Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 21, 2014, 09:15:26 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
  • Total Members: 23284
  • Latest: amsa
Stats
  • Total Posts: 635436
  • Total Topics: 48199
  • Online Today: 218
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: NO on 8 Equality California  (Read 3914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Oceanbeach

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,565
NO on 8 Equality California
« on: September 11, 2008, 12:05:25 AM »
Received a letter today from the NO on 8 which reads:

"Dear Michael,

Let me get right to the point, our community is under attack.

Right wing radicals and religous extremists, including Focus on Family and the Traditional Values Coalition, have launched a multi-million dollar campaign against lesbian and gay couples.

Their aim is simple, to take away the freedom to marry for loving couples!

I'm Geoffrey Kors, the Executive Director  of Equality California (EQCA)- California's civil rights organization working to defeat attempts to enshrine discrimination into the California Constitution.

And, I'm writing today because I need your help.

You see the extreme right wing is determined to exclude  same-sex couples from the right to get married AND abolish abolish all existing LGBT protections in California.

And the fact is- they're gaining momentum.  In order to prevail, we need every LGBT Californian, and each and every one of our allies and supporters to join us in this epic battle.

Project Marriage, a Claifornia right- wing anti-LGBTgroup, has received more than $6.88 million since January, with nearly $1.2 million coming from a group sponsored by the New Jersey based National Organization for Marriage to fund Proposition 8, the anti-marriage initiative on the November 2008 ballot.

The National Organization for Marriage's President Maggie Gallagher, has been given money by the Bush Administration in exchange for promoting President Bush's marriage initiatives...supposedly, as an "independent" expert.

Right-wing extremists from around the country are trying to strong-arm Californians into into taking away the rights of our community.

That's why I'm reaching out to you with an urgent plea- To ask you to join the struggle with Equality California and send the most generous contribution you xcan to help fight back.

I'm sending this letter to you because I know you value freedom, justice and equality for all people.  And I believe you'll want to help sopeak out against bigotry and fight for the rights of all Californians."

There is more but my fingers are tired and how could I argue with such a request.  I will send a donation and sign the pledge to Vote "NO on 8" in November.

Offline allopathicholistic

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,258
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2008, 12:19:05 AM »
Y'know a friend of mine shared a few thoughts with me and I found them kind of deep especially when he said that the word "marriage" should never have entered the overall discourse. If I could be omniscient for 10 minutes and see the exact point in time when this error happened I would rewind and tell the person "Hey, choose your words carefully." Because "marriage" in the minds of many straight people conjures up images of a white dress, a black tux, a church, a minister, pews, flowers, etc. So "gay marriage" gets these same people huffy and hot under the collar. Because the imagery then changes (and not in a good way) into two tuxes, or two white dresses on the premises where they had First Communion, etc. So all these "backward" images trespass on holy mental ground and that's where all the rage and opposition originate. So if the word "union" was favored early on instead of the word "marriage" (what a true blunder imho), who knows what things would be like today?

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 11,202
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2008, 12:49:10 AM »
Personally I think it should be called what it is , marriage . If I ever have the good fortune to fall in love again I wont be telling people that I just got civil union-ed , I'll proudly tell everyone I just got married .

To my mind this is a civil rights issue and shouldn't be subject to being discussed in such a way as not to make someone uncomfortable , especially if that someone is willing to turn there head while others deny me my rights .

Offline Oceanbeach

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,565
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2008, 01:48:42 AM »
In just two days prior to San Francisco Gay Pride over 1,000 marriage licenses were issued by the County of San Francisco at approximately $89.00 each.  People traveled from around the world to get married in San Francisco and even though the marriage license does not say whether the applicants are gay, lesbian, straight or any combination, it was assumed those applicants were same sex couples.  An $89,000 increase in revenues for only 2 days work, is an amount that is not easily given up by the 52 counties in California.

Personally, I someday want the tux, the ceremony and celebration with family and friends and a white picket fence.  I do know my healthcare and HIV services share of cost will increase to 100% if I was legally married because two incomes would be used to calculate the share of costs instead of one.  I would not be able to afford $36,000 in annual healthcare costs.  I may sound like some kind of bitch but health insurance because of HIV would have to be included or, I can never be married and always be a recipient of Medicare, Medi-Cal and ADAP.

In a state such as California which has not been able to balance the budget on time in many years and with the loss of Title I funding in Sacramento, Sonoma and Santa Clara Counties, a piece of paper saying (insert name here) and Michael Sonomabeach were legally married and (insert name here) were responsible for the care and well being of, it appears to be a greater benefit which will reduce overall costs.   ;D  Have the best day
Michael   

Offline allopathicholistic

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,258
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2008, 08:12:59 AM »
If I ever have the good fortune to fall in love again I wont be telling people that I just got civil union-ed , I'll proudly tell everyone I just got married .

To my mind this is a civil rights issue and shouldn't be subject to being discussed in such a way as not to make someone uncomfortable , especially if that someone is willing to turn there head while others deny me my rights .

LOL  :D but really now, who'd be so literal as to say "I just got civil unioned"? Nobody. You have every right to choose whatever word or words YOU want in a colloquial setting. Many gay men say "hey sister" to mean "hey pal". But as for the word "union" my point is that concepts can ushered into the mainstream backdoor style and slowly and more for getting what you want versus worrying about stepping on toes. But anyhue the damage is done - The choice of the word "marriage" is a huge culprit. If people want national acceptance and perplex others because their knuckles are turning white by grasping so tightly onto the word "marriage", they better accept the possibility that they might never see that acceptance within their lifetime due to a simple word choice - Many straight people view birth, marriage, parenthood and death as the four sacred cornerstones of life on Earth and they want to keep things exactly as is.


In a state such as California which has not been able to balance the budget on time in many years and with the loss of Title I funding in Sacramento, Sonoma and Santa Clara Counties, a piece of paper saying (insert name here) and Michael Sonomabeach were legally married and (insert name here) were responsible for the care and well being of, it appears to be a greater benefit which will reduce overall costs.   ;D  Have the best day
Michael   

Excellent point. If you notice many legal documents say "parent OR guardian" so that supports my point that semantics within government are malleable - "Guardian" certainly came after "parent". And many guardians in essence act like parents but today we see both terms legally recognized.

Offline Peter Staley

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Founder & Advisory Editor, AIDSmeds.com
    • AIDSmeds.com
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2008, 09:26:16 AM »
I blogged about Proposition 8 a few months ago, and got some interesting replies:

http://blogs.poz.com/peter/archives/2008/06/the_greatest_ga.html

If you give money to gay causes each year, Equality for All is THE group you should donate to this year (BEFORE November).  I still think this is the most important gay rights battle in the U.S. right now.

I wrote them a big check.  We have GOT to win this one! 

Peter

Offline aliveinla

  • Member
  • Posts: 247
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2008, 10:00:08 AM »
Exactly. This is civil right. Tactically maybe we can again and again compare this with interacial marriage, to possibly get some votes from blacks, latinos and women, etc. I personally never plan to get married with my bf but I will do my best to fight for this right.

Personally I think it should be called what it is , marriage . If I ever have the good fortune to fall in love again I wont be telling people that I just got civil union-ed , I'll proudly tell everyone I just got married .

To my mind this is a civil rights issue and shouldn't be subject to being discussed in such a way as not to make someone uncomfortable , especially if that someone is willing to turn there head while others deny me my rights .
4/24/07: Last tested Neg
1/22/08: First tested Poz
1/30/08: CD4 393; 28%; VL: 44k
3/18/08: CD4 218; 26%; VL: 222K
4/24/08: CD4 402; 26%; VL: lab forgot
7/22/08: CD4 405; 25%; VL: 6,780
10/15/08: CD4 340, 26%; VL: N/A
2/4/09: CD4 394, 26%; VL: N/A
Jun 09: CD4 300, 25%; VL: 4000
Oct 09: CD4 324, 23%, VL: 10K
11/22/09: started Atripla
11/20/11: CD4 405; VL: UD

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2008, 10:03:33 AM »
I blogged about Proposition 8 a few months ago, and got some interesting replies:

http://blogs.poz.com/peter/archives/2008/06/the_greatest_ga.html

If you give money to gay causes each year, Equality for All is THE group you should donate to this year (BEFORE November).  I still think this is the most important gay rights battle in the U.S. right now.

I wrote them a big check.  We have GOT to win this one! 

Peter

Oh honey, how touchingly naive. :)

You can write all the big fat "I-hate-myself-coz-I'm-white" cheques you want but two blokes and a cat still don't make a family.

Seriously, ask Obama. ;)

MtD

Offline Oceanbeach

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,565
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2008, 03:12:59 PM »
two blokes and a cat still don't make a family.

Seriously, ask Obama. ;)

MtD

Oh Resident Evil One,

When HIV benefits are calculated in (at least California) 1 is considered a family and I am still short 1 bloke and a cat  ;D  Have the best day
Michael

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2008, 03:16:51 PM »
Oh Resident Evil One,

When HIV benefits are calculated in (at least California) 1 is considered a family and I am still short 1 bloke and a cat 
Have the best day
Michael


Well then what is the point of having a Republican governor? It's Arnie's job to put an end to all this shit! It's that Kennedy woman he married, she turned him into some sorta closet Demonkrat.

MtD
(Who is shocked and appalled)

Offline Oceanbeach

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,565
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2008, 06:00:06 PM »
Oh Damned One,

Please do not feel shocked.  Join Arnold.com bought the Governor's office in California.  An individual put up $2 million to start the Gray Davis recall effort.  I believe it was Tom Brokaw who said, "the voters of California have proven to the world, they are collectivetly stupid."  From the beginning, Joinarnold.com was telling the press he had no intention of running for Governor and a couple of years ago, he started the same routine re: the Presidency.  There was an organization in San Francisco at the time who were trying to get the laws changed so a naturalized citizen w/ 20 years in the USA could run for President.

The recall of Governor Davis was based on the premise he could not get the state budget balanced on time.  Joinarnold.com has also consistently failed to balance the state budget.  The Union representing the prizon workers is trying to begin a recall of joinarnold.com and there is no individual with the initial $2 million to get the ball rolling.

There are over 50,000 people living with HIV in California, a state with 52 counties.  Six of those counties are Ryan White Title I funded and all receive Title II funding.  The 6 Title I EMA's get their Title II funding directly from the federal govt.  The remaining 46 Title II funded counties in California can not use the RWCA funds until after the state budget is approved and signed.  The state holds the federal fuinds until it is signed.

Joinarnold does not draw a salary from the State of California (at least that was campaign blabber).  This in itself would be a bargain to the taxpayers of California but because of his "celebrity" staus, he requires more security than Gray Davis, Pete Wilson, or Ronald Reagan did and those security fees are paid for by the California taxpayers.

In the Special Recall Election in 2003, there were 135 candidates on the ballot running for Governor IF Gray Davis was recalled.  Some of the more interesting included child actor Gary Coleman (who now does commerials for a lender), Larry Flynt, Publisher of Hustler Magazine, Dan Feinstein, who is probably related to Diane Feinstein and Cruz Former Lt. Gov. Bustamante.  Joinarnold spent the most money, had at least 1 Kennedy endorsement (Eunice Shriver).  If Larry Flynt had spent more money, the State of California could have become a better place.   ;D  Have the best day
Michael   

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,370
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2008, 06:41:37 PM »
Y'know a friend of mine shared a few thoughts with me and I found them kind of deep especially when he said that the word "marriage" should never have entered the overall discourse. If I could be omniscient for 10 minutes and see the exact point in time when this error happened I would rewind and tell the person "Hey, choose your words carefully." Because "marriage" in the minds of many straight people conjures up images of a white dress, a black tux, a church, a minister, pews, flowers, etc. So "gay marriage" gets these same people huffy and hot under the collar. Because the imagery then changes (and not in a good way) into two tuxes, or two white dresses on the premises where they had First Communion, etc. So all these "backward" images trespass on holy mental ground and that's where all the rage and opposition originate. So if the word "union" was favored early on instead of the word "marriage" (what a true blunder imho), who knows what things would be like today?

I think you are a bit naive to think that the "anti- group" wouldn't have fought just as hard if a different word had been chosen.  Much effort and money when into Vermont to defeat the whole Civil Union thing -- fortunately for us all -- nothing pisses a Vermonter off more than having outsiders come in to their state and try to tell them to do things.

It may seem like semantics, but in fact, many laws, regulations, etc that grant the "rights and responsibilities" to a married couple actually use words like "marriage" and "married" in them.  Do not think for one second that this bit of semantics would not be used to thwart us at many levels and for a long time.  While I do understand your position, it ultimately is too "simple" and would likely not get us where we want to be.  No one is asking for any religious blessing, they are asking for equal rights from our government.  It is those against us who throw religion into it.  Of course, they also simply state that same-sex marriage will bring down "marriage" as a whole -- not to mention all of Western Civilization.

Mike
(who spent 4 wonderful years at the University of Vermont and pissed off a Vermonter or two himself)
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,009
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2008, 12:14:16 AM »
I think you are a bit naive to think that the "anti- group" wouldn't have fought just as hard if a different word had been chosen.  Much effort and money when into Vermont to defeat the whole Civil Union thing -- fortunately for us all -- nothing pisses a Vermonter off more than having outsiders come in to their state and try to tell them to do things.

It may seem like semantics, but in fact, many laws, regulations, etc that grant the "rights and responsibilities" to a married couple actually use words like "marriage" and "married" in them.  Do not think for one second that this bit of semantics would not be used to thwart us at many levels and for a long time.  While I do understand your position, it ultimately is too "simple" and would likely not get us where we want to be.  No one is asking for any religious blessing, they are asking for equal rights from our government.  It is those against us who throw religion into it.  Of course, they also simply state that same-sex marriage will bring down "marriage" as a whole -- not to mention all of Western Civilization.

Mike
(who spent 4 wonderful years at the University of Vermont and pissed off a Vermonter or two himself)

According to polls Americans make a distinction between "marriage" and "civil union".

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

Beginning in 2004 (with one early exception in 2000), polling organizations began asking a question with three alternatives. The CBS News question wording is representative:

Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship?
When the "civil unions" option is added, opposition to gay rights drops significantly from about 55% to 40%. Likewise, support for gay marriage drops from 40% to 29%. The "comfortable" middle ground is then some 26% who are willing to support civil unions so long as they fall short of "marriage".

This "half a loaf" approach is acceptable to only some in the gay rights community, but it is precisely the politically acceptable position that Democratic politicians think can move them from the losing side of public opinion to the winning side.


Personally I think the activists should have gone for civil union first, let Americans realize that the world isn't going to stop turning when gay relationships are recognized, then pushed for marriage. They decided to go for the whole enchilada, a decision which I think contributed significantly to election of George W..

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,370
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2008, 07:50:08 AM »
I used to be in the avoid the word marriage camp too -- but ultimately I don't think it would have mattered which word was used.  Polls may say that civil unions are more acceptable -- but the opposition likely would have started with an argument like -- they are trying for "stealth marriage" they want the same rights as marriage by another name (one can even imagine the ol' lipstick on a pig analogy being pulled out).  How many who answered the poll understood that we would have been asking for the same rights and responsibilities under either "word" and would that have made them change their minds?
The fact remains that the laws mainly address "marriage", not "civil unions" -- so we could have won our battle, yet still lost the war when people started interpreting laws verbatim and stating that it couldn't apply to a "civil unioned" couple, because the law states "married couple". 
Semantics?  Absolutely -- but another lever for the bigots to pull.  Is marriage a harder sell than civil union -- most likely, but we'll never know how things might have gone if a civil unions were chosen -- however, you CAN be sure that the oppostion would have found someway to battle on.  It ain't the "word" it's the same-sex thing.

Back to the subject -- we really do have a whole lot resting on the heads of Californians -- I've done all I can to help (money, and a strong lobby to my uncle who lives in San Jose, being gay himself -- an easy sell).

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline Oceanbeach

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,565
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2008, 03:42:09 PM »
I blogged about Proposition 8 a few months ago, and got some interesting replies:

http://blogs.poz.com/peter/archives/2008/06/the_greatest_ga.html

If you give money to gay causes each year, Equality for All is THE group you should donate to this year (BEFORE November).  I still think this is the most important gay rights battle in the U.S. right now.

I wrote them a big check.  We have GOT to win this one! 

Peter

Hey Peter,

I read that thread and sent a smaller check because I have fixed income,  I really appreciate that you can and did send a big check, it is important we all help with whatever we can.   ;D  Have the best day
Michael

Offline allopathicholistic

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,258
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2008, 12:33:52 AM »
we'll never know how things might have gone if a civil unions were chosen

yup. you're right.

however, you CAN be sure that the oppostion would have found someway to battle on.

yup. you're right. but i think the "semantics blunder" made things easy for them. very easy.

It ain't the "word" it's the same-sex thing.

point taken but also consider that Rogers Albritton designed experiments focusing on words and sentences that are "live" (cognitively real and active in the minds of people) or "dead" (nonexistent in minds). The experiment featured little stories for participants to read, e.g.: 


(1) John and Martha met at a party about a month ago.
(2) Since then they have hardly ever been seen apart from each other.
(3) The attraction between John and Martha was overwhelming.
(4) Sparks flew the moment they first saw one another. 
(5) It was a classic case of love at first sight.


at times participants were presented with (3) and (1) together  and then (4) and then were asked if they had read (3) earlier , etc.
 
etc.,  so my loose interpretation is that some words are "live" and others are just "blah" some words do have more power than others, some are blah, some have "different" powers compared to others, some do this, some do that, etc., etc.

But they all have power. Power of some sort. All I'm saying is as far as gay rights, going forward let's learn from our past mistakes and we might have an easier go at things. If you notice there are tons of gay couples as homeowners who appear on HGTV (that's the interior design channel for those of you who don't know) and America seems to be fine with that.

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 11,202
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2008, 01:18:34 AM »
When people are discriminated against its never enough just to ask politely for your rights to be respected or restored , you must demand them .

Do you really think it might make any difference if we try and find palatable words meant to appease the very people that have made it they're business to deny us what is our right as Americans anyway ?

I'm trying hard to understand your point of view on this issue but so far I just don't get it .

« Last Edit: September 13, 2008, 01:21:46 AM by jg1962 »

Offline allopathicholistic

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,258
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2008, 08:29:50 AM »
Do you really think it might make any difference if we try and find palatable words meant to appease

It's more about getting stuff accomplished and not so much about worrying about stepping on toes. But what's done is done, nobody can change the past. All I'm saying is that we can learn from the past and maybe future efforts will be a little easier.





Offline sharkdiver

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2008, 10:38:27 AM »
It's more about getting stuff accomplished and not so much about worrying about stepping on toes. But what's done is done, nobody can change the past. All I'm saying is that we can learn from the past and maybe future efforts will be a little easier.






stepping on toes, you are worried about stepping on toes?  Oh my goodness. I wonder how much or if anything would have been done about AIDS in the 80's without making a little noise?  think about that please.

Offline allopathicholistic

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,258
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2008, 10:42:57 AM »
stepping on toes, you are worried about stepping on toes?  Oh my goodness. I wonder how much or if anything would have been done about AIDS in the 80's without making a little noise?  think about that please.

nope. you are misreading.

Offline sharkdiver

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2008, 01:55:34 PM »
nope. you are misreading.

oops sorry, I think...

Offline allopathicholistic

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,258
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2008, 06:39:43 PM »
oops sorry, I think...

that's fine. it's my fault really cuz i should've transposed my sentence to have a better flow:
It's not about stepping on toes, it's more about getting things accomplished.

i think that flows better.

Offline Oceanbeach

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,565
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #22 on: September 18, 2008, 09:30:55 PM »
According to my internet news provider, Brad Pitt has donated $100.000 to the cause and between he and Angelina Jolie, have donated $2,000,000.00 in the fight against AIDS.  ;D  Have the best day
Michael

Offline Peter Staley

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Founder & Advisory Editor, AIDSmeds.com
    • AIDSmeds.com
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2008, 01:11:28 PM »
A couple of major updates, one bad, one good:

The pro-8 forces are out-fundraising us.  They've raised $16 million, vs. No-On-Prop-8's $11 million.  If they seriously outspend us with TV ads, etc., they could close the gap that they've currently got in the polls.

Great news though -- one of the most conservative newspapers in CA, The San Diego Union Tribune, just came out against Prop 8:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080918/news_lz1ed18top.html

Well worth reading.

Offline Oceanbeach

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,565
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2008, 08:50:48 PM »
Hey Peter,

One of us should say Please send a donation to NO on 8 Equality California
                                                                  2370 Market Street
                                                                  San Francisco, CA  94114
I'll do that

Or go online to www.eqca.org/NOon8  Campagne finance law requires them to collect street addresses (not P.O. Box), occupation or employer information or they must return the donation.  This donation is not tax deductable because all funds received will be used to purchase advertising.   ;D  Have the best day
Michael

Offline Oceanbeach

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,565
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2008, 12:55:28 AM »
The California Voter Information Guide arrived in today's mail.  As Proposition 8 is explained to California voters...
Summary-

Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.  Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal impact: Over next few yeats, potential revenue loss, mainly sales tax, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.  In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Does this mean, (personal opinion) "totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars to state and local governments" OR "likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments"?  "Tens of millions of dollars" is more than "little fiscal impact".

What your vote means-

YES  A YES vote on this measure means: The California Constitution will specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

NO A NO vote on this measure means: Marriage between individuals of the same sex would continue to be valid or recognized in California.

ARGUMENTS

PRO
Proposition 8 restores what 61% of voters already approved:  marriage is only between a man and a woman.  Four judges in San Francisco should not have overturned the peoples vote.  Prop. 8 fixes that mistake by reaffirming traditional marriage, but doesn't take away any rights or benefits from gay domestic partners.

CON
Equality under the law is a fundamental freedom.  Regardless of how we feel about marriage, singling people out to be treated differently is wrong.  Prop 8 won't affect our schools, but it will mean loving couples are treated differently under our Constitution and denied equal protection under the law www.Noon8.com

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR
Protect Marriage.com
www.protectmarriage.com

AGAINST
No on Proposition 8
www.Noon8.com

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, 1000 marriage licenses were issued by the County of San Francisco in the three days prior to the SF Gay Pride Celebration.  The revenues for these three days exceeded $89,500.00 and many couples came from other states and other countries to be married in California.  Neither the short version nor the long version re: Prop 8 discuss any refunds to any couples who find themselves, no longer married.  ;D  Have the best day
Michael
« Last Edit: September 28, 2008, 12:58:51 AM by Sonomabeach »

Offline Oceanbeach

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,565
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2008, 07:58:28 PM »
A rush to the County Clerk's office for marriage licenses.  ;D  Have the best day
Michael

www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20081013/Gay.Marriage.Wedding.Rush/?cvqh=ITN

Offline sharkdiver

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #27 on: October 14, 2008, 11:38:08 AM »
Apparently this issue has stirred violence in the community of Modesto, Ca.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=49101

I saw the broadcast last night.  I guess some young gayster had enough and sent this guy to the hospital for 16 stitches. 

Look out the gays are getting violent
(was this a lovers' quarrel? hmmm)

Sharkie
(who doesn't condone violence)

 

Offline Oceanbeach

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,565
Re: NO on 8 Equality California
« Reply #28 on: October 14, 2008, 10:22:23 PM »
Apparently this issue has stirred violence in the community of Modesto, Ca.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=49101

I saw the broadcast last night.  I guess some young gayster had enough and sent this guy to the hospital for 16 stitches. 

Look out the gays are getting violent
(was this a lovers' quarrel? hmmm)

Sharkie
(who doesn't condone violence)

 


You know Sharkie,

I think I may have been to Modesto once but I don't really know anyone there, it may have been a drive thru.  Being a North Bay guy, I spend most of my time in Sonoma County, Marin and San Francisco, have only seen 1 "YES on 8" sign (on the Russian River).  I just can't imagine anything more Ugly than that sign.

I have owned an advertising agency in my life before HIV, actually before Gay and this story has a smell about it.  I suspect it may have been staged for free publicity.  I suggest the man who was attacked, knew his attacker and it was arranged by the "YES on 8" committee to be on television and both persons could have been hired for this media event.

There was a protest in San Francisco prior to the Folsum Street Fair, people had come from all over the country to protest the public "nudity" and open sex, the majority of the protesters were from the East Coast.  After their protest, they probably stayed for the Spanking Booth, I hear it is very big with the tourists.

The "YES on 8" has outspent the "NO on 8" group by about $4 million and neither side has been all that creative on their TV spots.  In my years in advertising, I was never responsible for a book of business which exceeded $1 million, with a lower budget, the rep has to get creative and provide the client with more bang for their bucks.   ;D  Have the best day
Michael

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.