

Ms. Allred and her law firm represented the couple in their victory before the California Supreme Court. Her clients became the first to marry in Los Angeles County in June.

Ms. Allred will file the new lawsuit today with the California Supreme Court on behalf of the couple. The new lawsuit will contain a new and controversial legal argument as to why Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Copies of the lawsuit will be provided to the press at the news conference.

[Oceanbeach]

I checked out the Proposition 8 Results by County and to be honest I really don't understand it. For example, I live in Tehama County and if you put your arrow on it, it shows 0% reporting but then it says: YES  5674 votes (72.2%)  NO 2,188 votes (27.8%.

But I can tell you that the major urban areas have not reported.  The major metropolitan areas are along the coast.  All the green is rural.
As you can see, there is a lot of open country in California.

robt

I always knew I don't like in the real world... I checked Sonoma County stats:
453 Precincts reporting of 453
YES on 8- 65,898 votes 33.9%
NO on 8- 128,466 votes 66.1% 

San Diego County:
24,270 of 25,4499 precincts reporting- 95%
YES on 8- 5,163,908 votes 52%
NO on 8- 4,760,336 votes 48%

Los Angeles and Orange Counties have not posted their results yet

  Have the best day
Michael

[denb45]

NEW SAME GENDER MARRIAGE LAWSUIT

Attorney Gloria Allred and her clients, a lesbian couple, who won right to marry in the California Supreme Court will hold a news conference to announce a new lawsuit against Prop. 8

Attorney Gloria Allred and her clients, Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, will hold a news conference today November 5, 2008 at 12:00 noon at 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500 L.A. to announce a new lawsuit against Prop. 8. Prop. 8 intended to ban same gender marriages in California.

Ms. Allred and her law firm represented the couple in their victory before the California Supreme Court. Her clients became the first to marry in Los Angeles County in June.

Ms. Allred will file the new lawsuit today with the California Supreme Court on behalf of the couple. The new lawsuit will contain a new and controversial legal argument as to why Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Copies of the lawsuit will be provided to the press at the news conference.

I hope a BILLION lawsuits are filed   Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, and it should have NEVER even gotten on the ballot 

[GSOgymrat]

California isn't liberal outside of the urban areas.  Anyone should have realized this.  It's the same in ANY "liberal" state of the US.  Most any liberal issue isn't so much North vs. South or whatever, it's urban vs. rural more generally.  Always has been... the changes one sees slowly are an increased level of urbanity.

That is right on. Also the younger voters are more gay friendly than older voters. Attitudes are changing but it takes some time.

[thunter34]

Now would be a good time for the Ellens and the Rosies and the Melissas and the Eltons etc to start turning up the heat severely in CA.

If this amendment passes, there should be MASSIVE protests in CA.

EDIT:  For that matter, I think there ought to be massive protests in Florida and the other states as well.

[Miss Philicia]

Is there a point (yet) to having gay versions of Selma to Montgomery marches until you convince more gay people that this is an important issue of equality instead of just "marriage"?  Sure, it's cute to be hosed down by police on video, but things need to be more strategic. 

[Oceanbeach]

As of 1 hour ago, it is a done deal www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081105/Ballot.Measures  Have the best day
Michael

[denb45]

As of 1 hour ago, it is a done deal www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081105/Ballot.Measures  Have the best day
Michael

      

[bmancanfly]

I wish Gloria Allred all the best with her lawsuit - I hope she wins.  But as long as gay people expect to get their civil rights through the courts, rather than the legisilative process, we will ultimately be doomed.

The success of all these hateful marriage proposals is in part a reaction by people in the middle who feel this is being forced on them by the courts.  We will never convince the people on the far right to go along with gay marriage.  But there is a vast moderate middle who, with a little convicing, can be won over to our side.

While I think we are entitled to full and equal marriage,  on a purely strategic political level Civil Unions would be a more realistic near term goal.  Many polls have shown that even people who supported gay marriage bans agreed that they would support Civil Unions.

Sarah Palin is already planning her path to the White House in 2012 on a platform of a US constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.  That is a scary prospect considering the dismal outcome for gay marriage in this election.

[thunter34]

Right now, I feel like personally torching every church in this country to the ground.

I am sick to death of my life being governed by mythology.

[bear60]

I dont know. I cant come up with anything to say except it makes me sad to hear this news about Prop 8.

[jkinatl2]

Just curious, if desegregation was put to popular vote, would it  have passed? If the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were put to popular vote, would they have passed?

Civil rights issues have routinely been decided by the courts, rather than popular vote.

[denb45]

Right now, I feel like personally torching every church in this country to the ground.

I am sick to death of my life being governed by mythology.

That's a FELONY in many states, if you do go that route, so, I'd re-think that one over very carefully 

[GSOgymrat]

Right now, I feel like personally torching every church in this country to the ground.

I am sick to death of my life being governed by mythology.

What we need to do, Tim, is hit them where it hurts- their pocketbooks. I think the time is right to pass legislation to stop churches from being tax exempt. It would mean huge cash flow for the government and reinforce the separation between church and state. Why should religious organizations be allowed to avoid paying taxes when everything else gets taxed?

[David_CA]

Just curious, if desegregation was put to popular vote, would it  have passed? If the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were put to popular vote, would they have passed?

Civil rights issues have routinely been decided by the courts, rather than popular vote.

Exactly!  That's why it's so screwed that Prop 8 was even allowed.  I can tell you for a fact that if segregation had been put to popular vote way back when, at least in many Southern states, it would have been a long time, if ever, that desegregation occurred. 

What we need to do, Tim, is hit them where it hurts- their pocketbooks. I think the time is right to pass legislation to stop churches from being tax exempt. It would mean huge cash flow for the government and reinforce the separation between church and state. Why should religious organizations be allowed to avoid paying taxes when everything else gets taxed?

That's also what needs to happen.  When churches or other religious organizations start funding things that are political in nature, like Prop. 8, they should lose their tax exempt status.  They act like a private for-profit company or individual when it comes to funding these things but still want to be treated like a church.  They shouldn't be able to have it both ways, you know, separation of church and state and all.

[bmancanfly]

What we need to do, Tim, is hit them where it hurts- their pocketbooks. I think the time is right to pass legislation to stop churches from being tax exempt. It would mean huge cash flow for the government and reinforce the separation between church and state. Why should religious organizations be allowed to avoid paying taxes when everything else gets taxed?

You got my vote

[bmancanfly]

Just curious, if desegregation was put to popular vote, would it  have passed? If the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were put to popular vote, would they have passed?

Civil rights issues have routinely been decided by the courts, rather than popular vote.

Unfortunately,  the composition of the courts has completely changed since the sixties. We now have a decidedly conservative court.  The only viable path for us, in modern times, is via the legislative process.  In a perfect world the courts would decide in our favor and that would be the end of it.  But do you think that that will happen?  I don't.

[randym431]

Both Obama and Biden said in public they were against gay marriage.
That really pissed me off because the democratic party "use" to be our supportive party.
I voted for Obama/Biden but actually would NOT have been that upset if they would have lost, simply because of their stand on this issue. I felt it was a copout-sellout to stay on the "conservative right" political side to get votes.

The day will come when gay marriage is law of the land, but I expect it will only
come after every other civilized country recognized gay marriage first.

The USA is typically far behind the rest of the civilized world, and at some point
that will hurt and run against the grain. It will greatly hamper our competitive ability.

But until then, we need to take a page out of the African American civil rights play book and
come out and fight. Looks like no one is just going to "grant" us this right while we sit
back waiting.

We need to move this to a purely civil rights issue.

[Robert]

A month ago I posted how surprised I was that the "NO on 8" campaign had made no attempt to reach those of us in the rural areas of N. California.  ( Well This isn't Good....(California Edition) . I live in Red Bluff population 26,000 and the county seat of Tehama County.  For the past 6 weeks we've been flooded with "Yes on 8" commercials.  2,3,4 times/night on every channel.  You couldn't miss them.  I did not see 1 "No on 8" commercial.  The "No on 8" people had more money in their coffers than the "Yes" people did yet they made no attempt to reach the millions of us who live outside the big urban areas. 

Take a look at this Election Results Map and check out all the green area.  That's the part of  California that voted "Yes" (52% of the vote.).  The 'urban'  vote (including  Mono County ) was 48%.   In my county (Tehema) the "Yes" vote was 73%.  The "No" vote:  27%

If you're serious about changing the current attitudes of the voters you need to reach out more.  Or you can wait for the next generation of voters to come forward who will undoubtedly be more understanding. 

ps....As I recall during the 'veep' debates the candidates were asked about gay marriage.  Both Biden and Palen said they could 'tolerate' same sex unions but not marriage.  You will not see "marriage" brought up in the 1st term of Obama's Presidency....certainly not like Clinton brought up the issue of gays in the military and had to settle for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  It wasn't the time or the place and look what we got.....a bad piece of legislation that's been on the book for over 15  years.

[madbrain]

A month ago I posted how surprised I was that the "NO on 8" campaign had made no attempt to reach those of us in the rural areas of N. California.  ( Well This isn't Good....(California Edition) . I live in Red Bluff population 26,000 and the county seat of Tehama County.  For the past 6 weeks we've been flooded with "Yes on 8" commercials.  2,3,4 times/night on every channel.  You couldn't miss them.  I did not see 1 "No on 8" commercial.  The "No on 8" people had more money in their coffers than the "Yes" people did yet they made no attempt to reach the millions of us who live outside the big urban areas. 

Take a look at this Election Results Map and check out all the green area.  That's the part of  California that voted "Yes" (52% of the vote.).  The 'urban'  vote (including  Mono County ) was 48%.   In my county (Tehema) the "Yes" vote was 73%.  The "No" vote:  27%

If you're serious about changing the current attitudes of the voters you need to reach out more.  Or you can wait for the next generation of voters to come forward who will undoubtedly be more understanding. 

Actually, the funding of the No campaign was lagging for most of the time until the last week.

And the Yes ads started at least one week before the No ads.

But I agree with you that the No campaign didn't do a good job. I offered them a relatively large donation, under the condition that they would show gay couples in their ads. They turned it down. So I made a smaller donation.

I saw the No ads on TV all the time in the Bay area, but they didn't show any gay couples in them, not even single gay people. Just parents, politicians, or just words. Very upsetting !

However they are not the only ones to blame by far. The Yes campaign spread nothing but lies. I would say they were "swiftboating" . It's the nicest way to describe what they did. IMO, the media shares a large part of the responsibility for not screening those lying ads and airing them.

And of course, we should never vote on civil rights issue by a simple majority.

[madbrain]

Sarah Palin is already planning her path to the White House in 2012 on a platform of a US constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.  That is a scary prospect considering the dismal outcome for gay marriage in this election.

Don't worry about Palin. She is going back to her state. She is history.

[madbrain]

Both Obama and Biden said in public they were against gay marriage.
That really pissed me off because the democratic party "use" to be our supportive party.
I voted for Obama/Biden but actually would NOT have been that upset if they would have lost, simply because of their stand on this issue. I felt it was a copout-sellout to stay on the "conservative right" political side to get votes.

I agree with you completely. I voted for Obama also, but only because there wasn't anyone better to vote.

The day will come when gay marriage is law of the land, but I expect it will only
come after every other civilized country recognized gay marriage first.

It was the law of the land in California until today :-(

But until then, we need to take a page out of the African American civil rights play book and
come out and fight. Looks like no one is just going to "grant" us this right while we sit
back waiting.

We need to move this to a purely civil rights issue.

Well, the mostly republican California supreme court tried to grant us these rights, but apparently the voters are way further to the right of them.

[denb45]

I agree with you completely. I voted for Obama also, but only because there wasn't anyone better to vote.

It was the law of the land in California until today :-(

Well, the mostly republican California supreme court tried to grant us these rights, but apparently the voters are way further to the right of them.

I think most of the voters that saw Prop 8 on the ballot actually thought that voting yes, meant what it didn't mean, so they all voted yes, when they should have voted no if this is not the case, then, there were more right-wing-religious fanatics that just HATED Gays that voted YES, than we thought  ............no?

[Joe K]

Only through the courts, can we gain true rights equality, because Congress cannot change the Constitution.  What we need, is someone with deep pockets, to sue over one of these propositions and use the argument of what exactly, does All men are born with inalienable rights... and the pursuit of happiness?  The Constitution has no classes of citizens, because that is what our founders intended and if they meant to have different classes, surely they could have mentioned it.  But there was not even a word for gay back then and the issue of gay marriage is a result of the past few decades.

You cannot legislate rights, that already exist in our founding documents.  Only the courts, can assert and insure our equal rights, no matter who you are.

[sharkdiver]

I think most of the voters that saw Prop 8 on the ballot actually thought that voting yes, meant what it didn't mean, so they all voted yes, when they should have voted no if this is not the case, then, there were more right-wing-religious fanatics that just HATED Gays that voted YES, than we thought  ............no?

No that wasn't the case.
It was very clear. IT said right on the ballot Prop 8 will ELIMINATE the RIGHT for same-sex couples to marry. There were even Yes on Prop8 demonstrators outside polling places just outside the 100ft mark.

Right now, there are Community Gatherings happening tonight all over California (including Modesto and Fresno ...wow)  I'm heading off now

[bmancanfly]

Only through the courts, can we gain true rights equality, because Congress cannot change the Constitution. 
Yes they can.  They've done it 27 times.  
 What we need, is someone with deep pockets, to sue over one of these propositions and.......
Do all the work for us???  Or we can talk to our straight neighbors and convince 2% to change their minds.  Seems like that would be much easier (and cheaper).
You cannot legislate rights, that already exist in our founding documents.  Only the courts, can assert and insure our equal rights, no matter who you are.

Taking the Gay Marriage issue to THIS Supreme Court would be a absolute disaster.  Maybe after Obama gets a few appointments - but not until then.

[denb45]

No that wasn't the case.
It was very clear. IT said right on the ballot Prop 8 will ELIMINATE the RIGHT for same-sex couples to marry. There were even Yes on Prop8 demonstrators outside polling places just outside the 100ft mark.

Right now, there are Community Gatherings happening tonight all over California (including Modesto and Fresno ...wow)  I'm heading off now

Hey sharkdiver your making me homesick  I grew up in Oakland, Fremont, Hayward, but, I have family in Stockton, Modesto, Sacramento, Tracy,  Albuquerque is so damm Isolated, this place is in the middle of no-where ( miles away form ANYTHING )    Denver is 390 miles to the North, and Phoenix is 419 miles to the Southwest  and there is NOTHING in between  and I mean NOTHING, and I don't even count Santa Fe as being a City..................

[Joe K]

Bman, Congress still cannot change the constitution, they can only pass a proposed amendment that would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.  My whole point is we already have equal rights and none of the amendments have changed that fact.  I know this will not happen tomorrow, but I am trying to get people to see that this is an issue that affects us all.

[madbrain]

Taking the Gay Marriage issue to THIS Supreme Court would be a absolute disaster.  Maybe after Obama gets a few appointments - but not until then.

The next Congress could vote to expand the size of the supreme court, thus letting Obama appoint more liberal judges and tip the majority to our side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Size_of_the_Court

[positively_me]

Today was the first time in my life that I have been embarrassed to be from the great state of California!    I can not believe that Prop 8 has passed in the year 2008.  I spent election night at Madonna's concert which was full of love and tons of support for Obama.  There were tons of gay couples in the audience and it was nice to see them be able to be affectionate in public in a safe place.  To know that they no longer have the right to marry, should they want to, makes me incredibly sad.  I have heard that the Yes on Prop 8 supporters spent $70 million dollars on their campaign. Can you imagine what good could have been done with that kind of money? Instead they chose to spend it to spew intolerance. Heaven help us all! 

[Miss Philicia]

The next Congress could vote to expand the size of the supreme court, thus letting Obama appoint more liberal judges and tip the majority to our side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Size_of_the_Court

Ha ha -- are you serious?  Sure didn't fare well when FDR tried it.

[thunter34]

I certainly hope the last remaining precincts turn the tide, but it doesn't look good now. This means that an awful lot of Californians pulled the lever for Obama and for the ban (sigh). Florida and Arizona have also adopted bans and Arkansas has voted to ban the adoption of children by gay couples. As happy as I am about the Obama victory, this night is certainly bittersweet.

Indeed.  "Yes, we can" and "No, you won't" all at the same time.

How heartwarming

[madbrain]

Ha ha -- are you serious?  Sure didn't fare well when FDR tried it.

Yeah, but he did get his New deal passed.

[Oceanbeach]

Today, the Cities of Los Angeles and San Jose joined San Francisco in the lawsuit which the YES on 8 is calling "frivolous".  California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger apologized on ABC News for not giving this measure enough support as he was mostly supporting Prop 11 after 6 failures to pass.

There was also some discussion on whether or not the 18,000 couples who married since June will remain married or if their marriages will be annulled.  That is not yet clear.  This is a good time to point out, the cost of a marriage license in San Francisco County is $89.95 which is a pretty fair chunk of change for a county to turn away.    Have the best day
Michael

[Iggy]

But I agree with you that the No campaign didn't do a good job. I offered them a relatively large donation, under the condition that they would show gay couples in their ads. They turned it down. So I made a smaller donation.

I saw the No ads on TV all the time in the Bay area, but they didn't show any gay couples in them, not even single gay people. Just parents, politicians, or just words. Very upsetting !

To me, it is far more upsetting that you viewed the conditions tied to the size of your donation as  more important then the issue at hand. 

I respect your point of wanting there to be real depictions of the people who would benefit from the proposal, but I think you lost sight of the real goal.

Modified:  I think this is the flipside of the apathy issue we have seen as an obstacle in the gay community in mobilizing support to defeat Prop 8. 

[alisenjafi]

Americans should get a better lesson in how laws work.   This ban can be turned around as unconstitutional.  Laws are made to protect it's citizens not take their rights away.
I am sure this will not be lost on a president who knows the effects of Jim Crow.
If this was the case then our president would still have to get of the sidewalk when a white person walks by.
What makes this election so special is now any disenfranchised group can see that under the right conditions they too can have a major voice in Democracy in America.
The question is will it take 40 more years to paint the White House lavender?  I don't think so!
J

[Buckmark]

...
We now have a decidedly conservative court.  The only viable path for us, in modern times, is via the legislative process.  In a perfect world the courts would decide in our favor and that would be the end of it.
...

I think that we have to use every avenue available.  For example, were it not for the US Supreme Court, sex between gay people would still be a crime in Texas.  The legislative branch may currently be more friendly, but I don't see enough of a friendly majority to pass significant legislation.  Still, if we don't keep trying, we'll simply be accepting our current status as 2nd-class citizens.

I share much of the frustration and anger that's been voiced in this thread.  The hostility, apathy, and ignorance displayed toward gay people infuriates me -- not only by the general public as voiced in this referendum, but especially by religious organizations.   The use of referendum to deny rights and privileges makes me sick, and I can only imagine people vote for this stuff to make them feel better about themselves by putting other people down.

Regards,

Henry

[thunter34]

To me, it is far more upsetting that you viewed the conditions tied to the size of your donation as  more important then the issue at hand. 

I respect your point of wanting there to be real depictions of the people who would benefit from the proposal, but I think you lost sight of the real goal.

Modified:  I think this is the flipside of the apathy issue we have seen as an obstacle in the gay community in mobilizing support to defeat Prop 8. 

Completely agreed.  I was rather aghast when I read this.

It's like saying, "I will give to AIDS prevention efforts...but only if you all agree to get new license plates for your cars."

[bmancanfly]

I think that we have to use every avenue available.  For example, were it not for the US Supreme Court, sex between gay people would still be a crime in Texas.  The legislative branch may currently be more friendly, but I don't see enough of a friendly majority to pass significant legislation.  Still, if we don't keep trying, we'll simply be accepting our current status as 2nd-class citizens.

I share much of the frustration and anger that's been voiced in this thread.  The hostility, apathy, and ignorance displayed toward gay people infuriates me -- not only by the general public as voiced in this referendum, but especially by religious organizations.   The use of referendum to deny rights and privileges makes me sick, and I can only imagine people vote for this stuff to make them feel better about themselves by putting other people down.

Regards,

Henry

I agree with you buckmark.

However, I think we are headed for a great setback if we create a circumstance where the issue of gay marriage is taken to this US Supreme Court.  We will definitely lose.  The far right is gleefully waiting for us to step into that trap.  Once the US court rules against us, and they will, the game is over - period.  The only way to overturn that ruling (short of them overturning themselves) is through a national constitutional amendment which will require a national super majority.  We will not see a national super majority in favor of gay marriage in our lifetime.  Maybe some day but not any time soon.

Equal gay marriage never really existed in CA anyway.  It didn't include SSI benefits, immigration benefits, federal tax benefits etc., etc. so it really was a state civil union with statewide equality to marriage.  Calling it marriage was, somewhat, of a misnomer.  If we had sought state wide legalization of civil unions equal to marriage on the statewide level (which is really what existed anyway before Prop 8 ) we certainly could have peeled off 2% of the support for Prop 8 from the moderates in the middle.

Several years back there was a big debate in the gay community as to whether to pursue civil unions or outright marriage equality.  I think, politically, we have alienated a lot of potential allies going down the gay marriage route, and have suffered substantial setbacks because of it.  Calling it civil union with the same benefits, on the statewide level,  would be equivalent to what gay marriage in CA was anyway.  And would garner enough support from the moderate middle to beat back any challenge from the far right.  Once enough states have legalized civil unions, and the 18-29 voting demographic (who favor us) starts to replace the 65+ demographic (who don't favor us) , and Obama gets a few Supreme Court picks we can take on the issue of national marriage equality.  MLK was very shrewd, to his credit, about how, when, and where he chose his battles.  We should too.

It would be nice, and morally correct,  if a court could instantaneously bestow marriage rights on us.  But the current climate is not at all favorable for that.  Pursuing that course could be potentially disastrous.  We need to make allies not enemies.

[GSOgymrat]

I agree with you buckmark.

However, I think we are headed for a great setback if we create a circumstance where the issue of gay marriage is taken to this US Supreme Court.  We will definitely lose.  The far right is gleefully waiting for us to step into that trap.  Once the US court rules against us, and they will, the game is over - period.  The only way to overturn that ruling (short of them overturning themselves) is through a national constitutional amendment which will require a national super majority.  We will not see a national super majority in favor of gay marriage in our lifetime.  Maybe some day but not any time soon.

Equal gay marriage never really existed in CA anyway.  It didn't include SSI benefits, immigration benefits, federal tax benefits etc., etc. so it really was a state civil union with statewide equality to marriage.  Calling it marriage was, somewhat, of a misnomer.  If we had sought state wide legalization of civil unions equal to marriage on the statewide level (which is really what existed anyway before Prop 8 ) we certainly could have peeled off 2% of the support for Prop 8 from the moderates in the middle.

Several years back there was a big debate in the gay community as to whether to pursue civil unions or outright marriage equality.  I think, politically, we have alienated a lot of potential allies going down the gay marriage route, and have suffered substantial setbacks because of it.  Calling it civil union with the same benefits, on the statewide level,  would be equivalent to what gay marriage in CA was anyway.  And would garner enough support from the moderate middle to beat back any challenge from the far right.  Once enough states have legalized civil unions, and the 18-29 voting demographic (who favor us) starts to replace the 65+ demographic (who don't favor us) , and Obama gets a few Supreme Court picks we can take on the issue of national marriage equality.  MLK was very shrewd, to his credit, about how, when, and where he chose his battles.  We should too.

It would be nice, and morally correct,  if a court could instantaneously bestow marriage rights on us.  But the current climate is not at all favorable for that.  Pursuing that course could be potentially disastrous.  We need to make allies not enemies.

I agree with everything you have said here.

Maybe these defeats will mobilize more gay people to be more politically active. I know a lot of gay people I talked to in Los Angeles didn't think Prop 8 would actually pass until the week before the election and then they scrambled. This election has made me more vigilant about keeping up with gay rights issues and doing what I can to help.

[dixieman]

Right now, I feel like personally torching every church in this country to the ground.

I am sick to death of my life being governed by mythology.



This statement is just way offbeat...

Instead of working with people for change... statements like this just Infuse hate...

Thank God this is why we have the judicial system... it takes time... nothing happens overnight

Everyone forgets homosexuality is an minority...

How long has it taken to get from the Civil Rights movement  from Martin Luther King... to Now?
An election in which an African American has been Elected to become our 44th president...
It was not overnight and it took many sacrifices  by all...
not just black, white, yellow, red, brown ...etc... it took many people making sacrifices

and most of these unjust treatments of others just because of their skin color where HELPED by people whose moral convictions would not let this continue... and it was through the Churches of this country

[Oceanbeach]

But I agree with you that the No campaign didn't do a good job. I offered them a relatively large donation, under the condition that they would show gay couples in their ads. They turned it down. So I made a smaller donation.

I saw the No ads on TV all the time in the Bay area, but they didn't show any gay couples in them, not even single gay people. Just parents, politicians, or just words. Very upsetting !

The advertising paid for by donations to the NO on 8 committee was not geared to the gay community because, the gay community is assumed to vote NO on 8  We, the gay community are not the target audience.

Look at the NEW car dealers on Van Ness Ave.  They will budget $1000.00 per car in advertising dollars.  It does not take a rocket scientist to know, those car dealers and not advertising to the family who just bought a new car, advertising is geared to reach a NEW audience, people who have not decided on a new car yet.  Simple rule of marketing.

On election day, my friend Walter left San Francisco as a volunteer to go on the streets and talk to the voters on behalf of the NO on 8 committee for all of us.  His group of volunteers was sent to Berkeley (the home of the free speech movement).  Those good hearted, family oriented, church going people had already been won over by the YES on 8 committee by the ministers, the preachers, and the god fearing people at church.

A great deal of money funding the YES group was donated from those churches like The Church of Latter Day Saints, people who give the first 10% of each and every paycheck to the church before they pay the rent or feed their family not from the collection plates.

Madbrain, please don't feel like an ass because the NO on 8 campaign advertising did not meet your personal approval, I am sure the committee was grateful for your donation.  It is up to the courts now    Have the best day
Michael

[Buckmark]

...
Once the US court rules against us, and they will, the game is over - period.  The only way to overturn that ruling (short of them overturning themselves) is through a national constitutional amendment which will require a national super majority
...

I agree that there is a time and a place to pursue (and not pursue) issues via the judicial system.  And I'm not advocating that the issue of gay marriage is necessarily taken to the US Supreme Court, at least at the current time.  Only that in a broader sense, the judicial system is not an option that should be ruled out.  Timing is important.

Just as an example, the ruling against Texas sodomy laws (I think in 2000 or 2002) is an instance where the court did overturn themselves.  It's not unheard of, but it does take a generation (or two or three).  I believe the US Supreme Court did uphold Georgia's sodomy laws in the 1980s.  Not to mention the time gap between Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education.   

You make a good point that what is currently being pursued as "gay marriage" at the state level isn't really the equivalent of marriage, as it doesn't include many of the legal rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage like Social Security, Immigration, Federal Income Tax, etc.  The general public is obviously hostile to the idea of gay marriage, so re-casting the issue as civil unions might be a more palatable tactic. 

Regards,

Henry

[Miss Philicia]

please don't feel like an ass because the NO on 8 campaign advertising did not meet your personal approval

Obviously we need more naked men in the advertising.  Hairy bears and nimble Czech twinks.

[denb45]

Obviously we need more naked men in the advertising.  Hairy bears and nimble Czech twinks.

How about a Gay President of the United States it wouldn't matter if it's a Man or a Woman...........it could happen, in maybe 40 to 50 yrs from now? maybe even sooner?...................no?
 Why are (us LGBT's) hated so much? before this can happen, the hatred needs to stop  and when we as a society can agree to stop the hatred, only then, we can heel    and move on....

[Oceanbeach]

Obviously we need more naked men in the advertising.  Hairy bears and nimble Czech twinks.

Hey Phylatio,

I remember a company in Chicago called "Friends Forever" which sold life insurance policies belonging to people living with HIV to investors.  In their POZ or A&U ad, "Friends Forever" used a picture of two men, who had a better life because of the viatical market, who in real life were models.  The models sued "Friends Forever" because the ad implied they had HIV.

Don't know the outcome of the case because the Grand Jury also had a problem with "Friends Forever" who became nobody's friend and disapeared off the face of the earth.   We must be more careful using men in advertising.     Have the best day
Michael

[Oceanbeach]

How about a Gay President of the United States it wouldn't matter if it's a Man or a Woman...........it could happen, in maybe 40 to 50 yrs from now? maybe even sooner?...................no?
 

I don't remember if it was my High School Civics teacher or my college Political Science Professor but one of them said, "We will not see an Afro-American man or a woman as President of the United States in our lifetime".  He was proven wrong and if it was the college Professor, what we didn't see was him winning the Governor seat in California on the Green Party ticket.  I didn't vote for him.  About 40 or 50 years?  It's not likely, I'll be around to see that one but, I remember the first Gay Mayor of Laguna Beach    Have the best day
Michael 

[thunter34]

Right now, I feel like personally torching every church in this country to the ground.

I am sick to death of my life being governed by mythology.



This statement is just way offbeat...

Instead of working with people for change... statements like this just Infuse hate...

Thank God this is why we have the judicial system... it takes time... nothing happens overnight

Everyone forgets homosexuality is an minority...

How long has it taken to get from the Civil Rights movement  from Martin Luther King... to Now?
An election in which an African American has been Elected to become our 44th president...
It was not overnight and it took many sacrifices  by all...
not just black, white, yellow, red, brown ...etc... it took many people making sacrifices

and most of these unjust treatments of others just because of their skin color where HELPED by people whose moral convictions would not let this continue... and it was through the Churches of this country

I stand by my statement - every word.  That's how I feel toward them right now, and I won't apologize for saying so.  Believe me:  I've never forgotten for a second that being gay makes me a minority.  How could I?  I've been reminded of it every day of my life, most often from the god bunch. 

[madbrain]

Iggy,

To me, it is far more upsetting that you viewed the conditions tied to the size of your donation as  more important then the issue at hand. 

I respect your point of wanting there to be real depictions of the people who would benefit from the proposal, but I think you lost sight of the real goal.

Modified:  I think this is the flipside of the apathy issue we have seen as an obstacle in the gay community in mobilizing support to defeat Prop 8. 

I didn't see your original unmodified response.

I was very passionate about the issue, and I still am.

I thought the No campaign was doing a poor job all along, and I told them so in my emails telling them to show gay people. I was not about to waste a lot of money that I might actually need, only to see them continue to employ their losing strategy, and lose. The donation I ended up making was still significant.

[madbrain]

Hi,

Americans should get a better lesson in how laws work.   This ban can be turned around as unconstitutional. 

The Prop 8 ban is a California state constitutional amendment, just like many of the other state constitutional same-sex marriage bans. IMO, the only way it can be ruled unconstitutional is if it conflicts with the US constitution . This would have to go to the US supreme court.

The question is will it take 40 more years to paint the White House lavender?  I don't think so!

It will not. In 2000, Prop 22 - a same-sex marriage ban put into state law, won by 62%
In 2008, Prop 8 won by 52%.

There is some hope that within the next 10 years enough bigoted oldies will die, and this can be overturned.

[Oceanbeach]

Ellen is"Saddened beyond Belief" and will be speaking out on equality for all.  She was dancing with Barack Obama on her show, does anyone know if she was supporting NO on 8 on her show?

www.comcast.net/articles/tv/20081106/People.Ellen.DeGeneres

[Iggy]

Hey Mad,

My original unmodified post is everything that appears before the Modified notation. I didn't change anything in those lines in case you aren't sure.

I honestly don't get:

I was not about to waste a lot of money that I might actually need, only to see them continue to employ their losing strategy, and lose.

as changing anything regarding your original statement and my concerns about it.

I think if you were prepared to make a donation of one size when you made your request to them, then that would have stayed the same regardless of their answer unless you valued your view of how the issue should be presented as more important then the winning against the Ballot itself.

If you don't get that, then we are just not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, but I reiterate my modified point in the last post that I think this represents the flip side of the same coin in getting the gay community to get behind issues that benefit them.

[madbrain]

Completely agreed.  I was rather aghast when I read this.

It's like saying, "I will give to AIDS prevention efforts...but only if you all agree to get new license plates for your cars."

Uh ?

A better comparison would be : imagine AIDS prevention efforts that didn't target gay people, which are the biggest affected group.  Wouldn't you want to try to make them change too ? And how much money would you give to them ?

The fact is that No on 8 ran a closeted campaign. I think they could have done a whole lot better and perhaps won in the polls, if they had appealed to the voters by showing some of the same-sex couples, you know, real human beings, whose marriage status is now in limbo.

That's a disagreement I had with the No campaign. I still donated to them because I cared about the issue, and I still do. I just wish they had run their campaign differently.

[jkinatl2]

From what I read and heard, the "NO" campaign was very poorly conducted. Hollywood came through at the very last minute, AFTER all the inflammatory ads and canvassing of poor minority religious neighborhoods.

It was arrogance of the part of the gay power players in California that this measure would fail.

And while I shall refrain from lumping all Christians into the "Cult of the Zombie God" category, I will state that the Mormon Church has risen from a cult (which includes a talking salamander - go ahead, look it up) to a real danger to us. To us, gay people, and to the US, the nation as it is perceived globally.

I reaffirm that this issue shall be decided by the courts, and not the court of public opinion.

As it was initially.

[madbrain]

Ellen is"Saddened beyond Belief" and will be speaking out on equality for all.  She was dancing with Barack Obama on her show, does anyone know if she was supporting NO on 8 on her show?

www.comcast.net/articles/tv/20081106/People.Ellen.DeGeneres

Yes, she was. She actually made a video spot against prop 8.

Her $100,000 donation to No on 8 came with strings as well : that it would go towards airing that spot.

I have never seen it air anywhere.  I am guessing $100,000 doesn't buy too much airtime. Maybe it did air once somewhere, and I didn't catch it.

For the most part, No on 8 aired the other ads that were not showing any gay people.

[Oceanbeach]

Uh ?

A better comparison would be : imagine AIDS prevention efforts that didn't target gay people, which are the biggest affected group. 

I'm Sorry, Epidemiology reports in California and probably the rest of the country show, the highest risk for new infections of HIV to be:
1. monogamously married women, over 40, with no drug usage claimed
2. Hispanic men and women
3. Afro-American men
4. Gay men

This report is available through the Department of Health in any county and the trending has not varied for several years.  Gay men are not the biggest affected group and haven't been for quite some time    Have the best day
Michael
(former Commissioner on the Sonoma county Commission on AIDS)

[Oceanbeach]

Yes, she was. She actually made a video spot against prop 8.

Her $100,000 donation to No on 8 came with strings as well : that it would go towards airing that spot.

I have never seen it air anywhere.  I am guessing $100,000 doesn't buy too much airtime. Maybe it did air once somewhere, and I didn't catch it.

For the most part, No on 8 aired the other ads that were not showing any gay people.

It doesn't cover the cost of production, TV time is one of the most expensive advertising mediums.  But the spots aired did not show gay people because gay people were not the target audience, gay people were expected to vote No on 8, it was our neighbors and others who needed to be convinced Prop 8 was about Human Rights and Equality.    Have the best day
Michael

[StrongGuy]

ust curious, if desegregation was put to popular vote, would it  have passed? If the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were put to popular vote, would they have passed?

Civil rights issues have routinely been decided by the courts, rather than popular vote.

I have to agree with JK on this. The courts are a constitutional check and this would be, sadly, an even more ass backward country if the courts didn't take the reigns on civil rights from a constitutional  perspective. The courts were set up to prevent "mob rule."

On a side note, I am not at all shocked by this result. Give it another few years and another ballot initiative will come up changing the Cali constitution and there wil be more on our side to pass it. We are on the cusp. Just look at how the youth vote voted "NO" in huge margins. It's a setback, but we'll get there sonner than we think.

[Iggy]

I'm not certain if anyone has already posted this, but a cursory search didn't reveal so.  If I am wrong, my apologies for the duplication.

I think it is quite important that we see where the money has come from:

We present the Californians Against Hate Dishonor Roll. We want the country to know who is funding the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign to take away marriage equality in California. So right up until the November 4th election, we will post all major donors on our web site. These are all donors who gave $5000.00 and over, many way over! We've taken public information from the California Secretary of State’s Office and added telephone numbers and web sites when available. We also included commentary on some of the more interesting and controversial donors. Individuals and businesses have given a vast amount of money to take away are our recently attained freedom to marry in California, and we want you to know who they are.

http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonorRoll.html

[David_CA]

Iggy,
Thanks for posting that link.  I'm going to forward it to my friends in CA that are effected by Prop 8.

David

[Assurbanipal]

I'm Sorry, Epidemiology reports in California and probably the rest of the country show, the highest risk for new infections of HIV to be:
1. monogamously married women, over 40, with no drug usage claimed
2. Hispanic men and women
3. Afro-American men
4. Gay men

This report is available through the Department of Health in any county and the trending has not varied for several years.  Gay men are not the biggest affected group and haven't been for quite some time    Have the best day
Michael
(former Commissioner on the Sonoma county Commission on AIDS)

Apologies for the hijack -- just noting that reports for the US are available from the CDC at
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm

... and they show that over half of infections are due to male to male sexual contact -- only 27% of new infections were among women. 

[sharkdiver]

Last night there were over a 1,000 people at a candlelight vigil in the midtown area of Sacramento and at the capitol there were about 400 circling half way around the capitol building in a peaceful demonstration. There were a wonderful mix of straight, lesbian and gay couples and families. I helped to remind people not to react to the Yes on 8 people that had gathered to intimidate us.

The chants of WE Won! We won! and the occasional "You all are going to Hell!" probably would have made Rev Phelps proud, but we stood mostly silent for 3 hours. One young Russian got in my face and called me a FAGGOT but I didn't react as I stood next to a family that held a sign saying "Having two Mommies Rocks!" (they had come all the way down from Paradise,CA)

If anything this disheartening, outcome has brought about awareness, and inspiration to work together to bring about change.

There is another rally tonight at the capitol at 7 pm

[thunter34]

On another site, I got mail from a gay christian who informed me that he had also voted to protect marriage as only between one man and one woman.  A little snooping (and a confession shortly thereafter) revealed that he was "bi" and diddling around with guys on the side.  Oh...but the wifey knows, of course, so the sanctity is still intact. 

[Miss Philicia]

Judge not, lest thee be judged, Timberly

[madbrain]

It doesn't cover the cost of production, TV time is one of the most expensive advertising mediums.  But the spots aired did not show gay people because gay people were not the target audience, gay people were expected to vote No on 8, it was our neighbors and others who needed to be convinced Prop 8 was about Human Rights and Equality.    Have the best day
Michael

Maybe gays were taken a bit too much for granted. You could show gay and lesbians all the No on prop 8 ads, and they still wouldn't have any idea that the proposition was about banning same-sex marriage.

As to targetting the neighbors and others, we might have convinced them we were fine people and should be allow to marry or remain married, if the No campaign had dared show our faces. But the No campaign waw too afraid. It's really hard to convince people of something when you don't even talk about the subject at all.

The no campaign actually raised more money than the yes side, but that money could have been put to better use.

[madbrain]

From what I read and heard, the "NO" campaign was very poorly conducted.

Yes, that much is very obvious.

[Robert]

here is an entry that allows you to look up  Prop. 8 contributors  by zip code or state or donor's name.

[madbrain]

I think if you were prepared to make a donation of one size when you made your request to them, then that would have stayed the same regardless of their answer unless you valued your view of how the issue should be presented as more important then the winning against the Ballot itself.

If you don't get that, then we are just not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, but I reiterate my modified point in the last post that I think this represents the flip side of the same coin in getting the gay community to get behind issues that benefit them.

Regardless of how I feel about the issue, and that is to say, extremely strongly, I couldn't justify giving more money than I did to a campaign that was throwing good money after bad. If I had believed that my making the larger donation to that campaign had some chance of making a difference in the final outcome, without the campaign also changing strategy, I would have made that larger donation in a heartbeat.

I am hardly the only one who has been critical of the handling of the No campaign. I didn't want to be critical publicly before their failure - prophecies have a way of being self-fullfilling -, but many others were not as shy. Try watching back episodes of Gay USA on FSTV for example.

[Oceanbeach]

Maybe gays were taken a bit too much for granted. You could show gay and lesbians all the No on prop 8 ads, and they still wouldn't have any idea that the proposition was about banning same-sex marriage.

As to targetting the neighbors and others, we might have convinced them we were fine people and should be allow to marry or remain married, if the No campaign had dared show our faces. But the No campaign waw too afraid. It's really hard to convince people of something when you don't even talk about the subject at all.

The no campaign actually raised more money than the yes side, but that money could have been put to better use.

I didn't know the No campaign raised more money than the Yes.  I did see the list of donations which was included in this tread by Iggy.  The largest contributions to Yes on 8 came from other states, most of the California contributions came from Orange County, a must win in our state for a Republican candidate.  Like the Obama campaign, the Yes on 8 volunteers went door to door, in neighborhoods where the opposition (us) would not expect them to.  These people do not care about facts or trust advertising, headlines.  They care about their church losing it's non-profit status and their children learning about homosexuality in pre-school.  The 60 second spot in heavy rotation on prime time featuring the California Superintendent of Schools saying that was not the case in California, could knock that one back into reality.

Have you ever read the "Ask Betty" column in PlanetOut?  As the mother of Ellen and a proud member of PFLAG, she would have been an excellent spokes model, as would any number of gay (and straight) celebrities but, I don't think the average openly gay man, woman or couple, like you and I , our friends could be a good representation to promote the cause.

I've owned an advertising agency and managed a million dollar book of business and from that experience, I learned to work with the local press on HIV issues, which were no longer considered news.  It is an hour and a half drive from my house to San Francisco, the daily drive and the cost would have been more than I can do but, in a perfect world, I know how to handle a budget for advertising and how to work the press for all the freebies.  I would have loved being part of this but in a County which voted 128,455 No on 8, 66.1% to 65,898 Yes on 8, 33.9%, there was no need for my help here.    Have the best day
Michael

[randym431]

Rights and law should only be decided by courts.
What has been done in Ca. is nothing short of a group lynching
of civil rights.
This will be headed to the US Supreme court, as it should be.
And it should succeed, nullifying any and all state amendments.
Issues like this can not be left to the states.
Civil rights must be uniform across the country.

[Miss Philicia]

Some of you may find this post-election polling analysis of interest:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/dicamillo_polling_on_prop_8_ca.php

[bmancanfly]

Some of you may find this post-election polling analysis of interest:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/dicamillo_polling_on_prop_8_ca.php

An interesting link showing the effect of advertising on the outcome of Prop 8.  Thanks for posting.

No disputing the effect that clever advertising can have on the public perception.

It's interesting to note that there are 1.3 million GLB people in CA (estimated).  If everyone of them had convinced just one person to change their vote, Prop 8 would have failed by 800,000 votes.  And that would not have cost a nickel.

[Sweet_C]

I believe with all my heart that Prop 8 was just a "last gasp" for those opposed to gay marriage.  It's just a matter of time before it's overturned in courts.   The progression of this issue is so similar to blacks fight for civil rights--exept I think that it will happen a lot more quickly for gays because the foundation for it has already been laid from what happened in the sixties.  This is a due process issue pure and simple.  Civil Unions are not good enough.  That's just like saying that "separate but equal" is o.k., when we settled that question over 40 years ago.

While Pres Obama the politician hasn't supported gay marriage, I'd be willing to bet my house, car, and dog that Pres Obama the person supports it whole heartedly.  When the time is right, I think he will do the right thing.  I can't imagine he'd do a Bill Clinton on it.

I am an African American woman and I am embarassed that my community is so homophobic.  A little over 70% of Blacks in CA supported the marriage ban.  You would think that since we know how it feels to be discriminated against that we wouldn't do it to others, but unfortunately that is not the case.  Most blacks have Southern roots, and so blacks generally are conservative on all issues that aren't race related.  Many blacks become defensive when you compare the gay rights movement with the Civil Rights movement of the 60's.  Somehow they think that racism and homophobia are completely different animals, but they both spring from the same well of bigotry.  Blacks also lag behind when it comes to women's rights, which I believe to be closely linked with gay rights.  The black community suffers in many ways from our small-mindedness on this issue.  

And on religion, most of the people who say they are Christians are not true Christians--just people who like to feel like they are better than others.  It's not only gays, but pretty much anybody who doesn't walk in lockstep with them.  I still consider myself to be a Christian(Baptist), but I don't belong to any church.  I can't take judgmental holier than though attitudes and hypocrisy.  

Anyway, I think change is gong to come very quickly especially since we have more examples of gays and gay marriage on T.V.  While there are always going to be people who hate, I think the American people as a whole are becoming much, much more comfortable with the idea.

[denb45]

Unions are not good enough.  That's just like saying that "separate but equal" is o.k.

For most of us, it's all or nothing, why take some half-baked civil union, that doesn't offer the REAL THING,
that's not equal in my eyes  I want the same State & Federal benefits as everyone else, not some half-assed State crap, that says I'm separate, but not really equal 

[GSOgymrat]

I am an African American woman and I am embarassed that my community is so homophobic.  A little over 70% of Blacks in CA supported the marriage ban.  You would think that since we know how it feels to be discriminated against that we wouldn't do it to others, but unfortunately that is not the case.  Most blacks have Southern roots, and so blacks generally are conservative on all issues that aren't race related.  Many blacks become defensive when you compare the gay rights movement with the Civil Rights movement of the 60's.  Somehow they think that racism and homophobia are completely different animals, but they both spring from the same well of bigotry.  Blacks also lag behind when it comes to women's rights, which I believe to be closely linked with gay rights.  The black community suffers in many ways from our small-mindedness on this issue.  

Here is an interesting article from the L.A. Times on the topic: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gayblack8-2008nov08,0,1601616.story.

One complicating factor was that both sides in the campaign had plausible reason to claim Obama's support. The president-elect strongly stated his opposition to the proposition, calling it "divisive and discriminatory."

But he has also said in public speeches that he opposes same-sex marriage. In the days leading up to the election, some Democrats received "robo-calls" on their cellphones containing an excerpt from such a speech.

"Here is Barack Obama in his own words on the definition of marriage," the call began.

Then the voice of Obama speaking to a crowd comes on: "I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God is in the mix."

A narrator then urged a yes vote on Proposition 8.


I didn't know about this robo-call until I read this article. I'm sure this was an effective tactic, particularly among African-Americans who were waffling on the issue. When Obama says gay marriage is wrong it carries a lot of weight.

[madbrain]

Here is an interesting article from the L.A. Times on the topic: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gayblack8-2008nov08,0,1601616.story.

One complicating factor was that both sides in the campaign had plausible reason to claim Obama's support. The president-elect strongly stated his opposition to the proposition, calling it "divisive and discriminatory."

But he has also said in public speeches that he opposes same-sex marriage. In the days leading up to the election, some Democrats received "robo-calls" on their cellphones containing an excerpt from such a speech.

"Here is Barack Obama in his own words on the definition of marriage," the call began.

Then the voice of Obama speaking to a crowd comes on: "I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God is in the mix."

A narrator then urged a yes vote on Proposition 8.


I didn't know about this robo-call until I read this article. I'm sure this was an effective tactic, particularly among African-Americans who were waffling on the issue. When Obama says gay marriage is wrong it carries a lot of weight.

That's what happens when democrats don't take a clear position on the issue gay marriage. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to say that you don't believe in same-sex marriage, and at the same time oppose Proposition 8 - whose sole effect is to prohibit same-sex marriage. Yet that was Obama's position, and the position of a lot of other Democrats.

I had reservations about voting for Obama in the general election because of this inconsistent position, but I still did.

[madbrain]

For most of us, it's all or nothing, why take some half-baked civil union, that doesn't offer the REAL THING,
that's not equal in my eyes  I want the same State & Federal benefits as everyone else, not some half-assed State crap, that says I'm separate, but not really equal 

I'm completely with you there. The state benefits are only 1/3rd of the story. The most important benefits of marriage are federal ones, such as join tax filing and social security benefits.

At this time, there isn't any recognition of any same-sex civil union, domestic partnership, or marriage at the federal level. Our best bet is to get same-sex marriage recognized eventually at the federal level.

Also, there were 9 legal differences between domestic partnerships and marriage in the state of California. They were fairly minor, but still, they were not equal statutes, and they were clearly separate.

[madbrain]

Some of you may find this post-election polling analysis of interest:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/dicamillo_polling_on_prop_8_ca.php

I think it's incomplete. I saw plenty of polls showing the Yes ahead before the final result.

[Miss Philicia]

*sigh*  They're trying to show a trend, dear -- and they clearly state this if you read.

[madbrain]

While Pres Obama the politician hasn't supported gay marriage, I'd be willing to bet my house, car, and dog that Pres Obama the person supports it whole heartedly.  When the time is right, I think he will do the right thing.  I can't imagine he'd do a Bill Clinton on it.

I wish I could be as optimistic about Obama as you are - I would never make these bets. But I hope you are right. What matters is what Obama the President will do. It's way too early to tell.

I am an African American woman and I am embarassed that my community is so homophobic.  A little over 70% of Blacks in CA supported the marriage ban.  You would think that since we know how it feels to be discriminated against that we wouldn't do it to others, but unfortunately that is not the case.  Most blacks have Southern roots, and so blacks generally are conservative on all issues that aren't race related.  Many blacks become defensive when you compare the gay rights movement with the Civil Rights movement of the 60's.  Somehow they think that racism and homophobia are completely different animals, but they both spring from the same well of bigotry.  Blacks also lag behind when it comes to women's rights, which I believe to be closely linked with gay rights.  The black community suffers in many ways from our small-mindedness on this issue. 

While it is embarassing that blacks voted so overwhelmingly in favor of Prop 8, let's not forget that they only make up less than the 10% of the electorate in California. There is plenty of blame to go around among everybody else who voted for it.

In particular, it wasn't blacks who put the heinous initiative on the California ballot in the first place, and funded its campaign.

Blacks were merely gullible enough to swallow their argument whole.

And on religion, most of the people who say they are Christians are not true Christians--just people who like to feel like they are better than others.  It's not only gays, but pretty much anybody who doesn't walk in lockstep with them.  I still consider myself to be a Christian(Baptist), but I don't belong to any church.  I can't take judgmental holier than though attitudes and hypocrisy. 

Anyway, I think change is gong to come very quickly especially since we have more examples of gays and gay marriage on T.V.  While there are always going to be people who hate, I think the American people as a whole are becoming much, much more comfortable with the idea.

The whole question of religion shouldn't even come into play since the initiative was about civil marriage, not about religious marriage.

Many polls of Californians have shown they are in favor of gay marriage. But apparently, not all of them are registered to vote, or showed up to vote against the ban.

[madbrain]

*sigh*  They're trying to show a trend, dear -- and they clearly state this if you read.

There was no such trend. I followed the polls on prop 8 on a near daily basis. I saw plenty of losing polls, many of them sent by the No campaign right to my inbox to solicit more funding. This article only mentions some of the Field and PPIC polls. It's disingenuous at best.

[Miss Philicia]

There was no such trend. I followed the polls on prop 8 on a near daily basis. I saw plenty of losing polls, many of them sent by the No campaign right to my inbox to solicit more funding. This article only mentions some of the Field and PPIC polls. It's disingenuous at best.

I look forward to your averaging out every single poll result and presenting your astute trending analysis on this thread.  Many thanks.

[sharkdiver]

well here are a few of your "minor differences" between domestic partnerships and marriage.

http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.3348081/k.B080/Facts.htm#versus


This failure is certainly a wake up call for California.

Just get out there an do something and stop complaining that your donation didn't make a difference. The Yes on H8 were going door to door, talking in churches and community groups, and community colleges to get there message out and it worked.

[madbrain]

well here are a few of your "minor differences" between domestic partnerships and marriage.

http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.3348081/k.B080/Facts.htm#versus

Thanks. I was only about minor differences between the state rights of a California same-sex marriage and a California same-sex domestic partnership .

Some of them are described in this article http://www.examiner.com/x-358-SF-City-Hall-Examiner~y2008m9d4-Domestic-Partnership-vs-Marriage-and-Board-Preview

At the federal and social level of course, the differences are major, as you correctly point out.

[SteveA]

In spite of how this might sound, I'm not against gay marriage but I'm ecstatic that Prop 8 passed! Now before you all blow your lids at me stop and think about it.

These state by state victories and losses really are all just stepping stones to having our day in the sun with the Supreme Court of the nation. Until we see a case that makes it that far, these are all just skirmishes in the long battle towards equality. Now that Prop 8 has passed and the California State Attorney General has already said it wasn't written to be retroactive, it is now open to more victories in the courts as it's proven to be unconstitutional. Since they allowed marriages for many gay people before the proposition passed and they can't be undone by the poor wording in this proposition it's opened itself up for constitutional inequality for those who now can't get married when others were allowed to get married. The sooner we get a case like this up to the supreme court the better.

[Ann]

In spite of how this might sound, I'm not against gay marriage but I'm ecstatic that Prop 8 passed! Now before you all blow your lids at me stop and think about it.

These state by state victories and losses really are all just stepping stones to having our day in the sun with the Supreme Court of the nation. Until we see a case that makes it that far, these are all just skirmishes in the long battle towards equality. Now that Prop 8 has passed and the California State Attorney General has already said it wasn't written to be retroactive, it is now open to more victories in the courts as it's proven to be unconstitutional. Since they allowed marriages for many gay people before the proposition passed and they can't be undone by the poor wording in this proposition it's opened itself up for constitutional inequality for those who now can't get married when others were allowed to get married. The sooner we get a case like this up to the supreme court the better.

They call that "pretzel logic" where I come from. Taking a leaf out of the Lame Duck's book, that's something to be choked on.

~rolls eyes~

[GSOgymrat]

These state by state victories and losses really are all just stepping stones to having our day in the sun with the Supreme Court of the nation... Since they allowed marriages for many gay people before the proposition passed and they can't be undone by the poor wording in this proposition it's opened itself up for constitutional inequality for those who now can't get married when others were allowed to get married. The sooner we get a case like this up to the supreme court the better.

From everything that I have read the current supreme court would most likely say marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, all other arrangements were never truly marriage. I don't think we want the supreme court hearing this right now. We sure don't want the majority of Americans to vote on this because if you can't get 50% in California you sure as hell can't get 50% in the rest of the country. Remember 42 states already have defense of marriage statutes.

[SteveA]

They call that "pretzel logic" where I come from. Taking a leaf out of the Lame Duck's book, that's something to be choked on.

~rolls eyes~

I'm not surprised at that coming from you. The fact remains that this won't be solved on a state by state basis. Until it becomes constitutionally ratified on the national level this fight is just one of many.

[Miss Philicia]

[Ann]

I'm not surprised at that coming from you. The fact remains that this won't be solved on a state by state basis. Until it becomes constitutionally ratified on the national level this fight is just one of many.

Unfortunately, there isn't an appropriate "smiley" with which to respond in this instance.

Good luck with the salt.

Um, it may come in rock form. Just sayin...

xxx

[SteveA]

Well here's a Lawyer who agrees with me. Like it or not, this is how things work here in the states Ann.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/08/INUV13V3I2.DTL

[Ann]

Well here's a Lawyer who agrees with me. Like it or not, this is how things work here in the states Ann.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/08/INUV13V3I2.DTL

Doesn't make it right, mate. Pretzel logic is pretzel logic no matter who the baker is.

The times, they are a-changing!

[randym431]

More of my 2 cents worth:

Purely a civil rights issue. Purely!
I'm glad they are marching and fighting.
That’s the only way to do it.
No one or government is going to just grant
Rights, while the minority in question sits back and waits.
They need to continue this protest day after day no matter how long
it takes.

I think there should be another prop to address rights
of blacks, Hispanics and women. The only difference,
only gays get to vote and decide. Might as well let them know what its
like to be decimated against.

This bigotry against gays is beyond insanity.
If gays want civil rights, they should have them granted.
No questions asked. No strings attached.
Simple, done, resolved.
And tomorrow... nothing would be any different for the rest of America.
I can not believe in modern day, the stupid of society have such power over others.
Totally totally insane…!!!

PS. There are a lot of Gay owned businesses in Calif.
Owners should place a sign in the window of their business.
"If you voted for prop 8, DO NOT ENTER"
"Your business is not welcome here!!!"

[Cliff]

I think there should be another prop to address rights
of blacks, Hispanics and women. The only difference,
only gays get to vote and decide. Might as well let them know what its
like to be decimated against.

I think this is as much of a religious issue as it is a race or gender issue.  Blacks and Latinos tend to be more religious than others and tend to have more conservative views on certain cultural matters where they intercept with religion.  Homophobia is a big issue in black churches and a wider community as a whole.  I'm not sure how we turn that corner.  But the blame game and more importantly putting black gay and lesbians in the middle, probably ain't the way.

But I do have to somewhat agree and somewhat disagree with madbrain here, blacks only made up 10% of voters in California.  The proposition was pretty divided amongst all races, actually racking up support from white men (31% of voters), Latinos (18% of voters) and blacks (10% of voters).  What a coalition!  Only white women and Asians were against it, and with a margin of support of only 51-53% this simply wasn't enough to overcome the no votes.  But (and here's the disagreement) there is no denying that had blacks and Latinos not voted for the proposition, it wouldn't have passed.

What is shameful, but not surprising (to me), is the % of black voters supporting the prop.  At 70% that was only bested by Republican support for the prop (84%).  At some point the black community will need to take accountability for our bigotry and discrimination against gay and lesbians. 

[bmancanfly]

....

These state by state victories and losses really are all just stepping stones to having our day in the sun with the Supreme Court of the nation. Until we see a case that makes it that far, these are all just skirmishes in the long battle towards equality...........The sooner we get a case like this up to the supreme court the better.

Iceberg dead ahead!  Full speed ahead!!!!!!

Jeeeeeeeeeeeez.

[sharkdiver]

The turn-outs are getting larger everyday. It is wonderful to see such a big mix of people at least here in Sacramento. There is a big rally and march today at the State Capitol from 1-4 pm. Several of my coworkers are bringing their kids and neighbors to show them what a rally is like as well as show them that their family values equality for all people.

There is a nationwide rally in the works for Saturday November 15
here is the link.      http://www.jointheimpact.com/

[pozattitude]

I worked very hard on phone banks, face to face interaction in the streets and even got into some financial "mispending" over Prop 8.  I was devastated about the outcome of the vote on Prop 8, but now I see it as a the "kick in the ass" we needed in the gay community to get out there UNITED and fight discrimination until ALL AMERICANS ARE EQUAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
Religion is the main reason Prop 8 passed.  Yes the majority of Latino and Black voter were for prop 8, but only because of their religion ( Catholics and Baptist together with the Evangilicals and Mor(m)ons spent a lot of time and money to get people to vote yes on 8
The fight has only begun, maybe this is not such a bad thing after all....

[attachment deleted by admin]

[edfu]

Religion is the main reason Prop 8 passed.  Yes the majority of Latino and Black voter were for prop 8, but only because of their religion ( Catholics and Baptist together with the Evangilicals and Mor(m)ons spent a lot of time and money to get people to vote yes on 8

If we haven't already done so, it is time to acknowledge that "religion" is our worst enemy--not ethnicity, not political affiliation, not sexual orientation.   

[David_CA]

I also think that Prop. 8 passing will be a big "kick in the ass" towards equality under the US Constitution.  Another thing I'd really, really like to see is churches not being able to contribute to political (and therefor governmental) issues.  How well would it go over if a part of the govt. contributed to any organized religion, besides tax exempt status?  Separation of Church and State is a two-way street.

[randym431]

Whats this about Arnold asking the CA courts to ignore this prop8?
And that the CA constitution does not allow such voter amendments?

[madbrain]

Whats this about Arnold asking the CA courts to ignore this prop8?
And that the CA constitution does not allow such voter amendments?

You mean this ?
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/09/schwarzenegger-pours-fuel-on-anti-prop-8-fire/

[Grasshopper]

I got this message today in my PozPersonals inbox:

"Sent: Nov 11, 2008 1:33 AM (FLID:)
We are having a nationwide protest this coming Saturday, November 15th, all at exactly 10:30 a.m. (California time) at every City Hall across America. This was originally in response to PROP 8 passing in California and taking away our right to marry - but it is now about simply, once and for all, demanding TOTAL equal right. We are asking people in other countries that currently have this right to help us out by organizing protests in front of American Embassies or other U.S. official offices at the SAME time we will be protesting across America that day. We are expecting millions and there will be international news coverage! Please join your American brothers and sisters in their fight for equality (http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com). THANK YOU and forward this message to everyone you know!"