Defeating prop 8 in California

[Nrets]

Isn't alcohol consumption prohibited within the Mormon faith? Why don't they fight to criminalize alcohol? Oh, wait, we tried that already. But doesn't allowing alcohol consumption for other people infringe on their religious beliefs? I guess the alcohol-consuming population is too large to fight, but the gay population is small enough to beat down. Interesting analogy, no?

One of the many metaphors I was using when screaming at people on a street corner of why they shoudl vote No on 8.

Basically alcohol was banned by the national constituion in the 20's and 30's. It was prohibition.

Eventually that was found to be unconstituional and overturned.

To this day however there are precients where alcohol consumption and sale is illegal.
Ironically the county in Tennessee where Jack Daniels is made is dry.

Just like the counties that eventually ban gay marriage after prop 8 gets smacked down are going to be filled with glory hole frequenting men who voted yes to save face.

ah, hypocricy.

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

You're missing the point. In the case of interracial marriage, they did NOT have equal marriage rights. Black men and white men were only allowed to marry different people. They were being treated differently under the law, which is discrimination.

In the case of gay marriage, gay men and straight men are allowed to marry the SAME people (women of any sexual orientation), so they are not being treated differently under the law. The law simply states who those people are.

You're missing the point. In the case of interracial marriage, they DID have equal marriage rights. Black men and white men were only allowed to marry the same people, i.e. a partner of the same race. They were being treated the same under the law, which is not discrimination.

In the case of interracial marriage, mixed-race couples and same-race couples are allowed to marry the same people (a partner of the same race), so they are not being treated differently under the law. The law simply states who those people are.

 

[uniqueusername]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that prop 8 is not the only mention of a specific group in a constitution. Well, you know, my take on it is it is time to make it unconstitutional to mention certain groups in a constitution. People are people in the eyes of the land. Tradition is something for other institutions to figure out.

Prop 8 didn't mention a specific group of people until Jerry Brown changed its language. The original merely rescinded the right to marry people of the same gender, but the changed version was titled "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

Original summary of the amendment:

"Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state."

New 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 the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to local and state governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments."

The original initiative, as originally submitted for the ballot by petitioners, contained no mention whatsoever of "certain groups of people," except for a man and a woman. It did not acknowledge the "same-sex couple" as a legal entity because sexual orientation is, legally, a very shaky concept*. Attorney General Jerry Brown, a lifelong Democrat and former (and possibly future) Governor of California, was the one who made that change. So you can't blame the conservatives for that one

*This goes back to the idea of "labeling" people as straight or gay. I consider myself 1% gay, but what would that make me under the law? A bi-curious heterosexual? A homosexual for three days per year? The entire idea is silly.

 

[mindseye]

In the case of gay marriage, gay men and straight men are allowed to marry the SAME people (women of any sexual orientation), so they are not being treated differently under the law. The law simply states who those people are.

That's not, of course, the principle that guides our laws. That'd be like saying, "We have religious freedom in our country: Muslims are free to attend our mosque, and Christians are free to attend our mosque as well. Everyone is being treated equally!"

Straight men are permitted the freedom to choose their partners, and gay men are not. So, yes, they are being treated differently under the law despite your verbal gymnastics.

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

Prop 8 didn't mention a specific group of people until Jerry Brown changed its language. The original merely rescinded the right to marry people of the same gender, but the changed version was titled "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

Original summary of the amendment:

"Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state."

New 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 the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to local and state governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments."

The original initiative, as originally submitted for the ballot by petitioners, contained no mention whatsoever of "certain groups of people," except for a man and a woman. It did not acknowledge the "same-sex couple" as a legal entity because sexual orientation is, legally, a very shaky concept*. Attorney General Jerry Brown, a lifelong Democrat and former (and possibly future) Governor of California, was the one who made that change. So you can't blame the conservatives for that one

*This goes back to the idea of "labeling" people as straight or gay. I consider myself 1% gay, but what would that make me under the law? A bi-curious heterosexual? A homosexual for three days per year? The entire idea is silly.

No, the original initiative purposefully did not mention same-sex couples or the effects the measure would have on same-sex couples so as to not appear to be prejudicial.

The language of the ballot measure was changed, not because of politics, but to reflect that same-sex marriage was already legal and occurring in the state of California, and that passage of the measure would effectively remove the right of same-sex couples to marry.

 

[midlifebear]

Although I think it is sad that Prop 8 passed, I'm not losing any sleep over it. I realized long ago that in 'Mericuh, despite the strides forward made in gay rights one of those hurdles would most likely never include allowing me to be married to the man in my life. When he suddenly died I spent well over U$S200,000 in court costs fighting off his mormon family from Burley, Idaho. They flew down upon me like a pack of Valkyrie. Despite having done all the right things by having our wills and separate trusts note that we were each other's executor, the "sweet spirits" prevailed and I ended up selling our home, giving 50% of the proceeds to my dead ex's family and paying off my attorney. A family, I might add, that had written him off completely (until they realized there was a dollar to be made off his death and my suffering). So much for the "family values" talked about so much in Ewetaw.

Second time around I've become much better at this marriage thing. I moved to a country where gay marriage (despite the Pope) is now regarded as normal and legal. I am a legal, permanent Resident (not citizen). I only travel to countries where my marriage to The Squeeze is recognized as "legal" or cannot be contested (except for my recent appearance in Elko County, Nevada to vote) and even though Stephen Harper is clinging onto a slim majority in Canada, he's not tried to repeal gay marriage. Well, maybe he has, but he hasn't been successful.

I have remnants of a mormon family in Ewetaw, but they've all been put on high alert (by receiving copies of my Spanish/English version of a will and living trust) that they are not to expect -- under ANY circumstances -- to try and wheedle The Squeeze out of any part of my estate nor are they to even attempt to bother him with a "demanda" (law suit - with two pair of pants). In addition, I've recorded on VHS and CD a very direct and clear message that my final wish is that The Squeeze be fully protected by the law and that I do not recognize my few remaining mormon relatives as being part of my actual family. It should work. I hated to take such severe measures, but I cannot remember my brother or his neices ever doing anything for me except prosylitize (sp please?) a mess of lies and hate regarding me and my life.

So, to summarize my rant: I've taken measures to ensure that I don't have to worry about Prop 8-type zealots. I lived through the Stonewall riots and arrests of gays in the late 60's and the pure evil christian hate of the Anita Bryant decade of the 70's. I've fought for gay rights ever since I was kicked out of my "family values" home in Ewetaw and one day I simply decided I'd done enough. I no longer wait for the so-called "adults" to invite me to sit at the big persons table as an 'Mericuhn citizen with full rights and privileges. Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime in the USA (although it would be great if it did). I'm just grateful I finally came to my senses and didn't wait too long.

You can change your situation regarding gay marriage by making the right moves. If you're financially (or culturally) strapped and cannot live in a more enlightened county, best of luck to the rest of you.

 

[Pendlum]

Prop 8 didn't mention a specific group of people until Jerry Brown changed its language. The original merely rescinded the right to marry people of the same gender, but the changed version was titled "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

Original summary of the amendment:

"Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state."

New 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 the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to local and state governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments."

The original initiative, as originally submitted for the ballot by petitioners, contained no mention whatsoever of "certain groups of people," except for a man and a woman. It did not acknowledge the "same-sex couple" as a legal entity because sexual orientation is, legally, a very shaky concept*. Attorney General Jerry Brown, a lifelong Democrat and former (and possibly future) Governor of California, was the one who made that change. So you can't blame the conservatives for that one

*This goes back to the idea of "labeling" people as straight or gay. I consider myself 1% gay, but what would that make me under the law? A bi-curious heterosexual? A homosexual for three days per year? The entire idea is silly.

I disagree, the original's mention of a man and woman is significant. Those are groups of people. It's just like saying only white men, and white women can marry, even though you don't agree with that. The wording is the same, there just happens to be more players this time. But it SEEMS fair because they are lumping people together. It should be looked at like this (note that you don't have to define sexuality for this), men who want to marry a man, women who want to marry a man, men who want to marry a woman, women who want to marry a woman. There you go, now it is just like that interacial example you agree with is wrong. And it isn't unfair to parse them like that, it's actually UNFAIR to lump them together to hide the discrimination. It would be like making Mormon's practice their religion in the same manner as Christians (I believe someone said alcohol is against mormon beliefs or something like that, so it wouldn't be very fair to make them drink the "blood" of christ now would it?). I certainly hope you wouldn't stand for that, despite the fact they would "have the right to practice their religion in the same way!" That really is such a garbage arguement in things like these.

Also, being a same sex couple has nothing to do with sexuality legally. Just like you said, it allows gay people to marry people of the opposite gender, regardless of sexuality, but that couple is recognized. They are an opposite sex couple, despite whatever their sexual oreintation is. So it should be the same way on the other road. Being a same sex couple should have nothing to do with sexuality. Viola, legal definition of sexuality goes out the window. Anyone of any sexuality can marry anyone they want.

 

[uniqueusername]

That's not, of course, the principle that guides our laws. That'd be like saying, "We have religious freedom in our country: Muslims are free to attend our mosque, and Christians are free to attend our mosque as well. Everyone is being treated equally!"

Straight men are permitted the freedom to choose their partners, and gay men are not. So, yes, they are being treated differently under the law despite your verbal gymnastics.

Straight men are not allowed to choose their partners. If a straight man chooses to marry another man, he cannot.

There is no discrimination.

Also, being a same sex couple has nothing to do with sexuality legally. Just like you said, it allows gay people to marry people of the opposite gender, regardless of sexuality, but that couple is recognized. They are an opposite sex couple, despite whatever their sexual oreintation is. So it should be the same way on the other road. Being a same sex couple should have nothing to do with sexuality. Viola, legal definition of sexuality goes out the window. Anyone of any sexuality can marry anyone they want.

You're right, I didn't read that carefully enough.

 

[artvandelay]

WE need a backlash against the Mormon church. They pushed they're followers to give money, over 30 mil.

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

Straight men are not allowed to choose their partners. If a straight man chooses to marry another man, he cannot.

There is no discrimination.

If a straight man is not allowed to marry another man if he so chooses, that is discrimination.

 

[SteveHd]

WE need a backlash against the Mormon church. They pushed they're followers to give money, over 30 mil.

You should be pleased to know there already IS a backlash.

Report: Utah faces boycott after Mormon work for Prop 8 - Yahoo! News

Website mentioned in report: Mormons Stole Our Rights: No Tax Exemption for Political Churches

I agree with targeting the Mormons but I think it's unfair to boycott Utah's tourist businesses.

 

[2322]

You should be pleased to know there already IS a backlash.

Report: Utah faces boycott after Mormon work for Prop 8 - Yahoo! News

Website mentioned in report: Mormons Stole Our Rights: No Tax Exemption for Political Churches

I agree with targeting the Mormons but I think it's unfair to boycott Utah's tourist businesses.

Why? If the gays of California, straight and closeted, went on strike for just one day, the state would be crippled. The Mormons deserve to see what it would be like to experience that.

midlifebear: Tonight I am working in the home of two rich gay men who married in Canada and live in New York where their marriage is recognized. Their estate is constructed to dissolve everything into not-for-profit foundations at their death.

I understand your reason for not caring to live here. Perhaps you feel this latest battle is best left to the others and you've done your part or just care to have a better quality of life. Either one is fine by me. What isn't fine is the stinging bitterness you direct to the entire country. Maybe much of the country doesn't accept what we're doing here in the northeast regarding recognition of gay marriage, but we're working to change it. Please don't think we're all apathetic. When gay marriage very first arose in tiny Vermont, half the state was horrified. They had bumperstickers saying, "Take Back Vermont!" while others had bumperstickers that said, "Take Vermont From Behind!"

We are getting there, despite setbacks. Please don't discount all of America because it harms all the hard work going into getting same-sex marriage recognized as a universal right.

 

[kalipygian]

We can have all the back and forth dialogue in the world about why same sex marriage should or should not be allowed. Most peopel are not going to change their opinions. What I know is that the people who are against it sound exactly like the people who used to defend segregation. Words and ideas are twisted around in every instanc3e to give opposite meanings.
The yes on 8 people keep talking about religious freedom. That is absolute horseshit. The Episcopalian church occasionally does same sex ceremonies in California. They no longer have the freedom to do that. The yes on 8 people said it is about their freedom to keep their tradition. OK. So maybe there needed to be legislation to protect their right to deny gay marriage.
Whenever I point out this to Yes on 8 people, they remind me that they passed a statewide ordinance outlawing gay marriage, Prop 22 in 2000.
That was the prorp that was found unconstituional by the state supreme court that led to Prop 8 on Tuesday.
Thing is those anti-gay peopel got to goddamned greedy. Prop 22 already went to far by inflicting the morals of the workingclass of the state onto the more liberal city dwellers.
They should have just passed local ordinances.
But there was enough anti-gay sentiment that they were able to pass 22 by a large margin.
So we get prop 8 Tuesday which brings me to my final point.

IT IS UN-AMERICAN TO MENTION ANY SPECIFIC PEOPLE IN ANY CONSTITUTION.

Fucking Thomas jefferson knew that in 1789. He mentioned blacks and women because that is how it was. He knew that that might chance someday. That is why he made the constitution so malleable, so that someday people may be able to change certain words or pass new amendments.
And if things were going the wrong way we have a bill of rights that protects people's rights to rebel outside of the ballot box.

But people get comfortable in their ways, and it took a civil war before slavery ended and another 100 years or so before any mention of specific people was removed.

Our forefathers, racists that they were, would be fucking ashamed that we haven't progressed further, if they had the context of our times. Then they would have a beer and laugh it off, cause that is what they did.

Point is though, even in those early days, slave owner jefferson knew that black people should eventually be equal.

Homosexuality is a more modern issue as people used to live theri lives in secrecy. Men used to get married and fool around on the side if they had such tendencies. Very homosexual men had their own social circles, I am sure. In public life they were probably life long bachelors. But it wasn't at the forefront so it was never issued.

What I am getting at, though, is saying only a man and woman can do so and so, is akin to the original consitution saying that only white men with so much land can vote.

Prop 8 is a setback to 1789.

No democracy should mention any of its constituents in its framework. It took 200 years to figure that out.

Bright side, though. My Dad is old and wise and he thinks the supreme court...conservative as it may be...will overturn it.

Jefferson was ambassador to France when the constitution was written, he was not involved, and objected to how some of it was done.