Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BryanS

California votes on same-sex marriage again

Recommended Posts

I understand the conservative point of view on this issue and the reasoning behind the stance against gay marriage and how gay marriage may contradict core family values or the church definition of marriage. From abortion to many other issues I stick with my conservative values but to me life is to short for individuals not to be happy. If two people are in love and want to share a bond and have a family, that is beautiful. Who cares if it is a man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman. As long as the people are happy and are respectful, good for them. Life is to short to be worrying about this issue.

However, I will never understand picking a hairy chest and boney butt over a beautiful woman. Whatever makes a person happy though, that is the most important thing......

Or how straight men are so obsessed with breasts. I just don't get it. I will never understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While it is sad that by in large blacks aren't as open to gay rights as white folks, the YES ON 8 campaign openly used deceit. They sent out thousands of flyers to black churches claiming that Obama supported Proposition 8. That isn't the truth nor is it close to the truth.

That said, it's been a long time since "Christian" backed political agenda folks bothered with the truth.

yeah i know he didn't support prop 8 but then at the same time says marriage is between a man and a woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah i know he didn't support prop 8 but then at the same time says marriage is between a man and a woman.

FWIW, here's the statement the Obama campaign provided to the Chicago Tribune for use in its voter's guide:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden oppose same-sex marriage, but support full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as heterosexual couples"

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWIW, here's the statement the Obama campaign provided to the Chicago Tribune for use in its voter's guide:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden oppose same-sex marriage, but support full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as heterosexual couples"

Source

That's what I'd be for. Who wants the extra tax liability anyway?

BTW - Miss A. Cooper on CNN just said that 70% of blacks were for the marriage thing, but that the wording was confusing. Vote yes for no and vote no for yes, etc.

What's really sad is that AK voted that homos still can't adopt children in need of good homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWIW, here's the statement the Obama campaign provided to the Chicago Tribune for use in its voter's guide:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden oppose same-sex marriage, but support full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as heterosexual couples"

Source

They had to get elected. As these ballot measures have shown, proclaiming full support for gay marriage would have harmed Obama's chances of winning. So they went with the middle ground.

The only problem with this position is that it leaves a minority with less rights than the majority of society. I don't see how this can be upheld long-term in a constitutional democracy such as ours. One of the fundamental purposes of the constitution is to protect individual rights from government power, something that conservatives in recent years seem to have gotten in reverse.

I'm certain that gays will obtain equal rights in time. If the government decides to get out of the marriage business, it could simply offers the same civil union rights to couples regardless of whether they're gay or straight. But if we chose to keep government institutionalized marriage, which is probably more likely, then I feel it must apply to gay couples as well. There are simply no grounds for our government to deny this right. People may have their personal religious beliefs, but we live in a constitutional democracy, not a theocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWIW, here's the statement the Obama campaign provided to the Chicago Tribune for use in its voter's guide:

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden oppose same-sex marriage, but support full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as heterosexual couples"

Source

Obama says he is opposed to gay marriage, but supports states making their own decisions about it. And he also said this about Proposition 8:

"I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW - Miss A. Cooper on CNN just said that 70% of blacks were for the marriage thing, but that the wording was confusing. Vote yes for no and vote no for yes, etc.

i wonder how he would explain the asian, latin and white votes being more evenly split?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
]I'm certain that gays will obtain equal rights in time. If the government decides to get out of the marriage business, it could simply offers the same civil union rights to couples regardless of whether they're gay or straight. But if we chose to keep government institutionalized marriage, which is probably more likely, then I feel it must apply to gay couples as well. There are simply no grounds for our government to deny this right. People may have their personal religious beliefs, but we live in a constitutional democracy, not a theocracy.

The government is not in the "marriage business" per se in terms of sanctioning and blessing unions, churches do that. The government is, however, in the civil union business, right now. It just so happens that "the union" is nothing more than a license/contract that happens to have the words "marriage certificate" printed at the top. And that over the past 50 to 100 years, rights and responsibilities have conveniently been attached to that contract and is universally recognized by the state, insurance companies, financial institutions, etc, etc.

Creating a new, separate civil unions contract and titling it "civil union" has proved to be a disastrous failure in states that have them, such as New Jersey. Why? Because insurance companies, local and state governments, businesses do not have a "civil unionized" checkbox on their forms. They have "married" ... but not this bizarre "civil union" designation. Under operation of law, civil unions and civil marriage contracts are supposed to have identical weight in states that have them... but people who enter into them quickly find themselves fighting hospitals, insurance companies, and whole host of other burdens because to these entities they do not have to recognize a "civil union" contract or are slow to do so. The remedy? Sue. People would have to sue for their rights to force these entities to accept a civil union certificate in place of a marriage certificate. That is wrong. Why? Because if people could just get "married," by way of civil marriage contract, then there are no questions, no extra burdens to bear.

And the idea that "hey, we'll give you a civil unions option - and we'll write the law so that it makes reference that it carries the weight of all of the rights and responsibilities of a civil marriage contract." OK. We'll... if they are "equivalent," then why not just issue a marriage certificate and be done with it? Have you really done anything to "protect marriage" by creating a parallel institution that is a mirror image of it? Doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i wonder how he would explain the asian, latin and white votes being more evenly split?

Quit trying to make this into a race war.

Do you really want to know why Prop 8 passed?

REPUBLICANS.

Exit polls show 82% of Republicans voted YES. That's a lot more than the 70% of African-Americans, especially considering that there are a lot more Republican voters than African-Americans in California.

This wasn't a race-based decision. It was a Party based decision. But, don't tell the media in their rush to ignite the first great divide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW - Miss A. Cooper on CNN just said that 70% of blacks were for the marriage thing, but that the wording was confusing. Vote yes for no and vote no for yes, etc.

What's really sad is that AK voted that homos still can't adopt children in need of good homes.

1. If the wording was confusing, then another lawsuit can be filed and...

2. I don't understand how that is allowed - I have a feeling some federal law is being violated, but I am not sure what.

We need to go after the solidly anti-gay marriage counties (other than Orange County, as I don't think this plan will work there) in California and buy out property to raise the taxes sky-high. While the lawsuits fly, punish the people who wish to deprive others of their rights by raising their taxes to the max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. If the wording was confusing, then another lawsuit can be filed and...

anderson cooper's statement wasn't pc. it was confusing to the blacks but yet others had no problem since their vote was split more evenly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the Christian Coalition's email message delivered yesterday regarding the decisions:

Washington D.C. -- Among the most important news from yesterday's elections were the banning of homosexual "marriages" in the states of California, Florida, and Arizona. Indeed, the citizens of California overturned a tyrannical judicial decision by 4 California judges (in a 4-3 decision earlier this year) by passing Proposition 8 yesterday.

The President of the Christian Coalition of America, Roberta Combs said: "The American people are proud of their fellow citizens in the states of California, Florida and Arizona for upholding traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Christian Coalition of America will continue to fight to ensure that government serves to strengthen and preserve, rather than threaten, our families and our values."

Thus far, 30 states have outlawed homosexual "marriages" by an average close to 70% approval by voters through amendments to the state constitutions. In addition, the voters in Arkansas yesterday approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. It will be the goal of Christian Coalition to ensure that the other 20 states adopt similar amendments banning homosexual "marriages" including the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut which also had two judicial decisions, by one vote margins, legalizing these abominations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and in your definition of America, we'd still have slaves in the South or at least Jim Crow laws. We might also not have women voting.

People should not be voting on civil rights issues. That is NOT the American way.

As for you being the "most inclusive person you could meet," I highly doubt it. Inclusive people DO NOT DENY PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER LAW; PERIOD.

Whose rights and I denying? There is no right for same sex people to marry. I never said civil unions shouldn't be allowed rights. I never said there shouldn't be domestic partner rights. If you'll re-read my statement instead of judging me based upon your assumptions of me, then you'd see I only spoke of the definition of "marriage."

You just want me to be a racist/hillbilly/christian radical because it makes your argument easier. It makes it easier for you to judge and lump people together in a stereotype. There are many beliefs out there, open your eyes.

These sentiments are far from unique. Many people who practice discrimination are shocked and hurt that others take offense.

I'm reminded of a saying common fifty years or so ago: "I don't dislike the coloreds. I think they're just fine, so long as they remember to stay in their place."

And now we have the uppity homos wanting to get married! As if their love were real...

Once again, you're missing my point. Yes, it's true, I truly believe that marriage is a union of a man and woman. That is not discrimination. That's a definition. My brother is gay and I'm close to both him and his partner, but I still don't think they should be married. If they'd like to be united in a civil union and share in domestic partner rights, that's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't think they should be married. If they'd like to be united in a civil union and share in domestic partner rights, that's fine.

For the record, what is your definition of marriage, then? (you don't have to include gender, just what it is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not trying to bait either, but this is why I left the GOP 14 years ago. And for the record, I am unabashedly straight.

I'm in no way supporting the statements made above, however, what does this have to do with leaving the GOP? Are you saying all Republicans feel this way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, you're missing my point. Yes, it's true, I truly believe that marriage is a union of a man and woman. That is not discrimination. That's a definition.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. One could also say that a voter is a man, by definition. At one time in the US, that really was the definition of a voter. It was also discrimination.

At its core, the effort to define marriage as one man and one woman is sexual discrimination. If I am free to enter into this type of legal contract with a woman but not a man, that's only based on gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the record, what is your definition of marriage, then? (you don't have to include gender, just what it is).

Matthew 19:4-6 (New International Version)

New International Version (NIV)

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matthew 19:4-6 (New International Version)

New International Version (NIV)

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

So it sounds like you're trying to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it sounds like you're trying to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us.

Aren't you trying to impose your beliefs on me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't you trying to impose your beliefs on me?

It isn't about beliefs, it's about rights. You're quoting one religion's text as if it should be used as the basis for law. You want to restrict the behavior of people who don't follow that religion or don't follow it the way you do.

What would government recognition of gay marriage stop you from doing? How would it harm you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is of course entitled to his or her own beliefs and to live life as one sees fit. The issue is that these are indeed personal things. One's belief (such as your own about religion, marriage, and so on) should not dictate how someone else must live.

When it's taken to the polls, it's obtrusive, meddlesome, and disrespectful (and an odd over-interest in the matter).

What's the deal with getting all up in others' personal stuff?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The government is not in the "marriage business" per se in terms of sanctioning and blessing unions, churches do that. The government is, however, in the civil union business, right now. It just so happens that "the union" is nothing more than a license/contract that happens to have the words "marriage certificate" printed at the top. And that over the past 50 to 100 years, rights and responsibilities have conveniently been attached to that contract and is universally recognized by the state, insurance companies, financial institutions, etc, etc.

I'm agreeing with you. My point is that it should be equal under the law. As long as the government recognizes marriage, it should apply to gay couples as well. To give different rights (only civil unions) based on sexual orientation is discrimination.

The only credible argument I've heard against gay marriage is based on religious grounds. A church can do what it wants in terms of who they marry, but we are supposed to be equal under the government. So, while I don't want to force churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies, I do want the government to recognize gay marriage as long as they are recognizing straight marriage.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a simple question of equal rights and I don't see what the issue is at the state level.

Aren't you trying to impose your beliefs on me?

I'm not asking you to marry someone of the same sex. But you are denying me the right to marry the person I love. So who's imposing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not asking you to marry someone of the same sex. But you are denying me the right to marry the person I love. So who's imposing?

We live in a democratic society. We have laws that govern the way we want to live. We give the people the opportunity to alter those laws and the constitution by proposing amendments that are voted upon by the people. We get to choose. In this case, the majority has voted this proposition down. California has chosen that their belief system is one of the traditional family. That could change some day, the great news is that it will be voted upon in a democratic way.

This is not a discriminatory issue for reasons I've stated above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it sounds like you're trying to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us.

I didn't see that. He was asked what his definition of marriage is and he quoted a text upon which he bases his definition. No different than if someone asked him to define another term and he quoted a dictionary or another reference book. For him, the definition from that book best suits his views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We live in a democratic society. We have laws that govern the way we want to live. We give the people the opportunity to alter those laws and the constitution by proposing amendments that are voted upon by the people. We get to choose. In this case, the majority has voted this proposition down. California has chosen that their belief system is one of the traditional family. That could change some day, the great news is that it will be voted upon in a democratic way.

This is not a discriminatory issue for reasons I've stated above.

It is discrimination. Just because it's imposed through a ballot measure doesn't change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We live in a democratic society.

And yet the majority doesn't get to deny rights to minorities. At least it isn't supposed to. See Principles of Democracy (from the International Information Program of the US government):

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

  • Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.
  • Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.
  • Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.
  • Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

Can you tell me how government recognition of gay rights will harm you? Are there any rights that it will take from you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't see that. He was asked what his definition of marriage is and he quoted a text upon which he bases his definition. No different than if someone asked him to define another term and he quoted a dictionary or another reference book. For him, the definition from that book best suits his views.

True. But IMO it's imposing when you use a religious belief as the basis and justification of a law. You're imposing you're religious beliefs on others who may not share those same beliefs.

Edited by barracuda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, you're missing my point. Yes, it's true, I truly believe that marriage is a union of a man and woman. That is not discrimination. That's a definition. My brother is gay and I'm close to both him and his partner, but I still don't think they should be married. If they'd like to be united in a civil union and share in domestic partner rights, that's fine.

So what rights and responsibilities, exactly, should your brother and his partner not have - if they cannot obtain a non-religious civil marriage license from the courthouse? "Domestic partner rights" ... like hospital visitation? joint checking accounts? Next of kin? Those kinds of rights? The most important kinds of rights that would typically be associated with a civil marriage license? Those? Probably right? Well... if you think its important that your brother and his partner have the most important rights and responsibilities of marriage, why not allow him and his partner to have the not so important rights and responsibilities too? The list is long. That is, why is it so imperative to give the most important rights away, that most people generally recognize are important, but not the rest? If you are willing to afford one right and/or benefit of marriage, there is no reason to not grant them all. And since there is no religious element in obtaining a civil marriage license at a courthouse, I would argue those who obtain a civil marriage license in this sense are not "married" in a religious sense whatsoever.

It is not about gay people getting or wanting to get married, or radically changing the definition of marriage, or any of that garbage. If all that were available were "civil unions," and they were recognized, and had all the rights and responsibilities of "marriage" attached to them... AND gay people were prohibited from entering into them (the way they are now with civil marriage) - this would all be about gay people wanting access to civil unions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't see that. He was asked what his definition of marriage is and he quoted a text upon which he bases his definition. No different than if someone asked him to define another term and he quoted a dictionary or another reference book. For him, the definition from that book best suits his views.

I'd agree but for the fact that in this country, We live under THE Constitution, not the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd agree but for the fact that in this country, We live under THE Constitution, not the Bible.

Which is why the voters chose to amend their state's constitution, not the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay marriage/unions only affect/deal with gay people - so why are straight folks butting in so much (and wanting to legislate)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which is why the voters chose to amend their state's constitution, not the Bible.

based on a definition taken from the Bible...

If we are going to go around amending The Constitution with things from the Bible, why don't we add gems like,

"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." Deuteronomy 25:11-12

or

Saul replied "Say to David, 'The King wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.'" Saul's plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.

When the attendants told David these things , he was pleased to become the king's son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed, David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage." Samuel 18:25-27

or

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." Corinthians 14:34

or

"Slaves are to be submissive to their mastersin everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back." Titus 2:9

or

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

What a terrible mockery of marriage!

A better alternative would be a civil union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the end of a very long journey toward equality" in Connecticut:

While there's anger and recriminations in California's gay-rights movement after voters there banned same-sex marriage, gay couples in Connecticut are at the opposite extreme: They're getting ready to exchange vows.

Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert has scheduled a hearing Wednesday morning to enter the final judgment in the case that allows same-sex marriages in Connecticut. Once entered, couples can pick up marriage license forms at town and city clerk's offices, and some plan get married immediately afterward.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL...vB5hYwD94DDDQ00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as the article says, it's far more than just blacks that supported Prop 8.

But I'm wondering why these folks are so caught up in the black voters, who obviously can't ever be persuaded on this issue because... well, because. There are so many other groups in the exit polling that voted for Prop 8 overwhelmingly (as in, more than 60%):

* The elderly (65+)

* Republicans

* Conservatives

* People who decided for whom to vote in October (but not within the week before the election)

* People who were contacted by the McCain campaign

* Protestants

* Catholics

* White Protestants

* Those who attend church weekly

* Married people

* People with children under 18

* Gun owners

* Bush voters

* Offshore drilling supporters

* People who are afraid of a terrorist attack

* People who thought their family finances were better now than 4 years ago

* Supporters of the war against Iraq

* People who didn't care about the age of the candidates

* Anti-choicers

* People who are from the "Inland/Valley" region of California

* McCain voters

Some of these groups supported Prop 8 far more than African Americans did, which makes me wonder why we're focused so much on race instead of any of these factors. In terms of predictive value, religion, political ideology, and being married with children tell us much more about how someone voted on Prop 8 than race does.

Here's where the Obama Frenzy backfired. You had a huge stimulus of African American, first time voters influxed into the system, and as with every other race of people, there is a percentage of them that, and I won't use the word hate, hate is a bit harsh, however there is a percentage of them that are supporters of Prop 8. Simple as that. With the huge turnout at the polls for Obama, Prop 8 was doomed by the mere odds. Black people are not different than anyone else, they have opinions, likes, and dislikes, these were expressed at the polls. With the combination of the list above, and the African American vote, Prop 8 passed.

Now as for as these Rabid Idiots standing out on the corner, spouting their Racial Filth, just goes to show their true colors. I am sure some of them are emotionally driven to a point, but it doesn't excuse the fact, that they are spewing hate at innocent people, one of the very thing they cry about when it's pointed towards them. It's not surprising to see, if you really think about it. Along with diversity, sometimes comes emotional instability, or imbalance. And that's not just pointed at gay people, at people i general. In most cases, it's the reclusive, introvert, that sits in the back of the class, that one days goes Postal without warning. For an extreme example, Columbine, those kids fit the profile I am speaking of. There are different levels of this that never gets to this extreme, just like not every gay person feels the same as these that are making all the media. It's just a few making a lot of noise. Sad noise as it is, it's drawing attention. Perhaps this behavior is their entire agenda, however it doesn't justify it, nor does it make it okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're blaming African Americans, for some reason:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-spauldin...n_b_142363.html

This doesn't surprise me. Not that long ago, I was the only white guy working in an office of about 20 black people and about five Hispanics. I think because I was so in the minority in that situation they felt comfortable talking about a lot of things in "the black community" that wouldn't ordinarily be polite office conversation.

One thing that came up several times over the years in their conversations was that, according to them, "the black community" was far more homophobic than other races. I don't know if it's true, but that's what they said and they said it more than once. Maybe that's why the Prop 8 backers are pointing fingers that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet the 30% of blacks who didn't support Prop 8 did so on the down low.

This isn't a race issue. I said that earlier in the thread when musicman was trying to race bait. It's also not like California is filled with black voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bet the 30% of blacks who didn't support Prop 8 did so on the down low.

This isn't a race issue. I said that earlier in the thread when musicman was trying to race bait. It's also not like California is filled with black voters.

I'm Black, so is my spouse, and although originally from the East Coast, spouse from New York City, me from Boston, we have lived in California since 1991 and we and vote in California. Both of us voted in the November election for Obama-Biden and "no" on Proposition 8, which places us in the 30% of Blacks who didn't vote "yes" on Proposition 8. We didn't vote on the down low and in fact all of our Black friends and colleagues know we voted "no" on Proposition 8. In fact, we've argue with some of our more conservative religious acqaintances about about the issue. Neither my spouse or I are religious; we do not belong to or attend church of any denomination. A larger percentage of Black folks are church goers, often attending Black congregations, many of which are quite conservative on social issues. Many, but not all of the preachers in the California Black churches told the members of their congregation to vote 'yes" on Proposition 8 and apparently many did which I believe accounts for the fact that 70% of Black voted "yes" on Proposition 8. There have been quite a few discussions about this issue since the election and some of have claimed that the "no" on Proposition 8 was not as well organized as the "yes" on Proposition 8 did not have a presence or reach out to communities of color or other socially conservative communities for that matter--The Inland Empire, for example-- which were likely to vote "yes" on Proposition 8. I can't say for certain that these last points are accurate, but that is what the pundits are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm Black, so is my spouse, and although originally from the East Coast, spouse from New York City, me from Boston, we have lived in California since 1991 and we and vote in California. Both of us voted in the November election for Obama-Biden and "no" on Proposition 8, which places us in the 30% of Blacks who didn't vote "yes" on Proposition 8. We didn't vote on the down low and in fact all of our Black friends and colleagues know we voted "no" on Proposition 8. In fact, we've argue with some of our more conservative religious acqaintances about about the issue. Neither my spouse or I are religious; we do not belong to or attend church of any denomination. A larger percentage of Black folks are church goers, often attending Black congregations, many of which are quite conservative on social issues. Many, but not all of the preachers in the California Black churches told the members of their congregation to vote 'yes" on Proposition 8 and apparently many did which I believe accounts for the fact that 70% of Black voted "yes" on Proposition 8. There have been quite a few discussions about this issue since the election and some of have claimed that the "no" on Proposition 8 was not as well organized as the "yes" on Proposition 8 did not have a presence or reach out to communities of color or other socially conservative communities for that matter--The Inland Empire, for example-- which were likely to vote "yes" on Proposition 8. I can't say for certain that these last points are accurate, but that is what the pundits are saying.

i can say ditto almost 100%, except that i am not married or from the east coast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i can say ditto almost 100%, except that i am not married or from the east coast.

I am not sure why this loss is being blamed on blacks either, but I will say that coalitions are built over time. The black community by-and-large is very religious and the older community (the ones that tend to vote) are very conservative on these types of issues. I doubt that the majority of my family would vote against this type of measure even though I and a sister of mine are gay and they love us unconditionally. It's just not something they are ready for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am getting sick of hearing people say... "well the people voted NO on gay marriage so that's the way it should be".... heard that on TV several times today. I really hope the courts intervene (you know, those radical liberal judges who legislate from the bench). Just b/c "the people" vote for it doesn't make it right. The CONSTITUTION says all American Citizens should have EQUAL rights, and right now gay people DO NOT. Straight people, when they get married, are given additional rights from the federal government... gay people can't get these rights. Gay people are born gay (somehow I think I was not the only gay person born gay)... so b/c of that they should not be denied equal rights. If it takes the courts to strike down something that is unconstitutional, so be it! That's one reason they are there. If the majority of Americans decided tomorrow they wanted to bring slavery back and they voted that way... do you think slavery would come back? NO, b/c it's unconstitutional... the courts would stop it!

And I see now fox news (shocker) is running the story over and over of the good little old christian lady who had the cross she was carrying knocked down to the ground by those evil gays as she walked w/ it in front of their protest. NEWSFLASH... although I DO NOT CONDONE VIOLENCE, it comes as no shock to me that when people are denied equal rights, or in California's case have their rights TAKEN AWAY, THEY GET ANGRY! If you are someone that actively worked to make sure gays do not have equal rights (like say, you voted that way), you may have to deal w/ that anger.

I am hoping w/ Obama now President-elect things will change for the better more quickly for gay people. I am 100% positive gay people will one day have equal rights in this Nation... that's the way history goes... it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". It's common knowledge that the younger generations are far more supportive of gay rights than older folks... so once the older folks die off and the younger folks take over it's going to happen. I would just like to see it happen as quickly as possible.

Sorry... had to rant! :angry:

YAY GAYS!! :wub:

There will be a nationwide protest against Proposition 8 this Saturday - ours is at City Hall at 12:30 pm

http://www.ghdc.org/2008/11/13/houston-pro...riage-1230-sat/

http://airexposure.com/fighth8/

http://eqfed.org/eqtx/notice-description.t...ter_id=28936991

Rally for equal rights on my Birthday??? I just may do that! :D

Edited by HtownWxBoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rally for equal rights on my Birthday??? I just may do that! :D

There is no may; I AM doing it! ... Hmmm... You must be a Valentine's baby too... do the math. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to continue to promote my idea of disrupting and punishing Pro-Prop 8 counties.

If they ever protest, I will say "Do unto others as they do unto you - You wanted to interfere in the lives of gays, so we will interfere in your lives and make you leave California or drive you into bankruptcy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no may; I AM doing it! ... Hmmm... You must be a Valentine's baby too... do the math. =)

OMG I know... I have already thought of that! ha ha

I am going to continue to promote my idea of disrupting and punishing Pro-Prop 8 counties.

If they ever protest, I will say "Do unto others as they do unto you - You wanted to interfere in the lives of gays, so we will interfere in your lives and make you leave California or drive you into bankruptcy"

Nice... every little bit helps! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am getting sick of hearing people say... "well the people voted NO on gay marriage so that's the way it should be".... heard that on TV several times today. I really hope the courts intervene

Wasn't the whole point of making it a constitutional amendment to make sure the judges couldn't mess with it? The judges are sworn to uphold the constitution of California, not their own personal beliefs or the beliefs of the loudest group of people.

If my civics is amiss, someone please correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am going to continue to promote my idea of disrupting and punishing Pro-Prop 8 counties.

Be more specific. How exactly would a person in Houston punish several million people in California?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...