So in amongst all the cheer and celebration at Barack Obama's win, things did not seem to be going as well in California. From what I've read a yes on prop. 8 is way more significant than just being local to Cali, and I just hope it doesn't end up being a huge setback for everybody else too. Frankly I think it's disgusting that a people can actively campaign and vote to take the right to officially express your love for another person away like that, but what can you do.
I suppose though that campaigning specifically for "marriage" was always going to be an emotional issue - it's amazing how important words are to people. In the long run, maybe fighting for civil unions equal to marriages is the more sensible road to follow.
I don't know, that's what we have here in South Africa, and while not perfect, it at least allows same-sex couples to build a life together in the same way that hetero couples do. Having three different "marriages" does have issues, big ones, but it's better than having one that only recognises a few people.
~Simone.
One can hope, though I hardly expect it, that we as a nation will wake up and realize "civil unions can be as good as, but different than, marriage" is unconstitutional, and that laws prohibiting a group of people from being able to do something is legislated discrimination. We're taught from early on that the US is the "land of the free" so I find it particularly difficult to understand it when we act like the nation of "everyone can have rights, except those people". And I really thought we were past "separate but equal" as a whole.
When I woke up and checked the results for prop 8 I immediately felt physically sick, and I live in one of the (currently) three states that recognize marriage as a union between two people. It looks like Connecticut has defeated the constitutional convention initiative by an 18 point margin, that gives me hope locally that Connecticut's constitution won't be changed any time soon. I can only be so happy with local successes when from all indications so many in other parts of the country are having their rights stripped away.
I'm disgusted about prop 8 when I woke up this morning and saw that it won 52%
I lost a little faith in society just right now.
My feelings mirror those of Shanetastic. To me, Obama winning is a hollow victory, much like ENDA was for us when it passed. So great, we have a Democratic president now, that's just great. But when you have a RECORD number of voters turning out, ESPECIALLY to give Obama a landslide victory, you would expect the Democrats to at least flex some liberal muscle a little bit, ESPECIALLY in California. I mean, I grew up hearing about how liberal and open-minded California was. How does Los Angeles County vote YES on Prop 8? How? It's sick, really. Take a look at the county by county breakdown, it's pretty eye-opening.
So I go to work today a little sadder, a little more cognizant of the world we really live in. It's not what I was expecting from my California. Meghan
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory?view=8&tab=0&fnum=0 (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory?view=8&tab=0&fnum=0)
Odd, it seemed perfectly expectable from way over here on the other coast. Afterall, what had ensued on the last popular referendum vote in CA on gay marriage?
What overwhelming change had occurred that would make anyone think that a sea-change had happened outside Orange County, LA County and Bay Area?
In places where there visible gays "NO" won. In places there aren't "YES" won.
I'm going to continue to believe that until we overcome our own fears and understand that, although tv/radio and campaign literature is important, human contact and human faces are more important, votes like this will "surprise" us.
Fearful as it may sound we are going to have to actually meet those who are prone to the acceptance of us as the monstrosities we are painted as by those they do know. I believe that if we are going to become successful we are actually going to have to give human faces to ourselves and our borthers and sisters and actually go where we fear to go: to the homes and businesses of those we believe will kill and maim us if they get the chance.
That can be a very tall personal order to fill and I'm not suggesting that we gather and walk through Montgomery, Alabama going door-to-door, but maybe Lassen, Shasta, Siskiyou, Merced, Fresno and San Luis Obispo counties would be possible. No?
Nichole
I'm still astounded that something like this could ever be put up for a vote.
Why not vote to prohibit interracial marriages? I mean what's the (legal) difference between that and banning gay marriages?
Kate
Given the "proposition" laws in many western states voting on interacial marriage and other things of that nature would be perfectly possible given the proposal can garner enough signatories to qualify.
The operation, outside of maybe New Hampshire, isn't as well known on this coast, Kate.
Nichole
Quote from: Nichole on November 05, 2008, 01:50:25 PM
Given the "proposition" laws in many western states voting on interacial marriage and other things of that nature would be perfectly possible given the proposal can garner enough signatories to qualify.
Then I vote to ban social conservatives from being able to vote, since they apparently have no grasp of what the "democratic process" is beyond it being a tool they exploit to legislate their personal bigotries into law.
Kate
O, that would be great and I'd vote for it, except that in PA we cannot have that kind of referendum.
... Now, we could maybe move to Cali and begin to agitate and work to have that sort of proposition voted on!
Nichole
Quote from: Nichole on November 05, 2008, 02:44:49 PM
... Now, we could maybe move to Cali and begin to agitate and work to have that sort of proposition voted on!
Agreed! And the social conservatives would all go nuts complaining about how we can't just strip them of their implied rights like that, no one has a right to impose their values of who can and can't upon THEM, blah blah...
And they STILL wouldn't "get it."
Kate
Prop 8 hasn't won... yet. There are over 3,000,000 absentee ballots in CA that still need to be counted. Since Obama was pushing early voting & absentee voting to circumvent potential poll problems, there's a high possibility that many of those ballots were cast by liberal voters. Prop 8 is currently passing by about 450,000 votes.
It's official: Californians care more about farm animals than gay people.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on November 05, 2008, 04:28:44 PM
It's official: Californians care more about farm animals than gay people.
I think it's horrible that not only did one pass with a landslide and the other is down to counting every last vote, but that they made the same ballot. We're now looking out for the humane treatment of chickens than our own citizens? It's a mess.
Quote from: Mister on November 05, 2008, 04:30:42 PM
Quote from: Alyssa M. on November 05, 2008, 04:28:44 PM
It's official: Californians care more about farm animals than gay people.
I think it's horrible that not only did one pass with a landslide and the other is down to counting every last vote, but that they made the same ballot. We're now looking out for the humane treatment of chickens than our own citizens? It's a mess.
indeed its a mess . and its a mess we should and need to fix !!. and make it legal all over the usa and the world . for us to have the right to marry and
the right to be able to adopt kid,s no matter if your gay lesbain or transgenedered we have rights and we need to begin to stand up for our selfs
and demand our rights to live just like everyone elese in the world!!!! but like i siad it ant gonna happen untill we stand up as one . and let our voices
beheard . and speak with one voice united !! and push for the same rights as the the whole world enjoys!! so that we may enjoy them too. and live
together in peace and happyness just like every one in the world . but the frist thing WE need to do is STOP THE BACK BITING AND FIGHTING !! and
put that engery into a movement that where we all come together as one and with one voice say to the rest of the world we have rights too . and
we demand thos rights to be protected. the same as every one in the world has . but it wont happen if we just set on our bottoms and talk about it
we need to get off our bottoms and begin to stand up as one . and demaned our rights!! ok rant over now iam off my saop box now :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Jaysus wants you to turn straight, you dumb sinners. Why, if Jaysus were here rot now, he'd drive a big fat SUV, belong to a neighborhood association and vote r'publican.
Amerucka is a place whar you kin be free to live any way ya please, as long as ya ain't one o' those sinnin' queers. And in this great land of ares, everybody is created equal, cept immigrants n homersexuls. An' foreigners. An' jews.
Praise Jaysus. (He also wants fer you to be rich!)
Don't sweat it. There'll be a change. If not today, then tomorrow. If not tomorrow, then get a gun and make it happen.
People are going to get married anyway. What are they going to do, send police in to arrest a bride and bride who choose to marry in a church that is accepting of it? That's the other thing. There are now churches that are fine with same sex marriages. So, freedom to live and worship are being attacked. If it isn't a religious act, then why do some couples need to be married in a church so badly?
In time, the pinheads will lose their traction on this issue. Most young people aren't as hung up as their parents are about these things.
One of the married couples I know is two women. What they do is answer questions honestly when asked about their spouse. One person at a time is learning that it isn't the end of the world when a same sex couple get married. Let's just hope it's more than just one person a day learning this.
Quote from: Rebis on November 05, 2008, 07:10:33 PM
People are going to get married anyway. What are they going to do, send police in to arrest a bride and bride who choose to marry in a church that is accepting of it? That's the other thing. There are now churches that are fine with same sex marriages. So, freedom to live and worship are being attacked. If it isn't a religious act, then why do some couples need to be married in a church so badly?
The biggest part of this isn't the fact that gays and lesbians want to marry in a church, it's the fact that marriage comes with it a whole host of rights and privileges that grant the spouse things like hospital visitation, inheritance in the event of death, etc. Most of the same-sex marriages that occurred between May and election day were just in a plain old court house, no big church wedding or anything. That, along with the very fact that it's unconstitutional to have any sort of "separate but equal" thing in the law makes it so important. When blacks got their rights, yet were still segregated, that wasn't enough. They didn't just want the rights, they wanted the respect and to live with the knowledge that they are seen as equals.
In California, there is the California Domestic Partnership law or something that does grant most, if not all, of the same benefits to same-sex couples as marriage does to heterosexual couples, but it's not recognized by employers and the general public doesn't necessarily understand what a domestic partnership or civil union entails. Therefore, a name can have big consequences. Marriage isn't just a cool thing that gays and lesbians want so they can brag to people that they are married. It's a word that signifies the rights, obligations, and protections afforded to them by the law.
Well just to muddy the waters a bit, isn't it funny that Obama won 52% of the popular vote? At the same time, it appears that Prop B passed by 52%. I am happy with half of the results ;D but if I am going to be honest, I have to realize that regardless of what the silly electoral college tallies, neither prop 8, not Obama's win, really represented an overwhelming mandate from the people. In fact, in recent times, only Reagan's second term was over 60% of the popular vote. Small victories and some large ones happen, but the sobering truth is that we are still a very deeply divided nation.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
Quote from: Kate on November 05, 2008, 02:18:17 PM
Quote from: Nichole on November 05, 2008, 01:50:25 PM
Given the "proposition" laws in many western states voting on interacial marriage and other things of that nature would be perfectly possible given the proposal can garner enough signatories to qualify.
Then I vote to ban social conservatives from being able to vote, since they apparently have no grasp of what the "democratic process" is beyond it being a tool they exploit to legislate their personal bigotries into law.
Kate
I'm thinking of a referendum preventing out of state Mormons from donating huge amounts of money to propositions. >:-)
Z
Quote from: Zythyra on November 05, 2008, 09:50:24 PM
I'm thinking of a referendum preventing out of state Mormons from donating huge amounts of money to propositions.
I would've thought that sorta thing would be banned anyway, I mean, the states are supposed to be independent, self-governing entities, for the most part. Huge-scale influence like this from outside parties is clear interference.
~Simone.
UPDATE- The ACLU has filed a lawsuit claiming that Prop 8 shouldn't have gone to a vote but rather should've been scheduled for Legislative approval.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/05/BA3B13UM63.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/05/BA3B13UM63.DTL)
This is why I don't subscribe to being proud to be an american just cause Obama won.
I'm still just as rightfully cynical, and skeptical as I was before. Why? Not only is it my job, but this Prop. is a failure that is disgusting to me.
Quote from: Stealthgrrl on November 05, 2008, 06:06:17 PM
Jaysus wants you to turn straight, you dumb sinners. Why, if Jaysus were here rot now, he'd drive a big fat SUV, belong to a neighborhood association and vote r'publican.
Amerucka is a place whar you kin be free to live any way ya please, as long as ya ain't one o' those sinnin' queers. And in this great land of ares, everybody is created equal, cept immigrants n homersexuls. An' foreigners. An' jews.
Praise Jaysus. (He also wants fer you to be rich!)
LMFAO, well put.
So, how many registered LGBT are there (still) in California?
How many are lawyers with the smarts to write airtight propositions, with language that will withstand court challenge?
How many issues can we qualify for ballots for the next 10~15 years -- issues like keeping outside influence OUTSIDE?
Or issues like repealing rights for other groups?
Or banning divorce.
Or limiting marriage to only those who are fertile and produce issue?
They'll all be voted down -- the LGBT community doesn't have that kind of lunch-money.
But we can at least have fun scrawling on the walls of society...
Karen
Quote from: Karen on November 06, 2008, 03:46:16 AM
So, how many registered LGBT are there (still) in California?
How many are lawyers with the smarts to write airtight propositions, with language that will withstand court challenge?
How many issues can we qualify for ballots for the next 10~15 years -- issues like keeping outside influence OUTSIDE?
Or issues like repealing rights for other groups?
Or banning divorce.
Or limiting marriage to only those who are fertile and produce issue?
They'll all be voted down -- the LGBT community doesn't have that kind of lunch-money.
But we can at least have fun scrawling on the walls of society...
Karen
Or just stop recognizing marriage at the state and federal level, since marriage is a religious practice which (perhaps even unconstitutionally) gives one set of rights to some people, and a more limited set others.
As entertaining as these might be to watch, I really don't think anyone wants them. It would feel absolutely horrible if the fight for LGBT rights trampled the rights of anyone else.
Quote from: MGKelly on November 06, 2008, 06:27:49 AM
Or just stop recognizing marriage at the state and federal level, since marriage is a religious practice which (perhaps even unconstitutionally) gives one set of rights to some people, and a more limited set others.
As entertaining as these might be to watch, I really don't think anyone wants them. It would feel absolutely horrible if the fight for LGBT rights trampled the rights of anyone else.
It would be horrible yeah, but perhaps, as with suing god (or rather the church as god's representatives on earth, like Billy Connelly did), actually doing something like that could become an important symbolic act that might just get the point across about taking rights away from people or denying them equal rights.
~Simone.
Or just stop recognizing marriage at the state and federal level, since marriage is a religious practice which (perhaps even unconstitutionally) gives one set of rights to some people, and a more limited set others.YES YES YES!!!!! Preserve the sactity of the sacrament of marriage -- get government out of the business entirely!
Now, we could maybe move to Cali and begin to agitate and work to have that sort of proposition voted on!The gay recruiting effort must have been off its top game this year. :P Gotta get those numbers up!!!
--
on a more serious note:
Quote from: Kristi on November 05, 2008, 09:08:34 PMIn fact, in recent times, only Reagan's second term was over 60% of the popular vote. Small victories and some large ones happen, but the sobering truth is that we are still a very deeply divided nation.
And in '80 he barely got over 50% (though he beat Carter by almost 10 points anyway).
But that's not reflective of the unity of the country. We have close elections because our Constitution produces a two party system. So half the people are more liberal than average, and half more conservative. If you have a candidate that is more cerntrist than necessary, it's a waste -- might as well squeak by in the election with someone more in line with the half of the country the party represents (or at least, more closely represents).
Presidential lections are structured to be squeakers, regardless how unified or divided we are, which is why more than 10% spread really is a landslide, and Obama's victory a solid one.
I'd agree that Prop 8 is a different story, one that really does indicate a deep divide.
~Alyssa
As a Californian myself, I was extremely disappointed.
I just didn't expect it. I truly, in my heart, though that victory was as good as ours.
I can't believe that 52% of our population who will not be affected whatsoever by whats being voted on, had the right to take that right away from the other 48%.
(Granted there were many straight people that voted no, it's still outrageous)
But with all the lawsuits being filed, the blatant illegal tactics used by the YES on 8 campaign, and the strong will of our community, I'm assured that this cannot last long.
So I have a pretty obvious question: Can't the California Supreme Court overrule this prop just like the last time? Isn't it just as unconstitutional today as it was when they first overturned it for being unconstitutional?
Also, how can something be put into a vote when the final call on it said that it was unconstitutional? So are things only unconstitutional if the majority thinks it is?
Im in agreance after being happy that Obama won I was highly irritated to see the support for propositon 8. Well thats america for you we claim to be the land of the free and in many ways we are but then we turn around and tell someone they can't have the same basic rights as everyone else. The most sickening comment I heard on the news concerning the issue was how many religous conservatives view passing propositon 8 as more important than the presidental election itself to many that borders on the fanatical level. I live in NC myself which will prob be one of the last states to ever see gay marriage passed due to being in the bible belt although I must say that the results for the presidental election made me actually proud of my state for the first time ever. It gives me some hope that NC can become more known as the Biotech state than the bible belt.
Quote from: lady amarant on November 05, 2008, 10:20:27 PM
Quote from: Zythyra on November 05, 2008, 09:50:24 PM
I'm thinking of a referendum preventing out of state Mormons from donating huge amounts of money to propositions.
I would've thought that sorta thing would be banned anyway, I mean, the states are supposed to be independent, self-governing entities, for the most part. Huge-scale influence like this from outside parties is clear interference.
~Simone.
Why do you hate America?
Actually, that's half-serious. I can't stand it when liberals complain about the influence of religion in government. That's not the country I live in, nor the country I want to live in. I live in a country that, for better or worse, was founded on freedom
of religion, not freedom
from religion. I commend anyone who takes their personal convictions seriously enough to affect their view of what society we want to live in -- even though I might disagree strongly, and deplore the implications of those convictions.
Remember that many civil rights leaders were driven by religious convictions. I don't care whether your convictions come from the Dalai Lama, the Pope, Karl Marx, or Ayn Rand. It is
entirely appropriate that you live out those convictions in how you speak publicly and how you vote privately.
It is job to
explain to the Mormons and culturally conservative blacks and latinos, among many others that supported Prop 8, that gay marriage is a civil right on par with interracial marriage. It is
not our job to silence those groups. As Schwarzenegger said, "It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category." Those groups don't understand that. We need to explain it.
--
Seriously, though, where do
Mormons get off advocating for government interference with regard to who can marry whom?
Mormons?!?!?! Just asking them that -- rather than telling them they should stfu and gtfo --
might actually accomplish something.
~Alyssa
Alyssa,
I disagree insofar as, in my opinion, imposing one's religious views on others is in and of itself a rights violation. This is not a majority rule issue. It's a question of basic equality, and it's in that that I believe that, not only should churches not have had such a powerful say in the matter, I don't even feel the referendum itself can be justified. If it were a question of forcing churches to marry gay couples yeah, that would be a "coomunity issue", but purely in affording one group of human beings the same basic rights as other groups - HOW can that be something an enlightened society can feel justified to vote on?
~Simone.
Posted on: 15 November 2008, 07:02:10
Wait, different thought:
What is the highest "Law of the Land" in the United States? I've always understood it to be, at least in principle, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
In South Africa, the Constitutional Court, and through it the constitution, is the highest law. Basically that's why we have civil unions on a par with marriages in here - even beyond the Supreme Court of Appeal, any citizen can take a perceived rights violation or inequality to the Constitutional Court, which then rules on the matter. If it finds in favour of the plaintiff, it can actually instruct Parliament to formulate and pass a Bill to the effect of the ruling.
So in theory, even if a referendum took away the rights gay couples enjoy under civil unions, (which are marriages in all but name) whether at provincial or national level, it would ultimately be overturned in the constitutional court. The only way that rights could ever be taken away from a group would be through an amendment to the constitution, which would have to pass through parliament on at least a two-thirds majority.
So the question I'm asking: Is there not a similar mechanism that can be followed in the US?
~Simone.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on November 10, 2008, 02:05:16 PM
Actually, that's half-serious. I can't stand it when liberals complain about the influence of religion in government. That's not the country I live in, nor the country I want to live in. I live in a country that, for better or worse, was founded on freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
People are entitled to freedom to (and yes, even from) religion as a matter of personal belief and speech. However, the government is not allowed to promote the *establishment* of a religion, yet the religious contract of marriage (particularly mixed-sex-only marriage) has repeatedly been given legal support. Or more precisely, the majority religious view been established to oppress the minority religious view -- keep in mind that Prop supporters are *denying* the religious rights of certain others, but that the Prop opponents (by virtue of having a more inclusive policy) do not do the same.
QuoteIt is job to explain to the Mormons and culturally conservative blacks and latinos, among many others that supported Prop 8, that gay marriage is a civil right on par with interracial marriage. It is not our job to silence those groups.
Non-violent protests are a way of making of making their voice heard. And they definitely are not any ugly in their expression as conservatives who camp out at clinics that perform abortions, who seek to *intimidate* pretty systematically...
Quote from: Alyssa M. on November 10, 2008, 02:05:16 PM
Seriously, though, where do Mormons get off advocating for government interference with regard to who can marry whom?
That's not really an idea popular to Mormons for quite a while. In fact, modern Mormons are rather unhappy with being confused with the Fundamental LDS sect that's done some pretty creepy "marriage" arrangements (involving young teenage girls and far older men).
Quote from: lady amarant on November 15, 2008, 06:32:49 AM
So the question I'm asking: Is there not a similar mechanism that can be followed in the US?
~Simone.
It's tricky, but here's the really really basic overview that's going to miss a bunch of details:
There's the constitution which covers the US, then each state has a constitution too. The US constitution grants a set of basic rights, and the state constitutions can grant other rights. The proposition in California was a state constitutional amendment which actually added "marriage is between one man and one woman". Previously, the California supreme court's decision was that blocking gay people to marry was unconstitutional on the basis that it denied a group rights that another group had, and that's something prohibited by the constitution. The decision they made is still accurate, but now the constitution actually says same-sex couples can't get married. So unlike a law, the state supreme court can't overturn it for being unconstitutional - it's actually in the constitution now.
That means the path to overturning it is either through voiding the proposition on the grounds that it fundamentally changes the intent of the state constitution, or sending it to the US supreme court. There's a very real argument for both, the constitution is meant to give the same rights to everyone, this amendment fundamentally changes that. Such a fundamental change to the intent of the constitution needs a 2/3s majority in the state legislature, and wouldn't be eligible to be amended through a proposition. The other option would almost definitely fail if it was tried right now. While I think the same argument is still valid, there are too many conservative judges in the supreme court, they would rule in favor of the state. The bigger problem is there's going to be a certain resentment toward the LGBT community as a whole if the proposition, and the will of the majority of voters, is overturned and voided. The right decision isn't going to be the popular decision.
The whole thing is going to be a pretty big embarrassment 50-100 years from now, as it should be. But right now we just have to keep pushing for everyone's rights, we might only make it with incremental steps, but we should never be willing to settle for anything less than equality for everyone. I am fortunate enough to have the right to marry any person I want in my state, but injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and all that.
Quote from: MGKelly on November 15, 2008, 08:05:28 AM
There's a very real argument for both, the constitution is meant to give the same rights to everyone, this amendment fundamentally changes that. Such a fundamental change to the intent of the constitution needs a 2/3s majority in the state legislature, and wouldn't be eligible to be amended through a proposition.
That was basically what I was getting at. Our constitution is also meant to give rights rather than taking them away, and any laws or movements to change that have a REAL uphill battle to fight. That's why capital punishment is still illegal, and probably always will be, even though the vast majority of people would vote for it because of our high crime rate - the right to life is guaranteed by our constitutionm, and rights cannot be taken away.
QuoteThe other option would almost definitely fail if it was tried right now. While I think the same argument is still valid, there are too many conservative judges in the supreme court, they would rule in favor of the state.
As I understand, the Supreme Court is about equal to our Constitutional Court. Sounds like the difference here is that our judges are obligated to stick to the constitution, while Supreme Court judges are allowed alot more freedom in their rulings.
QuoteThe bigger problem is there's going to be a certain resentment toward the LGBT community as a whole if the proposition, and the will of the majority of voters, is overturned and voided. The right decision isn't going to be the popular decision.
Sad but true. Even though the majority of voters were acting directly against what America is supposed to stand for, in my eyes anyway. >:(
~Simone.
The whole thing is going to be a pretty big embarrassment 50-100 years from now, as it should be. But right now we just have to keep pushing for everyone's rights, we might only make it with incremental steps, but we should never be willing to settle for anything less than equality for everyone. I am fortunate enough to have the right to marry any person I want in my state, but injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and all that.
[/quote]
Quote from: MGKelly on November 15, 2008, 08:05:28 AM
The bigger problem is there's going to be a certain resentment toward the LGBT community as a whole if the proposition, and the will of the majority of voters, is overturned and voided. The right decision isn't going to be the popular decision.
The vote was pretty close though (52-48). Its the will of only slightly more than half of voters (and only 35% of the electorate) that would be overturned.
Quote from: jenny_ on November 15, 2008, 01:35:25 PM
Quote from: MGKelly on November 15, 2008, 08:05:28 AM
The bigger problem is there's going to be a certain resentment toward the LGBT community as a whole if the proposition, and the will of the majority of voters, is overturned and voided. The right decision isn't going to be the popular decision.
The vote was pretty close though (52-48). Its the will of only slightly more than half of voters (and only 35% of the electorate) that would be overturned.
Sure, but it's still the majority and it will be an issue our opponents will cling to. It won't be effective to people who actually believe in equality, but for the base that supported this it's like throwing gasoline on the fire.
some fires need gasoline.
Quote from: Rebis on November 15, 2008, 04:40:47 PM
some fires need gasoline.
Watching (and participating in locally) the nationwide protests against same-sex marriage rights being stripped here makes me think this as well. Rebecca at Trans Group Blog wrote what I think is a pretty <a href="http://transgroupblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/its-end-of-world-as-we-know-it.html">poignant post in that train of thought</a>.